LIBYA (Merged) Use this thread ONLY [Archive] - Page 5

ORAC

6th Apr 2011, 07:12

Torygraph: Air Force told to send more planes to Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8430852/Air-Force-told-to-send-more-planes-to-Libya.html#)

Nato will ask the RAF to contribute more warplanes to step up ground strikes against Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces after the alliance yesterday said a third of the Libyan leader’s forces had so far been destroyed.

Britain’s overstretched air force will be asked to find more fighter jets, in spite of committing four extra Tornados for operations over Libya on Monday.

The request comes as Nato demands extra aircraft to meet a shortfall created after America pulled out the jets that had carried out more than 50 per cent of the ground strikes against Col Gaddafi’s forces.

“We will need more strike assets and that is being addressed,” said a Nato official. “Britain has stepped up to the mark with four Tornados but will have to do more.” Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, spent much of the weekend during a Middle East trip calling up defence ministers from across Europe asking them to contribute more aircraft, Whitehall sources said.

The Ministry of Defence is ready to send more Tornados and other aircraft “if they are needed” a senior source said. “We can send the whole lot if we need to, all 129 of them........"

Climebear

6th Apr 2011, 07:36

The Ministry of Defence is ready to send more Tornados and other aircraft “if they are needed” a senior source said. “We can send the whole lot if we need to, all 129 of them........"

I wonder if they really mean all 129 of them - I thought that HERRICK was supposed to be Defence's Main Effort. (Not to mention the ones in little bits in Depth Maintainance)

BOAC

6th Apr 2011, 07:40

The Ministry of Defence is ready to send more Tornados and other aircraft “if they are needed” a senior source said. “We can send the whole lot if we need to, all 129 of them........" - if that is a real quote and you are not winding me up....................

What will be the 'Reserve price' for the UK on Ebay?:{

Rector16

6th Apr 2011, 07:47

129 should be interesting - just shows the missing link is between MoD 'sources' and Reality!

We've got 7 Sqns of GR4s (but not for long....). On paper they have 12 jets each - in reality they have 2-3 in Majors, 2 in Minors and the odd 1 or 2 with other snags or limited hours to servicing. So, the average Sqn has about 6 on the line - one Sqn in in Afghanistan, one is on POL and one ready to deploy. Even if you use one or both of the latter, we have 6 Sqns of 6 ac that's THIRTY SIX in total at way beyond Best/Sustainable effort.

I guess that you could include a few OCU jets/crews, but that would stop training and their Instructors won't be current on all the front line kit - perhaps add 4-6 jets/crews and you're just creeping over 40.

Wake up MoD/PM - the RAF front line is really really small. 129 Indeed!!!!!:sad:

Whenurhappy

6th Apr 2011, 07:58

Given the recent fall-off in journalistic quality in the Torygraph, a 'Senior Source' is more likely someone's off-hand comment in the newsroom. I cannot think why any 'senior officer' would say such tosh....unless it was from another Service, of course!

SRENNAPS

6th Apr 2011, 11:52

Wake up MoD/PM - the RAF front line is really really small. 129 Indeed!!!!!

Totally agree.

But the really really sad thing is that the boys and girls will cope both in Libya and Afgan and the mission will be deemed a success……and then the politicians will make even more cuts:ugh::ugh:

outhouse

6th Apr 2011, 12:01

Interesting stuff chaps. Seems as indicated it's down to the French and the few odd RAF kites still available though not many of them.
Looks like without the US we are stuffed. Hopefully no nasty country will spot a air ground defence gap and take advantage of it.
Still understand the rebels are a little upset, can't blame them really, show support and help, let them get into a position that allows the government forces to gain advantage, then guess what, let's withdraw support and take the moral high ground. Great stuff and hope never to need support from the political powers involved governing NATO or it's polices, defence planning and budgets.*:D

bobward

6th Apr 2011, 12:43

How many members are there in NATO?:*
Of that number how many have sent aircraft to do the job?:confused:

Aren't they all members of the UN as well, in some shape or form, and they all agreed with the Resolution.

Surely if everyone contributed something that would boost the numbers and ease the burden on the willing few?

As per bloody usual, the few do the crap jobs for the many, whilst the many stand and criticise....

Give me a minute or two to change my name to Meldrew......:O:O

Madbob

6th Apr 2011, 12:57

Don't our illustrious lords and masters, who are presumably graduates of various Defence Colleges, (or similar) ever learn the old mantra that sustained military ops (i.e. not just a surge) require sufficient forces to allow rotations......1/3rd actually at the sharp end, 1/3rd training to go and last 1/3rd as re-inforcements to the other 2/3rds.

With the length of our present commitments in foreign places such as the FI, Afg and now Libya (ignore domestic tasks such as QRA - do we bother anymore?) then we are kidding ourselves than we can send even one squadron of Tonkas to enforce the NFZ over Libya and perhaps another one squadron of Tiffies. That's it!

Our polititians carry one as though we still had an inventory of Harriers, F3's, Jags and Nimrods. The're all gone and we won't get them back no matter how many times we may wish!

Why is it that the most basic lessons about defence get forgotten so quickly? I who never even did ISC can still remember the lesson of the three P's!

P***, poor planning = p*** poor performance!

I see failure ahead in Libya. The moral is either do the job properly, or don't bother. I don't think we should "bother" anymore....we (as a country) don't have the ability anymore to "shout".:ugh::ugh:

MB

Pup Flyer

6th Apr 2011, 13:40

Is this to be believed?

BBC News - Libya: RAF jets join ground-attack force (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12983294)

Libya: RAF jets join ground-attack force

More British warplanes are moving from policing the no-fly zone in Libya to begin ground attacks in the country, the Ministry of Defence has said.
Four Typhoon jets will join 16 RAF ground-attack aircraft already under Nato command.
They are all based in southern Italy as part of an international coalition to enforce a no-fly zone against Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
Meanwhile, RAF missiles hit 12 targets around rebel-held Misrata and Sirte

Depending on how you read it it suggests 4 more Typhoons to Italy but doing ground attack (11 Sqn?)

Interesting if you read the RAF site they should have been able to deploy with this capability in 2008 -

RAF - 11 Squadron (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/11squadron.cfm)

XI Squadron reformed at RAF Coningsby on 29 Mar 07 as the second frontline Typhoon squadron to form. As multi-role lead squadron, it will spearhead the development of Typhoon’s air-to-surface capability, which will be ready for deployed operations by mid-08.

Do we believe this or is it sloppy journalism?

Rector16

6th Apr 2011, 13:43

MB - I'm with you 100% except for the bit about seeing 'failure' in Libya. The true brilliance of the Libya thing (conflict, war, intervention, whatever.....) is that we haven't got a defined endstate, so we can't fail - Hoorah!

Unbelievably we've all (UN = 196 countries, so North Korea aren't guilty for once) got ourselves into something without any sort of measurable deliverable (sorry about the business speak) to aim for. One could argue that we're doing this to save civilian lives, we must have saved at least 2 so we've won and can come home. One could also argue that saving civilian lives requires us to stay forever because civilians are dying now and we're not yet saving them all.

If the End State for Libya is an unstable country. divided against itself with insipient slip into civil war imminent then we're doing really well. Tea/Medals anyone?

Genius!!!!!:ok:

Lonewolf_50

6th Apr 2011, 15:22

So, who of the NATO Nations bothered to show up for the party? I take a somewhat cynical look at 'this is a NATO operation' and will indicate with various smilies why ...

Is NATO bloat (since 1996) worth anything more than Bloody :mad: All?

Not to mention that the ingrates in Libya are crying "what have you done for me lately" as soon as they can ...

Libya's rebels: NATO isn't doing enough for us - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0406/Libya-s-rebels-NATO-isn-t-doing-enough-for-us)

Then again, I maybe should not blame them ...

“Our question for NATO is this: are you with us or against us?”

NATO has insisted that it is in Libya not to overthrow Colonel Qaddafi, but to prevent further loss of civilian life.

Huh???

NATO Forces involved ...

Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania) hah
Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) :ok:
Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria) hah
Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada) :ok:
Croatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) hah
Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) ??
Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark) :ok:
Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) hah
France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France) :ok:
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Curled in a fetal position thanks to the abstain vote at UN, yes? Where are the German Tornado and Typhoon assets?
Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece) :confused: (Corvettes?)
Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary) hah
Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland) (Oops, sorry chaps, we only provide runways and puffins, no forces)
Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) :ok:
Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia) hah
Lithuania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania) hah
Luxembourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg) :ugh:
Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands) (corvettes? Did they send strike aircraft?)
Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway) :ok:
Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland) hah
Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) (corvettes or frigates?)
Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) hah
Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia) hah
Slovenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia) hah
Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) (planes? Ships? Tapas?)
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) ??????
United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) :ok:
United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) :ok:

TEEEJ

6th Apr 2011, 15:30

Outhouse wrote

Seems as indicated it's down to the French and the few odd RAF kites still available though not many of them.

Not just the UK and France. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark have also contributed to the air ground role.

Canada CF-18.

Canadian jets bomb Libyan target - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/23/libya-costs-us.html)

Belgian F-16.

Watch Video Belgiums first bombing mission in Libya UK News at blinkx (http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/belgium-first-bombing-mission-in-libya/nT9PoofFExYggZU5IS833w)

Danish F-16.

Danish F-16s drop their first bombs on Libya (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354714/danish-f-16s-drop-their-first-bombs-on-libya.html)

Norwegian F-16.

Norway’s F16s bomb Libyan targets : Views and News from Norway (http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/03/26/norways-f16s-bomb-libyan-targets/)

2011 military intervention in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya)

TJ

Lonewolf_50

6th Apr 2011, 15:34

Glad to see the Belgians and Danes participating. Wasn't sure if they were up for a party ...

More news from a "rebel" leader ...

“There is no revolution without setbacks,” said Mustafa Gheriani, the rebel government’s spokesman, in an article by The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8430432/Libya-no-respite-for-rebels-as-Gaddafi-troops-force-retreat.html). “But the people will win. ... We are committed to fighting this tyrant, and either we will drive him out or he will rule a country with no people in it.”
I have to ask: how is this any different from the Mad Colonel describing the no mercy approach he would take ... :confused:

outhouse

6th Apr 2011, 16:10

Ok, point taken, and well done to those involved. still short of a full commitment and a difficult job for the ones who did step up to the plate. Regardless of the politics involved it has proved that the tools to do the job are stretched, the continuing budget reductions will make it even harder in the future. We rely on the professionalism skill and bravery of the military to do a job with less and less tools to do it with.*

TEEEJ

6th Apr 2011, 16:20

Pup Flyer,

Now picked up by more news agencies.

The Press Association: RAF Typhoons boost Libyan campaign (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO6rx-97M_0Y44nigN3ESj669IGw?docId=N0438211302096258756A)

During 2008 RAF Typhoons were cleared for Paveway II, Enhanced Paveway and 27mm Mauser.

http://www.xisquadron.co.uk/News/AFM_GF/KingsofSwing.pdf

TJ

sled dog

6th Apr 2011, 16:46

Lonewolf 50
Ref your post # 1020, i believe that the Nato Awacs a/c all carry an LX- regristration ( and the Lux Army Band are very good :p )

rock34

6th Apr 2011, 17:08

Presume the Typhoons will be getting rid of our stocks of 1000lb'ers then? Nothing like using a sledgehammer to smash a walnut! :E

Lonewolf_50

6th Apr 2011, 17:30

Thanks on the AWACS bit, was not aware. :cool:

muggy73

6th Apr 2011, 19:58

BBC News - Libya: RAF jets join ground-attack force (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12983294)

MAINJAFAD

6th Apr 2011, 21:01

There is no need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut at all. There is nothing as far as I know stopping the Tiffys dropping 1000lb non exploding LGB's on targets in built up areas, as was done by the GR4's in Iraq back in 2003. Also, surely it wouldn't cost a packet for 17 and 41 Sqn to do a quick trial to clear release of the 540 from the Tiffy, in formation with a GR4, using the Tonka's weapon system to compute weapon release and do the lasing. Buccs and GR1's managed to do it in 1991 pretty quickly.

ian176

6th Apr 2011, 21:07

Unfortunately the Buccaneer and GR1/4 don't have an inclusive FCS. If the codes/calculations for a 540lb bomb aren't in the system, the FCS will have a fit = bad!

M609

6th Apr 2011, 21:38

Fuel situation at Sigonella mentioned previously on this thread grounds Swedish Jas-39s deployed there. Someone did not read the flight supplement?

Fuel at Sigonella not suitable for Grpen (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Flibya%2Farti kkel.php%3Fartid%3D10091802)

Still, the Sweedes are restricted to air to air missions for some reason

MAINJAFAD

6th Apr 2011, 21:49

I guessed the Tiffy FCS wasn't programmed to drop 540's.....unless somebody forks out a wadd of dosh for the software!!! But the GR4's FCS can handle 540's!!! Hence the suggestion for a mixed (close) formation in which the Tonka WSO tells the Tiffy pilot to pickle the weapon by radio (which should get the bomb into the Laser basket with enough energy), and then guides the weapon on to the target. This method is by no ways perfect, but it should work, of course as long as a Tiffy can manually pickle a weapon!!!

Alber Ratman

6th Apr 2011, 23:04

Well it looks as if the Tiffy's will be going multi-role..

4 Typhoons to be allocated to ground attack commitments.. (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ActionInLibyaHasPreventedhumanitarianCatastrophe.htm)

Flying Canopeners "Tin Opening" over Libya again soon?

A question mind..

With two squadrons worth of air assets being taken out of the loop for the foreseeable future, are 13 and 14's disbandment plans going to be checked or are all the other units going to be stiffed with even more overstretched commitments ....

lj101

7th Apr 2011, 06:53

Justanopinion - I'm sure you understand there is a difference between availibilty of certain fuel for 'one-off' transit stops and the availability of same said fuel if there were a requirement to mount sustained ops?

The cost of having to flush/fill/flush available tankers/hydrant fuel systems to cater for an occassional a/c passing through would most likely be the reason they state "only F44 available" but as I stated, it'd be very unusual for a land-based facility holding such stocks not to have F35 as this is the base product from which F44 is derived.

To return to the point I mentioned earlier, for operations in Iraq there were no large quanities of F34 available in theatre, which meant having to receive F35, adding AL48 on receipt and then forwarding stocks within theatre to cater for outlying sites as well as retaining sufficiant stocks to cater for Basrah AB elements as well as airbridge requirements. All this was done via a single blending rig, a relatvely small amount of EBFI pipework and an 10x136k litre TFC farm (2 for F35, 8 for F34), something that can be setup in very little time.

You seem to be comparing the issues you had on what, a transit through Sig, to what is possible/available in order to sustain longer term ops. The two aren't comparable.

Perhaps the helpful stacker could have a word? This was his reply when JAO mentioned the snag of F44 being the only fuel available in Sigonella...

effects

7th Apr 2011, 08:22

Adding to the who in NATO is contributing,
Spain-F18s
Turkey-are definately flying in the area- Tankers?
Dutch-F16s and KDC10?

Regie Mental

7th Apr 2011, 11:50

According to a conversation overheard in the Coningsby enthusiast's car park yesterday, the 'Red Arrows are in Libya'. Think someome needs to grip Opsec pronto.

TEEEJ

7th Apr 2011, 13:49

Regie Mental,

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/362-gaddafi-arrows.jpg

Red Arrows on standby for No-Fly Zone Grand Finale spectacular | NewsBiscuit (http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/03/30/red-arrows-on-standby-for-no-fly-zone-grand-finale-spectacular/)

TJ

SASless

7th Apr 2011, 21:34

Tiffys dropping 1000lb non exploding LGB's

Dropping non-exploding bombs during a Non-War...one could not make this up and it be any better! I guess the SAS/USSpecOps/CIA guys are wearing flip-flops so there are no Boots On the Ground too!

TEEEJ

7th Apr 2011, 22:50

SASless wrote,

Dropping non-exploding bombs during a Non-War...one could not make this up and it be any better!

Nothing new in the use of inert weapons. The Coalition used them during Iraq (Northern and Southern Watch). Also used during the insurgency in Iraq.

See 'Current Inventory of Low-Collateral-Damage Weapons' in the following article.

Adding less-lethal arrows to the quiver for counterinsurgency air operations. (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Air-Space-Power-Journal/179779992.html)

TJ

MAINJAFAD

7th Apr 2011, 23:56

Thanks TEEJ, good to see somebody on here knowns something about the use of modern air warfare in the real world.

0497

8th Apr 2011, 02:09

UK and French diplomatic efforts to scrounge more ground attack aircraft.

British Say NATO Faces Jet Shortage - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704630004576249092094728716.html)

...

NATO officials say there are plenty of aircraft to police an arms embargo and a no-fly zone. But fewer nations have committed jets to the mission to protect civilians. There are enough warplanes to carry out the civilian-protection role, the officials say. "But it would be better to have more than enough," one said. NATO officials say the U.S. stands ready to carry out strike sorties, if needed.

On Wednesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron called his counterparts in Italy, Spain and Belgium to encourage them to chip in more ground attack aircraft, according to a British official.

...

SASless

8th Apr 2011, 02:44

TEEEJ....have you no appreciation for the sublime? This whole Libya thiing is a fecking farce!

Barry Boy cranks up a War without any effort to get American support...relies purely upon a UN Resolution....cites some bull**** "Humanitarian Crisis" when it is a plain old ordinary Civil War.

If we use Barry Boy's reasoning we will be involved in literally hundreds of Wars in the guise of saving humanity.

Where are the Left Wing Radical Bush Bashers these days...if Dubya was a War Criminal in their feeble minds....Barry Boy should be the Anti-Christ as his own officials clearly state we have no National Security issue in this matter!

For crap sakes....bring the Lads and Lasses home...park the airplanes on the pad and let'em have the weekend off and get back to living a peaceful existence.

SilsoeSid

8th Apr 2011, 17:13

So, the allies bombed the Libyan rebels.

As the allies are only there to enforce a no fly zone, enforce an arms embargo and protect civilians, why did Mr Hague apologise for this bombing?

The rebels must have been doing something wrong in order for the rules of engagement to apply, or is this proof of mission creep where the allies are taking out the Gadaffi loyal forces willy nilly?

In this case, if the rebels were using vehicles thought to only be used by loyalists, and these vehicles weren't engaging civilians, why were they attacked?

0497

9th Apr 2011, 01:42

Said NATO airstrike on the Rebels. Identified as a missile in the D-Mail but its a Paveway of some sort. Paveway IV? (only one country that uses them)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/08/article-1374817-0B87947A00000578-889_634x286.jpg

-HHOJhNHzBc

jwcook

9th Apr 2011, 08:56

I'm wondering what the target tank type actually is here?

ZI0xj-xKlQ8

Its supposed to be an RAF Tornado targetting a Libyan Tank.

I thought all Libyan tanks were T-72 vintage and older, this looks more modern and has a large turret!.

Cheers

jwcook

9th Apr 2011, 09:10

Possibly a 155mm Palmaria self-propelled howitzer??

Just This Once...

9th Apr 2011, 09:22

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/palmaria.jpg

Easy Street

9th Apr 2011, 15:42

0497's picture of an LGB is, I think, a PW2-class weapon, probably on a 1000lb bomb. The Paveway IVs are much more slender in appearance and are light grey all over - the weapon pictured has a dark-coloured warhead.

PW4 as shown below:

http://defense-update.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tprnado_lgb_marham.jpg

Compared to the weapon in question:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/08/article-1374817-0B87947A00000578-889_634x286.jpg

SRENNAPS

9th Apr 2011, 18:46

Thought I would post this link:

BBC News - Libya: RAF Tornados destroy seven Libyan tanks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13023800)

Although I don’t think many people are too interested now………it has all just become a PR exercise to save the face of young David.

When he reprieves the disbandment of two Tonka Sqns (one very dear to my heart) I might show some respect to the……..****

Well done to the boys and girls doing the job.:D:D:D

just another jocky

9th Apr 2011, 19:20

In this case, if the rebels were using vehicles thought to only be used by loyalists, and these vehicles weren't engaging civilians, why were they attacked?

I wasn't there, but I do have intimate knowledge of the way the RAF apply RoE in Afghanistan and I hope you can believe me; if they were attacked by RAF ac, the cockpit recording will have been pored over ad infinitum at multiple levels to double & triple-check that the RoE were adhered to.

Just because we, here, cannot see why, doesn't mean there wasn't good and just reason.

TEEEJ

9th Apr 2011, 20:32

NATO forces Libyan rebel's fighter jet to land - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1121823/1/.html)

BRUSSELS: NATO warplanes intercepted a MiG-23 fighter jet operated by a Libyan rebel pilot on Saturday and forced him to land after he violated a UN-mandated no-fly zone, a NATO official told AFP.

The jet had taken off from a rebel-controlled airfield near the eastern city of Benghazi in the morning and was intercepted within minutes, the official said on condition of anonymity. No weapons were fired by either side.

"No aggressive action was displayed by the MiG-23 and the NATO fighters proceeded to force it to land back at the Benina airfield," the official said.

The official added that the rebels had not warned NATO that one of their jets was going to take off.

It was the first time that any aircraft violated the no-fly zone since NATO took command of the mission from a US-led coalition on March 31.

"A request to fly by anybody in the no-fly zone would be scrutinised and there would have to be very compelling reason for an aircraft to be flown," the official said.

The UN Security Council put in place last month a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Muammar Gaddafi from using his air force to kill civilians after the Libyan leader violently cracked down on pro-democracy protests.

NATO has also conducted air strikes against Gaddafi's ground forces under the UN mandate to use "all necessary measures" to protect the population.

Following normal procedure, NATO jets were scrambled to intercept the MiG-23 after it was detected by an AWAC surveillance aircraft, the NATO official said.

Two NATO planes flew alongside the MiG and made visual contact with the Libyan pilot, using international signals to indicate that he should land. The signals are usually made by hand or by tipping the plane's wing.

"He complied and the aircraft landed very quickly after take off," the official said. "It was only in the air a few minutes."

"In this case there was no aggressive behaviour, which meant no lethal force was required," the official said.

A rebel Hind was also noted active today. Sky News have a video. Still image of the Hind.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/sites/default/files/imagecache/FeaturedImagePost/images/chopper_afp.jpg

TJ

Igloowhite

10th Apr 2011, 13:32

Apologies if it's already been covered in this thread but can anyone tell me what those peculiar "launchers" mounted on the pick-up truck cab roofs are? Don't recognise them at all.

However, they do remind me of a bizarre Astazou-powered car which was build by a bunch of crazy Cloggy F-16 drivers at Gilz-Rijn. They fired it up in the hanger during the pre-air show PU in approx 92 or 93. Nearly deafened the assembled masses.

outhouse

10th Apr 2011, 13:40

Hi did see what looked like an old Snebb rocket Pod, mounted on a pickup.*:ok:

Mike7777777

10th Apr 2011, 18:29

The rebels have Hinds?! I must pay more attention.

If the struggle continues, and if the majority of the ground forces on both sides transit via the coast road then that road needs to cut with a 10 mile buffer zone, anything on wheels/tracks in that zone would be examined closely (UAVs? Apache?) and then dealt with accordingly.

Perhaps a UN solution? If the UN can keep the Greeks and the Turks apart in Cyprus then separating the opposing forces in Libya shouldn't present too much of a problem ...?

Surely this cannot end up in yet another political mess where the effectiveness of military ops is compromised by general political incompetence? Too depressing for words :sad:

TEEEJ

10th Apr 2011, 19:14

Igloowhite wrote

Apologies if it's already been covered in this thread but can anyone tell me what those peculiar "launchers" mounted on the pick-up truck cab roofs are? Don't recognise them at all.

The rebels are using Russian UB-16 and UB-32 aircraft/helo rocket pods.

S-5 rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-5_rocket)

UB-16

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8908/800xo.jpg

UB-32

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/20/800xem.jpg

TJ

outhouse

10th Apr 2011, 19:47

Looked very much like the Matra SNEB155. Gave the old lightning an interesting ground suppresion role.:ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana

10th Apr 2011, 22:58

I bet every yahoo redneck in the good ol' US of A wants one of these on the back of his monster Truck right now!:ok:

0497

11th Apr 2011, 02:40

(note: the reporter CJ Chivers is a former infantry officer)
Libyan Rebels Take Risks With Makeshift Arms - NYTimes.com (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/rebels-get-rockets-but-using-them-proves-tricky/?partner=rss&emc=rss)

.... the men who fire them have little idea of how far these rockets fly, a limited ability to change their elevation, and, (depending on the makeshift mount), often have no ability to traverse them left or right. Often times, those who fire them fire them this way: They point the front grill of their truck in the rough direction of the intended target, and commence launching a barrage. The result is obvious even before the first rockets whooshes into the air. Those involved can make their high-explosive rockets go up. They have only the faintest sense of where the rockets will come down.

.... No one can reasonably dispute that this is indiscriminate fire, and there is already a small undercurrent of anger among the rebels at some of those who fire them. The rockets have often landed near other rebels .... some credible accounts, it was an errant barrage of 57-millimeter rockets from another pod like this one that killed Dr. Salah al-Awami last week.

TEEEJ

11th Apr 2011, 13:24

BAE Systems Responds To An Urgent Operational Requirement For Frontline - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_111311105032.html)

BAE Systems Responds to An Urgent Operational Requirement For Frontline UK Tornados

Warton, UK. BAE Systems is responding to an urgent operational requirement to equip the UK Tornado fleet with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). Work starts immediately on the £8m contract to integrate the system on to the aircraft.

Tornado crews in-theatre currently provide close air support, tactical reconnaissance and convoy support to land forces. The Helmet Mounted Cueing System will project visual targeting symbols on to the visor of the pilot’s helmet, in front of one eye.

Foghorn Leghorn

11th Apr 2011, 13:35

On the video that jwcook posted, post number 1044 I think, the symbology looks different from the first pass to the second pass. On the first pass, the legs were flashing and on the second pass, where the tank is destroyed, there is no flashing symbology on the targetting pod display. Is there any reason for this?

dead_pan

11th Apr 2011, 13:46

the men who fire them have little idea of how far these rockets fly, a limited ability to change their elevation

Here's another example of how not to do it.

YouTube - libyan rebels fire rockets

Thats one trashed pick-up and bedding roll. Amateurs.

cyrilranch

11th Apr 2011, 13:56

Martin Taylor, BAE Systems’ Combat Air Support Director says: “BAE Systems is proud to be awarded the contract to integrate the system, which had already been developed and deployed on the Harrier GR9 aircraft. BAE Systems recognises its responsibility to support the men and women of our armed forces with the best possible equipment particularly when they are operating in-theatre.”

Something the Harriers had that GR4 did not and why is costing £8million.
What happen to the Helmet's that Harriers used use?:ugh:

just another jocky

11th Apr 2011, 15:04

It's less about the helmets than the kit in the ac needed to make them work. GR4 was never supposed to get this mod before it took over in Herrick.

I didn't think it had made it to GR9 sqns before they were cut, but I await someone with more knowledge than me commenting.

Gaz ED

11th Apr 2011, 16:02

Helmets are already procured, they have 4 "pads" that are studded with LEDs. A small prism reflects targetting info onto the visor. Day and night helmets are available for pilot only. It looks quite groovy, but bear in mind it's a cue-ing system not a full HMS.

Only 2 sensors mounted on the seat are requred to determine helmet position.

TEEEJ

11th Apr 2011, 18:50

Just another jocky,

See following.

FLYER Forums • View topic - The Harrier GR.9 and Operation Herrick (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=67373)

Lt Cdr James Blackmore wrote,

For the final six months, we operated with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS). This allows the pilot to quickly identify coordinates on the ground using a red diamond that is projected over it on a reticule placed over the right eye. This is an excellent tool in increasing spatial awareness and takes away the need to spend vital minutes using binoculars to identify features from a map. Equally, in reverse, the pilot is able to look around the battle space and if he sees something of interest, he simply looks at it, designates it using controls on the throttle and immediately the SNIPER ATP will move to look at that same point on the ground.

TJ

just another jocky

11th Apr 2011, 20:00

Thanks TEEJ, I didn't know that.

I must admit I managed quite well in the GR4 without a HMS, but then I didn't have a situation where I saw something from the front seat and needed to get the ac kit/Litening pod pointing towards it. Usually it was the JTAC queueing the pod on for the Nav and after that it was really easy.

:ok:

bakseetblatherer

11th Apr 2011, 21:12

I guess it is the same thing that the Jags used to have, years ago? That seemed pretty useful when the guys were using it on TLP.

Pity that the Jag only managed to get airborne when tooled up 'cos of the curvature of the earth. ;)

Fox3WheresMyBanana

11th Apr 2011, 21:54

Oh God, that reminds me of watching the jags staging through Cyprus on the way out to GW1. I'll swear the last one in the trail, in August, got airborne with inches to spare.:eek:

TEEEJ

11th Apr 2011, 22:30

No problem, Just another jocky.

Some recent videos from the conflict.

Rebel UB-32 in action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7dqwII-gbU

Tornado GR4 - 8th April footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGPlF0zCzC4

TJ

Airborne Aircrew

12th Apr 2011, 01:05

Teeej...

You should either brush up on your computer skills or check your work once done... ;)

Rector16

12th Apr 2011, 07:05

JAJ wrote:

I must admit I managed quite well in the GR4 without a HMS, but then I didn't have a situation where I saw something from the front seat and needed to get the ac kit/Litening pod pointing towards it. Usually it was the JTAC queueing the pod on for the Nav and after that it was really easy.

So aren't we just pointing out that all that techno-geekery on Jag/Harrier was just desparately trying to compensate for the lack of a back-seater? :D

TEEEJ

12th Apr 2011, 10:23

AA wrote,

Teeej...

You should either brush up on your computer skills or check your work once done..

AA,

It would be helpful if you highlighted the particular post. I'm not seeing any problems at my end? You Tube have recently changed their share URL links. The share link now has the short URL, but by taking the video ID code and and inserting it between the HTML you tube blocks then the video will appear. This share link problem might possibly be corrupted on your browser? It works OK for me. Anyone else having problems?

Sharing codes corrupted - YouTube Help (http://www.google.de/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=7086240afca44b6f&hl=en)

TJ

TEEEJ

12th Apr 2011, 10:55

AA,

As you can see the You Tube change is causing problems on all forums and all over the Internet. As the URLs are changed by You Tube then the originally embedded videos will simply not form a link.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/448507-youtube-embedded-videos.html

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/338360-what-one-song-your-current-sound-track-113.html

I'll try and edit my posts that are now showing dead links.

TJ

Airborne Aircrew

12th Apr 2011, 11:42

Teej:

My apologies... When I visited the Youtube links were indeed bad so they showed as 1786shbxdy27 without the underscores. Not being a frequent visitor to Youtube I was unaware of the changes they were making... :uhoh:

TEEEJ

12th Apr 2011, 12:26

AA,

No problem. :ok: I've gone through the thread and edited my posts with the current up-to-date links.

:)

TJ

Pontius Navigator

12th Apr 2011, 12:45

Nemrytter

12th Apr 2011, 16:35

Hi all, I have a question which I guess is related to this thread.
I'm a project scientist for a satellite sensor, and over the previous few weeks I've noticed some anomalous data over Libya during the night. Some investigation suggests that these are related to the unrest that's been going on over there, which is interesting to us as we haven't considered it possible to monitor such events with our satellite.

So, are any of you aware of a contact point in the RAF, or other AF involved in Libya, who may be able to assist me in identifying these anomalous data points? I know they're explosions, but it would be useful to have an source confirm this. Of course, I understand the sensitivity of the subject, and would not expect any other information apart from yes/no for a list of 5-10 points that I can provide.
If any of you can let me know such a contact I'd be very grateful, and if you want more details of what I'm doing then feel free to PM me.

Dominator2

12th Apr 2011, 17:17

Once again the RAF has lost out on 10 years of capability due to a poor decision being made at higher level. The Jaguar 96 HMS was developed for the Tornado F3 in 2001. This was mainly to achieve the 'high off boresight' shots that ASRAAM would provide. It was, however, possible to slew the radar, TIALD pod, or any other sensor to the helmet. Equally it was possible to be cued visually to any object being tracked by a sensor. The software was written by SMT, ground trialled and ready for flight trail. The 1553 data bus was installed in an OEU aircraft. At the last minute the plug was pulled on the programme due to cost. Although not admitted publicly there was concern that the programme would compromise the 'already slipping' Typhoon in servive date. At the time the GR1/4 force stated that they did not need an HMS and could not see the benifit. Why are the RAF so short sighted and stovepipe their ideas to one role or platform. Maybe it is because every officer from Sqn Cdr to CAS has spent the last 10 years defending his own platform at all costs, no mater how wrong those decisions were?

dead_pan

12th Apr 2011, 17:20

the effectiveness of military ops is compromised by general political incompetence

Why is it always the fault of politicians when things begin to go awry? I'm sure our collective militarys had some input into the planning of the NFZ - if it wasn't possible or do-able for whatever reason then they should have said so at the outset.

Wholigan

12th Apr 2011, 18:50

Hi TEEEJ and Airborne Aircrew. Sorry but I caused the confusion. I saw what Airborne Aircrew saw this morning and changed the links so they worked, but I was in a heck of a rush as I was off to see aged pa-in-law in Sussex, so didn't "leave a note".

For your interest, all you have to do for youtube clips now is copy the URL from youtube and then paste it directly into where you want it in your post. Automatically embedded.

Sorry again.

TEEEJ

12th Apr 2011, 20:16

Wholigan,

No problem. Thanks for the post.

TJ

TEEEJ

12th Apr 2011, 20:32

Swedish Air Force Gripen refuelling from Swedish Air Force Hercules.

GRIPEN INDIA: PHOTO: Gripen Air Refueling For Libya Mission (http://www.gripenindia.com/2011/04/photo-gripen-air-refueling-for-libya.html)

TJ

Sir George Cayley

12th Apr 2011, 21:29

I'm coming from the standpoint that NATO have assets that could, within the terms of UN1973, kill ground troops loyal to Gadaffi in urban areas where airstrikes by fast jets can't.

I'm led to this by the many YouTube videos from Afghanistan showing rapid firing gunnery attacking individuals to groups of combatants amongst residential areas.

Misrata is a case in point where the city is divided between the opposing forces and mortar fire is killing civilians.

Am I wrong to think that something like a C130 type a/c suitably equipped could support rebels in suppressing ground forces in this situation?

Sir George Cayley

Airborne Aircrew

12th Apr 2011, 21:32

Magic... I can blame someone else... :E

Thanks Wholigan... :ok:

SASless

12th Apr 2011, 22:38

I bet every yahoo redneck in the good ol' US of A wants one of these on the back of his monster Truck right now!

Nay Lad....they are so gauche these days...now a quad-.50 cal....that's cool!

Modern Elmo

13th Apr 2011, 01:53

So, are any of you aware of a contact point in the RAF, or other AF involved in Libya, who may be able to assist me in identifying these anomalous data points? I know they're explosions, but it would be useful to have an source confirm this.

How do you know that those data points are explosions? Please tell us, Mr. Scientist. Could you please describe these data points? What sort of sensors does your satellite have?

And if you're sure that they are explosions, why do you need a source to confirm what you already know?

Rector16

13th Apr 2011, 07:35

Could it be that he's not a scientist? Is there just an outside possibility that someone asking interesting questions on a rumour site is actually a JOURNALIST???? I think that this counts as a valid technique in Journo-school; although he might end up publishing the truth (which clearly isn't!).

BEWARE geeks bearing gifts.......:=

dead_pan

13th Apr 2011, 08:54

I can semi-vouch for simonpro. He has recently been plying his trade on JB - definitely a geek not a journo.

Still, a strange request I agree. I'm sure most EO satellites worth their salt can detect explosions on the ground if they happen to be looking in the right direction at the right time.

Nemrytter

13th Apr 2011, 09:41

Thanks to the people who provided me with information, you've been very helpful.

Modern Elmo and Rector, I'm not a journo and I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm simply interested in the results we're getting from our sensor. As I said before, if you want more details then PM me. I need a confirmation source because saying "They're explosions" carries a lot less weight than saying "They're explosions, as can be confirmed by comparing to this other information that we've been given."

Also, dead pan, time and place is the problem. We operate one of only a few civilian satellites that are always in the right time and place, all other sats would need a substantial amount of luck to detect anything.
Now I don't want to derail this thread, so if anyone has some helpful info/complaints/insults then PM me. :ok:

Mike7777777

13th Apr 2011, 12:03

Why is it always the fault of politicians when things begin to go awry? I'm sure our collective militarys had some input into the planning of the NFZ - if it wasn't possible or do-able for whatever reason then they should have said so at the outset.
If there are no defined political objectives then it's not possible to develop meaningful strategies, recent examples being Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think there was any doubt that the no fly zone would be achieved swiftly, but then what? NATO troops on the ground?

outhouse

13th Apr 2011, 12:05

Hi, am I correct in understanding that NATO will hit either side if they (NATO) consider that civilians are at risk. After viewing the developments over the last few weeks and the changes recently in the way the air activities are conducted, I feel more convinced every day that it's a lost cause and the sooner we bail out the better.*
At the onset it seemed a quick use of a seemingly open door agreement to suppress the government ground forces, allowing the rebels to advance quickly, gain an advantage, close on the primary Eastern cities and see more defections from government forces. After this a rebel force with a greater trained and equipped forces would have been able to stabilise and allow a political posturing from a position of strength.

So what went wrong, the politics took over. NATO full control and expected reduction in air activity, posturing and incision at a time when the rebel force was at it's most exposed position, *counter attack by a re vitalised government force and total retreat and confusion.*

So I guess it's all ending up in the way they want, confusion stalemate and a large bill to top up the bunkers with some new toys to use next time. (did hear on the gv that a rather well off gulf state was paying the bill, chance to update inventory then?):ok:

Lonewolf_50

13th Apr 2011, 14:13

The range of views among the 28 members of the NATO alliance is wide. Germany, Turkey and Poland opposed the Libya operation and are not involved in the air campaign.

I read this in the papers and am now puzzled.

It used to be, back when I was in a NATO organization, that all NATO nations had to vote "yes" to undertake military action.

If Turkey, Germany, and Poland voted NO, then the Alliance cannot task Admiral Locklear (Joint Forces Naples) and his subordinate commands with armed action.

The news may have it wrong, but more troubling to me is: has NATO changed its basic rulse? :confused:

TEEEJ

13th Apr 2011, 14:20

RAF Typhoon - Libya

YouTube - RAF Typhoon strikes Libyan battle tank

TJ

Whenurhappy

13th Apr 2011, 15:05

Supporting the NATO mission politically is different from supporting the mission militarily. Same happend with ALLIED FORCE in 1999 (Kosovo/Serbia) - some NATO members opposed it, but did not 'break silence' but would not commit forces either (eg Greece).

There is no voting system within the North Atlantic Council, just concensus. Inasmuch as it is fun to have a pop at NATO, getting 28 Countries to agree politcally to this mission is frankly astounding. Almost as astounding as getting the UNSCR to agree such a robust resolution (UNSCR 1973). Of course Russia and Chuina abstained. Ongoing politcal turmoil in North Africa is a great for the gas business - the Russian gas business.

dead_pan

13th Apr 2011, 23:33

did hear on the gv that a rather well off gulf state was paying the bill

I did read this too way back at the beginning of the NFZ operation, but have seen no mention anywhere since. Mind you, anyone who has dealt with the Gulf states will tell you, it takes an eternity for a promise to materialise into hard cash.

The Qataris do seem intent on re-branding themselves as the reforming moderates of the Arab world (or at least the financiers of), even attempting to dictate terms to the Yemeni regime.

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2011, 07:28

Am I wrong to think that something like a C130 type a/c suitably equipped could support rebels in suppressing ground forces in this situation?

Sir George Cayley

The only country with assets like this is USA of course (AFAIK) and I suspect that there is no air supremacy over Misurata so there would be risk to the C130.

peterperfect

14th Apr 2011, 07:42

Ref: NO FLY ZONE.
Q: When it comes to a point that violent conflict is over, yet the NFZ is still in place covering the while of the Libyan FIR, how does say, a humanitarian charter by UN or an NGO to say Benghazi get to enter the airspace without being classified a 'hostile' target ? Who do they apply to and how ? The same question goes for offshore helicopter flights to rigs in the Med but inside the FIR. Who does the request chit go to ? pp.

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2011, 08:03

The short answer as to who can fly in the NFZ would appear to be - file a flight plan.

The longer answer would appear to be:

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

“5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

“No-fly zone

“6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

“7. Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

“8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

A. EUROCONTROL actions following UN Security Council resolution on Libya | EUROCONTROL (http://www.eurocontrol.int/news/eurocontrol-actions-following-un-security-council-resolution-libya)

Therefore only those flights which are exempted from the ban, in accordance with the resolution, will be permitted to operate.

draken55

14th Apr 2011, 10:52

"Downing Street said Britain would be sending the rebels 1,000 sets of body armour in "non-lethal" aid from surplus UK defence stocks, in addition to the 100 satellite phones already supplied."

How does this tie in with the oft quoted lack of body armour for British troops in Afghanistan? Who will advise on the use of such equipment? The "mission creep" continues.:uhoh:

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2011, 11:15

Airborne Aircrew

14th Apr 2011, 11:43

It'll probably be the old NI Flak Jackets... Marginal against low velocity... Like butter against high velocity... :(

Mike7777777

14th Apr 2011, 18:53

With the benefit of hindsight, it was bonkers to back the rebels against Gaddafi and his mob, they're as bad as each other. If involvement was absolutely necessary then cut the coast road to keep them apart and let the UN sort it out.

500N

14th Apr 2011, 19:09

Mike

But the rebels didn't have people in the US/Europe with hidden agendas
- Lockerbie, Weapons/Semtex/IRA, PC Yvonne Fletcher, Oil/Gas.

Gaddafi had some form on an international scale, more so than maybe Saddam ?
.

Pontius Navigator

14th Apr 2011, 19:24

500N, that is a non sequitur. We have no prior knowledge of what the rebels may have done in the past.

phil9560

14th Apr 2011, 20:42

Its rather dragging on now isn't it ? Which I'm sure wasn't the plan at the outset.SH#T or get off the pot or every loon who wants his 40 virgins will be packing his rucksack and on his way.

Samuel

14th Apr 2011, 21:32

Bring forth the armourers....could someone explain why a Typhoon, or anything else for that matter, would use a 1000LB LGB on a single tank? Isn't there anything more appropriate, or is it a case of one size fits all?

just another jocky

14th Apr 2011, 21:38

It's all the Tiffie has right now.

MAINJAFAD

14th Apr 2011, 21:40

Q: Why does a Typhoon drop a thousand pounder???????

A: Because it can!!!!!

Q: Why does a Typhoon not drop something smaller instead??????

A: Because it can't, as the smaller weapons haven't been cleared for release/carrage from the aircraft yet as it requires software changes, testing and quite a bit of money.

Plus if you look closely at that footage of the 1000 lb bomb hitting that tank, you will note there were another two tanks and an APC in very close proximty, which are most likely now not in anything like a good working order.

500N

14th Apr 2011, 22:09

PN

Understood, but we have facts with Gaddafi. And at least some of the Rebels have been persecuted by him as well - the mass Prison murder being one example.

dead_pan

14th Apr 2011, 22:39

Plus if you look closely at that footage of the 1000 lb bomb hitting that tank, you will note there were another two tanks and an APC in very close proximty, which are most likely now not in anything like a good working order

The MBT targetted (and other vehicles) appear to be parked up in some sort of compound, evidently not actually engaged in any action as such. A case of testing out this new combo on a relatively straightforward target with little risk of collateral damage?

BandAide

15th Apr 2011, 00:32

I hate to say it, but the best strategy may be to keep both sides pinned down fighting each other, never allowing either side to attain victory. At some point they may become weary of fighting altogether, a plus for the world. That strategy worked for some time with Iraq/Iran.

TBM-Legend

15th Apr 2011, 04:28

the old Vietnam solution. Give more guns to both sides and negotiate with the survivors!:uhoh:

FB11

15th Apr 2011, 05:26

dead pan,

We shouldn't be too scathing, at least the Typhoon's won't need to do an expensive heavy weapons det to Davis Monthan. And think of all those Guillemots on Garvie that won't be pestered by the crack of HE.

Smart move. Get a first combat tick doing air defence where there are no opposing aircraft and air to ground where you have a whole host of hulks parked up to plink at.

Might just help offset the HoC Defence Select Committee article on Typhoon in the BBC news today.

£125million a pop with a total programme cost of £20billion. Gulp.

Makes other oft criticised programmes look cheap.

just another jocky

15th Apr 2011, 06:26

£125million a pop with a total programme cost of £20billion. Gulp.

And we got the GR1 for free! :} (well, the Saudi's paid for a whole bunch of it). :cool:

TEEEJ

15th Apr 2011, 14:51

Some images of destroyed armour in Libya. If it is deemed safe to drop it then why not use it?

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/247/800xlm.jpg

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2964/800xn.jpg

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8392/800xzc.jpg

The other options is to drop inert.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Tornados to drop 'concrete bombs' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2919249.stm)

TJ

Lonewolf_50

15th Apr 2011, 16:01

In re the size of the bombs ...

There was a rumor that the IAF used GBU 39's (250-lb guided bomb) in Gaza a few years ago, but Israeli officials said no, they didn't.

F-15E's are certified for them. (2006 ish) Not sure if other platforms are certified or not.

Did the UK get on board the small bomb band wagon, or the French? I seem to recall that either the French or Italians wanted to use the smaller bombs ... but don't have any idea.

If this is "not for public discussion" please advise.

SRENNAPS

15th Apr 2011, 21:45

BBC News - Syria: Clashes at mass Damascus protest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13097926)

Come on David, let’s go in there as well. It’s obvious that the “people” want rid of the current dodgy Government; they just want a fair democracy. And look how good you will portray yourself as being a strong leader on the world stage. Better still you will be able to say “See I told you so, that it was all about democracy and not oil”

Go for it mate, we have plenty of spare assets (lots of Tornados and Typhoons that you haven’t chopped yet) at your disposal. You know it makes sense.

0497

16th Apr 2011, 06:11

There was a rumor that the IAF used GBU 39's (250-lb guided bomb) in Gaza a few years ago, but Israeli officials said no, they didn't.

I believe the original rumor was 'bunker busters' and every journo assumed it was the SDB - it was probably a 2000lb BLU

Anyway, 120mm mortar cluster munitions (Spanish made) being fired into Misrata
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/africa/16libya.html?ref=world
& Qaddafi Forces Fire Cluster Munitions on Misurata C.J. Chivers (http://cjchivers.com/post/4636350393/qaddafi-forces-fire-cluster-munitions-on-misurata)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/15/world/0415-libya-gfx/0415-libya-gfx-popup.jpg

TBM-Legend

16th Apr 2011, 07:13

love those red Libyan "combat" sandals...:rolleyes:

hanoijane

16th Apr 2011, 07:23

the old Vietnam solution. Give more guns to both sides and negotiate with the survivors!

That worked fine for us. We're awash with BMW's and Channel stores now. Have you seen downtown Sai Gon? It's capitalism gone crazy... :)

[email protected]

16th Apr 2011, 10:04

Under what RoE would the Typhoon have engaged the tanks in that tank park? The tanks are clearly not flying and therefore not in breach of the NFZ and they certainly do not appear to be attacking civilians.

Do we have carte blanche to take out any military vehicles/assets without them being an actual threat to the rebels/civilians? It could have been U/S in a servicing compound. Taking out non-threat targets in a 'shooting fish in a barrel' way is hardly the stuff of what is supposed to a be a premier league Air Force.

The desperate need to show how the Typhoon is such a modern, multi-role aircraft is frankly embarrassing.

TBM-Legend

16th Apr 2011, 10:16

what tank park? Looks like it's next to a highway to me.

The UN1973 allows NATO to take out threatening actions. Moving tanks towards the "rebels" and then "parking" them is a hostile act.

The shame is that Europe without US help would be just like France in 1940....

typerated

16th Apr 2011, 10:21

Glass houses me thinks

wiggy

16th Apr 2011, 22:07

TBM-Legend

The shame is that Europe without US help would be just like France in 1940....

You lost me there, in what way?

Airborne Aircrew

17th Apr 2011, 00:34

You lost me there, in what way? Oh dear... What are you, twelve? Ever heard of Dunkirk? The sweeping of the German forces across western Europe? The utter inability of most of Europe to put up a fight against an enemy? Don't tell me... You're a pilot... :ugh:

:E

TBM-Legend

17th Apr 2011, 02:13

50,000+ US troops are stationed in Europe. Why? Are they tourists?

Think about it. Europe has not pulled its way in 100 years. The US bankrolled the Allies in WW1 and WW2 and post war. The French in Vietnam/Algeria for example relied heavily on US supplied equipment and on occasions intervention.

How about some personal responsibility and accountability EU...and others.

0497

17th Apr 2011, 03:00

US and allies looking for a place to exile Qadaffi. Also, other countries trying to position their proxies for post-Qadaffi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/world/africa/17rebels.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

.... WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has begun seeking a country, most likely in Africa, that might be willing to provide shelter to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi if he were forced out of Libya, even as a new wave of intelligence reports suggest that no rebel leader has emerged as a credible successor to the Libyan dictator.

.... One possibility, according to three administration officials, is to find a country that is not a signatory to the treaty that requires countries to turn over anyone under indictment for trial by the court, perhaps giving Colonel Qaddafi an incentive to abandon his stronghold in Tripoli.

The move by the United States to find a haven for Colonel Qaddafi may help explain how the White House is trying to enforce President Obama’s declaration that the Libyan leader must leave the country but without violating Mr. Obama’s refusal to put troops on the ground.

.... NATO commanders say they are still struggling to come up with at least eight more warplanes to ensure the alliance can sustain a longer-term operation and relieve strain on pilots now flying repeated combat missions.

.... accomplished three major objectives: saving the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi from becoming the site of a civilian atrocity, setting up an international command to protect civilians and clear the skies of Libyan aircraft, and providing modest amounts of humanitarian assistance.

.... American officials concede that the rebel leaders have not settled on who might succeed Colonel Qaddafi if he is ousted, and some fear that tribal warfare could break out if there is no consensus figure who could bind the country together.

TBM-Legend

17th Apr 2011, 03:12

He could move to public housing in Redding!

TEEEJ

17th Apr 2011, 12:43

crab@SAAvn,

Well ask yourself why were Libyan airfields struck destroying aircraft and hardened aircraft shelters? Yes the rules of engagement allow those tanks to be targeted. The aim is to degrade the Libyan Armed Forces so that they can't use their superior forces to overwhelm the cities that have broken away. Striking logistic bases and ammunition bunkers take away the Libyan forces capability to repair and re-supply.

What is the alternative? It is too late if the tanks were moved into the built up areas of Misrata. The rules of engagement will severely restrict weapons drops in such situations due to the risk to civilians within the city. Even if the tanks were unserviceable the strike takes away a source of spares. Why give them any advantage?

TJ

keesje

17th Apr 2011, 13:06

Libya is well in range of hundreds of Tornado's stationed in UK, Germany and Italy, all with a variety of usefull weapons and forward bases to wipe out Khadaffi forces. Why use Typhoon interceptors?

http://www.milavia.net/specials/springflag08/springflag08_30.jpg

It's all political hesitations. Maybe they get mixed information from the Arab world?

TEEEJ

17th Apr 2011, 13:22

Keesje wrote,

Libya is well in range of hundreds of Tornado's stationed in UK, Germany and Italy, all with a variety of usefull weapons and forward bases to wipe out Khadaffi forces. Why use Typhoon interceptors?

Germany will not commit their Tornado or any of their combat aircraft to the conflict. Italian aircraft are in the air defence and support role. Their Tornado variants are used in Libya for recon and suppression of air defences. The Italian government won't permit them to be used in the bombing role.

Berlusconi says Italy won't bomb Libya - UPI.com (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/04/15/Berlusconi-says-Italy-wont-bomb-Libya/UPI-54021302881290/)

During 2008 RAF Typhoons were cleared for a ground attack role. It is limited by current weapons clearance, but even though an austere capability why not use them?

[ARCHIVED CONTENT] Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Typhoons declared ready for ground attack role (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/TyphoonsDeclaredReadyForGroundAttackRole.htm)

TJ

Daysleeper

17th Apr 2011, 14:03

Anyone seen the Sunday times today? Great opsec on where everyone is living.

MAINJAFAD

17th Apr 2011, 14:44

Yep, Great Opsec from that pair of RAF hating Ex-Matlots who's names begin with a W.

TEEEJ

17th Apr 2011, 17:08

Typhoon pilot describes first air to ground strike

Typhoon pilot describes first air to ground strike | British Forces News (http://bfbs.com/news/raf/typhoon-pilot-describes-first-air-ground-strike-46743.html)

The Royal Air Force pilot who carried out the first operational Typhoon aircraft strike on a ground target has been describing the mission.

The first strike was made against a Libyan regime main battle tank during a mission on Tuesday, 12 April.

The pilot said: “I left Gioia Del Colle in a mixed pair with a Tornado GR4.

“We’d been tasked to Misratah in the West of Libya, which is pretty much a city under siege, with significant numbers of attacks against the civilian population from pro-regime forces. We were looking along one of the main supply routes in Misratah when we came across a compound with around 10 – 15 main battle tanks in.

“We reported our findings to the command and control assets we work with and shortly thereafter, were cleared to engage.
“At that point, we generated coordinates for the targets and dropped weapons. Each time we assessed the likely weapon effect and whether there would be any collateral damage implications.

“It was a precision attack from a significant altitude.

“To be honest, I was a little bit nervous but you just revert to the training you’ve done before. I’ve dropped a significant number of weapons from the Typhoon in training. It felt no different from that, only this time I was even more relieved to see the bomb go exactly where it should have done, in the Litening III image displayed in my cockpit.”

“We have proven that the jet can carry weapons a long distance, drop them accurately, land and get pumped full of fuel, reloaded with weapons and go and do it again, day in day out. That makes this capability enduring, and while it may seem like a milestone to some, it’s just a hurdle that had to be overcome at some point. It has been done, and we will drop more over the life of the aircraft. I think people are just pleased we’ve got the first one out of the way.”

It would appear that the Typhoon was using the data link (Link-16) in order to see the images from the Tornado's Litening pod?

TJ

draken55

17th Apr 2011, 17:44

Anyone seen the Sunday times today? Great opsec on where everyone is living.

Since the RAF deployed, it's been no secret that aircrew were staying in Hotel accomodation in Sicily. How can you breach security when none existed in the first place?:rolleyes:

I wonder what will happen when the tourist season starts! Perhaps Ian Allan will start organising some trips for spotters.:sad:

Daysleeper

17th Apr 2011, 18:52

Since the RAF deployed, it's been no secret that aircrew were staying in Hotel accomodation in Sicily.

I would say there is a bit of a difference between "a hotel in Sicily" (of which tripadvisor lists over 1,000) and the times providing everything apart from driving directions for the delivery driver of something nasty. There really is no point in making it easy for the enemy, or the Navy...

draken55

17th Apr 2011, 19:48

Best send out the Regiment to protect the aircrew then!;)

Off thread but note from the Press that Italy has given temporary residency to large numbers of Tunisian refugees who crossed the Med. That allowed them free travel within the EU especially within the Schengen Passport Free countries. As a result France has been stopping trains at it's border with Italy!

The main reason why Italy is against bombing the Colonel/Regime change is concern at the thought of refugees and that meantime he might just do a Castro and dump all his malcontents on them!

larssnowpharter

17th Apr 2011, 20:32

Quote:
Libya is well in range of hundreds of Tornado's stationed in UK, Germany and Italy, all with a variety of usefull weapons and forward bases to wipe out Khadaffi forces. Why use Typhoon interceptors?

More to the point, Libya is also in range for a fair number of Tornados stationed in KSA.

Clearedtoroll

17th Apr 2011, 21:07

The hotel has been public domain for a while. Sharkey Ward 'published' it on his blog last week. Ironically, it was possibly the only factually correct bit of information on there. In fact, thinking about it, it's probably the wrong hotel.

My favourite post of his was an FOI he sent to the MoD requesting information on an apparent proposal to absorb the Royal Marines, Paras and Gurkhas into the RAF. I sometimes wonder who winds who up the most...

Archimedes

17th Apr 2011, 22:21

Actually, there was such a proposal - but Sharkey Ward got the wrong end of the stick entirely...

Ward thought this a sign of the RAF's malign intent, when in fact the proposal came from Professor Eric Grove (made with his tongue planted firmly in cheek). This was part of Prof Grove's rejoinder to the idea that the RAF should be broken up and divided between the Army and RN.

Grove is not serious about this - his point is to suggest that the UK's security needs are very dependent upon air and maritime power, and less so on land power - so his case is very much a 'if you are doing to do something damned stupid, dividing the army between the RN and the RAF, while equally damned stupid, at least pays heed to the primary security and defence needs of the UK'. He put the proposal forward in a paper, an now contained in a book on SDSR, for RUSI.

What happened next, AIUI, is that a certain Air Marshal (Harrier mate, name rhymes with 'talker') learned of this suggestion, thought it amusing, and thatit might be good fun to wind up some Army types by putting Eric Grove's cunning wheeze forward as banter. Which, again AIUI, he did.

This, of course, ended up with someone in green thinking that this was the sign of an RAF plot to disband the army, and the news got to Cdr Ward. Credulous as ever when it came to something which could discredit the RAF, he believed it absolutely and put in the FOI request...

(It should be noted, of course, that although Prof Grove is critical of several elements of the light blue approach to things, he is an absolute advocate of the existence of the RAF as a separate service. He is also, of course, one of the nation's foremost maritime historians and an enormous fan of the RN, so hardly an ignorant dupe or a light blue stooge)

TEEEJ

19th Apr 2011, 11:47

To clarify the debate of Typhoon and designation pod.

http://www.abload.de/img/ellamy9061104160075outfxfs.jpg

A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/17DBF7AE_5056_A318_A88AFE1B2284D779/ellamy1_big.jpg

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/17F1D938_5056_A318_A84A0662A87DDAFD/ellamy2_big.jpg

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/183853F4_5056_A318_A8DB85D534789746/ellamy3_big.jpg

From page 2 of Typhoon and Tornado gallery.

RAF - Typhoon and Tornado (http://www.raf.mod.uk/gallery/TyphoonandTornado.cfm)

TJ

Easy Street

23rd Apr 2011, 20:10

One more Litening pod that the Tornado crews training for deployment to Afghanistan and Libya cannot use! Good job the Tornado sim can replicate the pod now I suppose.

ian176

23rd Apr 2011, 20:33

Unless things have changed recently the Typhoon pod isn't the same standard as the Tornado pod? Been a few years since I worked on LIII, so it might have changed?

Load Toad

24th Apr 2011, 00:28

The shame is that Europe without US help would be just like France in 1940....

Europe has not pulled its way in 100 years. The US bankrolled the Allies in WW1 and WW2 and post war.

Well the US spends a lot more money on its military & has a far far bigger military than any other country - so if you want to have the biggest military in the world it's not much of a surprise that when it comes to military action that they have to provide most of the cover. Other countries do things like pensions, health services & such. The US has another advantage so far - the US$'s status.

'Bankrolling' wasn't purely charity either - the US knew very well that financially supporting the allies would erode the empires of Europe to the USA's advantage.

As Britain found when it had an empire (the USA has an empire in all but name) - they are expensive to keep. In all ways.

SASless

24th Apr 2011, 10:50

Toad,

A bit of research....would prove FDR was determined to end European Empires "after" defeating the Germans and Japanese. Alas, he died before that happened and the message was lost on Truman. Otherwise the Vietnam War would have been between the French and the Vietnamese with us siding with the Home Team instead of what happened.

Load Toad

24th Apr 2011, 11:57

Then there was that tedious business with the Soviet Union of course.

A bit of research isn't the problem. A lot of research is.

outhouse

24th Apr 2011, 15:39

Hi SASless,
What you say may well be true, however as one who lives in France, has friends who had the unfortunate experience to serve in the army and were imprisoned in Vietnam and experienced the effects of the home coming after the event. To be paraded *through Paris as a defeated army and spat on by the population for degrading France. A similar experience in the US for returning vets less the parade through NY but still treated like ****, has the situation changed over the years for a unpopular military action, we will see.

SASless

24th Apr 2011, 18:11

Out,

I spent the best part of two years in Vietnam....I am not un-sympathetic to those who have served there....in fact just the opposite.

The way the Viet Minh....later the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese treated POW's was downright evil. Anyone who learns of Dien Bien Phu and how those captured there suffered in captivity would have much more respect for them.

Few people are aware French POW's (about 10,000) suffered a 50% death rate while in captivity.

One cannot stand at the hill tops at Dien Bien Phu and not grasp what a fight it must have been. The Dien Bien Phu battle rates with other decisive engagements that changed history.

outhouse

25th Apr 2011, 02:43

Thanks SAS, my feelings as well, even now they are not recognised and the names of the local dead are missing from the monument in the village.

hanoijane

25th Apr 2011, 02:53

By and large - and excluding periods of interrogation - the living standards of French and American prisoners of war were similar to those of a Vietnamese peasant

Given the general conduct of both the French and American military during their incursions into Viet Nam, they should consider themselves fortunate that 'surrender at discretion' was an option available to them.

Pontius Navigator

25th Apr 2011, 08:09

By and large - and excluding periods of interrogation - the living standards of French and American prisoners of war were similar to those of a Vietnamese peasant .

This was probably no different from the conditions experienced in the Korean war as well. Apparently the Turks had no problems with conditions in the camps that were similar or better than conditions at home.

SASless

25th Apr 2011, 10:18

Hanoi,

Explain what you mean by that comment please.

Pontius Navigator

25th Apr 2011, 11:19

SASless - MyLai?

hanoijane

25th Apr 2011, 11:27

Please, don't be so formal. Call me 'Jane'.

I assumed, incorrectly it appears, that as English is your native language you'd have little difficulty understanding my comments. But I'll try again...

By and large - and excluding periods of interrogation - the living standards of French and American prisoners of war were similar to those of a Vietnamese peasant

This means that captives were fed, housed and treated - interrogation excepted - no better or worse than the average agricultural worker in Viet Nam in the 60's. The life of a village worker was harsh then. It's still not easy now.

Given the general conduct of both the French and American military during their incursions into Viet Nam, they should consider themselves fortunate that 'surrender at discretion' was an option available to them.

This means that the targets and the weaponry selected to attack those targets were not well matched to the accomplishment of reasonable military objectives. Hence claiming the protection of the Geneva Convention after being shot down whilst randomly scattering napalm and cluster munitions over an impoverished peasantry may be considered somewhat... errr... overly-optimistic?

I feel that any country subject to invasion should be able to engage the invader under a flag of 'no quarter'. Sadly, my view did not prevail.

SASless

25th Apr 2011, 11:43

PN,

My Lai.....compared to Hue?

As you recall an Army Helicopter crew stopped the killing at My Lai.

The NVA quit killing at Hue when they ran out of victims on their list. (3000+)

I might throw the Bomber Command Area Bombing at you as well.

Kill a few....it is an Atrocity.....Kill Tens of Thousands and it is simply War!

All that being said.....War is an ugly thing. Always has been...always will.

Jane,

As English is my second language....American being my first....When ever did the American forces ever invade North Vietnam?

We can argue semantics all day long....and your comment about "except for periods of interrogation" is absolute horse ****! Read any of the accounts of the POW's and tell me about how "lenient" the treatment was. I suggest you read Jeremiah Denton's book...."When Hell Was In Session"....not that it would do a lot of good I fear.

Ever been to Hoa Lo Prison and had a look at the cells there? Did you ask to see the Knobby Room, or the Meat Hook room? Ever ask the Tour Guides about how they treated POW's?

There is a photo of an Air Force Pilot named Norm Gaddis....as he was being captured on display there. The local folks were surprised when I told them I knew the Man. They really got uneasy when I began to describe to them what happened to Norm in that lovely place.

For some of us this isn't an on-line way to show our stupidity....real people suffered terribly on both sides. Don't trivialize that by your silly assed comments.

hanoijane

25th Apr 2011, 12:13

Tell me, do you drink a lot of beer?

outhouse

25th Apr 2011, 12:36

First I will apologise for what was in essence thread drift, and the ensuring discussion.*
However my point was regarding the reference to the Vietnam conflict and the similarity of the troops involved in the ME area of conflict, by definition war or armed conflict is defined as achieving political aims by force. Politicians fail and the military is left to sort the situation without clear and concise rules, restricted actions and in some cases without the Tools to do the job.

I will finish by relating the discussion I had with a French friend who farmed next to my cottage.*

It was a bright summer evening the view over the fields and woods as the sun set was typical for the area. We sat drinking a couple of bottles of the local red and he started to talk about his experiences as a young man who was drafted into the army and sent off to Vietnam to support the French colonial needs. His part in the battle and the fighting and his feelings of complete desperation and knowing that they had no chance of success. The time came after all food, medical needs and ammunition was exhausted and capitulation *was decided, the lowering of the flag and The march into captivity the ensuing torture and conditions beyond my belief lead to the eventual release, less than 40% of the original prisoners went home the crap reception in France and the ensuing lack of recognition or acceptance by the government of France. I listened to him and we both had tiers in our eyes, in fact I do now as I write this.*
He died last year and I was proud to attend the funeral and join friends and family in remembering a brave old man and a true hero.

*Sorry again and back the thread.

con-pilot

25th Apr 2011, 17:01

By and large - and excluding periods of interrogation - the living standards of French and American prisoners of war were similar to those of a Vietnamese peasant

So 50 to 60 percent of Vietnamese peasants died, due to their standard of living.

Interesting.

Load Toad

25th Apr 2011, 20:35

Peasant infant mortality alone <5 years would be about 15% in peacetime.
Life expectancy in VN in mid 1960's was about 45 years.
USA was about 73 (now about 78 and VN now about 73).

So yes life was a bit tougher in Vietnam then compared to the developed world.

Afghanistan life expectancy now is about 44 yrs.

Easy Street

25th Apr 2011, 21:25

The only 'Nam with direct relevance to current events in Libya is Chelten'nam - as that's where a significant number of 2 Gp personnel drive home to after their theatre rotation. Enough of the "you weren't there, man", already!

hanoijane

26th Apr 2011, 00:09

The fact that neither you nor your military planners seem able to see the parallels between your actions in Libya and those of the French and Americans in Viet Nam seems almost beyond belief.

I have nothing against Americans per se. Today they are welcomed as visitors and treated with respect. And they were treated with the respect they deserved during the American War. Get over it.

TEEEJ

26th Apr 2011, 01:33

Italy to join attacks on Libya

Italy to join attacks on Libya - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/26/3200336.htm?section=world)

Italian air force jets will be able to join NATO's attack on military targets in Libya, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has announced.

Italy had previously said it would not take part in the NATO-led air strikes because of its 40-year colonial rule over the country.

TJ

M609

26th Apr 2011, 15:39

Confirms Norwegian bombs on Tripoli - Gaddafi's headquarters bombed to ruins (http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Flibya%2Farti kkel.php%3Fartid%3D10084776)

The Norwegian Socialist Left Party (part of the coalition government) are freaking out at present. They did not (apparently) understand how much the F-16 detachment would get involved in the air-ground campaign, and want to back out of the deal.
It’s the same party that gave the F-16s deployed to Kabul in 2006 so strict ROE as to make them virtually useless. (And then blocked all subsequent deployments to Afg.)
Great entertainment for me that, well......did not vote for them! ;)

Robert Cooper

26th Apr 2011, 18:46

It appears Obama has approved the use of armed Predators inn Libya.

Bob C

NutLoose

27th Apr 2011, 11:57

As this little exercise was only going to run a few months, but with William Vague now saying it is a long term thing ( Go Figure, as if we couldn't have seen that one coming!)

What will be the fate of the Grimrod R1 whose retirement was delayed for a couple of months whilst one dealt with Gadaffi, but one assumes it will still have a role to play until the replacement comes on line now? Is it getting re-extended?

TBM-Legend

27th Apr 2011, 12:58

UAE machine bent in off runway exercise...

Mike7777777

27th Apr 2011, 19:10

Re: thread creep. With the benefit of hindsight, history shows that - in war - the only way to deal effectively with the opposition is to use overwhelming firepower. If the ROE place restrictions on operations then irregular opposition operates at a level below which overwhelming firepower is engaged.

For Vietnam, the US could have blockaded the opposition at any time.

For the current conflict in Libya, a blockade of supplies to the Gaddafi forces in Misratah will defeat the Gaddafi forces.

outhouse

27th Apr 2011, 19:36

Thanks mike7*++
if you want to win you beat the living sh*t out of the opposition. Great stuff if you are the one having to dooo, unfortunately politics *tend to cloud the issue and bugger the master plan. I guess things have not changed over the last 45 years since I was given an impossible task and seemingly failed.:uhoh:

Mike7777777

27th Apr 2011, 21:09

Perhaps the key, recurring issue is that there is no coherent political master plan? With a few notable exceptions, the politicians tend make it up as they go along.

hanoijane

28th Apr 2011, 02:29

...the only way to deal effectively with the opposition is to use overwhelming firepower...

Mike, you weren't the Major who spoke with Peter Arnett at Ben Tre in '68 were you? He of the infamous, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it'?

Perhaps the key, recurring issue is that there is no coherent political master plan

Perhaps the key issue is that you have no business being there in the first place.

Gulfstreamaviator

28th Apr 2011, 03:21

The local news papers here in UAE report that a UAE F16 crashed on landing in Italy, on return from Lybia.

The crash as due to bad weather in Italy, the pilot ejected, and the aircraft was slightly damaged.

Q1) How long has UAE been inforcing the resolution.

Q2) Why eject from a servicable aircraft.

Glf

Mr Grim

28th Apr 2011, 06:47

Q1 - Don't know.
Q2 - Because you think you are about to die.

Mike7777777

28th Apr 2011, 11:43

Mike, you weren't the Major who spoke with Peter Arnett at Ben Tre in '68 were you? He of the infamous, "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it'? No

Perhaps the key issue is that you have no business being there in the first place. If that's aimed at the United States, I'm sure many Americans would prefer to have no dealings with the rest of the world. The problem is that, historically, the rest of the world won't leave them alone (WW1, WW2), so - in the real world - better to get involved at an early stage and deal effectively with the problems at a distance.

omaaa

30th Apr 2011, 20:07

Question on Libyan airlines, as a Libyan from Benghazi I have spoken with the pilots etc, it is %100 that they will turn all Afriqiyah to Libyan airlines however I believe we have an airbus or 2 in France ready for delivery obviously with the current situation there is noway they will be delivered but I was wondering how easy will it be to just transfer these planes to the NTC in Benghazi when the NFZ and G is gone, or will they be repainted and delivered to another operator

Pontius Navigator

30th Apr 2011, 20:14

omaaa, it depends if they have been paid for. Also if paid for by the Tripoli company they will have ownership and legal claim to the title even if the aircraft are not released to them.

omaaa

30th Apr 2011, 20:19

Libyan and Afriqiyah are both owned by the Libyan Afriqiyah holding company which is a gaddafi owned company like much of the country's businesses. I believe there is now a UN sanction on Afriqiyah. If they have been paid for can this be given to the new government? as well as the existing fleet which is in Tripoli airport?

MAINJAFAD

30th Apr 2011, 23:01

Libyian Goverment confirms Gaddafi's youngest son killed in NATO airstrike. Link (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Gaddafis-Son-Saif-Al-Arab-Gaddafi-Killed-In-Nato-Air-Strike/Article/201104415983094?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Re gion_0&lid=ARTICLE_15983094_Libya%3A_Gaddafis_Son_Saif_Al-Arab_Gaddafi_Killed_In_Nato_Air_Strike)

omaaa

1st May 2011, 12:44

As Libyans we very much doubt the killing of his son, he claimed his daughter Hana was killed by the US in the 80s, Hana attends Fatah uni everybody in Tripoli knows this, it may just be a ploy to reduce NATO strikes while the world discusses NATO's intentions. God knows best

BOAC

1st May 2011, 14:20

As maybe, omaaa, but in the war of propaganda Col G is running rings around our amateurs.

Shack37

1st May 2011, 14:30

As maybe, omaaa, but in the war of propaganda Col G is running rings around our amateurs.

Very true BOAC, he who lies best, wins

glad rag

1st May 2011, 14:42

Very true BOAC, he who lies best, wins

Very true indeed. ;)

ALM In Waiting

2nd May 2011, 08:35

Tom Coghlan Defence Correspondent
Last updated May 2 2011 12:00AM
British pilots flying combat missions over Libya will not receive the pay bonus for dangerous duties given to their colleagues in Afghanistan.
The Times understands that personnel were surprised and disappointed by the decision, not least because operations over Libya are seen as more dangerous for aircrew than those in theatres where the allowance is being paid.
The money was given in Iraq and is being paid in Afghanistan, according to a defence source. “It is a combination of danger money and recognition of service overseas,” the source said. “This is not the be-all and end-all but I’d love to know the justification for not paying it. It is disappointing and angers me because it seems to imply that [this] is not operational flying. The threat level is higher than in Afghanistan.”
Personnel flying Typhoon and Tornado jets on operations to enforce UN Resolution 1973, which authorises the use of force to protect civilians in Libya, have destroyed dozens of tanks, other armoured vehicles and artillery pieces used by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi since March 19.
In response, the Gaddafi Government has put up barrages of anti-aircraft artillery. The regime also possesses more than 216 surface-to-air missiles — possibly as many as 400. These include a long-range Soviet missile system, known to Nato as the SA-5A Gammon, which can shoot down aircraft at up to 150km range.The revelation follows a day of intense military and diplomatic activity in which:
- Libya claimed that a Nato airstrike on Colonel Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound had killed his youngest son and three grandchildren;
- Pro-Gaddafi mobs set fire to the UK and Italian diplomatic missions in Tripoli and the United Nations announced it was recalling its staff;
- Britain expelled Libya’s ambassador to London;
- Libyan government troops shelled the besieged port of Misrata as an aid ship attempted to unload food and medical supplies.
Personnel serving on Operation Herrick (Afghanistan), Operation Telic (Iraq) and Combined Task Force Iraqi Maritime (naval operations in the Gulf) all qualified for the extra “operational allowance”, as did personnel in the Balkans peacekeeping operations until 2007.
The allowance was increased from £14.51 a day to £29.02 for personnel in Afghanistan by David Cameron last June. This followed complaints that US troops received tax-free pay on operations and that Canadian, French and Australian forces all have bonus schemes for operational tours overseas. For personnel on a six-month tour it meant a tax-free £5,280.88 windfall on their return.
At the time Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, said: “I am delighted that we have doubled the operational allowance for those of our troops who are engaged in the very highest areas of conflict. In doing so we have fulfilled a key commitment set out in our coalition Programme for Government.”
In a further effort to achieve deep cuts in defence spending, the Ministry of Defence has declared service personnel supporting the operation over Libya from Italy to be living in “field accommodation”. This means they do not qualify for allowances usually paid to those abroad, such as subsistence payments, saving the MoD about £600 a month per person.
Field deployment usually means that they are being fully catered for and living under canvas. However, the personnel are being put up in hotels near the Italian base of Gioia Del Colle.
When approached by The Times, the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the operational allowance was not being paid. An MoD statement said: “Operational allowance is paid to those service personnel on operations where they are working at high risk over a sustained period.”
However, it added that the policy could be changed if the risk was reassessed by Permanent Joint Headquarters. “The risk to those deployed on operations in Libya is kept constantly under review by PJHQ and, if it is judged appropriate, operational allowance will be paid.”

Wander00

2nd May 2011, 09:09

This has to be a joke, but sadly it is not. The decion makers should hang their heads in shame.

high spirits

2nd May 2011, 10:26

I wouldn't say the threat level is higher than in AFG. It depends how 'down in the weeds' you go. The FJ mates should get Op allowance though.

FODPlod

2nd May 2011, 13:27

The MoD statement said: “Operational allowance is paid to those service personnel on operations where they are working at high risk over a sustained period.”

I therefore support the payment of the £29 per day operational allowance to all aircrew committed to a 6-month tour flying over Libya but not to anyone whose most hostile confrontation is liable to be with the hotel concierge after closing time. This also applies to the £5.3k 'windfall' bonus currently awarded on completion of a 6-month tour in Afghanistan/Iraq. However, I believe the allowance and bonus have previously been paid to everyone serving in theatre so would such a distinction in this case be seen as divisive? (And that's before we broach the subject of qualification for campaign medals!)

Deployed personnel are supposedly in 'field accommodation' yet being fed and watered in comfortable hotels and on base at considerable expense to the public purse already. This is just like in any mess back in the UK but without having to pay 'subs' so can an additional bill be justified for local overseas allowance (LOA)? After all, everyone is supposedly busy performing war work, not on extended local leave. I'm assuming they already have the benefits of free phone calls, internet access, postal facilities, etc?

Pontius Navigator

2nd May 2011, 16:12

The operational allowance was a welcome, if knee jerk reaction, benefit for those serving in inhospitable locations. It was clearly not thought through and introduced without thought for future operations etc.

Now, with money scarce, a similar thoughtless decision has been made.

Chris Griffin

2nd May 2011, 16:26

FODPlod

2nd May 2011, 17:30

FODplod,

you assume a great deal and are quite clearly uninformed. From personal experience as someone on the airborne periphery I know the FJ mates deserve every penny Op Allowance would bring. A lot of utterly pathetic penny pinching is going on. I'm sure more examples will follow.

Are you this rude towards all new posters?

If you read my post again, I said "I therefore support the payment of the £29 per day operational allowance to all aircrew..." i.a.w. the same rules governing the precedent set for Afghanistan but I can't see why it should apply to non-aircrew who never leave the base in Italy.

Easy Street

2nd May 2011, 17:40

There is definitely a precedent for receiving the Op Allowance when operating from a 'safe' location. All aircrew on Op TELIC received Op Allowance on a per-day basis each time they crossed into theatre. Only one claim per day was allowed - ie multiple sorties didn't get you any 'extra'. If you were over Iraq at midnight local - lucky you - you got 2 days'-worth. Furthermore, if your days claimed exceeded 50% of your total deployment, you got Op Allowance for its entire duration.

The engineers didn't appear to mind this differential so much; it was their ineligibility for a TELIC medal that miffed them.

Given the probability of roving SA-6 and SA-8 being available to the Colonel's forces, I would say that it's an outrage that the Op Allowance has been denied.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

2nd May 2011, 18:29

The risk of having to eject over Gadaffi's forces, whether due to enemy action or mechanical failure, is well worthy of Op Allowance in my opinion. Given we've just taken out #3 son & 3 grandkiddies, I shouldn't think The People's Guide is going to come over all 'Geneva Convention'.

I'd have expected better from CinC Air and DCinC Ops, both of whom I've served with.

Off Hot

2nd May 2011, 19:21

'All aircrew'

Including AWACS and tankers who will not be flying within range of AD systems??

Debate...

bakseetblatherer

2nd May 2011, 19:33

I don't remember any extra money in Telic, we certainly didn't track time over Iraq in anything but our log books. First I've heard of this, hope the Libya guys do get it.

Easy Street

2nd May 2011, 19:46

basketblatherer,

You may not have got op allowance on TELIC if you served there before the allowance was introduced. I definitely got it on the last 2 times I went there, in 2007 and 2008.

bakseetblatherer

2nd May 2011, 21:06

Ah too old, I was there at the start. Anyway the guys in Libya should get it IMO. It is ridiculous parsing the 'risk' like that.

Lonewolf_50

2nd May 2011, 21:24

hanoijane:
The fact that neither you nor your military planners seem able to see the parallels between your actions in Libya and those of the French and Americans in Viet Nam seems almost beyond belief.

That you see a close parallel tells us a great deal about you, and what you don't know, or more likely, refuse to see.
I have nothing against Americans per se. Today they are welcomed as visitors and treated with respect. And they were treated with the respect they deserved during the American War.
Not quite. This statement tells us a lot about you, none of it complimentary to your morals, culture, and your ethics.

Get over yourself, jane.

All that sniping aside, this adventure in Libya remains of dubious objective. If you look at the UNSC resolution underlying the political justification/support for it, it's rather vague and somewhat open ended.

What, quite frankly, is the envisioned end state?

To end the civil war/uprising/rebellion?
What is being done by outsiders is prolonging the civil war.
To facilitate a partition of the country?
That isn't the mandate.
To overthrow the Ghadaffi regime?
If that's the objective, it's being done all half arsed, at best, and it isn't the mandate ... though that seems to be the subtext ...

One doesn't protect civilians by prolonguing a civil war, but the first is what the UN mandate is intended to do, and the second what the NATO operation is doing.

It's a mess, but a quite different sort of mess than the Viet Nam mess was.

Not all messes are equal, jane, there are an infinite variety of messes to be had, found, made, and caused.

What a piece of work is man ... :E

hanoijane

3rd May 2011, 05:02

Oh, Lonewolf, I'm so over myself I think I'm ready to fall in love with myself again second time around :)

Your argument - that there aren't a number of striking parallels between the current situation in Libya and early 60's Viet Nam - seems to be at variance with a fair number of informed observers of the conflict. Try googling 'Libya+new+Vietnam' if you'd like confirmation. Of course, you could be correct and everyone else wrong...

As for your final sentence, I consider the clumsy use of quotes to be the last refuge of the inarticulate. But if we're headed down this route, may I offer in reply something the late Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu came to understand all too well;

"Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies"

Mike7777777

7th May 2011, 08:32

"Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies"
I doubt if the majority of the inhabitants of Western Europe would agree with that. No US involvement in WW2 = Red Army tanks reach Calais, no US involvement in Europe 1945 to 1989 = Red Army tanks reach Calais.

Pontius Navigator

7th May 2011, 08:40

I doubt if the majority of the inhabitants of Western Europe would agree with that. No US involvement in WW2 = Red Army tanks reach Calais, no US involvement in Europe 1945 to 1989 = Red Army tanks reach Calais.

Mike, your logic is flawed.

No US involvement = Ja vol Mein Herr.

No convoys to Russia, no military aid to Russia, no B29s so they could build the Bull, no German submarines to copy, no German scientists to develop US/USSR missiles etc etc.

draken55

7th May 2011, 16:17

Back on thread. To-day's news is not encouraging.:uhoh:

Gaddafi destroys Misrata rebels' fuel supply in air raid | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/07/gaddafi-destroys-misrata-rebels-fuel)

SRENNAPS

7th May 2011, 18:47

This also applies to the £5.3k 'windfall' bonus currently awarded on completion of a 6-month tour in Afghanistan/Iraq.

Please could somebody tell me what this is?

Pontius Navigator

7th May 2011, 19:28

Please could somebody tell me what this is?

I think it is one and the same thing:

the pay bonus for dangerous duties given to their colleagues in Afghanistan

As for pilots getting danger money, I was not aware that there was a payment of danger money in AFG, more a question of a hardship bonus for the adruous nature of campaigning there. As I said before, it looks like the AFG operational money was a Government knee-jerk reaction by the last Government (same deal with compensation tariffs) without it being fully thought through.

Uncle Ginsters

8th May 2011, 08:49

Op Allowance or not, it seems to me that current ELLAMY deployments are causing more hardship than most HERRICK OOAs.

The lack of planning means that our already busy guys and gals that have just seen scything cuts across many areas are now off on a 4-monther with about a week's notice - that must surely count as a 'hardship' in some respect. Many of them still face HERRICK and MPA dets (for Typhoon and VC10) on their return:confused:

Op Allowance itself is clearly defined as being for those in harm's way by its geographical limits (Afghanistan and Iraq, AFAIK). The last threat matrix I saw didn't exactly show Gadaffi inviting us round for coffee:sad:

Another slap in the face from the decision-making bean-counters.....

Thelma Viaduct

8th May 2011, 09:24

"We continue to degrade and destroy a range of military assets including tanks, armoured personnel carriers and rocket launchers that threaten the civilian population." does this mean with another 10 years of bombing they will be able to launch a missile attack on the UK in 45 mins??? And why oh why do the military fall for the government BS time and time again, to the point where they genuinely believe what they're told???

SaddamsLoveChild

9th May 2011, 11:38

Op Allowance should only apply to those crews in harms way not the pizza eating support staffs who stand more chance of being run over than killed by enemy action, hotels are hardly a hardship are they. Lets face it 4 months in Italy or Herrick I know where I would rather go. You cant have your cake and eat it but then I guess some just want everything. Next they will be wanting a medal for service in FI and the Op allowance. This time in my view the bean counters got it right. I'll get my hat.

Dengue_Dude

9th May 2011, 11:42

When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it was all over . . . and the government and the rebels were all friends again.

Apparently, I've been misled.

sycamore

9th May 2011, 15:39

Did anyone manage to `kill` the bombers of Misrata,or would that be too difficult....shades of the Tamil Tigers air force..!

outhouse

9th May 2011, 16:35

Just viewing Sky news and it seems that a let's get out of the conflict is gaining ground. Re my past posts regarding the less than committed response from NATO and the political controls, the main supporters may find them selves stuffed and limited on what they can do. How history repeats it's self is amassing. :sad:

Lonewolf_50

9th May 2011, 19:50

hanoijane:

We will disagree on the degree and or kind of similarity, and I'll let it go at that. :ok: I'm sure you'll be having your laundry done by Dau Tranh Enterprises in the meantime. :E By the way, I don't need your Google-fu to arrive at an informed opinion. Thanks for the offer.

Your charges of "inarticulate" are not supported by any evidence. :p

The unanswered questions remain:

1) If the Mad Colonel is not killed by "a strike on a Command and Control node" before the general intercession by the outsiders ends, which it eventually will, then what? (Or as Lenin might have asked, chto delat?)

2) If the Mad Colonel is struck by a weapon "intended to protect civilians," and rendered out of the game, then what?

Will the Arab League and the UN" (and anyone else for that matter) do something useful for the future of Libya, or will the Yugoslavia model of national "reorganization" along tribal and factional lines once again play out? I think it will, with yet another call to "do something" echoing in the halls on the East River, albeit this time as a call ignored.

3) If The Mad Colonel leaves town ... that's the one course of action that I see having no chance of unfolding.

If I were a Libyan rebel or dissident, I'd want to have some idea at how the first two questions are to be answered by those with power. This lovely (Brave New) globalized world doesn't seem to let much of anyone alone.

You can wish it were otherwise, but events seem to keep marching forward. There is no golden yesteryear to march back to.

Flash2001

9th May 2011, 20:55

I read, a good 2 months before the unpleasantness started, that the good colonel did not occupy an official position in the Government of Libya. Any one know?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!

Thelma Viaduct

9th May 2011, 21:16

It was blatantly obvious that this would become a stalemate, as per early posts on here.

So if it's blatantly obvious to knobbers on t'inters, why couldn't the experts in the 'govern'ment and military see it ?

hanoijane

10th May 2011, 03:48

I have my laundry done at the Hyatt, thank you. They're very good.

Hypothetical questions are just that; hypothetical. And, as such, they're unworthy of a response. I might just as well ask;

What happens if the Colonel is bathing in the sea and is swallowed by a giant whale and the whale regurgitates him in San Francisco near the Castro where he forms a revolutionary wing of gay and lesbian Hispanics who then proceed to march on Washington eating babies on the way?"

See? It's pointless even to think about offering a response. Though feel free...

Live with what's happening, which is that the West is looking increasingly impotent and silly in Libya. Go home. Try to control your meddling tendencies and occupy yourselves with your own problems. God knows you have enough to keep you busy for a while.

C'mon, Lonewolf, admit it. You need a hug.

Pontius Navigator

10th May 2011, 06:19

jane, your counter hypothetical suggestion is preposterous. Realistic hypothetical questions are not. While politicians refuse to be drawn on hypotheticals during interviews it is solely because the questions can be used as a trap.

Hypotheticals are the would basis of foreign policy. For instance UK pays out aid month to country X in the expectation that country X will be favourable to them in the future. The hypothetical case is if I pay danegeld they will be good to me.

You would be right however to say hypotheticals are frequently wrong. Bin Laden was in a friendly country. Country X frequently misappropriates the 'gifts' and used them against its benefactor - Vientianne,

hanoijane

10th May 2011, 06:53

Realistic hypotheticals???

I think you should assign a probability to the aforementioned hypotheticals so that I can ascertain whether they're worth responding or not. May I suggest a probability of less than .3 renders the hypothetical unworthy of my response?

Assign your probabilities. And show your workings, please.

And what were you going to write about Vientianne (sic)? Be careful, I've lived there recently and if you say bad things about my Lao brothers and sisters I shall bite your ankles. Both of them.

Pontius Navigator

10th May 2011, 08:50

Jane, good point about assigning probabilties. That of course is done, we hope, when our Government carries out its defence reviews.

And Vientiane?

The US flew weapons into French Indo China to overthrow the Vichy French and Japanese. While some were possibly used for their intended purpose Giap also held quantities back for the struggle he knew was to come when the French tried to reimpose European colonial rule.

Lonewolf_50

10th May 2011, 16:30

I have my laundry done at the Hyatt, thank you.

May the starch never chaffe. :ok:
And, as such, they're unworthy of a response. Yet you offered a silly one. :8 OK.

You might go back and read the "what if's" as you will see that my questions were directly related to what is happening. Givenhow things have played out to date, each course of action lies within the realm of the probable, as well as the possible. If the "let 'em play" policy had been adopted, quite possibly a sound policy, see German response, then there'd be a complaint that "something isn't being done about that Mad Colonel!"

There's no pleasing everyone.
Live with what's happening, which is that the West is looking increasingly impotent and silly in Libya.
Indeed, silly, though hardly impotent.
Problem is, too many of "the West" involved in the op aren't willing to admit that what they really intend to do is take the Mad Colonel out ... but have for reasons as silly as your response hypothetical, chosen to use bizarre rhetorical fig leaves, up there on the East River, to justify doing that without doing that. I suspect that the Ministry of Silly Walks lies adjacent to the Ministry of Silly Political Rhetoric, and wonder if that sketch wasn't meant as a metaphor ...
Go home. Try to control your meddling tendencies and occupy yourselves with your own problems. God knows you have enough to keep you busy for a while.
You talkin' to me? :confused: Funny, I don't recall having been the decision maker calling in the great French cum NATO cum Western Libyan Liberation Mission ... you seem to have mistaken me for somebody else.
C'mon, Lonewolf, admit it. You need a hug.
C'mon, jane dear, admit it, you need a clue. :E

hanoijane

11th May 2011, 04:33

Lonewolf, you say the sweetest things.

Next time you're in Viet Nam we must get together. Perhaps a round at the course up in Da Lat? You could explain the workings of the world to me. Then I'd have a clue.

:)

Lonewolf_50

11th May 2011, 17:01

Who knows, Jane, if I'll ever get over to that part of the world again. If I do, might just take you up on that great idea.

TEEEJ

12th May 2011, 21:49

HMS Liverpool in action.

British destroyer forced to defend itself after being targeted by Libyan rockets | British Forces News (http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/british-destroyer-forced-defend-itself-after-being-targeted-libyan-rockets-47526.html)

Libyan forces fire on HMS Liverpool - East Hampshire - The News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/libyan_forces_fire_on_hms_liverpool_1_2673493)

HMCS Charlottetown

Canadian warship opens fire on Libyan forces (http://www.globalnational.com/Canadian+warship+opens+fire+Libyan+forces/4773947/story.html)

FNS Courbet

French frigate FNS Courbet has been targeting Gaddafi forces near Misrata during the night of 7th and 8th May.

Mer et Marine : Toute l'actualité maritime (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=116145)

TJ