Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".

[Fire 'n' Forget]

Wine and cheese, that's how to get a stupid thread interesting and relevant. More interesting than WEBF trying to insinuate that 12 RN TLAMS changed the conflict.

[lj101]

More interesting than WEBF trying to insinuate that 12 RN TLAMS changed the conflict

In your opinion perhaps.

I admire WEBF as he is NEVER nasty to any of you who give him a hard time. Why read the thread if you are fed up with it?

Go and bully some one else for a change.

[downsizer]

So 12 TLAMs did change the conflict? Are you claiming that to be true?

[cazatou]

Do the Rules allow you to chastise other Posters when you only have 55 posts to your name?

WEBF has 1950 posts to his name but there are probably less than 200 original Posts as the vast majority of his posts appear to be "Cut & Paste" extracts from what he has posted before.

[lj101]

So 12 TLAMs did change the conflict? Are you claiming that to be true?

No, I am not.

Let me simplify for you.

I don't find posts about French cheese and wine more interesting than WEBF's posts.

Do the Rules allow you to chastise other Posters when you only have 55 posts to your name?

I have no idea Caz. Grow up.

[cazatou]

I can't "grow up" - I'm an OAP!!

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by downsizer

So 12 TLAMs did change the conflict? Are you claiming that to be true?

Why would WEBF claim that? I'm sure that 12 (or however many) TLAMS didn't change the conflict any more than 'x' Storm Shadows launched from outside Libyan airspace by Tornados flying eight-hour 5,000 mile round trips from RAF Marham (with their attendant tankers) but at least the SSN was able to stick around doing other useful things in between.

Originally Posted by Occasional Aviator

On your second point and IMHO, OCEA and AH were sent to the Libyan operation (after land-based air power had dealt with any possible naval threat) as a political token gesture and in a desperate attempt to get the RN and Army involved after it became clear that NGS wasn't going to make any difference either...

AH might not have been as effective as Harriers but they were better than nothing. In other forums, I was advocating their deployment on board HMS Ocean right from the beginning. Most of the activity was occurring within 3-5 km of the sea and they could have prevented Gadaffi's forces from using the coastal highway with such impunity. Remember all the to-ing and fro-ing between Tripoli, Misurata, Ras Lanuf, Ajdabiya, etc? By the time the UK and French AH arrived, most of Gadaffi's forces had left Tripoli and entrenched themselves in other population centres, mainly strung along the coast. Think how many civilian lives could have been saved and how much misery could have been avoided if those movements had been nipped in the bud.

[Occasional Aviator]

AH might not have been as effective as Harriers but they were better than nothing.

Granted, but they were IMHO no more effective in tactical terms than another pair of jets at Gioia would have been.

In other forums, I was advocating their deployment on board HMS Ocean right from the beginning. Most of the activity was occurring within 3-5 km of the sea ...

Er, no, actually. I wouldn't say most. Depends, of course, what you mean by 'activity'.

... and they could have prevented Gadaffi's forces from using the coastal highway with such impunity. Remember all the to-ing and fro-ing between Tripoli, Misurata, Ras Lanuf, Ajdabiya, etc?

So I take it you believe that 2 AH could have stopped movement over something like 900NM of coast? And what makes you think they might have been any better than jets? Did you notice any difference at all in the PGF ability to manoeuvre after AH was deployed? No, nor did I. In any case, the trick was not striking the movement, it was detecting and identifying it over that vast area, and once you've done that, getting someone there to deal with it. Call me bluff and old-fashioned, but I believe a pair of 540kn jets just off a tanker might be able to cover a larger area in an hour than a pair of 110kn helicopters. There are other problems with this line of argument but I'm not going to go into them in an unclas forum.

By the time the UK and French AH arrived, most of Gadaffi's forces had left Tripoli and entrenched themselves in other locations, mainly strung along the coast.

Clearly we were looking at vastly different int pictures. I could also say "By the time the UK and French AH arrived, Gadaffi's forces had been beaten back from the centre of Misrata to outside artillery range, and were no longer posing a threat to Benghazi". In any case, if they were "mainly strung along the coast", then why didn't AH make mincemeat of them if it was such a game-changer?

I'll reiterate that I don't want to take anything away from the AAC guys who did an excellent job at great risk. However, to suggest that AH was a game changer, or that it would have been had it only been deployed earlier when Gadaffi's forces were in better shape, is disingenuous. I think the Telegraph pointed out that AH had a massive effect in the Gulf war, "when the US deployed 238 of them". Do you think that deploying one-fortieth the number over about five times the frontage was likely to have the same effect?

[Occasional Aviator]

And for WEBF:

Why would the Army feel a political need to be involved, with Afghanistan going on?

OK, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. When I said 'a political token gesture', I meant a token gesture by the politicians because things weren't showing immediate results and to look like we were ratcheting up the pressure. It certainly wasn't as a result of any request from NATO (and remember, this was a NATO operation). I can't answer as to why the Army would want to get involved other than to say that as military people, we all want to feel we're contributing - and perhaps it would have been too much to stomach a successful military campaign fought almost entirely from the air.

As for the RN, it was involved from the start with TLAM strikes, maritime interdiction operations, minehunting, and then NGS against targets of opportunity. NATO had the naval forces of the Gaddafi regime bottled up in port, and would have made short work of them had they put to sea.

Yes, the RN fired something like 4 of the initial 112 TLAMs and contributed to the embargo operation. I also have to say I thought Brocklesby did a fantastic job on all fronts. 'NGS against targets of opportunity' is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration - can you provide an example of anything hit by NGS in this conflict? Anyone?....[sound of tumbleweed]. If we should ever meet for a beer I will be glad to give you the full story about Gadaffi's naval forces, but I think that even you must agree that they were basically destroyed by air power.

So why was Ocean deployed as an Apache strike platform? Did the politicians perceive a need to have a means to strike land targets promptly?

I'm afraid this betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about how air power is employed. The AH were not waiting to be scrambled from deck alert to engage targets of opportunity. Nor, for that matter were Rafales from CDG or AV8s from GARIBALDI, so I can't see how you think a handful of Harriers on a CVS would have been any different - the fastest response will always be from an airborne jet, do the maths. No-one at the CAOC was saying "thank goodness, now we have something that can get there quickly" when OCEA finally steamed slowly into one part of the enormous JOA with its couple of slow helicopters.

If I understand where you're coming from, you are saying that this NATO force would have been more effective if we had had a CVS with harriers deployed. But we already had lots of carrier air in the task force, notably the French who were flying a greater number of much more advanced aircraft than Harrier, carrying more ordnance than Harrier could, with more liberal ROE than the UK had. If nobody can put a conclusive case together that these aircraft made a big difference (and believe me, I have seen the OA data and it isn't showing that), how would Harrier have helped?

[FODPlod]

Where was most of the activity between Gadaffi's forces and the rebels occurring during the initial stages? A picture speaks a thousand words:

See more on the BBC website here: Libya crisis in maps: Day by day

[Occasional Aviator]

My pictures came from the ISRD, not the BBC website. 'nuff said.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Occasional Aviator

My pictures came from the ISRD, not the BBC website. 'nuff said.

Hmmm.

[Occasional Aviator]

OK, perhaps we disagree on a point of context. However.... even assuming that the BBC were showing the whole story, it's still difficult to see how AH would have made a difference.

In any case, it's late and I'm off to bed. No point in trying to change entrenched views at this hour.

By the way, PGF in my earlier post stood for pro-Gaddaffi forces. The term is in common parlance among those actually involved in this operation, but I thought I might have to explain it to you.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by Occasional Aviator

...By the way, PGF in my earlier post stood for pro-Gaddaffi forces. The term is in common parlance among those actually involved in this operation, but I thought I might have to explain it to you...

Thank you. Would you like me to return the compliment by explaining the meaning of CDF to you?

[Occasional Aviator]

Apologies FOD, I was tired after a long day and that was probably uncalled for.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Navy News is reporting that Ocean soon be back on station. At the time of the SDSR (and the decision between her and Illustrious) there was much speculation about her condition. Perhaps mechanical problems explain the time she spent away from the action?

I still maintain that Harrier would be more effective than Apache, with greater speed, range, and weapon load.

I also note the number of news stories relating to Yemen. This situation was not predicted by the SDSR either, but it is one to watch. Somewhere else where shipborne aviation would be very useful.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Useful but not essential?

Canberra PR9s and Nimrods may be useful too but hey, they've gone now and no amount of bleating will bring them back.

[lj101]

Useful but not essential?

Helpful stacker

Which country(s) surrounding Yemen do you think would be on side to let 'us' overfly, to bomb Yemen, from lets say Cyprus?

[downsizer]

Saudi might allow basing. They aren't a fan of AQiAP.

[Wrathmonk]

Why does it have to be us (the UK) that gets involved? If we haven't got the tools needed for the job then lets front up and say so and let someone else do the job. It seems like some people are keen to engage UK military forces in another operation (from the comfort of their armchair I hasten to add) purely to justify the retention (or early regeneration) of a particular capability.

At least that's how it seems to me .....