LIBYA (Merged) Use this thread ONLY
Perhaps we can bluff it out and hope Gaddafi doesn't get wind of the fact it doesn't have any missiles? The Internet's off in Libya the last I heard, so he won't know anything.
I thought you were talking about sending our Hawk fleet to enforce the NFZ.
I thought you were talking about sending our Hawk fleet to enforce the NFZ.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonker,
Thanks for that.
The initial discussion from Haart was "...Could a potential Libyan NFZ not be more effectively policed by naval vessels? Given the potency of current AD vessels (particularly Aegis, I am unsure if T45 in operational service) with sophisticated air defence radar and long range anti-aircraft missiles..."
You are correct that T45 is not yet declared IOC but it wasn't the point of the discussion. It does somewhat detract from the good discussion points raised by Haart.
After several successful firings of ASTER the RN could have rushed to grab headlines and declared a capability for T45 now. But they didn't because that would be ridiculous and clearly designed to satisfy those who would throw spears until IOC is declared.
After all, whoever would declare a capability IOC when there was no actual ability to deploy such a capability because it wasn't really at IOC?
Thanks for that.
The initial discussion from Haart was "...Could a potential Libyan NFZ not be more effectively policed by naval vessels? Given the potency of current AD vessels (particularly Aegis, I am unsure if T45 in operational service) with sophisticated air defence radar and long range anti-aircraft missiles..."
You are correct that T45 is not yet declared IOC but it wasn't the point of the discussion. It does somewhat detract from the good discussion points raised by Haart.
After several successful firings of ASTER the RN could have rushed to grab headlines and declared a capability for T45 now. But they didn't because that would be ridiculous and clearly designed to satisfy those who would throw spears until IOC is declared.
After all, whoever would declare a capability IOC when there was no actual ability to deploy such a capability because it wasn't really at IOC?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, but all the talk of "IOC's", "gateways" etc are MoD speak for peacetime conditions with development programmes stretched over years
if there is a war on all that guff goes out the window
We all know that in the Falklands and both Gulf Wars kit was obtained, scabbed onto aircraft and ships and in action in a weeks if not days
it then took 3-4 years to get all the paperwork sorted but so what?
if there is a war on all that guff goes out the window
We all know that in the Falklands and both Gulf Wars kit was obtained, scabbed onto aircraft and ships and in action in a weeks if not days
it then took 3-4 years to get all the paperwork sorted but so what?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willy Wonty or Shoody Shoodynutt.
I think lots of posters here are misisng the chnace to debate a salient issue, which is:
Should UN/NATO/UK any other buhger even be considering a no fly zone?
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of (Catholic suppression and English occupation) prime movers in "The Troubles" how would we all (The Royal Air Force at the time) have reacted if some other sovereign state had imposed a no fly zone in Northern Ireland when the RAF and Army were taske dwith supporting the RUC in "peace kkeeping" work in NI?
Gadaffi is trying run HIS country, subject to an uprisng (the Peasants are revolting) which he is trying to stop. Say what you like about Saddam, the streets of Iraq were safer to walk (for some) before the entire country was plagued by IEDs and air dstrikes.
Let's look at Tianamen Square. Pity the poor shopkeeper who is going out of business due to the thousands of stundents camped on his doorstep. Why should Jimmy Grocer be out of pocket because the next generation of thinkers are pissed off?
We can prepare toinvade, despite no longer having the hardware, or we can defend, but it seems odd to me that the UK Governmnment changed the name from ministry of war to ministry of defence and than started warmongering in stead of defending.
I am by no means a lefty, in fact I consider myself to be a littkle to the right of Ghengis Khan, but we must have Laua Norder. Any countyr that makes progressthrough the ammo box instead of the ballot box is due for more trouble soon.
Discuss:
Legal disclaimer: This post was produced at the bottom of the fourth can of Strongbow in less than 45 minutes.
Should UN/NATO/UK any other buhger even be considering a no fly zone?
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of (Catholic suppression and English occupation) prime movers in "The Troubles" how would we all (The Royal Air Force at the time) have reacted if some other sovereign state had imposed a no fly zone in Northern Ireland when the RAF and Army were taske dwith supporting the RUC in "peace kkeeping" work in NI?
Gadaffi is trying run HIS country, subject to an uprisng (the Peasants are revolting) which he is trying to stop. Say what you like about Saddam, the streets of Iraq were safer to walk (for some) before the entire country was plagued by IEDs and air dstrikes.
Let's look at Tianamen Square. Pity the poor shopkeeper who is going out of business due to the thousands of stundents camped on his doorstep. Why should Jimmy Grocer be out of pocket because the next generation of thinkers are pissed off?
We can prepare toinvade, despite no longer having the hardware, or we can defend, but it seems odd to me that the UK Governmnment changed the name from ministry of war to ministry of defence and than started warmongering in stead of defending.
I am by no means a lefty, in fact I consider myself to be a littkle to the right of Ghengis Khan, but we must have Laua Norder. Any countyr that makes progressthrough the ammo box instead of the ballot box is due for more trouble soon.
Discuss:
Legal disclaimer: This post was produced at the bottom of the fourth can of Strongbow in less than 45 minutes.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2+2=?
FB let me try and give you a more measured answer.
If you took the No Fly Zone as a literal concept (and I accept that you were) then Haart's views deserve merit; however, such absolutes rarely exist other than in open warfare - something that this is not.
Enforcing a No Fly Zone is a very complex business and the simple moniker NFZ does not do that complexity justice (I doubt if even many politicians understand that). The nub of the problem is that you cannot enforce one on the basis that "it flies it dies". What about air ambulances, defectors, other innocent humanitarian or commercial flights. In order to enforce in a complex environment you need presence not just the threat of violence. A quick glance in a Flight Information Handbook will show that there are a variety of methods you can use to dissuade enemy action or identify peaceful intent. In many ways an air presence saves the politicians from the unintended consequences of their rhetoric. A No Fly Zone may be a No Drive Zone or it may be a Some Fly Zone - you need options to cope with all of these simultaneously. Also, that presence provides the opportunity for hard intelligence.
The other major factor is that the physical presence of air over a country sends wider messages than just to the leadership - deterrence and coercion is a complex business but contrails and jet noise above you can provide a very visible sign of intent to both sides of a dispute. Now if we could just find a cheap contrail and jet noise machine!
I did not duck the question, I assumed knowledge - for that I apologise.
Capt P
If you took the No Fly Zone as a literal concept (and I accept that you were) then Haart's views deserve merit; however, such absolutes rarely exist other than in open warfare - something that this is not.
Enforcing a No Fly Zone is a very complex business and the simple moniker NFZ does not do that complexity justice (I doubt if even many politicians understand that). The nub of the problem is that you cannot enforce one on the basis that "it flies it dies". What about air ambulances, defectors, other innocent humanitarian or commercial flights. In order to enforce in a complex environment you need presence not just the threat of violence. A quick glance in a Flight Information Handbook will show that there are a variety of methods you can use to dissuade enemy action or identify peaceful intent. In many ways an air presence saves the politicians from the unintended consequences of their rhetoric. A No Fly Zone may be a No Drive Zone or it may be a Some Fly Zone - you need options to cope with all of these simultaneously. Also, that presence provides the opportunity for hard intelligence.
The other major factor is that the physical presence of air over a country sends wider messages than just to the leadership - deterrence and coercion is a complex business but contrails and jet noise above you can provide a very visible sign of intent to both sides of a dispute. Now if we could just find a cheap contrail and jet noise machine!
I did not duck the question, I assumed knowledge - for that I apologise.
Capt P
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P U G Wash,
It was much more fun when you were comparing the interception of aircraft in UK airspace to a Libyan NFZ. Although I see you are now quoting the Flight Information Handbook (FIH) as a source of knowledge for also suggesting how aircraft may be used in such an enforcement over Tripoli.
It was with great pleasure that I actually opened my FIH and read through the section 'Visual Interception Signals' - was this the section you were referring to show the "...variety of ways..." to do things other than ignore or shoot down?
But your points on doctrinal NFZ requirements are of course valid and are worth a pick through to see if - unlike the straight 'no' you gave Haart - there's anything that might just (heaven forbid) lend itself to the complimentary nature of maritime platforms in such an endeavour.
"What about air ambulances, defectors, other innocent humanitarian or commercial flights"
A NFZ will be notified to the international community. Any commercial, humanitarian or air ambulance flights will be squawking, flying in accordance with the ACO and be on a flight profile that is bounded by height and speed. They won't get shot down if they speak on the radio and don't look like a jet flying a profile. A defector will (if he's sensible) squawk emergency, fly as slow as possible with his gear down and do as little to pose a threat as possible. Up until this point, all of this data could have been ascertained by a ship (or, of course an E2/3.) He'd then get intercepted by an aircraft and the interceptor might hope that he's got a copy of the yellow book and understand the day visual signals. (You see, the air and maritime in perfect harmony.)
As for the ability to shoot down an aircraft BVR? Point of origin/height/speed/flight profile/squawk/numbers...I'm fair salivating at the days of yore when such ROE play was the name of the game. All of those conditions could be validated by a surface platform as much as an airborne platform. Not that a surface platform should; just that it could.
By the way, now that the Colonel is increasingly back in charge it is more than an even chance that he might just crank up his SAM batteries (assuming they were ever down) how does the need to schwack the SA-2/3/5 accord with your de-escalatory stance in order to operate obtain Air Superiority over Tripoli/Benghazi and actually police a NFZ with aircraft?
Maybe AD capable ships aren't such a bad idea...certainly worthy of a 'maybe' rather a 'no'?
P.S. Do you think a Libyan Fitter en route to deliver some HE would acknowledge the Typhoon waggling his wing and flying "...slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..." and accept that "you have been intercepted, follow me"?
P.P.S It's not my assumed knowledge that's in question, it's the many hundreds who read this forum who don't have detailed knowledge about such matters that might walk away with an imbalanced view of the world if we make sweeping statements.
It was much more fun when you were comparing the interception of aircraft in UK airspace to a Libyan NFZ. Although I see you are now quoting the Flight Information Handbook (FIH) as a source of knowledge for also suggesting how aircraft may be used in such an enforcement over Tripoli.
It was with great pleasure that I actually opened my FIH and read through the section 'Visual Interception Signals' - was this the section you were referring to show the "...variety of ways..." to do things other than ignore or shoot down?
But your points on doctrinal NFZ requirements are of course valid and are worth a pick through to see if - unlike the straight 'no' you gave Haart - there's anything that might just (heaven forbid) lend itself to the complimentary nature of maritime platforms in such an endeavour.
"What about air ambulances, defectors, other innocent humanitarian or commercial flights"
A NFZ will be notified to the international community. Any commercial, humanitarian or air ambulance flights will be squawking, flying in accordance with the ACO and be on a flight profile that is bounded by height and speed. They won't get shot down if they speak on the radio and don't look like a jet flying a profile. A defector will (if he's sensible) squawk emergency, fly as slow as possible with his gear down and do as little to pose a threat as possible. Up until this point, all of this data could have been ascertained by a ship (or, of course an E2/3.) He'd then get intercepted by an aircraft and the interceptor might hope that he's got a copy of the yellow book and understand the day visual signals. (You see, the air and maritime in perfect harmony.)
As for the ability to shoot down an aircraft BVR? Point of origin/height/speed/flight profile/squawk/numbers...I'm fair salivating at the days of yore when such ROE play was the name of the game. All of those conditions could be validated by a surface platform as much as an airborne platform. Not that a surface platform should; just that it could.
By the way, now that the Colonel is increasingly back in charge it is more than an even chance that he might just crank up his SAM batteries (assuming they were ever down) how does the need to schwack the SA-2/3/5 accord with your de-escalatory stance in order to operate obtain Air Superiority over Tripoli/Benghazi and actually police a NFZ with aircraft?
Maybe AD capable ships aren't such a bad idea...certainly worthy of a 'maybe' rather a 'no'?
P.S. Do you think a Libyan Fitter en route to deliver some HE would acknowledge the Typhoon waggling his wing and flying "...slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft..." and accept that "you have been intercepted, follow me"?
P.P.S It's not my assumed knowledge that's in question, it's the many hundreds who read this forum who don't have detailed knowledge about such matters that might walk away with an imbalanced view of the world if we make sweeping statements.
Last edited by FB11; 16th Mar 2011 at 18:13.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s always the UK. It does nothing for our international reputation and has potential knock on effects to our efforts elsewhere. Why not Finland or some other country with an inactive military? Better still, The Arab League of Nations sort their own back yard.
The UN Security Council has approved a resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorize “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces. The vote on Thursday was 10-0 with five abstentions, including Russia and China.
The United States, in a sharp shift in tone from earlier in the week, said earlier in the day that it wanted the UN to authorize not just a no-fly zone to aid Libyan rebels, but also air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery.
The United States, in a sharp shift in tone from earlier in the week, said earlier in the day that it wanted the UN to authorize not just a no-fly zone to aid Libyan rebels, but also air strikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery.
more here
BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi
Gloves off and the Brits involved, apparently.
I remember the Yank F-111 guys having 'Libyan Urban Renewal' patches in '86
'Qaddaffi Airfield Resurfacing' anyone?
BBC News - Libya: UN backs action against Colonel Gaddafi
Gloves off and the Brits involved, apparently.
I remember the Yank F-111 guys having 'Libyan Urban Renewal' patches in '86
'Qaddaffi Airfield Resurfacing' anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 'Straya
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get some! Wish I was along for the ride...
What will these measures consist of... Typhoon? Tornado? As for AAR, VC-10?
Support; Hercules?
Going to be hard to balance it with concurrent ops, with our forces stretched as they are.
What will these measures consist of... Typhoon? Tornado? As for AAR, VC-10?
Support; Hercules?
Going to be hard to balance it with concurrent ops, with our forces stretched as they are.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why it's ok for Bahrain to kill their own people......... 
Double standards à la Iraq & Afghanistan.
Do the useless robbing bell-end politicians never learn???
Double standards à la Iraq & Afghanistan.
Do the useless robbing bell-end politicians never learn???
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going to be hard to balance it with concurrent ops, with our forces stretched as they are.
Looks like Canada is going to deploy CF-18 Hornets?
CTV Winnipeg- Canada to send six CF-18s for Libya 'no-fly' mission - CTV News
TJ
CTV Winnipeg- Canada to send six CF-18s for Libya 'no-fly' mission - CTV News
TJ