LIBYA (Merged) Use this thread ONLY
Thoughtful PPruners might be interested in tonight's 'Moral Maze' on BBC Radio 4. Michael Buerk chairs a debate about whether or not to intervene in Libya, and what - if anything - Britain should do.
It's after the 2000 news, tonight 9 March, repeated 2215 on 12 March, or on BBC iPlayer, after the first broadcast.
BBC iPlayer - iPlayer Radio Home
airsound
It's after the 2000 news, tonight 9 March, repeated 2215 on 12 March, or on BBC iPlayer, after the first broadcast.
BBC iPlayer - iPlayer Radio Home
airsound
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... With doubts expressed that the UK/RAF today are not sufficiently equiped to mount any effective Libyan NFZ brings to mind a problem facing Harris when deciding to mount the first mass attack upon Germany with a One-Thousand Bomber Raid - Whereby it was said he scoured Training and Maintenance units for semi obsolescent aircraft to make up the numbers - Resulting in jocular chatter amongst returning aircrew of much avoidance of collisions over Cologne (or wherever) as Tiger Moths and Ansons jostled for position !
...
...
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Devon
Age: 71
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting little comment on the BBC TV news at 6pm today was that the "No Fly Zone" could be patrolled by RAF Typhoons & Tornado F.3s(?) Have the F.3s been thrown a little life-line ? 
A2QFI wrote
The helicopter story was a dodgy bit of reporting from the BBC Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner? Anti-Gaddafi personnel stated during interviews that the helicopter dropped the team off and then flew away. Although it appears that some of them went home minus their Calvin Klein underwear!
Interviews from the location where they landed on the following video.
Video link edited out.
Original You Tube link is now set to private and is no longer available. Apologies.
TJ
Who's got the helicopter and what is that worth?
Interviews from the location where they landed on the following video.
Video link edited out.
Original You Tube link is now set to private and is no longer available. Apologies.
TJ
Last edited by TEEEJ; 12th Apr 2011 at 11:12.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libyan NFZ: Call the Navy?
My apologies if this subject has been broached already; I may have overlooked this particular angle in my cursory search of other threads. I thought there were a few interesting ideas on a potential Libyan NFZ but here is a different angle.
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, a no fly zone could potentially be imposed and be 'passively' enforced by off shore naval units in lieu of the widely discussed air assets. This would have the primary benefit of potentially minimising intrusive outside offensive action against the Libyan Integrated Air Defence System (C3, SAMs, radar) that would probably be a precondition for the enforcement of a NFZ. Any overt offensive action against Gaddafi's regime would in all likelihood be spun by the government as an instance of US 'shock and awe' against an Arab country with the potential risk of dividing any united front by anti-Gaddafi countries. Further, sea-based air defence would minimise the risk of any allied personnel falling into the control of the Libyan regime by minimising our exposure to hostile Libyan action.
The geographic conditions are ideal insofar as the populated and contested areas are within a slim littoral strip that would be dominated by seaward assets. Although the lack of an 'air umbrella' would keep outside support for the anti-Gaddafi Libyan forces largely covert, AD vessels would achieve the same effect of denying Libyan air power freedom of manoeuvre. Further, naval vessels would provide less intensive round-the-clock anti-air capability than the limited endurance air forces flying from a great distance. Some air assets should be involved for instance, a more complete air picture could probably be obtained with the benefit of AWACs.
Of course, I would caveat my argument with the presumption that a no fly zone would only provide exactly that. The NFZ would probably not, in and of itself, defeat Gaddafi nor permit the anti-Gaddafi forces to succeed, all things being even. Indeed, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the presence of a no fly zone did not prevent the Srebrenica massacre and allied resolve would be tested by the temptation to take more active measures should defeat of anti-Gaddafi forces loom.
But as a means of achieving a specific aim, could an Aegis Class cruiser or a T-42 be of greater utility than a F-15 or Typhoon?
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, a no fly zone could potentially be imposed and be 'passively' enforced by off shore naval units in lieu of the widely discussed air assets. This would have the primary benefit of potentially minimising intrusive outside offensive action against the Libyan Integrated Air Defence System (C3, SAMs, radar) that would probably be a precondition for the enforcement of a NFZ. Any overt offensive action against Gaddafi's regime would in all likelihood be spun by the government as an instance of US 'shock and awe' against an Arab country with the potential risk of dividing any united front by anti-Gaddafi countries. Further, sea-based air defence would minimise the risk of any allied personnel falling into the control of the Libyan regime by minimising our exposure to hostile Libyan action.
The geographic conditions are ideal insofar as the populated and contested areas are within a slim littoral strip that would be dominated by seaward assets. Although the lack of an 'air umbrella' would keep outside support for the anti-Gaddafi Libyan forces largely covert, AD vessels would achieve the same effect of denying Libyan air power freedom of manoeuvre. Further, naval vessels would provide less intensive round-the-clock anti-air capability than the limited endurance air forces flying from a great distance. Some air assets should be involved for instance, a more complete air picture could probably be obtained with the benefit of AWACs.
Of course, I would caveat my argument with the presumption that a no fly zone would only provide exactly that. The NFZ would probably not, in and of itself, defeat Gaddafi nor permit the anti-Gaddafi forces to succeed, all things being even. Indeed, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the presence of a no fly zone did not prevent the Srebrenica massacre and allied resolve would be tested by the temptation to take more active measures should defeat of anti-Gaddafi forces loom.
But as a means of achieving a specific aim, could an Aegis Class cruiser or a T-42 be of greater utility than a F-15 or Typhoon?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
Well it would seem that the Arab League have learnt to adopt the western ideals we so desperately want to introduce in the Arab world. Sit around and talk a lot, fob it of to the UN, and hope any conflict resolves itself one way or the other, before anybody has to actually do anything.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Goodwood, Sussex, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just wanted to make this important observation:
Has anyone noticed how the image of Gadaffi on Libya's currency bears a resemblance to Mr Burns from the Simpsons?
Next question: If we do get stuck in down in Lib, at what point do you think UK helicopters would enter Libya and what would be their initial roles?
It is right to assume that any foreign force aiming to assist the resistance would want to deploy some sort of cover over strategic resistance locations to protect them?
Earl
Has anyone noticed how the image of Gadaffi on Libya's currency bears a resemblance to Mr Burns from the Simpsons?
Next question: If we do get stuck in down in Lib, at what point do you think UK helicopters would enter Libya and what would be their initial roles?
It is right to assume that any foreign force aiming to assist the resistance would want to deploy some sort of cover over strategic resistance locations to protect them?
Earl
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In his Telegraph interview at the weekend Hague indirectly described Osborne as one of the two hawkish "neo cons" in the cabinet arguing for military intervention (the other being Gove).
I do wonder if Osborne makes the connection between posturing and the ability to deliver.
I do wonder if Osborne makes the connection between posturing and the ability to deliver.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy air blockade?
Haart, in a word: No.
No Fly zones are always more complex than they sound. For example, what would a T45 do if the enemy decided to stay on the ground and roll up the rebels with tanks. Also, how do you deter or coerce when your only option is to vapourise or ignore.
Bottom line is a shooter at range is a very blunt instrument and easily negated or foiled. Form a legal basis it would also be difficult to prove a self defence linkage. Better to let the T45 do what it was designed to do and protect the fleet.
No Fly zones are always more complex than they sound. For example, what would a T45 do if the enemy decided to stay on the ground and roll up the rebels with tanks. Also, how do you deter or coerce when your only option is to vapourise or ignore.
Bottom line is a shooter at range is a very blunt instrument and easily negated or foiled. Form a legal basis it would also be difficult to prove a self defence linkage. Better to let the T45 do what it was designed to do and protect the fleet.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P U G Wash,
If the enemy decided to stay on the ground then they would not be flying in the zone (because of the T45?)....hang on a minute...a No Fly Zone. So it might just work then.
What exactly does an aircraft do to coerce more than either shoot down or ignore? Fly menacingly past and jesticulate wildly? Or a quick air display?
What self defence linkage would be needed in a NFZ? If sanctioned, it's a no fly zone. If it flies and isn't an airliner, it gets taken out of the sky. Did I miss something with a NFZ being 'more complicated' than that? If the ROE is granted, a NFZ isn't a self defence issue.
Well rehearsed and practiced during other conflicts such as the Balkans and from 1991 onwards until 2003 in Iraq - aircraft that came offshore would be warned and ultimately engaged.
But you're right, just leave that darn Navy ship to do Navy things as opposed to providing a persistent, high fidelity, AD capability while we run expensive, non-persistent CAP from Cyprus. Assuming they let us do combat ops from there.
If the enemy decided to stay on the ground then they would not be flying in the zone (because of the T45?)....hang on a minute...a No Fly Zone. So it might just work then.
What exactly does an aircraft do to coerce more than either shoot down or ignore? Fly menacingly past and jesticulate wildly? Or a quick air display?
What self defence linkage would be needed in a NFZ? If sanctioned, it's a no fly zone. If it flies and isn't an airliner, it gets taken out of the sky. Did I miss something with a NFZ being 'more complicated' than that? If the ROE is granted, a NFZ isn't a self defence issue.
Well rehearsed and practiced during other conflicts such as the Balkans and from 1991 onwards until 2003 in Iraq - aircraft that came offshore would be warned and ultimately engaged.
But you're right, just leave that darn Navy ship to do Navy things as opposed to providing a persistent, high fidelity, AD capability while we run expensive, non-persistent CAP from Cyprus. Assuming they let us do combat ops from there.
But you're right, just leave that darn Navy ship to do Navy things as opposed to providing a persistent, high fidelity, AD capability while we run expensive, non-persistent CAP from Cyprus. Assuming they let us do combat ops from there.
I agree with your points about sea-based air defence being useful when most of the battle is fought close to the coast, though.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street,
If you have a copy of the Cyprus/UK MOU then I defer to you. (I thought we were limited to support ops from there.)
Anyway, the boys would get some good tanking practice on the 2000nm round trip from AKR to Tripoli.
If you have a copy of the Cyprus/UK MOU then I defer to you. (I thought we were limited to support ops from there.)
Anyway, the boys would get some good tanking practice on the 2000nm round trip from AKR to Tripoli.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Send the Reds in!!!!!
I know I know! The Reds are off to Cyprus this week. Send 'em to Benghazi instead! NFZ enforced by NOTAM for miles around when they go off and practice! Get the Thunderbirds in to to shut the airspace down for hours on end on the other shift and we've cracked it. Display work up box ticked, NFZ enforced without bombing anything, loads of tanker hours saved and good Hawk sales pitch for when new regime comes in. Might get a few complaints from the team about the noisy hotel but you can't have everything........................
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB11, you are clearly from the school of the Tripwire Strategy - escalation and de-escalation obviously not part of your game plan. Perhaps while you are at it you would like to defend UK airspace by blasting everything that files out of the sky! But I can't fault you for trying to find a role for the most expensive warship we have ever built without a Carrier Group to defend!
...and while we are on the subject, are you suggesting that we will never need AD capable aircraft to defend the carrier group - now that would be a revelation for the FAA agenda! We could send T45 to defend the Falklands and everyone else can come home, and we can stop using the islands as a reason to argue for the Carrier. Now that is an argument worth pursuing, but maybe in a different forum.
...and while we are on the subject, are you suggesting that we will never need AD capable aircraft to defend the carrier group - now that would be a revelation for the FAA agenda! We could send T45 to defend the Falklands and everyone else can come home, and we can stop using the islands as a reason to argue for the Carrier. Now that is an argument worth pursuing, but maybe in a different forum.
Last edited by Capt P U G Wash; 14th Mar 2011 at 23:32.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt P,
Managing to both avoid answering a question and making 2+2 = 5 in the same reply. Well done.
NFZ (Capt P avoiding the question)
The last I heard of it, the UK isn't a No Fly Zone. We don't have ground attack aircraft getting airborne and travelling at low level for minutes few to bomb the people. But putting your apples and oranges example aside for a moment, do spell out clearly what options there are in a No Fly Zone beyond doing nothing or shooting the aircraft down. Nice and clearly so we can assess them and relate them to the Iraqi NFZ ROE and how a coalition aircraft could do something different (than nothing or shoot down) to a Libyan attack aircraft on the 12 minute transit to dropping a bunch of HE on the rebels.
T45 (Capt P making 2+2=5)
Where, at any stage in my post, did I say that a T45 would replace AD aircraft or that it wouldn't be required to defend the Fleet? My response was purely because you decided that you are now the maritime AD expert who answered Haart's quite sensible discussion point about maritime AD with a straight 'no.' Make a bold statement like that and be prepared to get an alternative view that exposes your prejudices and superficial understanding of the issues Haart was trying to discuss.
Your comment about the Falklands is a tiny bit childish - the deterrent effect provided by land, sea and air platforms provides a range of capabilities that makes the whole package a deterrent. Where did you make the leap that I was suggesting a T45 could allow Typhoon to go home?
Thank you for demonstrating your light blue hysteria about anything that might challenge the primacy of aircraft in the policing a NFZ.
Managing to both avoid answering a question and making 2+2 = 5 in the same reply. Well done.
NFZ (Capt P avoiding the question)
The last I heard of it, the UK isn't a No Fly Zone. We don't have ground attack aircraft getting airborne and travelling at low level for minutes few to bomb the people. But putting your apples and oranges example aside for a moment, do spell out clearly what options there are in a No Fly Zone beyond doing nothing or shooting the aircraft down. Nice and clearly so we can assess them and relate them to the Iraqi NFZ ROE and how a coalition aircraft could do something different (than nothing or shoot down) to a Libyan attack aircraft on the 12 minute transit to dropping a bunch of HE on the rebels.
T45 (Capt P making 2+2=5)
Where, at any stage in my post, did I say that a T45 would replace AD aircraft or that it wouldn't be required to defend the Fleet? My response was purely because you decided that you are now the maritime AD expert who answered Haart's quite sensible discussion point about maritime AD with a straight 'no.' Make a bold statement like that and be prepared to get an alternative view that exposes your prejudices and superficial understanding of the issues Haart was trying to discuss.
Your comment about the Falklands is a tiny bit childish - the deterrent effect provided by land, sea and air platforms provides a range of capabilities that makes the whole package a deterrent. Where did you make the leap that I was suggesting a T45 could allow Typhoon to go home?
Thank you for demonstrating your light blue hysteria about anything that might challenge the primacy of aircraft in the policing a NFZ.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The T45 is currently equipped with no missles whatsoever. Its only weapon apart from the helicopter is its Vickers gun and a couple of slaved 20mm guns.
No Phalanx either so you don't want to park to close to shore to fire the non existent Aster 30 or whatever it eventually ends up with!
No Phalanx either so you don't want to park to close to shore to fire the non existent Aster 30 or whatever it eventually ends up with!