A Dutch correspondent saw the dead pilot being brought into a hospital, covered by his blood-stained parachute. According to him not a pretty sight...

Some rebels don't rule out this was a case of "blue on blue/friendly fire"... :ugh: :ouch:

I think this is 'irony':

As Sarkozy and Cam came on Sky to tell the gathered press how they were going to save the world, on the UK's largest AC carrier in the Med, the Reds turned up......................

:ugh:

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.

Its not as glamourous as flying the fast, pointy things nor be considered taxing on the grey matter by our earth hugging chums in the techy trades as their work but the various aspects of logistics can make or break operations and there are a few of us out here who know what we are talking about and what is and isn't possible.

Poor bloke, whichever side he was on.

According to Scramble Messageboard • Information six French C-135FRs are/were airborne this afternoon.

Yes, that's half the l'Armee de l'Air's tanker fleet! It will be interesting to see how this No Fly Zone can be enforced in the long(er) term...

Having operated out of Istres le Tube I saw myself six or more French KC-135Rs operate on any given day. The proximity to theatre of Istres, and it's capacity and experience with US KC-135 augmentation would suggest a robust air refueling capability to sustain Libyan operations indefinitely.

Ask me and I'd be happy to come out of retirement and run it for you.

According to Scramble Messageboard • Information six French C-135FRs are/were airborne this afternoon.

So when is the French Air Force going to do anything kinetic?

The world waits for France to lead the way ...

Thanks for the info ref fuel types - my point was that Sigonella has the wrong fuel type for GR4 or Typhoon to operate out of, right now.

Logistically i am sure that the right fuel type could be put in place eventually.

Thats the last word from me on the subject - i am boring myself now.

Modern Elmo,


You have just had your wish granted. Military vehicle engaged by French Air Force.

That kinetic enough for you?

ghostnav,

Why has the UK got involved? Maybe, just maybe, because it's the right thing to do?

Life in your world may not be "like that" but thankfully it is to some.

No other country is attacking their own civilian population like Gadaffi is. This sends out a very strong message to any others that might be thinking of it.

In your world, when you see an old lady being mugged or raped, do you walk on by saying "it's nothing to do with me?"

That kinetic enough for you?

Seriously, this Libyan business may be a useful image-changing event for French armed forces.

Its an unfortunate truth that Western economies are enormously dependent upon oil.So, however unromantic it may be,military action to protect oil is justifiable.Grim but true.

Not entirely certain that there's been much wrong with their image to date.

ghostnav,

We would never have any kind of mandate from the world community to go into Zimbabwe. In the case of Libya there is overwhelming UN support (NO vetoes) the Arab League has called for a no fly zone and action to protect the Libyan people. This is different, it's a start. It just COULD be the start of a common end to every mad dictator who decides to kill his people. It could even be the beginning of the end for dictators.

Personally, I find myself leaning towards Pr00ne on this one.

After all, we are there to 'protect civilians'. Apparently, military vehicles are being 'targeted'. Does that mean all military vehicles, or just Gadaffi's? Will we also be protecting those civilians who remain loyal and supportive of Gadaffi?

I'm not so sure... this seems, to me, to be as much about Gadaffi-bashing as it does about noble gestures and being the 'right thing to do'.

Egypt are apparently going to be involved somehow. The same Egypt that has been funding/arming the rebels of late? And they'll be enforcing this NFZ with complete impartiality, I presume?

Forgive me if I'm not convinced about some of the overt motives given for this. Someone put it better on another thread; let's call a spade a spade, and admit we're doing this because we don't like Gadaffi or our oil supplies threatened, so we feel we need to get rid of him.

(That said, I will stand back and see how things pan out -- maybe it will be even and fair and impartial).

How about `wait and see` before once again judging? the mandate is to enforce a no fly zone and enforce a ceasefire - and if that means using british and french airpower to forceably seperate the 2 sides and to stop the open slaughter of men , women and children who only want to go about there lives peaceably.

or do you think thats not wanted?

Those with reasonable memories will not have Gaddafi's material support of the IRA, murder of Yvonne Fletcher, bombing of Pan Am 103 and lavish approval from Blair. For all these reasons and more we will be delighted to see this idious little lunatic flushed out. About time too.

TT,

Quite so. Not much to like about the man or his leadership. I doubt there'd be many tears among us if he fell.

However, we do have to respect that there is still a significant slice of his civilian population that want him and/or his offspring as their leader. One would hope these civilians are afforded just as much protection by the NFZ as the rebels. Reprisals and retribution happen; the Balkans was a fine example.

As Halloween Jack said, "forceably seperat[ing] the 2 sides and to stop the open slaughter of men , women and children who only want to go about there lives peaceably" should be the goal.

Let's just hope we don't somehow end up on another slippery slope of pushing the boundaries of the UN mandate.

Very best of luck to the boys and girls who will be involved in the ops - stay safe.

Problem with all this is the various flaws in the arguements. Certainly Libya supplied weapons to the IRA -however I well remember the last British soldier killed before the ceasefire was killed by a Barrett 50 calibre rifle sourced from the U.S and undoubtedly paid for by U.S subscription. There was serious money channelled into the troubles from the U.S so before we become moral about it we need to remember who else was involved.
As for no mandate to intervene in Zimbabwe but overwelming support for Libya -that is somewhat akin to picking who you help -surely if you have any humanity the people dying in Zimbabwe due to Mugabe and his party were of equal standing We cannot pick our fights on the basis of how popular our actions will be - i.e the invasion of IRAQ wasnt fully supported by the U.N but still happened - is oil a theme in all this!

Riley,

It's important to make the distinction that IRA support from the US came from Irish Republican Americans, not from the US people or its government.

In the case of Zimbabwe, for Western governments to intervene into a black African nation's domestic affairs presents serious political problems related to racism, primarily, but also colonialism.

The presence of oil has two sides. Oil revenues enable threatening behavior alongside the acknowledged need of the developed world for energy. Despotic oil regimes have been largely left alone to shackle their populations so long as they don't cause disruption or threaten other nations.

Do you promote more international meddling in the affairs of autocratically ruled nations, their oil resources notwithstanding?