I wouldn't worry too much, "fresh air" is not a very deadly weapon to be struck with....

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

... 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 !

...

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 ? :confused::confused:

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

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?

Arab League Support NFZ
 

OK Arab League....crack on, you have the hardware, sort yourselves out....:ok:

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.

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?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ticleLarge.jpg

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

There won't be any helicopters going in, because if they did we'd have to buy more.

And Mr Cameron doesn't want to do that.

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.

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.

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.

The clue's in the name - Sovereign Base Area. We can do what we like from Akrotiri, no need to go crawling to the Cypriot government.

I agree with your points about sea-based air defence being useful when most of the battle is fought close to the coast, though.

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.

Earl of Rochester

Either my recce skills aren't what they used to be or...?

http://www.cio.com/images/content/ar...ns_150x176.jpg

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........................

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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’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.

Well chaps, its looks like you're on. Out-of-the-blue, the UN has gone and voted for it.

Job on...:ok:

Fly safe chaps.

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?

Good luck who ever goes, real ops for the Typhoon?

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.

Don't forget the ISTAR, rookie.

Time for another Strategic Defence Review to review the last one, methinks, especially is Cameron is going to carry on where Bliar left off.

I wonder why it's ok for Bahrain to kill their own people......... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Double standards à la Iraq & Afghanistan.

Do the useless robbing bell-end politicians never learn???

FB, I guess the UN believed my argument more!

So - what nationalities of flying hardware will we see going in?
US first off the mark no doubt, then UK - France, Italy?

A VERY valid point, wonder where any airbridge will be coming from let alone "assets"...

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