No fly zone over Libya

[ST21]

First air-to-air kill. A French Rafale shoot down a Libyan G-2 Galeb over the NFZ :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12850975

UPDATE : Apparently, the plane had just landed and was destroyed on the ground by a PGM...

Edited March 24, 2011 by ST21

[Nicholas1969]

Regarding the Canadian Air Force, some unofficial/unconfirmed info found on other sites:

Source

Source

Hi!

Just a quick note, the '18's are using AIM-9M's and AIM-120's for the air-to-air load outs, and, I THINK, they're GBU-12 Paveway II, 500 lb. LGB's.

Nick

[wh1skea]

The Iowa class BB's have all been retired. Naval ships today have at best a single 5" gun and I doubt that anyone would take a chance and risk a high value surface unit by putting it close to shore on a gunfire support mission. Plus I don't think that any navy uses precision guided shells, so you could have a problem with collateral damage.

There is a law out there that mandates that the Iowa class BB's be able to be combat ready within X number of month. That's why they've not been cut into as bad as most museum ships. Besides, Iowa is sitting in the mothballs fleet near San Francisco. I just don't see there being a lone enough time frame for the whole Libya operation to warrant refitting the BB's though. That, and don't see a need for them without storming a beachhead As for shell guidance, those 16" rifles are accurate up to something like 20 miles.

[MarkW]

Given the proximity of much of the settlement and combat operations ashore, I wonder if naval gunfire might come into play in this. Or perhaps it already has?

Naval gunfire has evolved from 16" ballistic shells to cruise missiles and JDAMS/LGBs. 16" precision "gun" fire is s3xy but not the most efficient or effective to destroy a target.

Edited March 24, 2011 by MarkW

[Finn]

French air to air refuelling:

http://www.thomasgoisque-photo.com/site.ph...=def&id=88#

Jari

[Cadfael]

The CF will be deploying 2 more CP140's to conduct maritime patrols as part of the arms embargo.

:P

[rafman]

Looks like gaddafi's one soko galeb down today, well done that rafale pilot! Apparently it had already landed and he hit it with an air to surface weapon!! :wub:

[Alternative 4]

JUst saw on local tv a journalist describing Libya's military assets. They showed a graphic of a Tornado when describing the Air Force!!!! :wub:

Edited March 24, 2011 by Alternative 4

[MarkW]

Looks like gaddafi's one soko galeb down today, well done that rafale pilot! Apparently it had already landed and he hit it with an air to surface weapon!!

Gee, I thought only Typhoons and the now retired Tornado FRs were capable of shooting anything down. Guess I'm so "ill informed" I predicted correctly the Rafales would be handling offensive counter air after the Tornado GRs took care of the SEAD action. :wub:

I'd be interested to know if they used a Mica, which has some air to surface capability, and would be able to hit a moving target on land.

[SBARC]

This plane was a 2 seat trainer and this leaves me wondering if it was being used to transport a VIP......perhaps one of the Gadaffi sons? That's a real long shot as I doubt they would be brave enough to try to fly anywhere. I seriously doubt it had one of the Gadaffi's on it.

Perhaps it was sent to do some recon of the battle area......perhaps the Gadaffis are getting nervous?

[rafman]

The report I read said it was hit by a missile, no mention of a bomb so not sure what was used! Brave/stupid Libyan pilot...what on earth made him take that flight?

[SBARC]

I wonder if something like an ultralight would be shot down?

[Flying Penguin]

Gee, I thought only Typhoons and the now retired Tornado FRs were capable of shooting anything down. Guess I'm so "ill informed" I predicted correctly the Rafales would be handling offensive counter air after the Tornado GRs took care of the SEAD action. :wacko:

I'd be interested to know if they used a Mica, which has some air to surface capability, and would be able to hit a moving target on land.

So the RAF has Rafales available? Or are the French doing all the CAP? Re-read the thread....

"The ONLY dedicated fighters the UK has as of this week are TYPHOONS"

Rafale - French AF front line Gen 4.5 fighter, Typhoon - RAF front line Gen 4.5 fighter... We are separate countries, we have different air forces, despite the best efforts of some to turn us into the United States of Europe.

Think before you make snide comments. It simply confirms other peoples opinion of you.

Jamie

Edited March 24, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[yardbird78]

An article about the Growlers involved in this mess.

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/23/growlers...ibya-an-update/

Darwin

[TonyT]

My point, which apparently has been upsetting to many, is the three aircraft I listed have an abysmal "foreign" sales record. And I count the Typhoon because the Brits can't unload Tranche 3 fast enough. As for what would the Brits use? Gee, maybe what they have been using, the Tornado, to do their part of the mission which was SEAD.

Erm only because of a really narrow minded political mindset that has forgotton their primary task in our "constitution" that of defence of the realm!, Tranche 3 was/is the version with all the bells and whistles working.........

I would suggest a little light reading

http://eucitizens.eu/Forum/index.php?topic=166.0

but before that I know on a certain ACMI range in a certain Nato base in the 80's when a Hawk went up against 2 F15's....... one F15 took out his wingman in the engagement then the Hawk managed to kill the other......Lucky maybe. but luck can win or lose wars....

BUT this isn't about whose willie is bigger than the others, it is about facts and to be honest you have got as much idea and knowlege about the capability of the Tiffie as Mother Terresa would of had, or indeed the rest of us........ Conjecture is such a great thing.

Edited March 24, 2011 by TonyT

[IrishGreek]

An article about the Growlers involved in this mess.

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/23/growlers...ibya-an-update/

Darwin

Thanks for the link. Love the paint on that bird too.

[11bee]

They have 10 KCs... 6 KC-3As and four KC-130s. I believe that is it for the entire Middle East nowhere close enough to carry out a campaign.

No its not that at all. You're well enough versed about military affairs to know that capabilities are not simply having a physical capability. You need to train for interoperability, creating strike packages, SEAD, command and military-political control system. How would the Saudis collect intelligence? How would they fuse that into a carrying out a campaign? How would various Middle Eastern states cooperate together? As far as I know they don't do true joint exercises, and they certainly don't do ones that practice expeditionary warfare.

You can't just learn these things on the fly. Look at the Europeans. Even with NATO they have difficulties leading the air campaign without the United States. While they are fairly good operationally (except when the French decide to do their own thing), strategically and politically the operation is a mess... and this from an alliance that has had over a decade of constant operations.

Now imagine trying to organize this when there is no experience whatsoever.

Given its persistent instability, I doubt anybody would consider Egypt a viable base.

Excuses, excuses. They are not as backwards as one would think. I believe that more than one Arab nation has attended Red Flag exercises. They all have a good number of western advisers. We are not talking about the Afghan Air Force here. They have a decent capability. Maybe not up to NATO standards but it's still significant. We were able to integrate the Saudis and Kuwaitis into Desert Storm 20 years ago (albeit mostly for political purposes) so it can be done again. They don't have to be on the absolute cutting edge of the force but they could still be trusted to fly some CAP missions and conduct some tanker ops. If nothing else, just to show that they support the effort and take a small bit of the strain off of the current force.

They can and should be doing more. The Arab League led the clamor to enact a no-fly zone and help the Libyan rebels. The last I read, the total Arab force dedicated to this little adventure consisted of two Qatari Mirage 2000's and a couple of transports. Maybe that has increased in the last few days but regardless, the Arabs are still basically doing nothing.

I am guessing that there are probably at most 20-30 tankers involved at this time, don't forget, the US has other active obligations that require a good number of those same assets. So those 10 tankers you mentioned above would be helpful - or are you suggesting that the Saudis are too backwards to even integrate their tankers into this operation?

If the Arabs don't care enough to get involved, why the heck should we be doing all the dirty work?

[TaiidanTomcat]

despite the best efforts of some to turn us into the United States of Europe.

LOL Its funny because its true.

If the Arabs don't care enough to get involved, why the heck should we be doing all the dirty work?

probably because there are a lot of little rules in that region about interfering in a fellow arab's affairs. And they have all the oil they need so why should they care? Also if you are a dictator or king over there, why would you want to encourage democratic rebellion?

Thats like asking why cops don't support riots.

[11bee]

probably because there are a lot of little rules in that region about interfering in a fellow arab's affairs.

Maybe they are smarter than most people give them credit for. Just sit back and let others clean up their mess.

I kinda wish we had some of those same little rules that would preclude us from interfering in Arab's affairs.

[phantom]

Getting back on topic, Canada is sending two more planes. A couple CP-140s for surveillance duties.

[Wayne S]

I kinda wish we had some of those same little rules that would preclude us from interfering in Arab's affairs.

But we do.

[yardbird78]

If one of those Iowa class BBs was currently in commission, it would be quite feasible for her to bombard Libyan targets. While those 16" shells are not as accurate as current generation PGMs, they are good enough for taking out aircarft shelters, SA-5 sites and other targets that are not immediately next door to things you don't want to destroy. They are also a whole lot cheaper than PGMs at about $500K each or cruise missiles at $1.5 million each. Those two B-2 sorties on the first night dropped, at the most, 16 PGMs each. An Iowa could do the same thing with 4 broadsides from her main guns, a lot quicker and cheaper.

It would not be economically feasible or timely to attempt reactivation from mothballs. Either this whole mess will be over and settled by then or there won't be any targets left worth bombing. BB-61, USS Iowa is in mothballs in Suisan Bay, CA. I don't believe they ever repaired the damage caused when her #2 turret suffered that misfire/explosion, so she would not even be a candidate for re-commissioning. BB-64, USS Wisconsin is at Norfolk, so she would be close to major overhaul facilities. BB-62, New Jersey is at Camden, not too far away. BB-63, USS Missouri is at Pearl Harbor, but would probably have to go back to either Bremerton or San Diego.

Darwin

[MarkW]

So the RAF has Rafales available? Or are the French doing all the CAP? Re-read the thread....

"The ONLY dedicated fighters the UK has as of this week are TYPHOONS"

Rafale - French AF front line Gen 4.5 fighter, Typhoon - RAF front line Gen 4.5 fighter... We are separate countries, we have different air forces, despite the best efforts of some to turn us into the United States of Europe.

Think before you make snide comments. It simply confirms other peoples opinion of you.

Jamie

Jamie,

No need to get into personal attacks, and I don't see how using someone's attack quote to refute them is "snide". Apparently I'm a terrible writer, because you you are just completely unable to comprehend my writing. So, I'll try again, and I'll write more slowly and carefully to make sure I don't confuse you on this. Again, my apologies.

1. I never said the French Rafale was a British fighter. Not sure how you got to that conclusion. In an effort to improve my readability, perhaps you could point that out? It might help to look at all my posts as well.

2. This is a multinational cooperative effort. The world's most powerful Air Force (I say this not out of Yankee pride or chest beating, but simple fact), has so far not employed air superiority fighters, to include the F-22. The U.S. has acquiesced the offensive counter air role (that's where you shoot down bad guys over their territory so you can bomb the snot out of them) to the French. Great Britain has apparently done the same, at least for the initial 10 days of this campaign. Yes, the U.S. is using dual role aircraft that certainly would fire their AAMs if the opportunity arose, but by and large our aircraft are on strike missions while the French do OCA for the entire operation.

3. The French, of course, are also heavily invested in strike missions as well. And I'd bet a bag of donuts there were other assets involved in finding, tracking and killing the Galeb, perhaps a U.S. or NATO AWACs. But considering how relatively small Libya is, an how truly pathetic their Air Force is, it makes perfect sense to allow the French with an extremely capable (and pretty to boot) 4th gen fighter top sweep the skies of Libya. Again, this is a cooperative effort where the multinational force is employing redundant strike capability because that is where the lion's share of the work is. If Libya had a decent defensive counter air (DCA) ability (that's where you shoot down the other guy before he bombs the snot out of you), then I'd bet the coalition forces would have rolled in F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, and maybe even F-22s. But that simply isn't the case. Rafales are more than capable of the OCA role, so why do the rest of the countries involved need to send top of the line superiority fighters to patrol against a minimal threat?

I'm sorry if you missed the fact that Great Britain is not the only country involved. I must admit, as an American it is kind of weird to see the U.S. in pretty much the strike role while the French are zooming around and keeping the air clear. This is a very unusual operation, so I can understand you not getting it. Every other time in the last 20+ years the U.S. and Britain have jointly operated, we together took on the OCA role because frankly, we were the best at it. Now there is another very capable partner in the French who can obviously,and single handedly, take on the OCA role.

So, in short, yes, the French are doing OCA (a better description of the role than simply "CAP", which in most air arms terms implies DCA), and the U.S. with F-16, F-18, F-15E and AV-8B STRIKE fighters and Britain with the Tornado GR STRIKE fighter (using Storm Shadows, apparently) and doing the ground pounding SEAD and interdiction work. Go look at the Pentagon briefing Sig Saur posted a few days back. There isn't that much to do in the air, and the ground pounding is running out of viable targets...

If you disagree, fine, but please don't resort to personal attacks again. If you can base your disagreement on facts, or refute the facts as I have stated them, then fine, present them. If not, simply agree to disagree.

One last point, for the rest of the Brits I've managed to **** off by talking Tiffie. I am aware of some of its capabilities, and know it would be pretty insane for the OCA mission here. I never intended any of my comments as an indictment against the aircraft's performance, it is an excellent flying machine. I do have the highest regard for what the Brits have and can do with their military hardware. I am only pointing out as a disinterested external observer, that your Govt has chosen to get out from under as much of the Tranche 3 buy as possible, which is a public fact. As to the politics of why GB is ditching Tranche 3 (and sadly, it seems, a lot more of your military capability given the review this last Fall), I can't and won't speak, nor am I endorsing or slamming that action.

[GreyGhost]

I likes my donuts in a box ...

Gregg (Who sometimes ponders which is more correct, Donuts or Doughnuts ...?)

[SBARC]

I likes my donuts in a box ...

Gregg (Who sometimes ponders which is more correct, Donuts or Doughnuts ...?)

Timbits......yum.