No fly zone over Libya

[P-38 guy]

Is our (U.S.A.) airpower that over stretched that we can not deploy fighters and attack aircraft?

Mike

[big fatty]

Is our (U.S.A.) airpower that over stretched that we can not deploy fighters and attack aircraft?

Mike

If you notice China and Russia always sit things like NFZ out, i think it has to do more with great minds think alike.

[mungo1974]

So where are these RAF assets gonna fly from?...shoulda kept the Ark Royal and Harrier's!.

Or maybe get the Aussie's to bring those recently retired F-111's back,a type with great range and weapons...and we know the old whatshisname and his mate's just love the Vark

[rafman]

I think its a case of the US not wanting to **** off the middle east anymore by looking like the dominant force.., anyway between the UK, France, Italy, Belguim, Canadians and anyone else who joins in I think we have it covered...

[rafman]

Akrotiri? We have good air to air refuelling assets...who cares, this despot should have been taken out a long time ago because of his support fot the IRA...and I hope whoever did plant the Lockerbie bomb gets a GBU right on his slimey forehead!!!!

[Murph]

Is our (U.S.A.) airpower that over stretched that we can not deploy fighters and attack aircraft?

Mike

People seem to forget that starting in 1991 the U.S. Air Force and Navy fighter fleets began engaging in combat operations every single day. Through Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Deliberate Force, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Noble Eagle they have been flying with full combat loads, being shot at, and shooting back for years on end. For those counting that's twenty straight years of combat operations without a break; think that may take a toll on the fighter force, particularly when those forces have been drastically shrunk? The newest F-15C is twenty five years old and the planes have literally fallen apart in mid-air, the F-15E fleet has seen combat basically since its IOC, much of the F-16 fleet is covered in scab plates, two thirds of the A-10 fleet needs new wings, and the newest fighter, the F-22, was bought in "silver bullet" numbers. Link, another link, and yet another link. BTW only several months ago we were worrying about that guy with the funny looking spectacles starting something in Korea; he's not on vacation. Maybe they could send Predators.

Regards,

Murph

[Quailane]

If you notice China and Russia always sit things like NFZ out, i think it has to do more with great minds think alike.

China and Russia are very concerned with sovereign rights, or at least their image on sovereign rights, so they just plead the fifth or vote no on any sort of security council vote that has anything to do with this. China also does not want to upset anybody so they abstain from voting or taking part in any way. If Getoffme was pleading for a No-Fly-Zone just like the rebels, China probably would have voted yes, but still not taken any part. I can't really talk about Russia though since it's not really my area of expertise.

Is our (U.S.A.) airpower that over stretched that we can not deploy fighters and attack aircraft?

Mike

I think it is more that the US wants to show a unified cooperative effort instead of playing all the positions on the field while the rest of the players just sitting on the bench. If the game is already won, you send in the second or third string players to give your guys a rest and let them have a little glory.

[SBARC]

I think it is more that the US wants to show a unified cooperative effort instead of playing all the positions on the field while the rest of the players just sitting on the bench. If the game is already won, you send in the second or third string players to give your guys a rest and let them have a little glory.

[muswp1]

Unless the 31st Wing is busy in the Middle East, they should be ready to deploy from Italy if needed. Also the USS Kearsarge and her group are supposedly in the area as well.

[Quailane]

People seem to forget that starting in 1991 the U.S. Air Force and Navy fighter fleets began engaging in combat operations every single day. Through Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Deliberate Force, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Noble Eagle they have been flying with full combat loads, being shot at, and shooting back for years on end. For those counting that's twenty straight years of combat operations without a break; think that may take a toll on the fighter force, particularly when those forces have been drastically shrunk? The newest F-15C is twenty five years old and the planes have literally fallen apart in mid-air, the F-15E fleet has seen combat basically since its IOC, much of the F-16 fleet is covered in scab plates, two thirds of the A-10 fleet needs new wings, and the newest fighter, the F-22, was bought in "silver bullet" numbers. Link, another link, and yet another link. BTW only several months ago we were worrying about that guy with the funny looking spectacles starting something in Korea; he's not on vacation. Maybe they could send Predators.

Regards,

Murph

How many F-16CJ's and F-22A's have anything better to do than to fly into North Africa? The Chief of Staff of the USAF, prior to the announcement that the US would not be taking part with any combat aircraft, was saying that these planes would undoubtedly be deployed.

[ron]

?

Forth largest country in Africa and we are sending six CF-118's for this? six to help cover almost 700,000 square miles of no fly zone.

Edited March 19, 2011 by ron

[-Neu-]

How many F-16CJ's and F-22A's have anything better to do than to fly into North Africa? The Chief of Staff of the USAF, prior to the announcement that the US would not be taking part with any combat aircraft, was saying that these planes would undoubtedly be deployed.

I think there are several reasons for the United States not directly participating. The most important is the political perception of the United States leading a third military action against an islamic state. It is a politically unpalatable position that could have a detrimental effect on other theaters and the security of US assets in the middle east. So paramount they wanted to avoid military action.

There were several mitigating factors that assisted the US position. First is the united states actually did not lead the political effort to get a resolution. It developed first among the Arab league, then the G8, then among the UN. In these negotiations, France and the United Kingdom were the most active in calling for an intervention and promised to devote the brunt of military assets. Moreover there is a desire among European nations to use some of the capabilities they have developed in the twelve years since Kosovo. I think the United States is happy to have them act as a surrogate, which can deflect claims of US "imperialism" among the Arab quarter.

Finally Libya's military capabilities are actually quite limited. On paper their air defence systems... thumbing through my conveniently delivered copy of the Military Balance from yesterday, Libya has probably 40 or so SA-5 launchers, 36 SA-3 Goas, 72 SA-6s and a bunch of organic AD assets. It looks like alot but it is unlikely that all but a few are operational at this time. Moreover I've not heard if any of these have received significant upgrades in the past decade, so they might be easy prey to modern European SEAD/DEAD assets.

[GreyGhost]

Sounds like another Libyan AF jet has been shot down ...

>>> Article <<<

Gregg

[Julien (UK)]

So where are these RAF assets gonna fly from?...shoulda kept the Ark Royal and Harrier's!.

Or maybe get the Aussie's to bring those recently retired F-111's back,a type with great range and weapons...and we know the old whatshisname and his mate's just love the Vark

I think they will base out of Italy. Makes sense especially for the Typhoon which needs specialised ground equipment, as its already there.

I do agree thought that this situation does show up the cutterly crap decision to scrap our carriers early.

I fully support the US decision not to be activly involved with jets. The UN action was lead by the UK & France and there are pleanty of others offering Jets. I think the US will take the lead in command and control which will be good, given the assets they have for this. I have seen reported that the commander in charge of planning for the no-fly zone will be US Adm Samuel Locklear.

I just hope we can get all this done sooner rather than later. Though I am surprised its proceeding as quick as it is.

Julien

Edited March 19, 2011 by Julien (UK)

[f12aaa]

The tanks have entered in Benghazi 2 hours ago...

Edited March 19, 2011 by f12aaa

[Valkyrie_04]

Too little, too late. Hope I'm wrong! ;)

[Tony Stark]

If you notice China and Russia always sit things like NFZ out, i think it has to do more with great minds think alike. ;)

Agreed, neither one wishes to alienate their existing/potential clients.

China and Russia are very concerned with sovereign rights, or at least their image on sovereign rights, so they just plead the fifth or vote no on any sort of security council vote that has anything to do with this.

I'm sure there are some in Tibet, Chechnya and Georgia who would disagree. And "plead the fifth?" I think the term you're looking for is "abstain" from voting on any particular Security Council resolution. Both Russia and China have veto power (along with the US, UK and France) so abstaining from such a vote is hardly a rejection of the proposed resolution. Both Russia and China could have vetoed S/RES/1973, but they chose not to, not because of any altruistic concerns over Libya's sovereign rights, but because to have done so would have caused them to lose face. No one wants to be the guy that says "No no no, let's continue to let this guy bomb not just armed rebels but unarmed protesters too!" But if Gaddafi's still in power when the dust settles, they'll still have a potential client they'll have leverage over.

I can't really talk about Russia though since it's not really my area of expertise.

And yet you didn't let such a handicap stop you before. Truly inspirational.

If the game is already won, you send in the second or third string players to give your guys a rest and let them have a little glory.

I'm sure the Brits, Canadians, Italians, etc. all appreciate your perception of them being "second or third string players"

I think there are several reasons for the United States not directly participating. The most important is the political perception of the United States leading a third military action against an Islamic Arab state. It is a politically unpalatable position that could have a detrimental effect on other theaters and the security of US assets in the middle east. So paramount they wanted to avoid military action.

Libya's PR department would have you believe that they are a Socialist nation; in fact the official name for the state is "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (Jamahiriya being Arabic for "state of the masses"). However, Libya's government is really that of a military dictatorship that would have more in common with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or North Korea. Unlike Iran, which is an Islamic Republic headed by a religious figurehead, the rule of law currently is Gaddafi's. At one point even Gaddafi himself has blamed Al-Qaeda for the initial protests that began last month in wake of the Egyptian uprising (I think he's also blamed teenagers, rock-and/or-roll and Mountain Dew as well, but that's beside the point.)

Finally Libya's military capabilities are actually quite limited. On paper their air defence systems... thumbing through my conveniently delivered copy of the Military Balance from yesterday, Libya has probably 40 or so SA-5 launchers, 36 SA-3 Goas, 72 SA-6s and a bunch of organic AD assets. It looks like alot but it is unlikely that all but a few are operational at this time. Moreover I've not heard if any of these have received significant upgrades in the past decade, so they might be easy prey to modern European SEAD/DEAD assets.

Which is why there's zero need to deploy F-22s; there's no point in running up airframe hours (see Murph's comment regarding what the last 20 years of deployments have done) on a silver bullet platform in an environment w/o an advanced IADS.

[Julien (UK)]

Just saw on the News Canadian Horents + transport plane, and also a Georgia ANG Herc transiting through Prestwick in Scotland enroute to Italy.

Julien

Edited March 19, 2011 by Julien (UK)

[f12aaa]

Latest news from Paris say the operation should start soon, between 14:00-15:00 UK time.

[f12aaa]

Seems Rafales are now bombing Benghazi.

[Quailane]

I'm sure there are some in Tibet, Chechnya and Georgia who would disagree. And "plead the fifth?" I think the term you're looking for is "abstain" from voting on any particular Security Council resolution. Both Russia and China have veto power (along with the US, UK and France) so abstaining from such a vote is hardly a rejection of the proposed resolution. Both Russia and China could have vetoed S/RES/1973, but they chose not to, not because of any altruistic concerns over Libya's sovereign rights, but because to have done so would have caused them to lose face. No one wants to be the guy that says "No no no, let's continue to let this guy bomb not just armed rebels but unarmed protesters too!" But if Gaddafi's still in power when the dust settles, they'll still have a potential client they'll have leverage over.

I think we agree more than you think, though it isn't about saving face, but about being pragmatic in international relations. I would argue that Tibet, Chechnya, and Georgia are reasons for China and Russia to be concerned about sovereign rights. Last time I checked, Tibet was part of China, and Chechnya was part of Russia, so those are strictly internal affairs. South Ossetia and Taiwan are special cases. Taiwan is easy; the PRC has never relinquished its claim over the island and is unfinished business from their civil war. Most countries pay lip service to China in this regard. South Ossetia is a special case too, but that really is not in the scope of this discussion. China and Russia do not want anyone to tell them how to run their internal business, which is one of the main reasons for them to block or abstain from voting in any UN resolution that calls for foreign intervention or meddling in the affairs of other states. China will only vote yes to foreign intervention if the state requests it. In all other cases, they will vote no or abstain. And by "plead the fifth," I really do mean it. China has an image to maintain, maybe not to the West, but to everyone else. Even if the standing committee of the politburo thought it was a good idea to have a no fly zone, and they might, they would keep that to themselves. While western countries politicize their dealings with other countries, for China it is just business, and they have tapped the niche market of dealing with countries that the West deems unsavory, has ignored, or has at all imposed itself on. By abstaining to vote, they come as close as they can to having their cake and eating it too. You are also right that vetoing this resolution would have made a lot of people angry at Russia or China, considering how wide-spread support for it was. But the fact remans, that we are never, at least for a long time, going to see the J-10 or J-20 fly into enemy airspace or China to otherwise join any international coalition against anyone regardless of their true sentiments about it.

And yet you didn't let such a handicap stop you before. Truly inspirational.

I'm not going to talk about something I don't feel qualified to talk about, so I didn't. And saying that I am not an expert on Russia is not the same thing as saying that I'm clueless about it.

I'm sure the Brits, Canadians, Italians, etc. all appreciate your perception of them being "second or third string players"

It may sound a little degrading depending on how you look at it, but it is true. Which of those countries comes even close to the air power of the United States? None, not by a long shot. However, this situation clearly doesn't require the F-22A's that the USAF Chief of Staff said were going to be deployed. Even aged airframes with one wheel in the museum like the CF-18 and F-16A vastly outclass Libya's rag-tag air force of dilapitated Soviet aircraft. The real threat is from SAM's, but the threat is tiny if proper precautions are taken, and that is assuming Getoffme is stupid enough to fire at UN coalition aircraft. Libya has the same kind of SAM hardware that Yugoslavia did, the kind I heard that despite their best efforts, around 800 missiles fired downed only 2 combat aircraft and a couple of Predator UAV's. But Libya's hardware is older, NATO know better how to deal with it, and out in the desert there is nowhere to hide even if you turn off the radar.

[11bee]

Seems Rafales are now bombing Benghazi.

Where did you hear that? I've seen the reports that French aircraft are in Libyan airspace, nothing that says they are "bombing" anyone. I thought the UN charter was strictly to enforce a no-fly zone and not go after ground targets (unless they are SAM's that pose a threat).

[rom]

hi ,

according french news, no bombing, just reconnaissance missions.

Maybe Rafale with RecoNG pod.

[F-15fan]

According to CNN.....the UK, France and Canada will be flying the first combat sorties.

[The Dude]

According to CNN.....the UK, France and Canada will be flying the first combat sorties.

I just read that too, this ought to be interesting. I hope they all return safe after their missions.