No Fly Zone Implementation over Libya, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 1-3-2011 @ 09:04 AM by Daedalus3
With the alarming news that Libya can/maybe using its airborne assets to conduct military and psy-ops against its people, the UN/NATO are looking to put in place a mechanism to quickly deploy assets in the region. The objective is to be able to implement a no fly zone over Gaddafi controlled (only?) parts of Libya and bbring a halt to any military aerial activity not approved by the UN/NATO.

Since Aviano is too far north, the primary staging locations used to enforce such a NFZ would be NASSIG (Sigonella, Italy @ 37°24′06″N 014°55′20″E )? Squadrons from the 31st FW could be redeployed to NASSIG to enforce NFZ over Gaddafi controlled coastal cities (Tripoli incld?).

We also have the CSG lead by the Enterprise steaming up the Red Sea to deploy in the area. NFZ enforcement would be carried out by CVW-1 onboard the Big E. If NASSIG is tasked with coastal enforcement, the Big E could reposition itself deeper in the Gulf of Sidra say nearer to Benghazi, thus able to cover area much deeper into Libya.

Not sure of how Malta can or will be used (if at all?)

Libyan (Gaddafi) Assets:

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that the Libyan AF under Gaddafi control has suffered major attrition due to defections (Mirage F1 x 2).
Here are some pictures of 2 defecting Libyan a/c and Helis that landed at Malta after refusing(?) to bomb civilian targets.
Then there are 2 ejections (1 Su-22 and 1 Su-24) . Also many a/c have been captured by revolting forces.
Also one Mi-24 attack heli is claimed to be shot down by AA directed by revolting forces.

Another point that comes to mind are the two encounters between the USN and Libyan jets in the Gulf of Sidra:
Gulf Of Sidra 1981
Gulf Of Sidra 1989

All in all, it seems like a lost cause for the Gaddafi controlled AF as they are fighting on one front already and if the UN/NATO deploys its assets then it will be all over. Though it can make for some interesting engagements.
edit on 1-3-2011 by Daedalus3 because: url snafu



reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 04:47 AM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by Daedalus3
While I didn't quite intend this to be a political thread (more of a tactical one rather), but my opinion is that anything with a UN mandate is quite legitimate and justified.

However, we are talking about a UN mandated no fly zone here, not a full blooded unilateral invasion. That to against a fat dictatorial and delusional regime which came to power through a coup (4 decades ago!) and is trying to bomb its people who are revolting..
Sort of different from the the other scenarios.

Why wasn't it applied in Darfur? Well you got me there.


Its not really different from other scenarios, but it is a hard decision to come to terms with and that is why I don't expect everyone to understand my point.

If you continue to let the UN decide what a government can do within its own borders, you run real risks.

Yes, you gain the immediate benefit of saving thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives.

But theres the long term to consider - the precedent that a government is no longer the supreme power within its own country. Like it or not, a democratic government is not the single and only way to hold power within a country - its not a natural right, its not "the" way of it. A countries neighbour doesn't have the right to enforce its views that a countries government is illegitimate, and neither do the UN - which is why there are so many dictatorships and oppresive regimes within the UN.

If you remove power from the government to operate totally and completely within its borders in this case, then where does it stop? If you can justify it to save lives here, then you can justify it to stop the death penalty, stop certain religious activities, regulate taxation etc etc.

The UN is for interaction between nations, it does not have the mandate to act within a country without that countries authorisation. And yes, this has wide ranging implications for the Iraq debacle as well - a lot of the stuff that the US and UK did even before the invasion was not authorised by the UN, including the no-fly zones!


reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 05:44 PM by thebozeian
reply to post by RichardPrice

Richard I whole heartedly agree with you and what's more consider the following.

If the UN is so interested only in the altruistic ideals of freedom of expression/ freedom from fear or death, and NOT anything to do with oil, then where the hell are they in Myanmar? Or for that matter why haven't they formally re-entered North Korea? After all nobody believes that either of those two countries is a democratic and peaceful paradise now do they?

LEE.


reply posted on 9-3-2011 @ 12:09 AM by SevenThunders
Originally posted by thebozeian
reply to post by RichardPrice

Richard I whole heartedly agree with you and what's more consider the following.

If the UN is so interested only in the altruistic ideals of freedom of expression/ freedom from fear or death, and NOT anything to do with oil, then where the hell are they in Myanmar? Or for that matter why haven't they formally re-entered North Korea? After all nobody believes that either of those two countries is a democratic and peaceful paradise now do they?

LEE.



Good point. I think it reveals that the civil unrest in these Muslim countries has all been staged by the elites in the West. The sycophantic news media, with it's constant flattery of the revolution is another dead give away.


reply posted on 19-3-2011 @ 06:14 PM by Daedalus3
Well whatever our opinions, it has started.

BBC
CNN

Phase 1 seems to involve SEAD operations using US / UK missile strikes and French air support with NATO/French aerial recon.
Interestingly, its been repeatedly mentioned that US activities would only involve initial operations before a handover to a coalition commander.
Also notably the Big E has not been a part of the activities as yet, while the French Charles De Gaulle is touted to leave port.
The French/British seem to be leading this one.

Also interestingly, a surprisingly clear set of video caught a MiG -23 ablaze with the pilot seeming to eject (parachute not deployed)
www.bbc.co.uk...

EDIT: Reports in that the MiG-23 shot down was a rebel jet, but apparently it was was a fratricide! Pilot ejected (as noted in my post earlier) but reports claim that the parachute did not open in time
edit on 19-3-2011 by Daedalus3 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 09:44 AM by Virgil Cain
reply to post by Daedalus3


A question: If they could get to the pilot, wouldn't they send in a team to "clean up" the wreckage? I imagine that there are some pieces of equipment that they would prefer not to have floating around. An airstrike might accomplish the same thing, but it seems there are a number of people milling about. Is there a procedure they follow in theses circumstances or is it addressed on a case by case basis?



reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 12:57 PM by RichardPrice
Originally posted by Virgil Cain
reply to post by Daedalus3


A question: If they could get to the pilot, wouldn't they send in a team to "clean up" the wreckage? I imagine that there are some pieces of equipment that they would prefer not to have floating around. An airstrike might accomplish the same thing, but it seems there are a number of people milling about. Is there a procedure they follow in theses circumstances or is it addressed on a case by case basis?


Normally they do hit the wreckage with an airstrike, but in sensitive locations and operations such as this one where there are crowds of civilians and media onsite they don't do it.

As to why not sending in a cleanup team, they would be operating on foreign soil, many miles from a support base (since none are in-country), and they would have to have significant close air support - and again they would have to deal with the media and civilians on-site.

Many times during the Iraq invasion, the US bombed M1A1 tanks that had been disabled and abandoned - despite the fact that there were now civilians on and around the tank, the difference is that there was no media and no close scrutiny.

An F-15 Strike Eagle is quite old, its doubtful that there is much on the aircraft that is worth the negative PR.


reply posted on 22-3-2011 @ 02:23 PM by Virgil Cain
reply to post by RichardPrice


Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. I suppose this was the thrust of my question which you have clearly and thoroughly answered.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Amazing video of 747 lifting in place in extreme wind conditions
  Posted 2 days ago with 11 member flags
Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 17 days ago with 4 member flags
HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags