No Fly Zone [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Jimbuna

03-01-11, 03:54 PM

According to the Daily Mail, up to 59 Typhoons from Leuchars and Conningsby (leaving 12! for UK defence).

Just been checking, Tripoli is about 1100 miles from Akrotiri as the Crow flies, Libya has an area of 679,359 square miles and the Typhoon according to Wikipedia has a Air defence Combat range with 10-min loiter of 750 miles, so we'll need some tankers as well and an AWACS to tell the fighters where to go thats if the target plane/helicopter hasn't already landed, plus are they prepared to shot-down airliners.

Another thought, is the Typhoon actually cleared for live weapons firing ?

Dowly

03-01-11, 04:00 PM

How long they're going to wait before (if) doing anything? I remember reading about the 'no fly zone' last week or so. :hmmm:

Molon Labe

03-01-11, 04:21 PM

It's going to take a UNSC resolution, and China and Russia as usual have nixed that idea. I don't understand why this is being discussed in the press without the words "withdrawing from the UN" being mentioned in the same article.

Jimbuna

03-01-11, 04:26 PM

Interesting that this minor middle eastern trouble has not dissuaded the powers that be from announcing the next round of redundancies!

STEED

03-01-11, 04:56 PM

So The UK threatens to enforce a No Fly Zone over Libiya? With What? :hmmm:

Great one jim. :har:

Dave has been reading Tony's Blairs book, the section on how to get re-elected...go to war.

Oberon

03-01-11, 05:03 PM

Jim...why do you think the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is still a part of the RAF? :03:

Armistead

03-01-11, 05:10 PM

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

Jimbuna

03-01-11, 07:34 PM

Great one jim. :har:

Dave has been reading Tony's Blairs book, the section on how to get re-elected...go to war.

Jim...why do you think the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is still a part of the RAF? :03:

LOL...The UK government have just declared their intention to create a no fly zone.

Or "Royal Air Force" as it used to be known.

tater

03-01-11, 07:39 PM

Dowly

03-01-11, 07:44 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/02/3152436.htm?section=justin

The head of US Central Command (CENTCOM) has warned that world leaders
would have to consider bombing raids if they wanted to enforce a no-fly zone
over strife-torn Libya.

nikimcbee

03-01-11, 07:51 PM

So The UK threatens to enforce a No Fly Zone over Libiya? With What? :hmmm:
lolwaffles:hmmm:

nikimcbee

03-01-11, 07:53 PM

Dowly

03-01-11, 07:54 PM

lolwaffles:hmmm:

If the extremely unlikely event would occur that they all actually managed to take off without wrecking half the planes along with half of the airbase, they'd probably end up shooting down the wrong planes. :O:

Bubblehead1980

03-01-11, 08:22 PM

Yea, Fox news was promoting last night that we needed a no fly zone and blockade now. That assures me we don't need one. In the end it will end up fubar regardless, so best we just let it work out.

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

Takeda Shingen

03-01-11, 08:37 PM

Arm, come on now, the other networks are beating the war drums as well.Who on Fox said this btw? Wondering if it was a news person or opinion people like Hannity etc.I am opposed to us going into Libya, we can not afford it and they have not attacked us.Listening to some Liberal fool on O'Reilly now advocating US troops in Libya.

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

Bubblehead1980

03-01-11, 08:44 PM

'Liberal fool' is all well and good, but let's just remember who was running the show the last time we invaded a nation unprovoked.

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without an agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly mislead us into war.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President(no one to yell at) and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it unless Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE then, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

Takeda Shingen

03-01-11, 08:47 PM

At the time they thought they had WMD's, of course many maintain they lied, I disagree and anyone without a agenda can see that Bush himself believed there were WMD's, Cheney etc may have manipulated, but Bush did not knowingly lie.Now, in hindsight it was a bad idea to go in, but everything is clear after the fact.We are not under threat from Libya at the moment so have no business sending troops.The Libs are saying we do because there is a Dem President and there are human rights issues(like there were none under Saddam?) They are the ones playing politics, I am saying we do not need to go in or even consider it.Libya gets hostile towards us, MAYBE, but right now, we need to sit aside and let Libyan people fight their revolution.

But we still went in there without being attacked. And it was the neo-conservative Republicans who presented the evidence and lead the charge. Plenty of Democrats supported it as well, but the NeoCons lead the charge. We went in under the auspices of ending the weapons programs and making the world safer, espeically for America. We accomplished neither, political spin or not. Those are plain and simple facts, and we would all do well to remember that the next time we stick our nose into that region of the world.

tater

03-01-11, 09:22 PM

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Takeda Shingen

03-01-11, 09:26 PM

Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so. They didn't until they found it politically expedient to do so (after the fact).

Well, not having a degree in political science, I'd have to back out of the conversation. However, I think it a very good point that none of our efforts in the Middle East, Iraq included, have been successful in securing our interests. However, this is likely disputable as I am also lacking a degree in international relations.

Oberon

03-01-11, 11:32 PM

I guess (again, little qualifications here) that one would have to go back to the root of the question and ask "What is the US's interests?" and not the stated interests but the real ones. Geo-political influence, resources, survival of Israel? Only the NSA and perhaps TLAM Strike really know I'd wager.

Castout

03-02-11, 03:07 AM

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

http://www.defaiya.com/defaiyaonline/images/stories/news/dassault-rafale-.jpg

Tribesman

03-02-11, 04:29 AM

@Tater
Congress was almost unanimous. Anyone who disagreed should have done so.
No it wasn't unaimous, 297 votes. It was a bigger majority in the senate but that wasn't anywhere near unanimous either.

They said the same about Vietnam which was nearly unanimous, it turns out they had been lied to and gone along with the lies about Vietnam same as they did over Iraq.

TLAM Strike

03-02-11, 07:40 AM

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

Too overt. There are boots on the ground already. The rescue of those Brit Oil Workers by the Regiment showed that. Just sneak in and sabotage anything that is a major threat. Those new mobile MLRS US SOF have would work wonders in Shoot and Scoot missions against Libyan Air Bases.

I guess (again, little qualifications here) that one would have to go back to the root of the question and ask "What is the US's interests?" and not the stated interests but the real ones. Geo-political influence, resources, survival of Israel? Only the NSA and perhaps TLAM Strike really know I'd wager.

You summoned? :O:

IMHO US Interests in the Region are in no particular order:

Stability in the region. Whatever is happening get it over with. When Qaddafi was in power for the last 10 years or so he was quiet in contrast to the 1970s and 1980s. We like it better when is not providing a safe haven for terrorists ala Patriot Games or transferring weapons tech ala the Condor Missile.

The spice must flow. The oil stocks of Libya just opened up to the west and we want the opportunity to get Oil that's not threatened by Iran or from Russia.

Contain and capture any remaining Libyan WMDs. Qaddafi had a big CBRN weapons and BM program, its likely not all of it was destroyed. The opportunity for capturing/inspecting/neutralizing certain sites and personnel now exists.

Jimbuna

03-02-11, 09:21 AM

I'm expecting the French with their Rafale. Bomb those pro Gaddafi !$#@!!%!. Forget no fly zone. Bomb the runaways, destroy the planes and tanks. Or shoot Gaddafi in the ass.

Somehow I don't se that happening and most definitely not by the French :DL

yubba

03-02-11, 01:05 PM

Here, I see no one knows how to fight a war if you got boots on the ground, give them stinger missles geez:hmmm:

Oberon

03-02-11, 01:10 PM

http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya

Interesting reading.

STEED

03-02-11, 01:35 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12618631

WHY?

This coalition said, this country is bust so why wast money.

Bilge_Rat

03-02-11, 01:39 PM

http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/03/libya

Interesting reading.

indeed, very interesting. Gaddafi will not go on his own. He will fight to the end and it now looks like we may see a prolonged civil war in Lybia.

Interesting the see the Cameron-Gates two step. No doubt the UK proposal was to basically have the US do all the heavy lifting with a nominal UK presence, something which has zero support in the White House or Congress.

The only way you will see military intervention in Lybia will be if the Europeans actually do something for a change, instead of just asking other countries to send their sons to die in combat.

tater

03-02-11, 01:43 PM

Well, not having a degree in political science, I'd have to back out of the conversation. However, I think it a very good point that none of our efforts in the Middle East, Iraq included, have been successful in securing our interests. However, this is likely disputable as I am also lacking a degree in international relations.

Dude, I apologized before. I'm a pedant on some science stuff, can't help it. Makes me an ass sometimes, that comes with the territory.

Show up in NM, and the beer (or wine) and dinner is on me. I'll even cook vegetarian best I can.

Seriously, I apologize.

Oberon

03-02-11, 02:19 PM

indeed, very interesting. Gaddafi will not go on his own. He will fight to the end and it now looks like we may see a prolonged civil war in Lybia.

Interesting the see the Cameron-Gates two step. No doubt the UK proposal was to basically have the US do all the heavy lifting with a nominal UK presence, something which has zero support in the White House or Congress.

The only way you will see military intervention in Lybia will be if the Europeans actually do something for a change, instead of just asking other countries to send their sons to die in combat.

I'd agree with you completely on the UK proposal, primarily because we have nothing to lift with, something that was noted in just about every British newspaper this morning in varying degrees. It's fast coming up to a crunch time in regards to the military cuts in which Cameron will either have to change his ideas and reinstate units like the Harriers and Ark Royal, or give up all pretense of acting outside of the British shores...and indeed mostly inside.

Bubblehead1980

03-02-11, 03:16 PM

But we still went in there without being attacked. And it was the neo-conservative Republicans who presented the evidence and lead the charge. Plenty of Democrats supported it as well, but the NeoCons lead the charge. We went in under the auspices of ending the weapons programs and making the world safer, espeically for America. We accomplished neither, political spin or not. Those are plain and simple facts, and we would all do well to remember that the next time we stick our nose into that region of the world.

We basically agree takeda, no US troops should be sent to Libya or anywhere else right now.Some nation attacks us, sure but no optional intervention, can't afford it and not worth the lives.

Cohaagen

03-02-11, 04:21 PM

The only way you will see military intervention in Lybia will be if the Europeans actually do something for a change, instead of just asking other countries to send their sons to die in combat.

At last count there were 750 or so European KIA in Afghanistan alone, the dead including Italians, French, Danes, etc., all killed aiding the US in a conflict that doesn't even remotely concern them. I suppose that lonely, isolated, wounded feeling of 12th September 2001 has finally faded completely from the American consciousness...and yet still, to quote the famous banner flown by some socialist Eurotrash destroyer crew, "We Stand By You". Quite why, given the reversion to chauvinistic type, I have no idea. Like the Australians in Vietnam, the European contribution won't feature in the popular record. Being furriners, they count for exactly jack ****.

Bilge_Rat

03-02-11, 05:07 PM

At last count there were 750 or so European KIA in Afghanistan alone, the dead including Italians, French, Danes, etc., all killed aiding the US in a conflict that doesn't even remotely concern them. I suppose that lonely, isolated, wounded feeling of 12th September 2001 has finally faded completely from the American consciousness...and yet still, to quote the famous banner flown by some socialist Eurotrash destroyer crew, "We Stand By You". Quite why, given the reversion to chauvinistic type, I have no idea. Like the Australians in Vietnam, the European contribution won't feature in the popular record. Being furriners, they count for exactly jack ****.

I should have said "rest of the world" instead of Europeans, but could not resist. Apologies :ping:

It just seems like the same people who criticized the US for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq are now asking the US to intervene in Libya.

However, the mood now in the USA is closer to the post-vietnam era. The US has lost the will to intervene in the affairs of another country after the debacle in Iraq. The country is still struggling with a massive recession and huge deficits. It has 150,000 troops tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will not take the lead and shoulder the responsibility for Libya.

The only way a military intervention will occur in Libya is if the European countries take the lead. Libya and North Africa are in the French and Italian sphere of interest, as they have been fonding of rubbing in for decades. France and Italy, with the support of Germany and the UK (and USA and Canada) could mobilize the required force.

On the other hand, if the big 4 european countries cannot be bothered to organize a proper military response on their own, in their own backyard, why should the US be expected to shoulder the responsibility?

yubba

03-02-11, 09:47 PM

What you think and what would the rest of America think if we were sitting on more oil than all those middle east countries all put together and the elites are waiting and wringing there hands waiting for the price to hit the magic number of 200 dollars a barrel before they start drilling and bankrupt us into socialism. All this time all the death for nothing think about it.

Skybird

03-03-11, 06:53 AM

the most logical choice for basing an air force to enforce a no fly zone, would be Italy, or carriers.

However, relocating a really not small force of fighters to bases in southern italy, and reorganising the logistics to maintain and supply them there, is no small task. I think it would be easier with a carrier whose wings already already are autark.

The US should be payed financial compensation for the operation by it'S NATO partners.

This is not to stay out of the action by paying money. I just think that it would be easier with a carrier indeed. From mItaly, there could be additional sorties of tankers and AWACS.

However, take into account to deal with SAMs. Any enforcing of a no fly zone would need to include planning for substantial anti-SAM campaigns.

It would not be enough to just throw in a handful of fighters there.

Oberon

03-03-11, 07:08 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12633415

Is this the beginning?

Skybird

03-03-11, 07:19 AM

Sounds as if once again planners were basing on the assumption that there are no enemies that are hostile and that the opponent's good will and cooperation could be taken for granted.

Why send in the military then!? :88)

Do it in force, or don't do it at all. But don't make yourself depending on the cooperation of the enemy - never. I learned that in chess, but is it really any different in reality?

Castout

03-03-11, 08:37 AM

Do it in force, or don't do it at all. But don't make yourself depending on the cooperation of the enemy - never. I learned that in chess, but is it really any different in reality?

Yes it is different in reality. There's interests and hidden agenda in RL. In chess it's so straightforward, to defeat the other color. In life?! Well the politicians would like to tread carefully and only act in the name of best self interest instead of good will or mere conscience. :O:

The short form is there's no politicking in chess.

I'd wager a hundred bucks that Gaddafi will be out without Libya descending into full scale protracted civil war or general chaos. Libyans would have their way. Gaddafi will be out of power. Alive or dead I do not know but out of power will he be before any other Arab country get their evolution to be successful. Libya will be the bloodiest evolution of them all. It already has. Another country will follow to get their evolution after Libya and it will be the last one of the string that has been sweeping the middle east.