No Fly Zone

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.

03-03-11, 06:53 AM	#28
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,710 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode