The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

unless you kill the capacity for him to command military forces, there is no guarantee that gadaffi sympathisers will not use military force against transit points of entry/exit

there is no wild west solution here.

I assume it would be considered an act of war for EW aircraft based out of Cyprus or elsewhere to run "exercises" off the coast of Libya?

But yes, only realistic solution at the moment is to fly people out or ship them out on ferries. Would diplomatic staff be organising for foreign nationals to be transported to the airport or ports or would they have to attempt to make their own way?

Edit:
@1805: Australia and Canada have a reciprocal agreement regarding each others citizens when only one or the other nation has an embassy in a particular country. I assume similar agreements are in place between other Commonwealth countries as well.

 

[kromeriz]

Considering there a very few reports of foreign nationals being targeted the current low key approach appears to be the right way forward, gun boat diplomacy is unwarranted. At the end of the day there are enough NATO assets in the Med to evacuate all member state nationals stuck in country. NATO members (including the US) have taken a softly, softly approach and used civilian assets (chartered aircraft and ferries) to run folk back to Malta.

The UK press, as usual, is wining like a bunch of spoilt children because the UK wasn't first out the traps. Those expats blabbing on Sky should thank their lucky stars they are not Bangladeshi, who will be left to fend for themselves.

That is true at the moment but he has said that there will be streets of blood and that he has indicated a break in ties with the West and a return to isolation. He is going to try and target everyone: this a man involved with bringing down a 747. We in western and central Europe seem to be taking a very very softly sofly approach to this man - Bosnia again, a lot of innocent people getting topped while we stand by. Now that bit is wrong and, if Mr Rudd can do something good for him because, Cameron has no cajones and we are too enthrall to Oil. RN should have seen this coming, there are a lot of people with a lot of gold braid on their uniforms - we should be getting rid of them not our ships. Rant over.:splat

 

[gf0012-aust]

I assume it would be considered an act of war for EW aircraft based out of Cyprus or elsewhere to run "exercises" off the coast of Libya?

they can certainly do it just outside the EEZ and that would still allow them to see inside most of Libya

I would imagine that there would be a few satellite adjustments happening over nth africa at the moment to maintain a watching brief over southern libyan military units. everything that transmits in Libya would be getting attention from any number of militaries, I imagine that the Italians, Saudis, Spanish, Americans would be ears up.

But yes, only realistic solution at the moment is to fly people out or ship them out on ferries. Would diplomatic staff be organising for foreign nationals to be transported to the airport or ports or would they have to attempt to make their own way?

I imagine that it would be chaotic and that this would be an ad-hoc issue, although there was a view that there was an "middle eastern iron curtain event" scenario evolving, I really don't think that anyone suspected that this would happen so quickly

if there are any contingencies in place they would be a legacy of planning for egypt.

On that basis, UK probably has sufficient resources on standby, but again, the fastest way to move is get people out by air - ships in volatile environments are attractive targets, so you only bring them in if you have sanitised and secured the space (another specfor role) BUT, putting armed troops in another countries space without permission is an invitation for them to regard it as a hostile act and start invoking the Berne and Hague Conventions etc....

walk softly, get your people to the airport and fly them out while all the local chatter is pre-occupied and hope that this idiot does not start targetting all civilians and accuse them of being spies etc.....

this bloke is already unhinged, I'd be getting people out as fast as possible before he completely derails.

 

[kromeriz]

Interesting thought could a Daring (maybe need more than one as they wouldn't have enough missiles?) impose a "no fly" zone on Libya on it's own?

No. It is fitted for but not with missiles...
Similar to forthcoming Lizzie - fitted for but not with aircraft...

 

[Waylander]

As much as the RN could need a PR boost it is mainly aRAF/SF thing.
Citizens in remote areas are going to get evacuated by air force transports with SF onboard just like it is happening right now.

A now fly zone will be imposed by aircrafts operating from Italy and Malta and possibly France.

As said the normal evacuations by sea are, as said, mostly done by civilian ferries.

 

[gf0012-aust]

RN should have seen this coming, there are a lot of people with a lot of gold braid on their uniforms - we should be getting rid of them not our ships. Rant over.:splat

RN can do squat.

They act at the direction of the civilian govt of the day. they cannot move autonomously.

like all countries, the UKFOR have contingency plans kept in flat drawers which get pulled out when bad things happen.

there is no evidence at all that they have not planned - in fact I would bet London to a Brick that they have.

The capacity to execute those plans requires the Govt to give its imprimatur - and they will do that on the basis of what risks are in play to conduct a recovery

This is a political process - not a military solution

 

[gf0012-aust]

A now fly zone will be imposed by aircrafts operating from Italy and Malta and possibly France.

yep

the best that other countries can do is establish no fly zones in international corridors - they cannot do them within that countries borders. If the Libyans declare their EEZ as a military zone, then that impacts as well

In an international corridor you can even elect to provide all civlian air with military escorts (ie CAP) - but only in host nation space and on a defined international corridor.

Libyan airspace is still Libyan airspace. the good thing is that the LAF appears to be either neutral or pro civilian issues..

 

[kev 99]

No. It is fitted for but not with missiles...
Similar to forthcoming Lizzie - fitted for but not with aircraft...

Not really, it may well be the case that we don't have any yet (anyone else know if we've actually received deliveries of missiles yet?), but that isn't the same thing. Since Dauntless has demonstrated that the technology works its just a case of installing the missiles in the vls.

I would say that imposing a "no-fly zone" with SAMs sounds like a non-starter though.

 

[kromeriz]

Not really, it may well be the case that we don't have any yet (anyone else know if we've actually received deliveries of missiles yet?), but that isn't the same thing. Since Dauntless has demonstrated that the technology works its just a case of installing the missiles in the vls.

Hi Kev, my understanding through the The Army Rumour Service forum, is that it is non-operational at the moment... and will be retro-fitted, once all trials are concluded. Would be more than happy to stand corrected. as I am not an expert.

 

[kev 99]

Hi Kev, my understanding through the The Army Rumour Service forum, is that it is non-operational at the moment... and will be retro-fitted, once all trials are concluded. Would be more than happy to stand corrected. as I am not an expert.

Dauntless has completed a test firing, all the hardware is there, it's more a question of whether the missiles have been delivered and installed yet.

 

[swerve]

Considering there a very few reports of foreign nationals being targeted the current low key approach appears to be the right way forward, gun boat diplomacy is unwarranted. At the end of the day there are enough NATO assets in the Med to evacuate all member state nationals stuck in country. NATO members (including the US) have taken a softly, softly approach and used civilian assets (chartered aircraft and ferries) to run folk back to Malta.

The UK press, as usual, is wining like a bunch of spoilt children because the UK wasn't first out the traps. Those expats blabbing on Sky should thank their lucky stars they are not Bangladeshi, who will be left to fend for themselves.

Absolutely right.

The UK government response has been pretty poor, but you're damn right about the Bangladeshis, & some others. 60000 Bangladeshis there, apparently, & their government has - wait for it - asked international aid organisations & other governments to help them. Poor sods.

The Turks seem to be well organised. Got quite a few out by air from Tripoli, two ferries (with warship escort) took off 3000 from Benghazi yesterday morning & a couple more were due to dock today.

The Greeks have set up a shuttle to Crete, but I don't know how many they've taken off so far. Supposedly evacuating Chinese, by arrangement with the Chinese govt.

 

[StobieWan]

Dauntless has completed a test firing, all the hardware is there, it's more a question of whether the missiles have been delivered and installed yet.

Interesting note from the Defence daily mail I subscribe to..

"Plymouth-based amphibious warship HMS Albion has passed her intensive period of assessed sea training under the scrutiny of the staff of Flag Officer Sea Training. The culmination of the training was a simulated evacuation of civilians from a conflict-ravaged foreign country where law and order was breaking down. The amphibious command and control ship used helicopters and landing craft to collect 'evacuees' from four landmarks in south east Cornwall and Plymouth."

Seeing as how they're all warmed up for it...

Ian

 

[swerve]

Interesting thought could a Daring (maybe need more than one as they wouldn't have enough missiles?) impose a "no fly" zone on Libya on it's own?

Only a very small part. Libya has more land than France, Germany, Spain & Italy combined.

 

[Repulse]

Only a very small part. Libya has more land than France, Germany, Spain & Italy combined.

True, but everyone lives near the sea - I think you could safely ignore the desert. Perhaps two T45s then...

 

[StobieWan]

True, but everyone lives near the sea - I think you could safely ignore the desert. Perhaps two T45s then...

I would not like to be making shoot/no shoot decisions in that environment - how do you do target ID?

It's not even a serious notion. Best thing for us to be doing right now is chartering some transport,

Ian

 

[swerve]

You'd need a lot more than two to cover the coast. More like ten times that. Over 1500 km in a straight line east-west, but it isn't straight, & for effective cover you'd need overlaps. At that, you'd still miss out quite a few military bases, most of the oil fields, & a significant minority of the population.

In other words, the answer as to whether you can enforce a no-fly zone with AAW ships off the coast is 'No', unless you're the USA, & it would require pretty much an all-out effort even for the USN.

And Ian is right. It's not a serious notion.

 

[rip]

You'd need a lot more than two to cover the coast. More like ten times that. Over 1500 km in a straight line east-west, but it isn't straight, & for effective cover you'd need overlaps. At that, you'd still miss out quite a few military bases, most of the oil fields, & a significant minority of the population.

In other words, the answer as to whether you can enforce a no-fly zone with AAW ships off the coast is 'No', unless you're the USA, & it would require pretty much an all-out effort even for the USN.

And Ian is right. It's not a serious notion.

If anyone in the West tried to help the poor Libyan people that are being murdered because they want to be free and to live their life without fear that would turn the situation into a West verses the Islamic world story line and every jihadist in the world would rush to Khadafy’s side to defend Islam. Of course this is not a rational response but we are not dealing with rational people. It would also take the power out of the peoples hands and discreadit them. So what can we do?

We can still send food and medical supplies and evaluate at least some of the wounded. Who can argue about that?

We can declare all of Khadafy’s mercenary’s as international outlaws and then state that all of them will be hunted down and tried as the criminals no matter what country they come from or they run too.

And if to Khadafy’s TV and radio stations went off line somehow that I think would help and we would have to kill very many people to that and maybe not even one.

 

[CheeZe]

You'd need a lot more than two to cover the coast. More like ten times that. Over 1500 km in a straight line east-west, but it isn't straight, & for effective cover you'd need overlaps. At that, you'd still miss out quite a few military bases, most of the oil fields, & a significant minority of the population.

In other words, the answer as to whether you can enforce a no-fly zone with AAW ships off the coast is 'No', unless you're the USA, & it would require pretty much an all-out effort even for the USN.

And Ian is right. It's not a serious notion.

Agreed. When I read that, I thought of the anti-air measures used in the Falklands. If someone tried hard enough to sink a ship and create a hole in cordon, the hardware is in the region. And the propaganda caused by the loss of a single RN (or any other western navy's) warship would be tremendous.

So, if a western navy wanted to block off the Libyan coastline, it'd need to have a deep and long blockade that could fill holes created by losses. And be ready to take a lot of political heat for those losses.

Not having read the rest of this thread, I was going to ask if the two QE-class carriers are still going ahead. I had heard there was some questions about funding for them as well as people in the gov't asking if the UK needs carriers.

 

[1805]

You'd need a lot more than two to cover the coast. More like ten times that. Over 1500 km in a straight line east-west, but it isn't straight, & for effective cover you'd need overlaps. At that, you'd still miss out quite a few military bases, most of the oil fields, & a significant minority of the population.

In other words, the answer as to whether you can enforce a no-fly zone with AAW ships off the coast is 'No', unless you're the USA, & it would require pretty much an all-out effort even for the USN.

And Ian is right. It's not a serious notion.

It wasn't a serious suggestion, I was more thinking of a specific city, "no fly" zone like a Beirut situation, covering an evacuation.

 

[Systems Adict]

Not having read the rest of this thread, I was going to ask if the two QE-class carriers are still going ahead. I had heard there was some questions about funding for them as well as people in the gov't asking if the UK needs carriers.

YES,

They are going ahead.....

HMS Queen Elizabeth Steps Out Into The Lime Light - BAE Systems

I'd even go as far to say that if you go back 1 year thru the thread, you'll learn a WHOLE lotta info about EXACTLY what everyone thought & what has actually happened....
(BTW I'd start round about page 220)


SA