No-fly zone over Libya

[riksavage]

I dont know where you got your information from but today on CNN they has one of the rebel generals asking for a noflyzone so im not sure your argument is valid.

He's one person. Nothing is going to happen without a UN mandate, Russia and China will veto. The US is not keen and the EU doesn't have the political will outside of France/UK.

The current military build-up is there to provide humanitarian support and even these assets will restrict themselves to the Eastern coastline.

And who is going to pay to sustain a no-fly zone?

America and to a lesser degree UK, has spent billions fighting in Iraq/A-stan. The last thing they need is another huge bill for no-fly zones over Libya. It would be financially more prudent to supply the opposition with Stinger/Starsteak and provide disposable quality AT weapons + training.

 

[kato]

also the CVN Enterprise has been moved into the area.

The Enterprise strike group has not yet been moved into the area, and remains south of Suez. Kearsarge and Ponce have docked in Souda.

(she's also not a EU/NATO-Europe ship, which is what that post was about)

 

[STURM]

Interesting article here on the issues involved in an 'intevention' and some background.

Libya and the folly of intervention - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Given the present situation, it's hard to imigine that just a few years ago, after giving up his nuke programme, Gadaffi was back in the 'good book's 'of some countries and that international defence companies were flocking to the LAVEX shows, eager for contracts to revitilise the Libyan Air Force.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...G41MAQ?docId=7bcdf11e54af477ea8f88355d3c963c2

As riksavage pointed out, the situation with regards to creating a no fly zone is more political than anything else. A UN mandate should be a requirement, with all major players agreeing on a common strategy - which is no easy undertaking! Whilst creating and enforcing a no fly zone is well within the military means of the NATO, my concern is what happens next if the situation in Libya drags on indefinitely with Gadaffi and anti-Gadaffi forces controlling different parts of the country, as they do now. How long will foreign forces be required to mantain the no fly zone? And what if a similiar situation were to erupt in another country, whilst the situation in Libya was still violatile - would there be the political will and resources to intervene there also?

 

[Feanor]

The Enterprise strike group has not yet been moved into the area, and remains south of Suez. Kearsarge and Ponce have docked in Souda.

(she's also not a EU/NATO-Europe ship, which is what that post was about)

To be brutally honest they can indeed project power, and probably maintain an effective no fly zone. However I seriously doubt about European NATO being able to launch a full on intervention with ground troops. A single airborne brigade is nice. But you'd need more then that to even control Tripoli.

 

[ThouHastEnabled]

To be brutally honest they can indeed project power, and probably maintain an effective no fly zone. However I seriously doubt about European NATO being able to launch a full on intervention with ground troops. A single airborne brigade is nice. But you'd need more then that to even control Tripoli.

A brigade would be nice, however in my opinion, it would not need to hold the majority of Tripoli for very long to maintain control. Just enough time (if well coordinated) to "open the gates" to let rebel ground forces enter the city and take over operations once inside.

I have a question, besides mortars, I haven't heard much in the use of artillery yet. Does anyone here have any ideas of their artillery strength?

As to the no fly zone, I thinks its a great idea. Gaddafi has already targeted ambulances carrying wounded civilians, I personally do not trust him to NOT bomb refugees trying to flee the fighting in the cities.

 

[swerve]

The S-200VE site at Sirte ranges to only 20 km short of Bengazhi in theory (which is where the next site was located).

Yes, they're very long range - but that sort of range is only achievable against very high-flying targets, & depends on your radars working. I doubt the radars would survive the first attempt to target a NATO fighter.

But in reality, the biggest threats to the rebels are probably Gadhafi's superiority in usable heavy weapons on the ground, & command & control.

 

[kato]

A single airborne brigade is nice.

With the assets in the area, you're not restricted to a single airborne brigade. You can land more troops than either Gaddafi or the rebels can concentrate locally anywhere right now. And with Charles de Gaulle (nevermind Enterprise and land-based fighters), you'd have air superiority to run support for them too.

 

[Waylander]

Seriously, I doubt an involvement on the ground would need more than what we have seen during the early days of Afghanistan.

Put SOFs and FACs on the ground if the opposition wishes so and let the rebels do the ground fighting.

Worked well with Dossum's and Massoud's Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and I don't see why it shouldn't work in Libya if the rebels are wishing for such a direct foreign involvement.

Sure a US involvement is always favourable in such a situation as they bring alot of assets to the fight but saying that the Europeans couldn't do it is IMO wrong.

As said before political will is what is lacking (Without judging it in this special case) and not military capabilities.

It would just take longer.

 

[Beatmaster]

Sorry to say but most of you speak like NATO is a incapable organization who does nothing more then talk, without having actual power.
Well they do talk alot thats true and the wheels turn imo way to slow, however UK, France, Dutch and Belguim are in favor of actions against the regime and the list keeps growing specially because Gaddafi is feeding this list by killing his own people.

If NATO has sufficient reason than Gaddafi does have a really serious problem, Russia and China may VETO a UN mandate however they both seem to have enough of Gaddafi so its only a matter of time before Gaddafies support drops to a point where a UN mandate is just a formality.
Another thing is that the Dutch Warcrime court in Den Hague is preparing charges against Gaddafi and they are investigating if he does commit war crimes.
Currently these steps are in progress and ones the court orders the arrest of Gaddafi then it really does not matter what he wants as they will come looking for him, which automatically solves the whole thing as he will never surrender to a court order so they will have to go in and take him by force, at least that is what is being said on the news by several analysts.
So either NATO is waiting for this court order, or NATO is planning something big as there is a serious buildup.
A UN mandate would be nice however if Gaddafi keeps this up then eventually the world does have only 2 options left:
1) walk away and pretend that Libya aint their problem.
2) Face fact and go in as they do understand that a no fly zone alone will not do the job.

A no fly zone means that UN will have to take out sam and anti air installations before a no fly-zone can be applied which means they will have to fight Gaddafies forces.
Also the refugees in the camps report that Gaddafi is bombing his own people using the air force and he is using snipers to execute rebel leaders and key figures.

So iam not sure where this is going to head but there are multiple options some are nice and some are not so nice options but fact remains that something needs to be done.

Btw i said something about a Dutch war tribunal court order to arrest Gaddafi, but while i was writing this i was actually wondering how far does the power of this court stretch? As to my understanding ones the court orders a arrest then a UN/NATO mandate is overruled right? or am i mistaken here?

 

[Feanor]

A court order isn't necessarily going to cause an intervention.

 

[Beatmaster]

A court order isn't necessarily going to cause an intervention.

Ok i understand well theoretical speaking what would happen if this court issues the arrest of Gadaffi?

Taken into account that he does commit one war-crime after another?
I mean will this not be a classic situation where the western world will take this fact as a pre-tekst to legalize the use of force against him and his followers?

Specially when Russia and China might veto a UN mandate, but in case of a court order they can veto as much as they like but the court has spoken which have to be followed right? would this make a Un mandate possible then?

 

[sgtgunn]

Europe already is projecting power down there. There's over a dozen warships in the area, and enough transport aircraft deployed to Malta to drop a whole brigade of troops on Tripolis (or Bengazhi) if necessary. And then there's the buildup in Souda.

......

Project Power?

Not sure what the agenda of the European Defense "experts" interviewed in the Time article were, but that's why I asked here!

Adrian

 

[sgtgunn]

Seriously, I doubt an involvement on the ground would need more than what we have seen during the early days of Afghanistan.

Put SOFs and FACs on the ground if the opposition wishes so and let the rebels do the ground fighting....

I agree - if there is going to be a serious Western intervention, put SOF forces on the ground to help train and organize the rebels, funnel in weapons and supplies via "donations" from friendly Arab Nations (Egypt? Tunisia?), establish and No-Fly Zone, and if necessart provide the rebels with SOF directed air support.

I don't think a No-Fly zone alone would be sufficient to accomplish much. It would be enough to make people opposed to any sort of intervention mad, but not enought to do real good. If we're going to intervene in needs to be enough to make a significant difference.

There's nothting worse than a half-assed intervention (like Somalia) that costs money, gets people killed, pisses others off, and when things turn out to harder than they looked, we bail and leave the situation a bigger mess than we found it.

Adrian

 

[Beatmaster]

I agree - if there is going to be a serious Western intervention, put SOF forces on the ground to help train and organize the rebels, funnel in weapons and supplies via "donations" from friendly Arab Nations (Egypt? Tunisia?), establish and No-Fly Zone, and if necessart provide the rebels with SOF directed air support.

I don't think a No-Fly zone alone would be sufficient to accomplish much. It would be enough to make people opposed to any sort of intervention mad, but not enought to do real good. If we're going to intervene in needs to be enough to make a significant difference.

There's nothting worse than a half-assed intervention (like Somalia) that costs money, gets people killed, pisses others off, and when things turn out to harder than they looked, we bail and leave the situation a bigger mess than we found it.

Adrian

You said that a no flyzone alone would not do much good, on the other hand the rebels are putting up a good fight against Gaddafies forces and so far they where able to stop Gaddafi time after time the only real problem they have is Gaddafies air force which bombs them while they cannot defend them self against it.
So if you ground Gaddafies planes then you take away a big chunk of Gaddafies power projection to a city or region where his troops try to regain control.
However i believe or start to believe that either Gaddafi is holding back or his army is falling apart from the inside out as i imagine that his army should be strong enough to stop the rebels, taken into account that his army does have tanks and other heavy weapons that the rebels do not have.
And still the rebels beat Gaddafies forces, at least it seems like it.

 

[sgtgunn]

You said that a no flyzone alone would not do much good, on the other hand the rebels are putting up a good fight against Gaddafies forces and so far they where able to stop Gaddafi time after time the only real problem they have is Gaddafies air force which bombs them while they cannot defend them self against it.
So if you ground Gaddafies planes then you take away a big chunk of Gaddafies power projection to a city or region where his troops try to regain control.
However i believe or start to believe that either Gaddafi is holding back or his army is falling apart from the inside out as i imagine that his army should be strong enough to stop the rebels, taken into account that his army does have tanks and other heavy weapons that the rebels do not have.
And still the rebels beat Gaddafies forces, at least it seems like it.

While we probably should take most of what we are hearing from the news media about what exactly is going on inside of Libya right now with a grain of salt given how confused the situation seems to be right now, a few things stand out (at least to me):

The early gains made by the rebel forces seem to be slipping. The lack of organization, training and proficiency in heavier weapons of the largely civilian rebels is beginning to tell.

The use of air power by the regime seems to be somewhat limited, and largely ineffective - whether that is a result of 1) not wanting to give the West good justification for a no-fly zone 2) poor aircraft condition & pilot quality 3) lack of good, easily recognizable and hittable military targets among the rebel, 4) a desire to not blow up things that you still believe you own and might need later or 5) a reluctance by pilots to bomb their own people (hence the stories of Libyan aircraft allegedly "missing" on purpose).

I would also imagine that most of Libya's air dropped ordnance is comprised of dumb bombs and unguided rockets. Even with all of the gee-whiz targeting capabilities, excellent aircrew training and smart weapons of western air forces, we still miss targets, bomb civilians by accident, etc. We can't expect the Libyan Air Force with old planes, flown by pilots of possibly indifferent training, dropping dumb bombs, on difficult targets to approach the level of effectiveness we're used to seeing out of our own combat aircraft.

I don't see air power (at least Libyan air power) as being decisive in this fight. I think factors on the ground such as Gaddafi's ability to keep control of his remaining forces, the ability of the rebels to stay organized, etc. will play a much larger role.

That's why I think if there is going to be an intervention, it needs to be more than just a no-fly zone if it is going to end up being anything more than a symbolic, token effort.

Adrian

 

[kato]

Updated/reviewed current list of NATO assets in theater:

• 1 surface warfare group, dispersed:
  • 5 frigates (2 UK, 2 GE, 1 NL)
  • 1 supply ship
• 3 amphibious groups
  • 2 LHD and 3 LPD
  • two destroyers assigned for escort of two of these groups
  • third group (US) no escort
  • total 1,000 US and FR marines embarked (ground troops); surge capacity about 4,500
  • air groups include a MV-22 squadron
• SNMCMG1
  • 4 minehunters and a tender
• Guard group, for libyan defector ships
  • 2 corvettes
• Miscellaneous Units
  • 1 SSN with strike capability (Type 688I/VLS)
  • further SSK and SSN likely in the area; may include SSN Amethyste

Approaching the area:

• SNMG1 - sea surveillance group for OAE
  • 1 surveillance/ELINT ship
  • 1 frigate for escort
  • 1 supply ship
• Miscellaneous units
  • Esbern Snare (multirole FFG/LST) (DK) outbound from Atalanta
  • Charlottetown (FFG) (CA), sent for support

On Alert Readiness for entering theater are the Enterprise CSG and Charles de Gaulle CSG:

• CV Enterprise
• CV Charles de Gaulle
• CG Leyte Gulf as escort for Enterprise
• DDG Forbin as escort for Charles de Gaulle
• T-AOE Arctic
• AOR Meuse
• Embarked: 75 fighters (54 F/A-18, 9 Rafale, 12 SEM) plus support aircraft
• Note: escorting US destroyers detached to CTF 151, escort Tourville forward-detached to Malta

Fighter CAP over the theater and alert scramble is currently flown by:
- 36° Stormo (1 sq Eurofighter - about 10 aircraft)
- 35° Stormo (2 sq F-16CJ - about 20 aircraft)

Surveillance is available in the shape of an AWACS aircraft originally intended for OAE. Additionally, there is a squadron of Global Hawks stationed in Sicily.

Air transport capacity is available in the shape of 2 VC-10, 2 C-17, about 12 C-130 in-theater, with further units available and exact layout varying. There are also 2 German C-160 prepped with paratroopers for EvacOps in Souda.

 

[Beatmaster]

Updated/reviewed current list of NATO assets in theater:

• 1 surface warfare group, dispersed:
  • 5 frigates (2 UK, 2 GE, 1 NL)
  • 1 supply ship
• 3 amphibious groups
  • 2 LHD and 3 LPD
  • two destroyers assigned for escort of two of these groups
  • third group (US) no escort
  • total 1,000 US and FR marines embarked (ground troops); surge capacity about 4,500
  • air groups include a MV-22 squadron
• SNMCMG1
  • 4 minehunters and a tender
• Guard group, for libyan defector ships
  • 2 corvettes
• Miscellaneous Units
  • 1 SSN with strike capability (Type 688I/VLS)
  • further SSK and SSN likely in the area; may include SSN Amethyste

Approaching the area:

• SNMG1 - sea surveillance group for OAE
  • 1 surveillance/ELINT ship
  • 1 frigate for escort
  • 1 supply ship
• Miscellaneous units
  • Esbern Snare (multirole FFG/LST) (DK) outbound from Atalanta
  • Charlottetown (FFG) (CA), sent for support

On Alert Readiness for entering theater are the Enterprise CSG and Charles de Gaulle CSG:

• CV Enterprise
• CV Charles de Gaulle
• CG Leyte Gulf as escort for Enterprise
• DDG Forbin as escort for Charles de Gaulle
• T-AOE Arctic
• AOR Meuse
• Embarked: 75 fighters (54 F/A-18, 9 Rafale, 12 SEM) plus support aircraft
• Note: escorting US destroyers detached to CTF 151, escort Tourville forward-detached to Malta

Fighter CAP over the theater and alert scramble is currently flown by:
- 36° Stormo (1 sq Eurofighter - about 10 aircraft)
- 35° Stormo (2 sq F-16CJ - about 20 aircraft)

Surveillance is available in the shape of an AWACS aircraft originally intended for OAE. Additionally, there is a squadron of Global Hawks stationed in Sicily.

Air transport capacity is available in the shape of 2 VC-10, 2 C-17, about 12 C-130 in-theater, with further units available and exact layout varying. There are also 2 German C-160 prepped with paratroopers for EvacOps in Souda.

Thats a lot of firepower and should give Gaddafi a really crystal clear signal not to cross the line.
Because this is a pretty large operation by NATO and it gives me the impression that they are going to do something big regardless if this UN Mandate is being approved or not.
As bringing up such a large fleet and support for it, is going to cost the tax payer some serious euro's.
So ill be they have a plan and judging from this list someone is about to have real bad day.
Do not get me wrong but you do not carry a condom unless you are going to F....:

 

[sgtgunn]

This Week at War: The Jawbreaker Option - Robert Haddick | Foreign Policy

Interesting article in FP magazine recommending SOF/Air Power combination in Libya similar to what was used by the US to topple the Taliban in 2001.

Adrian

 

[riksavage]

This Week at War: The Jawbreaker Option - Robert Haddick | Foreign Policy

Interesting article in FP magazine recommending SOF/Air Power combination in Libya similar to what was used by the US to topple the Taliban in 2001.

Adrian

Depending upon the success of the UK/France no-fly resolution, I would go for the following:

OPTION ONE Resolution Passes: Air-power, SF & FAC assets. Naval assets remain on stand-by for humanitarian assistance supported by QRF EU Brigade + USMC ARG

OPTION TWO Resolution Fails: SF training teams and game changing assets (man-pads etc.). Naval assets remain on stand-by for humanitarian assistance supported by QRF Euro Brigade + USMC ARG

Direct military action on the ground is a no, no, simply because you will need to plan for rotation, so it won't be one EU Brigade, but at least three (six month rotations) needed to sustain drawn out operations, which will most likely mirror Iraq - initial high-tempo combat followed by a tribal insurgency with no end in sight. Are the European powers ready for that scenario?

The only nations (outside of the US) with the command and control experience to run a high-tempo expeditionary campaign are UK and France. The UK command assets are stretched in A-stan, so it will have to be the French unless the US takes complete charge, but they may see this as Europes backyard and expect the EU to provide leadership at the tactical level.

Regardless IMHO regular troops should only be sent to secure embarkation points and refugee MSR's only. Leave the fight to an up-gunned and SF supported local rebel militia/ army.

In a recent poll 68% of the UK Population supported direct intervention in Libya for humanitarian reasons, that figure drops to 46% for front-line combat operations. I suspect the same ratio will be found in other EU countries.

 

[Beatmaster]

Depending upon the success of the UK/France no-fly resolution, I would go for the following:

OPTION ONE Resolution Passes: Air-power, SF & FAC assets. Naval assets remain on stand-by for humanitarian assistance supported by QRF EU Brigade + USMC ARG

OPTION TWO Resolution Fails: SF training teams and game changing assets (man-pads etc.). Naval assets remain on stand-by for humanitarian assistance supported by QRF Euro Brigade + USMC ARG

Direct military action on the ground is a no, no, simply because you will need to plan for rotation, so it won't be one EU Brigade, but at least three (six month rotations) needed to sustain drawn out operations, which will most likely mirror Iraq - initial high-tempo combat followed by a tribal insurgency with no end in sight. Are the European powers ready for that scenario?

The only nations (outside of the US) with the command and control experience to run a high-tempo expeditionary campaign are UK and France. The UK command assets are stretched in A-stan, so it will have to be the French unless the US takes over all charge, but they may see this as Europes backyard and expect the EU to provide leadership at the tactical level.

Regardless IMHO regular troops should only be sent to secure embarkation points and refugee MSR's only. Leave the fight to an up-gunned and SF supported local rebel militia/ army.

In a recent poll 68% of the UK Population supported direct intervention in Libya for humanitarian reasons, that figure drops to 46% for front-line combat operations. I suspect the same ratio will be found in other EU countries.

Agree however one note: The Dutch have experience and the capabilities to lead such a mission as well, as has been proven in Afghanistan, and other operations as they have crisis management / control and staff facilities for NATO and EU operations, the HQ is located in Ede Netherlands.
As this will not be a pure France & UK mission because Belgium, Netherlands are in favor of military action/ no fly zone as well and are providing some sort of assets to the region.