100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Libyan Forces Try to Stop Rebel Advance Toward Capital | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
BIN JAWWAD, Libya – Helicopter gunships strafed opposition fighters as forces loyal to Moammar Qadhafi pounded them with artillery and rockets, dramatically escalating a counteroffensive against rebels advancing on the capital.
After securing control of two important oil ports (at Brega and Ras Lanouf), rebels reached a town (Bin Jawwad) about 110 miles east of Qadhafi's hometown last night before pulling back. Pro-Qadhafi forces moved into the town overnight and surprised the rebels at daybreak, triggering battles that raged throughout the day. The rebel-controlled city of Misrata, 120 miles east of Tripoli, has also seen heavy fighting. A doctor there tells The Associated Press that 20 people have been killed and 100 wounded. Residents say pro-Qadhafi troops punched into the city with mortars and tanks but were pushed out five hours later by rebel forces. Hundreds and perhaps thousands have died since Libya's uprising began in mid-February, though tight media restrictions make it nearly impossible to get an accurate tally. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/06/libyan-forces-try-stop-rebel-advance-capital/ To bad we didn't have a no fly zone up. This wouldn't have happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing an effective 'no fly' zone in the terrain around Tripoli would only be good agains jets. Against helicoptors in NOE it would require much more in the way of assets than is economically viable.
Better to just allow them a few more sorties. Ammunition and resupply will then take care of the 'no fly' part as both begin to run out. kinda hard to fly combat missions with no ammo. Of course this would require 'interdiction' of ammunition resupply to Tripoli from 'foriegn' sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing an effective 'no fly' zone in the terrain around Tripoli would only be good agains jets. Against helicoptors in NOE it would require much more in the way of assets than is economically viable. Better to just allow them a few more sorties. Ammunition and resupply will then take care of the 'no fly' part as both begin to run out. kinda hard to fly combat missions with no ammo. Of course this would require 'interdiction' of ammunition resupply to Tripoli from 'foriegn' sources. We can enforce a No-Fly zone if they are using Choppers. Not to mention Libya has quite a few Mirage fighter jets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing an effective 'no fly' zone in the terrain around Tripoli would only be good agains jets. Against helicoptors in NOE it would require much more in the way of assets than is economically viable. Better to just allow them a few more sorties. Ammunition and resupply will then take care of the 'no fly' part as both begin to run out. kinda hard to fly combat missions with no ammo. Of course this would require 'interdiction' of ammunition resupply to Tripoli from 'foriegn' sources. We can enforce a No-Fly zone if they are using Choppers. Not to mention Libya has quite a few Mirage fighter jets. Helicoptors in low level flight in terrain would bring US 'counter flight' ops within the range of 'low tech' multibarrel anti-air weapons... These can not be 'taken out' like radar installations and other 'high tech' anti air weapons (without a much higher risk than is acceptable)... this would result in an unaceptable level of US losses as it would require 'pursuit' in range of AckAck. Like I said... better to let them use up their ammo and insure they can't get more. Lack of ammunition will initiate a 'no fly' zone with out loss of US equipment... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We could take out their anti aircraft weapons, not problem. The choppers is another no problem.
They are using technology that was advanced in the 50's and 60's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our jets have "look down, shoot down" radar now which would allow them to take out choppers while being at a safe altitude.
"The F-15 has a "look-down/shoot-down" radar that can distinguish low-flying moving targets from ground clutter. The F-15 would use computer technology with new controls and displays to lower pilot workload and require only one pilot to save weight. Unlike the F-14 or F-4, the F-15 has only a single canopy frame with clear vision forward. The USAF introduced the F-15 as "the first dedicated USAF air superiority fighter since the F-86 Sabre."[16] The F-15 was favored by customers such as the Israel Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force. Criticism from the fighter mafia that the F-15 was too large to be a dedicated dogfighter, and too expensive to procure in large numbers, led to the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program, which led to the USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon and the middle-weight Navy F/A-18 Hornet.[17]" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIN JAWWAD, Libya – Helicopter gunships strafed opposition fighters as forces loyal to Moammar Qadhafi pounded them with artillery and rockets, dramatically escalating a counteroffensive against rebels advancing on the capital. After securing control of two important oil ports (at Brega and Ras Lanouf), rebels reached a town (Bin Jawwad) about 110 miles east of Qadhafi's hometown last night before pulling back. Pro-Qadhafi forces moved into the town overnight and surprised the rebels at daybreak, triggering battles that raged throughout the day. The rebel-controlled city of Misrata, 120 miles east of Tripoli, has also seen heavy fighting. A doctor there tells The Associated Press that 20 people have been killed and 100 wounded. Residents say pro-Qadhafi troops punched into the city with mortars and tanks but were pushed out five hours later by rebel forces. Hundreds and perhaps thousands have died since Libya's uprising began in mid-February, though tight media restrictions make it nearly impossible to get an accurate tally. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/06/libyan-forces-try-stop-rebel-advance-capital/ To bad we didn't have a no fly zone up. This wouldn't have happened. I gave this some thought over the weekend.. Basically, you have a situation where a certain segment of the Libyan population want a change in government. I understand that. Gaddafi is a dictator that has been running Libya for over 40 years. He is a clown and a terrorist.. However, you would have thought that the people wanting a revolution would know that if he had no hesitation in ordering the destruction of Pan Am 103 killing hundreds of civilians and all of the other terrorist acts he has committed, he wasn't going to leave quietly. Could you imagine Lincoln saying, "well folks, the south wants a new government and since it is the will of the southern people I have no choice but to let them secede." The British could have sent in troops to support the South. They could have said, "its the will of the people and they must be supported by us in their quest for "freedom" from a tyrannical government that won't let them do what they want.." The British didn't send troops and the South lost. If the Libyan people want to topple Gaddafi then they must do it themselves. Win, lose, or draw... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our jets have "look down, shoot down" radar now which would allow them to take out choppers while being at a safe altitude. "The F-15 has a "look-down/shoot-down" radar that can distinguish low-flying moving targets from ground clutter. The F-15 would use computer technology with new controls and displays to lower pilot workload and require only one pilot to save weight. Unlike the F-14 or F-4, the F-15 has only a single canopy frame with clear vision forward. The USAF introduced the F-15 as "the first dedicated USAF air superiority fighter since the F-86 Sabre."[16] The F-15 was favored by customers such as the Israel Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force. Criticism from the fighter mafia that the F-15 was too large to be a dedicated dogfighter, and too expensive to procure in large numbers, led to the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program, which led to the USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon and the middle-weight Navy F/A-18 Hornet.[17]" I am not faulting your logic. But this situation is not like Iraq. F15 in overflight is in the wrong 'energy envolope' to engage slow and low attack helicoptors. To engage that aircraft (F15) would have to spot, slow also, and manuever to lock. This would immediately make them vulnerable to low tech weapons. The risk assesmentd would become to high. If just ONE of the helicoptors in the attack wave was equiped with Air to Air weapons it would also require the F15 to have air to air support... again adding to the risk and cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our jets have "look down, shoot down" radar now which would allow them to take out choppers while being at a safe altitude. "The F-15 has a "look-down/shoot-down" radar that can distinguish low-flying moving targets from ground clutter. The F-15 would use computer technology with new controls and displays to lower pilot workload and require only one pilot to save weight. Unlike the F-14 or F-4, the F-15 has only a single canopy frame with clear vision forward. The USAF introduced the F-15 as "the first dedicated USAF air superiority fighter since the F-86 Sabre."[16] The F-15 was favored by customers such as the Israel Air Force and Japan Air Self-Defense Force. Criticism from the fighter mafia that the F-15 was too large to be a dedicated dogfighter, and too expensive to procure in large numbers, led to the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program, which led to the USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon and the middle-weight Navy F/A-18 Hornet.[17]" I think the F-22 has the F-15 beat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the biggest problem with a 'no fly' zone over Lybia is the selection of 'assets'.
Ground based aircraft would have very little 'loiter' time over the zone because of fuel constraints. We have no airbases with an ACCEPTABLE flight time to the zone and airborne refueling would place undue flight time on ground based pilots. We would have to use navel assets. It would require most of our navel assets to accomplish an effective 'no fly' over an area of that size. Those assets are needed elsewhere. A real 'no fly' zone would of a necessity have to be established by Nations in the area with ground bases and aircraft assets already in place. Like Egypt or Italy, Spain and France. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the biggest problem with a 'no fly' zone over Lybia is the selection of 'assets'. Ground based aircraft would have very little 'loiter' time over the zone because of fuel constraints. We have no airbases with an ACCEPTABLE flight time to the zone and airborne refueling would place undue flight time on ground based pilots. We would have to use navel assets. It would require most of our navel assets to accomplish an effective 'no fly' over an area of that size. Those assets are needed elsewhere. A real 'no fly' zone would of a necessity have to be established by Nations in the area with ground bases and aircraft assets already in place. Like Egypt or Italy, Spain and France. Ummmm not it wouldn't. They have already sent the carriers to the area, and it's enough to enforce a No-Fly Zone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kersage is NOT capable of enforcing a no fly...
It has vtol and helicoptors. The other vessels are not carriers... Those are elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is ALWAYS a Battle Group in the Persian Gulf and in the Med
Battle Group = Carrier, at least two Aegis cruisers (appx. 150 Tomahawks), a couple of destroyers (maybe Aegis/maybe not), a couple of subs, and a tender (support and maintenance) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wow totally off topic as it goes over my head but the whole discussion is just hot...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is ALWAYS a Battle Group in the Persian Gulf and in the Med Battle Group = Carrier, at least two Aegis cruisers (appx. 150 Tomahawks), a couple of destroyers (maybe Aegis/maybe not), a couple of subs, and a tender (support and maintenance) Battle group that was in the med was 'redirected' through the Suez to the Red Sea. No try this on... There are Chinese Military vessels in the med. |
|
|
|
|
