[Mustang19]

Interesting story about the Saudi Air Force in the Gulf War. On January 24th two Iraqi Mirages took off and headed to perform a cruise missile strike on the British fleet. They followed an F-18 home to hide their radar signature and the American AWACs didn't pick up the Mirages until they were well inside allied airspace. US planes were sent to intercept, but they received the wrong vector and Saudi F-15s were ordered to engage in desperation. The one Saudi pilot who managed to reach the Mirages fired two Sparrows but they missed since he did not wait for the Mirages to come into range. Fortunately he was able to close in for a sidewinder lock and  shot them both down on bingo fuel. The official response was that American interceptors could have been vectored to intercept but the Saudis were granted the kill instead. Yeah right, the Iraqis almost sunk a British destroyer...

I still trust some of the more modernized Arab League air forces to hold their own against the Libyans, but their training is not up to Western standards and casualties would be high.

[Dilmah G]

Really? Hmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Firing the Sparrows when not in range is representative of an Air Force that doesn't teach its pilots properly about A2A missile employment. The F-15 has the ability to track a target, take into account the selected missile's operational range, and then tell the pilot when a firing solution is available, this kind of stuff should not happen. At all.

Good save by that pilot, though. But really, if that happened when enforcing an NFZ, that could've been the death of him, and I daresay that luck had some part in that.

[Mustang19]

I think it was from Crusade : The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War by Rick Atkinson. Good book but I don't have it anymore. I don't know what the pilot was thinking. I can't find any details on the internet other than simply the official story that the Air Force just decided to be nice and let the Saudis have the kill.


http://www.gmanews.tv/story/214917/us-general-libya-no-fly-zone-would-take-only-days

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/6/daley-no-fly-zone-not-video-game/

A US general says an NFZ would take "a few days" to set up. And noone's even discussed using stealth bombers or air and sea launched cruise missiles against Libyan airbases; this would cripple their air force in hours and put no American lives at risk.

Obama's chief of staff on the other hand claims that people calling for an NFZ "have on idea what they are talking about". 

[General Battuta]

Really? Hmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Firing the Sparrows when not in range is representative of an Air Force that doesn't teach its pilots properly about A2A missile employment.

Haha dude, American pilots did this. There was definitely at least one incident of an American pilot letting off a Sparrow without getting a tone or even putting the missile in the proper tracking mode. I think it's more a matter of combat stress than training.

[Unknown Target]

Hey, sometimes someone goes off a little early.

Sorry that's been running through my head since this bit of the discussion started.

[Dilmah G]

Haha dude, American pilots did this. There was definitely at least one incident of an American pilot letting off a Sparrow without getting a tone or even putting the missile in the proper tracking mode.

Difference being that the US is not possessive of an Air Force that is renowned worldwide for behaving more like a corrupt airline than an armed force. We both know that the US Air Force is at least semi-competent in performing airspace denial and fighter sweep operations, even if there are a few pilots that fall through the cracks.

I'll concede that that wasn't the best indicator to use of Lead-in Fighter Training and OPCON quality, but seriously, we're talking about an Air Force in which the running joke at Dhahran Airbase is that the Tornado hanging out the front is the only one they can keep flying.

[Nemesis6]

Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.

[Mongoose]

Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.

This is ****ing pathetic.  While the international community has sat around with their thumbs up their asses, we've allowed Gaddafi to run roughshod over the rebels.  You want to talk about people potentially hating the West if we intervene?  Just think about how much more they'll hate us now when they see that we had the chance to do something to help them but didn't.  What the **** is the UN even for if it can't stop **** like this?

[IceFire]

Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.

This is ****ing pathetic.  While the international community has sat around with their thumbs up their asses, we've allowed Gaddafi to run roughshod over the rebels.  You want to talk about people potentially hating the West if we intervene?  Just think about how much more they'll hate us now when they see that we had the chance to do something to help them but didn't.  What the **** is the UN even for if it can't stop **** like this?

It's pretty much a damned if the West does and damned if they don't.

If the West intervened early it would be seen as yet another intrusion on the inside workings of an Arab nation and people around the Middle East would burn effigies of Obama and light American flags on fire. Even if the UK or France went in they'd still burn American flags.  If the West intervenes late then people across the Middle East will.... burn American flags for not getting involved soon enough.  And if the West stays out of altogether... yep I'm pretty certain that the same thing will happen.

When things are really bad it's always nice and easy to blame someone else. Which seems to happen a lot. Although I may be accused of being a pessimist on this matter I think I'm pretty close to being on the money here.

I still think that a NFZ needs to be up yesterday. I also am going to agree with Gwynne Dyer that it'd be a brilliant strategic move on the part of the Egyptian Army to support the revolution in Libya (apparently the rebels have popular support in Egypt...go figure). His analysis figures that the professional Egyptian Army would be able to deal with Gaddafi's mercenaries and semi-regular forces without breaking too much of a sweat.

[NGTM-1R]

If the West intervened early it would be seen as yet another intrusion on the inside workings of an Arab nation and people around the Middle East would burn effigies of Obama and light American flags on fire. Even if the UK or France went in they'd still burn American flags.  If the West intervenes late then people across the Middle East will.... burn American flags for not getting involved soon enough.  And if the West stays out of altogether... yep I'm pretty certain that the same thing will happen.

When things are really bad it's always nice and easy to blame someone else. Which seems to happen a lot. Although I may be accused of being a pessimist on this matter I think I'm pretty close to being on the money here.

No, in fact by you're own logic you're so incredibly far off the money it's ridiculous. You are saying that the fallout of all potential actions is the same. Therefore the only criteria remaining are whether by our actions we could have accomplished something. And that's not up for any form of reasonable debate. We know we can bring down half-baked dictatorial regimes.

In essence, you are strengthening Mongoose' argument rather than offering any alternative.

[achtung]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8384103/Libya-world-leaders-reject-military-intervention.html

****. ****. ****.

[Bobboau]

"Col Gaddafi, in an interview, said Germany, Russia and China would now be rewarded with business deals and oil contracts."

enjoy your blood money.

[Nemesis6]

At this point I think it's too late for this no-fly zone -- The rebels have not only lost the momentum, they're actually being pushed back now.

Besides, there's no real reason for the no-fly zone now. As far as I see, he has stopped attacking civilians with jets since the protests moved into a full-blown insurgency. After that, it has targeted rebel positions. I think a lot of people want to use this as a weapon against Gaddhafi; a shield for the rebels if you will, rather than as a way to protect civilians. Too little, too late, too ambiguous of a situation.

By the way, the map above is updated in real time, based on news reports, etc.

[Mongoose]

It's times like this that I ****ing hate our world.

[Unknown Target]

The world is really good at talking until the crisis is over so that they don't have to make a decision. It's like that in every facet, IMO - from corporations to governments; everyone higher up just wants to talk until you can't tell who's responsible for anything.

[Flipside]

Sad thing is, working alongside the UAE to deal with this would have possibly gone a long way towards starting to heal the rift between East and West.

I'll agree that there is more than humanitarian reasons to get rid of Gadaffi, he isn't particularly popular with the surrounding nations any more than with most of the West, but we had a chance to show that the whole 'world police' mentality was more than just an excuse to move into countries rich in resources that were useful to us and actually had some kind of ethical imperative behind it.

As it is we face another round of 'UN Sanctions' which will, in all likelihood, have the usual effect of only harming the very people we claim to be concerned about the wellbeing of.

[Black Wolf]

This is really frustrating. Between them, the UK and France have enough firepower to put this whole thing down.' Gain support from the arab league and the Egyptians and bam, there's your coalition of the willing right there, and a much more inclusive one than went into Iraq. Hell, we might have even sent a squadron of Hornets, they're not doing much here. And then, if the rebelks take power, you have another friendly government in an oil rich nation, but one with the support of the people, and you have the gratitude of that new government. Instead, Gadaffi's going to get back in, and you're going to have the enmity of a gvernment that is hated by its people. Where was the advantage in not helping? I don't get it.

[headdie]

This is really frustrating. Between them, the UK and France have enough firepower to put this whole thing down.' Gain support from the arab league and the Egyptians and bam, there's your coalition of the willing right there, and a much more inclusive one than went into Iraq. Hell, we might have even sent a squadron of Hornets, they're not doing much here. And then, if the rebelks take power, you have another friendly government in an oil rich nation, but one with the support of the people, and you have the gratitude of that new government. Instead, Gadaffi's going to get back in, and you're going to have the enmity of a gvernment that is hated by its people. Where was the advantage in not helping? I don't get it.

The advantage is three fold:
Firstly any military intervention can be easily twisted to look like an invasion or act of aggression in the media which some sources internationally and domestically will do. 
Secondly even in a situation like this there is the risk of loosing planes and/or pilots which would not go down very will at home especially with a backdrop of continuing losses in afganistan. 
Thirdly air operations are expensive in fuel, wear on equipment and replacing spent weapons, for example an AIM-120 AMRAAM costs $300-$400,000 for 120C variants, $700,000 for 120D (estimated) not to mention the cost of the support infrastructure, which with struggling global economies will look worse than usual.

[Dilmah G]

Well if we're getting into this, I'll point out here that our F/A-18 squadrons (according to a pilot who was at Avalon) average about 15 pilots each, which means they've got 3 more planes than they have pilots for to start with.

Back in Operation Falconer (Aus contribution to Iraq), we deployed 1 squadron of Hornets (no. 75), and it took pilots from all three of our Hornet squadrons to staff the bloody thing. If Australia commits anything to an NFZ (who knows, Gillard may say no just to spite K.Rudd, if the news is to be believed about their sour relations), it'll probably be more in league to what we committed in Operation Slipper (Aus contribution to Afghanistan), which was something like 4 planes.

[Bobboau]

an excuse to move into countries rich in resources that were useful to us

because Libya isn't rich in resources.