Forum: Air Power

Quote:

The USS Enterprise is down in the Red Sea area and supposedly was kept there so not to give the US a more dominant role... now that the French are sending their carrier into the Gulf of Sidra..

I've read the US has some Hornets (along with Canada and Spain) on the West side of Sicily at a place called Trapani Birgi. Would it be possible for US F-18s to use that French carrier?

F-16.net Sponsor

Shin,

I'm pro-Growler and proponent of the so-called Growler-lite too, fwiw. No worries. However, there would be no harm with USN sorties escorted by Rafales w/jamming either and vice-versa other way around for that matter.

So I've been reading the reports like any fine and upstanding citizen should do. And it strikes me a little hard that the fighters are bombing from 12,000 ft when gunships can attack from ten times less altitude. Copters and Props can better identify hostile ground elements against which they posses superior firepower and ability. Zulu Cobras and Spookys are usually deployed for cover of infantry while facing APC's, tanks, artillery and anti-air mobile units. The opportunistic and overwhelmingly effective choice facing the coalition here is this one. These conventional Libyan Army units barely contain any organic air defense ability, apart from optically guided air artillery systems. The UN resolution explicitly authorizes the inverting force to take all necessary measures to protect the civilian population. I'm measuring less fast jets and more rotary. Are these systems not 'air-craft', are they not part of 'all necessary measures', do they not fit the political 'mandate', or do they not adhere to the military 'objective', of establishing the NO-fly zone? I mean come on, are we going to pretend this is the best we can do? We’re willingly permitting a situation that allows for the status quo. Does that make sense to you?

Quote:

I'm measuring less fast jets and more rotary. Are these systems not 'air-craft', are they not part of 'all necessary measures', do they not fit the political 'mandate', or do they not adhere to the military 'objective', of establishing the NO-fly zone?

Attack helicopters do not have the necessary range to loiter over Libya like fighter aircraft do. These aircraft require forward arming and refueling points to sustain operations in a certain area. That would require troops on the ground, which is something we're trying to avoid. AC-130 gunships would be of better use, but they'd still be operating from 12k-ft of above to avoid MANPADS and AAA.

Last edited by PhillyGuy on Mar 22, 2011 - 08:47 PM; edited 3 times in total

outlaw162 wrote:

OL

Yeah... I wasn't looking for a high and dry reply either. Pardon my vigor. It's obvious this is ultimately a political decision, and that is not something I wish to pursue. I'm simply stating the clear advantage of using close air support aircraft in the fulfillment of this mission. Particularly by using navy attack helicopters based from decks at sea and refueled underway by air force tankers. There is no need for boots on the ground in any part of this equation. We recently used helos for search and rescue to recover those two airmen. We have used helos in the past against a much more numerous, competent and well equipped force, and still achieved positive results. 100 hours in the Gulf War still proves a lot. The air boss promised a full scale application of force, which is only partially being employed. Surveillance, tankers, bomb trucks, missile trucks, gunships and rotary all together equals loitering for the heavy and high and and hit and run for the low and slow. It's so elementary that it's embarrassing to repeat.

Have to agree with you PhillyGuy, the whole thing seems very poorly done especially seeing as Gaddafi's forces have still been using tanks and armoured vehicles to kill civilians. I can't help but think that with proper leadership from both America and Europe Gaddafi's armoured forces and army as a whole would have been smashed to pieces by now. I always think if you're not going to do it properly don't bother doing it at all.

NATO has been shown to be a really bad joke too and thats disregarding the fact that certain members of it are to frightened to act for fear of upsetting the arabs (Germany). Time to disband that waste of time in my opinion (on another note its a good job the Soviets never did invade for they'd have steam rollered the west whilst NATO members sat around their conference table for meeting after meeting trying to get their act together.)

Oh and according to the press the House of Commons says the Tornado is costing £40,000 and hour to operate and the Typhoon £50,000 an hour! So much for F-22 being hyper expensive to maintain as it flies for half the price of those two,..

Siesta wrote:

The USS Enterprise is down in the Red Sea area and supposedly was kept there so not to give the US a more dominant role... now that the French are sending their carrier into the Gulf of Sidra..

Good idea. Let the Arab league get pissy at Europe for a change.

Correct answer, disco.

Not really the correct answer at all as there is no problem with parking an Amphib 20k off the coast and having attack helo's such as USMC cobras fly off it. It's what was done during past conflicts such as the 91 Gulf war when attack helo's flew off Amphibs and into Kuwait. The only thing stopping it is either lack of resources (which I don't buy) or lack of will, which I do buy.

Another day and Misurata is still coming under heavy attack by tanks and snipers belonging to Gaddafi's forces. Zintan and Yafran are both coming under attack too as is Adjabiya,
The hopeless NATO is due to meet yet again to try and figure out if they can run the operation or not but certain members are kicking up a fuss.

Apart from halting the attacks on Benghazi, blowing up a few buildings and keeping Gaddafi's broken airforce grounded I have to wonder what this whole operation has acheived so far. It certainly isn't succeeding in its objectives.
I hate to say it as its a horrible and over used saying but so far this whole operation really does seem like an "epic fail" and the longer it continues the greater the chance that it will probably only serve to stoke up further anti western/anti American feeling, especially so with the press doing all they can to stir up trouble and act as Gaddafi's human sheilds and mouthpiece.

Oh and the Arabs will be flying missions from the weekend. Nice to see them so eager to contribute with such a great sense of urgency...

Quote:

Not really the correct answer at all as there is no problem with parking an Amphib 20k off the coast and having attack helo's such as USMC cobras fly off it. It's what was done during past conflicts such as the 91 Gulf war when attack helo's flew off Amphibs and into Kuwait. The only thing stopping it is either lack of resources (which I don't buy) or lack of will, which I do buy.

Parking (as in anchoring?) an assault carrier 20km off the coast? That's too close! If Libya is able to operate their artillery, that would put the carrier within range. Cobras are the wrong answer (Apache is better answer ). They have a range of like 300nm with a mission radius of less than half that. They pack a punch, but wouldn't be able to stick around long. If helicopters were to be used for attacks the Navy's MH-60S would be the best bet. They are capable of firing Hellfires and 2.75in rockets. They have the same cabin configuration as the Army's Blackhawks which allows them to mount the Robertson internal auxiliary tank inside giving them extended range. That, plus 2 external fuel tanks and 8 Hellfire missiles would allow them to stick around a while. If they're crazy enough, they could also put additional missiles or rockets in the cabin along with the fuel. This would basically turn them into something similar to a 160th SOAR AH-60L armed Blackhawk without the refueling probe.

Well I didn't mean parking as in dropping the anchor but you get the idea i'm sure and if 20k is to close how about 40 or 50k. Cobras seem ideal for the job to me, they were very very effective in Iraq so I don't see why they wouldn't work well.
I think the Seahawk idea is a fine one, I don't see why that couldn't be done but then again as the theme of this conflict seems to be doing things by halves then maybe thats the answer, lack of motivation, in other words they can't be bothered.

Would not 20nm be adequate as the horizon would visibly shield the carrier and the Libyans have no way to employ a FO at sea?

Forum: Air Power

US Naval Airpower for no-fly zone over Libya