No-fly zone over Libya

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by bjschick, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. bjschick

    bjschick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    My question is if any Air Force pilots in Italy and Middle East will by flying over Libya or if it will be Navy pilots off our carriers?
     
  2. bruno

    bruno Retired Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,001
    Likes Received:
    301
  3. bjschick

    bjschick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    Like Bruno said, this will most likely be a combination of both if American fighters are to be used as part of the active enforcement part of the No-fly zone (which I'm guessing they will be).

    However, it all depends on the political level of commitment the current administration will allow. To me, it looks like the US is willing to let our European Allies lead this effort, and most likely contribute the most in regards to combat presence. That being said, our Allies just don't have the LOGISTICAL capability this type of action will require, particularly Tanker support. I expect we'll have at least 2 Tanker tracks somewhere over the Med allowing for continual operations of the no-fly zone. Plus we'll be sending in tons of supplies in daily to numerous locations throughout the region supporting this effort. So yes, America will be a HUGE part of this effort, but perhaps not as much at the tip of the spear (and I'm betting the current Administration LOVES that fact).

    The real question (and indicator of just how committed the current Administration is to this effort) is who will be providing the over-all Command and Control? Will this be a joint British / France led campaign? Once again, America has a much greater logistical capability to support this than our Allies. Also, we haven't been involved in a war effort we weren't leading since WWI. Is America willing to let someone else lead?

    But I'm betting again we'll take the back-seat on this one, with token levels of combat forces involved unless things get worse.
     
  5. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have a very, very, very narrow window to take out the Colonel's military and put them on par with the opposition. Otherwise, the Colonel will get smart and withdraw his military and try to change its public-perception label from "aggressor" to that of "defender". If things are delayed and our air assets start to become a close-air support arm for the opposition, coalition support for this effort will evaporate quickly because the opposition will be assuming the "aggressor" label at that point. If that happens, in a "defensive" role, the Colonel can instruct his secret service folks to infiltrate the opposition and quietly and systematically take out its leaders over an extended period of time.

    The trick is to reduce the Colonel's military to something that won't threaten the opposition in the coming weeks. This means not allowing them to retreat.

    It is important to note that Resolution 1973 doesn't call for "regime change", so this can get messy if the Colonel is still hanging around Tripoli and shaking his fist next month.
     
  6. flieger83

    flieger83 Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,852
    Likes Received:
    343
    I would think at least two tracks as you'll have USAF (boom/receptacle) and USN/Foreign (probe/drogue). My guess is that there'll be a mixed bag of KC-10's and KC-135's.

    Steve
    USAFA ALO
    USAFA '83
     
  7. Chockstock

    Chockstock "Forever One Team"

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    8
    Isn't the purpose of the air strikes/no fly zone solely to protect civilians?
     
  8. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hahahaha, Chockstock! That's certainly a knee-slapper! :shake:
     
  9. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are no US Navy carriers in the Mediterranean right now. The Enterprise was hanging around the Red Sea but needed to move on to the Arabian Sea and remain in the 5th Fleet with the USS Carl Vinson - you know - to support those other two wars in which we are involved.
    The US planes involved are AF fighters and Marine harriers.
     
  10. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    They have already announced 3 B-2's from CONUS dropped ordinance on them, so it is not only overseas.

    It has to do with the mission and the targets. Not every airframe is created to do every job. For ex: AF has Air to Air(dog fighting) and Air to Ground(bombing), and dual. The mission determines the plane. On top of that fighters have to have re-fueling support, thus, they need to get them in position for the packet. Thus, yesterday they could come from Whiting, today from Qatar and tomorrow from Italy.
     

Share This Page