Identify armor in the news

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:31 pm

I have seen the BM-21 firing but it was "rebel". The images I have senn up to now are all from the rebel side, I have yet to see images of Queddaf troops fighting.

ROGER_HOUSTON2EMC-ENG.COM · Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:33 am

It seems in 86, we had little trouble taking out Libya's air defense net for the El Dorado strike. I think the Navy used the HARM for the first time on the SA-2,3,5,AND 6 sites around Tripoli and Wheelus . Since Libya has made little upgrade to these systems in 25 years, why on earth is Sec Gates so worried about taking them out now ,in preparation for a no-fly zone?
Look at what we have in the bag now and have used sucessfully in Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. Reagan did not have Tomahawks.Predators,JSTARS, B-2's and all the other little goodies. in 86. Have we become that skiddish now?

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:09 am

ROGER_HOUSTON2EMC-ENG.COM wrote:It seems in 86, we had little trouble taking out Libya's air defense net for the El Dorado strike. I think the Navy used the HARM for the first time on the SA-2,3,5,AND 6 sites around Tripoli and Wheelus . Since Libya has made little upgrade to these systems in 25 years, why on earth is Sec Gates so worried about taking them out now ,in preparation for a no-fly zone?
Look at what we have in the bag now and have used sucessfully in Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. Reagan did not have Tomahawks.Predators,JSTARS, B-2's and all the other little goodies. in 86. Have we become that skiddish now?

In a word (two actually) Collateral Damage. Civilian lives, the same ones we would be trying to save/protect would be lost once we start "prepping the battlespace" for a no-fly zone. Seems like once a week we hear of some errant strike in A-stan. precision weapons give us the ability to strike unintended targets, very precisely. With refugees running about, a very confused tactical picture regarding the fluid front lines and not having boots on the ground (that we know of) to observe/verify targets its a recipe for disaster. My two cents.

Paul

On further review would like to also add that we would like to stay out of it to prevent the extremists from having one more axe to grind about how the imperialist Americans overthrew all these governments in some massive regime change scheme.

Theodore · Post by **Theodore** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:53 am

Yeah but there is little need to prep the battle space for a no fly zone to protect the rebs.

If you have ever looked at a map, everything involved is along the costal highway so there is no need for US aircraft to penetrate hundreds of miles of territory to get to the desired area. With AMRAAMs having a 30+ mile range, they could probably sit over international waters and shoot down any plane that was a threat to rebel forces.

Also the Libyan planes would not be able to hide behind their SAMs since the SA2 has a range of about 19 miles. So their aircraft would have to stay more than ten miles behind the front lines for the SAMs to be a threat.

If we do need to strike any targets we can wait for them to turn on the radar or show up on our UAVs. And the GPS guided Small Diameter Glide Bomb can be dropped 60 miles from the targets, so no need to close.

We would not have to have an F15 or F18 doing lazy circles over every inch of Libya to be effective. We park them off the coast and the Libyans want to come out and play then we have Gulf of Sidra Turkeyshoot II. If they want to run to bomb the rebels they get an AMRAAM special delivery. I'm sure the list of suicidal Libyan pilots is short, none would go up after they knew US planes would shoot them down. Mercenaries would be even less likely to face likely death so very quickly there would not be even any planes taking off, except to run somewhere else like Saddam's pilots did when forced to go up against the coalition in 1991.

av8rmongo · Post by **av8rmongo** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:12 am

But there is also the SA-5.

Not to mention the fact that you can't just declare it a free fire zone, they will have to ID the targets before engaging them.

Paul

BattlerBritain · Post by **BattlerBritain** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:48 pm

I thought that if they wanted to deny the airspace to the Libyans all that they need do is park an Aegis cruiser off the coast.

Those things have 250mile range SAMs!

And they can stay there 24/7.

HKurban · Post by **HKurban** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:18 pm

Would be the perfect time to test the F-22's "stealth" properties as well... but it looks like we're sitting this one out.

Cav Dog · Post by **Cav Dog** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:32 am

Militarily it is probably pretty do-able but politically not so. Enforcing a no fly zone is an act of war under international law and that creates a whole other set of problems.

And we can't talk politics here...

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:51 am

Cav Dog wrote:Militarily it is probably pretty do-able ...

Do-able, but not easily nor cheaply do-able.

Yes, we would not need to go far inland, but Libya has a LONG coastline. Covering a long, thin strip is less efficient in sortie rates ... at least as I understand it you want something closer to a 2-to-1 ratio length to width (for a proper racetrack pattern) or equal length to width (for an orbital circle).

What I have been told of the Iraq (anti-Saddam) no-fly zone experience was that it took several thousands of USAF personnel, in bases just over the boarder, to keep enough planes in the air to enforce the no-fly zone for about 6 hours per day.

To keep a coverage pattern of 4 planes for 6 hours per day required a squadron.

You have a lot of area to cover, you need more squadrons.

You want 24 hour coverage, you need 4 times as many squadrons.

We ain't got that many squadrons to spare. And even if we did, well F-15s, F-16s and F-22s are not seaplanes, and we don't exactly have airbases close by for loiter-time missions.

So the USN gets the ball. I am told their loiter-time sortie capability is about 1/2 that of the USAF. Here I'm on thinner ice ... anyone got Naval Aviation ops experience? As I understand it typically it takes two squadrons to sustain a 4 plane CAP for 6 hours per day.

None of this is referring to the first day, nor even the first few days. Intensive ops can take place at a much higher tempo. But a "no fly zone" is pointless if you only put it in place for 3 or 4 days. Sustaining the operation for weeks on end? Yep, a squadron or two per 4 plane CAP.

We aren't limited by the kinds of planes. Nor even our tactics. We're limited by the logistics.

...but politically not so.

Correct again. A very significant dimension to this whole issue is the political dimension. An urge to "do something" is seldom all that is needed for successful action, whether in the military or the political domain.

I won't talk the politics of the situation other than to say they are anything but simple. But the same can be said of the military perspective. It is not simple.

Probably do-able, but not easy or simple.

HKurban · Post by **HKurban** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:39 am

Japan's relief efforts include UH-60s and Eurocoptere Dauphins

Hauptmann6 · Post by **Hauptmann6** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:13 am

ROGER_HOUSTON2EMC-ENG.COM wrote:Since Libya has made little upgrade to these systems in 25 years, why on earth is Sec Gates so worried about taking them out now ,in preparation for a no-fly zone?
Look at what we have in the bag now and have used sucessfully in Iraq twice, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. Reagan did not have Tomahawks.Predators,JSTARS, B-2's and all the other little goodies. in 86. Have we become that skiddish now?

Don't get me started I like being on this board.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:19 pm

Last Libian vehicles seen on Tv news:

- T-55 tank with ERA on the turret
- Palmaria 155mm self propelled artillery
Both vehicles detroyed by air attack of the coalition near Bengasi

- A few BTR 60(?) on tank transporters in the hands of the rebels.

6mmwargaming · Post by **6mmwargaming** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:06 am

I saw those Palmaria SP guns on the news which was a surprise as I didnt know Libya had them.

Sadly I think it is a no-win situation for all involved.

Cheers
kieran

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:14 pm

Actually Libia was the only client for Palmaria. They bought 210 vehicles in 1982 and today there should be still about 150-160 effiicient.

In 2007 It was sold to Nigeria (27 vehicles) and to Argentina (17 turrets only to be mounted on the TAM)

I agree on your comment. The risk is that it could become another Somalia being mainly a tribal contest.