And Libya goes on...

[Fuchs]

The SA-3 was tuned, the operators were competent, the pilot was careless, the F-117 is unable of kinematic evasion manoeuvres, the F-117 stealth concept was not really effective against the wavelength used by the radar, the F-117 had no active ECM, hilly terrain shielded radar emitters against long-range detectors and a MiG was said to have been involved, too.


The Libyan air defence sites on the other hand are likely decoy-grade material.

... the idea that coalition aircraft can simply ignore it is laughable.

You do know that standard strike fighters cane easily carry a HARM or two, right?

[JMA]

Georgia used SA-11 (Buk) to down Russian combat aircraft - that's a 1984 introduction system, far ahead of what Libya has. The Georgians furthermore did at least some training - not exactly what the Libyan forces are reputed to have done.

The onboard ESM of all Western combat aircraft should suffice against the most likely ill-maintained, ill-operated 1960's technology monkey model air defence of Libya.
If not - invite the arms industry executives and air force generals to an afternoon of taser product endurance demonstrations.

I believe the West has accepted that the human frailties pilots bring to any air war is the reason why the future will be unmanned aircraft.

Whether the current crop of pilots would refuse to fly unless all the air defences have been have been neutralized or not is not certain. I certainly hope it is not the case as it certainly was not for the first sorties the French flew in the East.

Cruise missiles remain the first weapons of use in my opinion.

However it seems we have now reached the point where precision strikes are now needed on ceasefire breaking Gaddafi forces attacking various towns/cities. This is an altogether more difficult air operation.

[JMA]

The Georgians used two different SAM systems, both of them originated in the mid-80's and were far ahead fo for example IHAWK, which is far ahead of the crap used by the Libyans.

The crap in the Libyan inventory is the crap that was defeated again and again since the 70's. Every single fighter ECM system in the Western hemisphere is supposed to defeat this crap, especially if the crap is ill-maintained, operated by ill-trained and unexperienced crews, positions are static for decades and thus known etc etc etc.

If Western Air forces really need a DEAD phase first against such so-called "air defences", then it's about time to invite some generals and the arms industry executives and ...

Your comments are well noted.

I would add that the announcement of the use of 112 Tomahawk missiles on 20 air defence related sites was clearly a mistake. It freaked the faint hearted out with the scale of it all.

Why not just say that "a number" of air defence sites were attacked with "precision munitions". I note they seem to have become more circumspect in what they announce more recently which is a lesson that surely did not need to be re-learned?

Now we have reached the other extreme where today's briefing by a Maj-Gen Lorimer - head of communications for the Brit MoD is so bland as to contain little other than a few propaganda points (about a mosque having been destroyed). (I guess you know your soldiering career is over when you reach the rank of Maj-Gen and get appointed as a government "spin doctor".)

[JMA]

Libya's air defense is (was) pretty crappy, but the idea that coalition aircraft can simply ignore it is laughable.

Fuchs said that modern ECM would easily defeat the range of missiles Libya has. He said nothing about ignoring them.

How does your Serbian example relate to Libya?

[JMA]

SAS 'Smash' squads on the ground in Libya to mark targets for coalition jets

SAS teams are on the ground in Libya with orders to pinpoint and destroy Colonel Gaddafi’s weapons. Dozens of the crack troops have been operating behind enemy lines to identify targets for bombing raids. Highly-trained units, known as ‘Smash’ teams for their prowess and destructive ability, have carried out secret reconnaissance missions to provide up-to-date information on the Libyan armed forces.

[JMA]

I'm dubious but we'll see.

Dubious about what?

That the No-Fly-Zone and the relief of Benghazi was over in days?

Or that the "structure" to which the US hands over command will screw it up?

[Ken White]

Dubious about what?

That the No-Fly-Zone and the relief of Benghazi was over in days?

Was? No was to it, still going on and likely to be for a while -- so I am dubious about your "The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days..." Quite dubious, in fact.

Or that the "structure" to which the US hands over command will screw it up?

No doubt about that at all. Coalitions always do, nature of the beast. Not much sense ever expecting much else.

[Entropy]

Fuchs said that modern ECM would easily defeat the range of missiles Libya has. He said nothing about ignoring them.

How does your Serbian example relate to Libya?

On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

The fact is that not every aircraft has ecm and not every aircraft can carry harm. And really, if you're at the point where you find the threat great enough to make it necessary to load every aircraft with a harm for self-defense, then why not simply attack the system and take it out? Especially considering that many aircraft needed for operations over Libya are equal to a learjet in terms of defensive systems.

Regarding Serbia, I was pointing out that the age of a particular weapon system is only part of it's total capability. Dismissing "1960's" technology with a casual hand-wave and making dubious capabilities assumptions is a mistake.

And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up. Maybe we could use Fuchs in his learjet as bait

[Surferbeetle]

Dr. March Lynch, at NPR, in a 22 March 2011 interview with Terry Gross on the subject, Why Libya Matters To The Middle East's Future

If Gadhafi survives, it sends a message to every dictator in the region that force pays, that the way to stay on the throne is to shoot your people if they protest, and the international community really won't do anything about it. And that sends a powerful message both to the dictators and to the people. That's the real stakes in the region.

One of the legacies of Gadhafi's rule is that he almost completely crushed civil society. And that means that we don't have political parties or trade unions or civil society organizations, human rights organizations; the sorts of people and organizations and institutions that we could see as potential leaders in some kind of new post-Gadhafi Libya. So our starting point of knowledge is very, very low.

One of the lines I've heard the most often in the Arab media and talking to people is: No-fly zone over Libya, that's nice. Where was the no-fly zone over Gaza? And all of these things come together into a powerful counter-narrative, which basically says that yes, we want the West to help, but the minute we start seeing American troops on the ground or Western bombs killing innocent Libyan civilians, then all of a sudden that's not acceptable.

When you say Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, flip from supporting the no-fly zone to complaining about the bombing, that's exactly what I'm talking about, where he's looking at it and saying: Well, as long as it was a costless, cheap intervention, that's fine, but when you have Western troops suddenly actually attacking an Arab country, that then brings us back into Iraq territory.

Just today, Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, who has an extremely gifted ear for Arab opinion, and he's become one of the most popular leaders in the Arab world, just today he gave a speech in parliament where he warned about the West going to war for Libyan oil.

And I think that right now, Arab opinion, which was very enthusiastic about an intervention to protect the Libyan people, is already starting to teeter on that edge of having the fears of another Iraq outweigh their desire for helping the Libyan people.

Basically, the big structural change in the region is that the public is far more empowered than it was before - obviously in places like Tunisia and Egypt, where you've had actual changes of the government - but even in the rest of the region.

The leaders are far more attentive now to what the public wants and what the public things. They have to be because there's so much pressure on them from below, and they don't want to do things now which are going to risk triggering more protests or anger the people.

What happened in Bahrain is just another example of how what started as this big, grand narrative of peaceful, popular uprisings against autocracy has been diverted into different kinds of stories.

So if Libya gets turned into civil war and intervention, in Bahrain what's happened is it's turned into sectarianism and a really nasty resurgence of the Iranian-Saudi Cold War.

And once that framing kicked in, you saw this spreading through the entire region so that now you have major Shia figures, like Ali Sistani in Iraq and Hassan Nasrallah in - the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, now weighing in on the side of the Shia in Bahrain; and major Sunni figures such as Yusafa Qaradawi, who is the Islamist figure on al-Jazeera, weighing in on the side of the Sunnis.

[Ken White]

LINK.

Click on the "Launch the Video manually" link up top. It's a CNN Video but CNN in the US doesn't carry it -- which in itself is interesting...

More: LINK.

[JMA]

Was? No was to it, still going on and likely to be for a while -- so I am dubious about your "The saving grace of course is that the military will step in, wrap it up in a few days..." Quite dubious, in fact. No doubt about that at all. Coalitions always do, nature of the beast. Not much sense ever expecting much else.

Maybe you missed it but everyone (except you apparently) now agrees that the NFZ is in place and effective (and was from day two). So keeping it that way be expensive and boring (for the pilots). Was rather simple wasn't it?

Maybe not even worth the cost of 130 or so Tomahawk missiles and other ordinance the use of which seems to have drawn criticism from the Arab League, African Union, Russia, China and other odd bods.

Still would have recommended using the three cruise missiles routine right up front. Would have saved a lot of lives and a lot of money.

BTW any idea why you think the Gaddafi controlled TV and radio is still on the air?

[Dayuhan]

The debate over whether the initial strike were too much or too little, and how they were presented, and what the faint-hearted or the pathologically critical might have thought... well, it all seems pretty pointless to me.

No matter what the US and the other engaged parties did, including nothing, would have gotten somebody, somewhere, very upset. There's no way we could please everybody,and we didn't. Not a huge problem. If people want us to do this stuff, they need to accept that this is the way we do it. If you don't like the way we do it, ask somebody else to do it, or live with the consequences of it not getting done. Obviously we accept that our pilots are taking risks. Obviously we are going to do everything we reasonably can to minimize and control those risks. If there's going be a military intervention in a case like this, stuff will get broken and people will get killed. We will do everything in our power to make sure it's not our stuff and our people.

I agree with the US administration that this dog needs to be turned over to somebody else at the earliest possible opportunity. We did what we went to do in accordance with our stated policies and principles, we have no major interests in play, and there's no further need for us to be involved. There's little indication that either MG or the rebels has the capacity to rule the place, and it's likely to turn into a quagmire of the first order. We've enough of those on our plate already.

[JMA]

Dr. March Lynch, at NPR, in a 22 March 2011 interview with Terry Gross on the subject, Why Libya Matters To The Middle East's Future

You quoted:

If Gadhafi survives, it sends a message to every dictator in the region that force pays, that the way to stay on the throne is to shoot your people if they protest, and the international community really won't do anything about it. And that sends a powerful message both to the dictators and to the people. That's the real stakes in the region.

It started before and he is just following the proven example of Mugabe and other thugs. Why does anyone think Gbagbo has decided to flip the UN, the US and the world the finger?

If Libya turns out to be the turning point then the effort for that purpose alone will have been worthwhile IMHO.

What the international community needs to figure out is how to apply the right amount of pressure to force reform or dictators from office and not through ignorance read into many of these situations a greater amount of force and forces needed to shift these dictators. I believe it will be seen that this whole effort in Libya has been hugely over specified (draw criticism from a wide range of countries) and yet there are still towns and cities under attack.

[JMA]

On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

The fact is that not every aircraft has ecm and not every aircraft can carry harm. And really, if you're at the point where you find the threat great enough to make it necessary to load every aircraft with a harm for self-defense, then why not simply attack the system and take it out? Especially considering that many aircraft needed for operations over Libya are equal to a learjet in terms of defensive systems.

Regarding Serbia, I was pointing out that the age of a particular weapon system is only part of it's total capability. Dismissing "1960's" technology with a casual hand-wave and making dubious capabilities assumptions is a mistake.

And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up. Maybe we could use Fuchs in his learjet as bait

Yes let him explain further. I read his comments to mean that the real risk from these antiquated ground to air weapons has been overrated. I would tend to agree (in the case of Tripoli) and even more so that the magnitude of the strikes was so widely publicised and that the military airfield runways had been cratered.

So other than for a show of force or to locate radar why would allied aircraft need to over fly Tripoli right now? And if they did they would need to be aware that it would possibly be opposed.

Fuchs said this destruction of air defences was becoming the norm rather than it being a real necessity. In the case of obsolescent weapons this may well be true. If he used a radical example to illustrate his point... humour him and don't let that obstruct from his essential point.

So maybe spending a billion on Tomahawks to make make pilots a little safer when the real risk in the first place (according to Fuchs) was not that great anyway does not make a lot of sense really.

[Surferbeetle]

Hey JMA,

It started before and he is just following the proven example of Mugabe and other thugs. Why does anyone think Gbagbo has decided to flip the UN, the US and the world the finger?

As an American I sometimes wonder why the African Union and Arab League are not leading the way with regards to COL G and others of his ilk. All of us here at SWJ are aware, however, that the realities of the world often differ from what we might wish them to be...

Several African Leaders Criticize Air Attacks in Libya, March 22, 2011, Scott Bobb | Johannesburg, at Voice of America

South Africa, one of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, voted for the resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

South African President Jacob Zuma called for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and said his government would not support any foreign effort to overthrow the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which has been battling an eastern-based insurgency for the past month.

"As South Africa we say no to the killing of civilians, no to the regime-change doctrine and no to the foreign occupation of Libya or any other sovereign state," Zuma said.

FACTBOX-Libyan aid and investment projects in Africa, Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:34pm GMT, at Reuters

Libya is using money from oil exports to pour aid and investment into its African neighbours, a policy which diplomats and analysts say gives it increasing political clout on the continent.

The following is a selection of the initiatives Libya has already put in place in Africa, as well as some of the projects it is planning.

Libya is one of the biggest contributors to the budget of the African Union, the 53-country body which is supposed to function along the lines of the European Union. A senior Libyan diplomat told Reuters Libya is one of five countries -- the others are Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa -- which cover 75 percent of the union's budget. "Libya ... makes its full required contribution to AU funds. Not all countries do and that buys it influence," a senior African Union official said.

If Libya turns out to be the turning point then the effort for that purpose alone will have been worthwhile IMHO.

Let's hope for the best, however, we soldiers have an obligation to be clear-eyed and honest about what the probable outcomes are. IMHO the NFZ in Libya has a high probability of escalating into something more costly

What the international community needs to figure out is how to apply the right amount of pressure to force reform or dictators from office and not through ignorance read into many of these situations a greater amount of force and forces needed to shift these dictators. I believe it will be seen that this whole effort in Libya has been hugely over specified (draw criticism from a wide range of countries) and yet there are still towns and cities under attack.

IMHO the international community has to equally share the burden of policing and fixing our broken world. Continually asking the US to solve the majority of the world's problems is not a realistic solution.

Steve

[Dayuhan]

IMHO the international community has to equally share the burden of policing and fixing our broken world. Continually asking the US to solve the majority of the world's problems is not a realistic solution.Steve

Agree.

It's easy to wonder why the cops don't do something, and to criticize whatever they do when they do do something, when someone else is sending the cops, and paying for it.

The criticism over the harshness of the initial strike sounds uncannily like the chorus of "why didn't he just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, like they do in the movies?" or "why did they have to shoot to kill?" that invariably follows police use of lethal force.

I'm not sure that the use of externally applied force should be a default response to the world's problems in any event. Tends to promote a certain degree of dependence, and does not encourage local solutions. A last resort it should be... IMHO, of course.

PS: It's perfectly natural and predictable for Arab politicians to straddle the fence and try to play both sides, just as it is for the Italians, who will want to buy oil from Libya no matter who wins, to do the same. Their fence straddling does not mean there was necessarily a wrong course of action taken: somebody would have howled no matter what was done.

[Fuchs]

And really, this whole line of argument is silly. The Libyan air defense system is gonna get taken out one way or another. Fuch's argument is that taking out the system is a "stretch" of the UN mandate. I suppose the alternative is to fly aircraft near every radar and SAM site (wild weasel style), wait for the radars to illuminate, invoke the inherent right to self defense, and then blow them all up.

Those air defences consist of electronic components. They have been out there, in the desert or half-desert, for decades. 20-6°C at day, down to freezing temperatures in the night. The reason why there's only sand and gravel is weathering under such conditions.
The chance that the electronics of search, command, track/illumination AND missile components are still operational after more than three decades of such conditions is marginal. There are too many points for potential failure, and no reason for the assumption that their operators cared enough to track down all defects and compensate for them in the past. Even well-maintained Western air defence systems can become marginally useful after such a long time. The SA-5 even uses a liquid-fuel sustainer rocket. Lybia has no liquid fuel production capacity, right? Those liquid fuels - any guess how long it can be stored? A few months like the similarly old Scud rocket fuel from the same country?

The blindly firing 57mm guns are probably a greater threat than the museum pieces of missile air defences.

On the first point, Fuchs began by saying that Libyan air defenses were so weak, he'd be willing to fly a commercial learjet through them. Then he said that self-protection ECM pods would protect the aircraft, so there's still no need to attack the air defense network. Now he's saying that aircraft can just carry harm. Well, if the air defense system can't shoot down a unarmed learjet, why would coalition aircraft need ecm much less harm? Maybe Fuchs will enlighten us.

Sure. A single jet is less threatening than an air campaign, in fact I could even use the civilian transponder signal for good effect. A taped radio message from a paid exile Lybian would be prepared, too. I wouldn't need to necessarily fly everywhere to win that bet, but could choose a route that doesn't come more close to the known batteries than half their nominal range (or if I did, I'd do it at service ceiling, much above preferred A/G mission altitude), excluding only a few square kilometres of the huge coastal area of Libya.
There are some advantages in flying a Learjet once over a Strike Eagle. Remember Matthias Rust.

On the other hand, all NATO combat aircraft should have internal radar warning receiver, internal or external ECM, the kinematics to defeat detected 60's missiles and the ability to launch either HARM or Alarm. That's simply standard state of the art. It makes no sense to burden strike fighters like this if you don't trust this equipment to handle the least capable air defences, though.

My point was that the DEAD phase has become a custom and was not necessary. In other words: I accused many, many people to have bought into a playbook and to think that it's the only way to do business.


Now I'll attempt a wake-up call: Tell me the air services you know which have the cruise missiles or the Wild Weasels for a DEAD phase in American style.

My list for cruise missiles:
USAF, USN, RN
to a much lesser degree RAF, Swedish Air Force, AdA

My list for dedicated Wild Weasels:
USN (Growler), Luftwaffe (Tornado ECR), Aeronautica Militare (Tornado ECR)
Not sure about IAF. Not sure whether the Russians still operate MiG-25BM.

All else could not do more than what would be done after a DEAD phase anyway; attach ECM pod (if there's no internal one), attach one or two ARMs (if available, that list isn't much longer!), attach the A/G and A/A munitions and drop tanks, take off.

In fact,that's even what they would be supposed to do in face of serious air defences.

[Fuchs]

Also let's keep in mind that many Arabs still think "Sudanese fertilizer factory" or "invasion of Iraq" when they hear "Tomahawk cruise missile".

This conflict was not meant to be business as usual, the military didn't get this.

[J Wolfsberger]

It's perfectly natural and predictable for Arab politicians to straddle the fence and try to play both sides, just as it is for the Italians, who will want to buy oil from Libya no matter who wins, to do the same. Their fence straddling does not mean there was necessarily a wrong course of action taken: somebody would have howled no matter what was done.

Which is why I think we should have sat this one out. Getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and not spending billions of dollars for the privilege is far more appealing than getting screeched at by the usual cast of characters and spending billions of dollars for the privilege. I would have much preferred a position along the lines of: "We are saddened by the violence in Libya. However, this is a Libyan problem for the Libyans to solve. Regardless of the outcome, we look forward to resuming normal relations with the victor."

As it is now, I have the feeling we've been suckered into a game of "let's you and him fight." We should have known better.

[Entropy]

Those air defences consist of electronic components. They have been out there, in the desert or half-desert, for decades....

So your argument is these missiles systems can't possibly be operational because Libya is a desert and Libyan's don't do maintenance? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I would only point out that declaring something to be so does not make it so.

On the other hand, all NATO combat aircraft should have internal radar warning receiver, internal or external ECM, the kinematics to defeat detected 60's missiles and the ability to launch either HARM or Alarm. That's simply standard state of the art. It makes no sense to burden strike fighters like this if you don't trust this equipment to handle the least capable air defences, though.

As I've pointed out several times now, not all aircraft have defensive systems. And, since this is supposedly a humanitarian mission, there presumably will be civilian aircraft bringing in supplies at some point and they don't have defensive systems either.

Also, ECM is not a silver bullet - ECM pods are designed to work as part of a system and are intended to be used in conjunction with certain tactics as well as other systems (like chaff). It is not intended to be a first-line of defense against radar threats - quite the opposite. Combined with the correct tactics (usually hard maneuvering in a specific profile), they are designed to generate miss-distance from incoming missiles and allow the aircraft to exit the threat envelope. They are not designed for, nor are they capable of, allowing aircraft to operate with impunity inside threat envelopes.

Fuchs said this destruction of air defences was becoming the norm rather than it being a real necessity. In the case of obsolescent weapons this may well be true. If he used a radical example to illustrate his point... humour him and don't let that obstruct from his essential point.

Necessity depends on the context. If you plan on doing an El Dorado Canyon type of raid then it isn't necessary to take out all the air defense. In that case the goal is to create a window of vulnerability to allow a strike package to get ordnance on the targets. That is done with a combination of deception, jamming, saturation, tactics, discrete strikes on key nodes, etc. In that case, Fuch's notion of carrying ECM pods and HARM is appropriate. It's also appropriate for some other contexts, like operating near the FEBA or past the FEBA in an area with mobile and tactical SAMs.

Taking out the air defense system IS necessary if one intends to operate aircraft over a country on a continuous basis for weeks or months at a time. That is the case here with Libya since the entire point is to create a NFZ. The reason is that you can't, as Fuch's suggests, use the equipment and tactics designed for raiding operations in that context. You're going to have aircraft overhead 24/7 and a lot of those aircraft have no defense at all from radar SAM's. You can't reasonably plan every mission to deal with a potential SA-2/3/5's without negatively impacting what you're trying to do. It's not nearly as simple as just strapping on some harm and ecm pods.

I read his comments to mean that the real risk from these antiquated ground to air weapons has been overrated.

I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Libyan air defense system is anything to write home about, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that these old systems are very capable. However, they are not something you can simply ignore either given the needs of this particular mission, which is a 24/7 air presence.

All I can say is that based on what I've seen/read, and my previous experience as an air defense analyst for a unit that does SEAD full-time (EA-6b), I think the actions taken here were appropriate.