D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Technically. his material is from 70ties, and yours from 90ties.
Technically. his material is from 70ties, and yours from 90ties.
Libya in new hands
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
No, he's pretty much right. It takes about 20 years at the current pace for hardware to become operational.
No, he's pretty much right. It takes about 20 years at the current pace for hardware to become operational.
Re: BYE BYE KHADAFI
Let's say it's the broadest consensus possible. After all, China and Russia abstained. The sensation is that they didn't veto.
Here's an irrelevant historical fact: In 1912, the Italians conducted the first air strike in history against the Turks - over Benghazi. It would be great if this overture to terror would be counterbalanced by a triumph of freedom.
SixesAlltheway said:Okay not for the first time ever. But isn't it quite historic that there seems to be such a broad concensus?
Let's say it's the broadest consensus possible. After all, China and Russia abstained. The sensation is that they didn't veto.
Here's an irrelevant historical fact: In 1912, the Italians conducted the first air strike in history against the Turks - over Benghazi. It would be great if this overture to terror would be counterbalanced by a triumph of freedom.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Fighters from Malta (RAF) and Enterprise (USN) are in! USA considers this a joint French/British/Canadian enterprise they are supporting, very interesting ways to phrase it.
As for Canada, CF-18s start enforcement tomorrow, Harper has announced up to 2 squadrons may be on the way, plus HMCS Charlottetown currently in place.
Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia will participate in the no-fly zone, first time Arab League + NATO runs a major military mission.
Fighters from Malta (RAF) and Enterprise (USN) are in! USA considers this a joint French/British/Canadian enterprise they are supporting, very interesting ways to phrase it.
As for Canada, CF-18s start enforcement tomorrow, Harper has announced up to 2 squadrons may be on the way, plus HMCS Charlottetown currently in place.
Jordan, Syria, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia will participate in the no-fly zone, first time Arab League + NATO runs a major military mission.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
110 US cruise tomahawk missiles has hit over 20 strategic targets to open up for the second wave of actions.
110 US cruise tomahawk missiles has hit over 20 strategic targets to open up for the second wave of actions.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Interesting that few people in the US are complaining about a lack of Congressional resolution to support this action ... I agree with the action, we should have been doing this weeks ago, bit find it interesting (and no "No Blood For Oil" protestors. I guess this is the new precedent.
Interesting that few people in the US are complaining about a lack of Congressional resolution to support this action ... I agree with the action, we should have been doing this weeks ago, bit find it interesting (and no "No Blood For Oil" protestors. I guess this is the new precedent.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Here's my thoughts on why this action is right. Posted from my Twitter feed:
We went to Afghanistan because we had to do so; because NATO was attacked by a force quartered in and sanctioned by the Afghan gov't. The West went to Iraq because they wanted to; because they deluded themselves into thinking that Iraq was a danger and felt it needed.
We go to Libya because we MUST. Because the casual student of history knows that with the arms available, Libyan revolutionaries are damned. Damned unless we help, a culture ROOTED in the concept of revolution - and help from world powers to succeed. There'd be no USA without the intervention of the French and Spanish and Dutch; there'd be no France without Britain and the USA.
And today, more than ever, if we see a people striving for democracy - not placated by their dictator, but demanding with blood and toil...Then we are morally obligated to ensure that dictator cannot use the cacophony of war to slay those he now deems traitors. If we give the Libyans the safety from the air and from armour, and give them a few tools - they can finish the job.
Here's my thoughts on why this action is right. Posted from my Twitter feed:
We went to Afghanistan because we had to do so; because NATO was attacked by a force quartered in and sanctioned by the Afghan gov't. The West went to Iraq because they wanted to; because they deluded themselves into thinking that Iraq was a danger and felt it needed.
We go to Libya because we MUST. Because the casual student of history knows that with the arms available, Libyan revolutionaries are damned. Damned unless we help, a culture ROOTED in the concept of revolution - and help from world powers to succeed. There'd be no USA without the intervention of the French and Spanish and Dutch; there'd be no France without Britain and the USA.
And today, more than ever, if we see a people striving for democracy - not placated by their dictator, but demanding with blood and toil...Then we are morally obligated to ensure that dictator cannot use the cacophony of war to slay those he now deems traitors. If we give the Libyans the safety from the air and from armour, and give them a few tools - they can finish the job.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Arab League already complaining
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... e7921da560
CAIRO (AP) — The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.
The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.
Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.
Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."
U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.
Arab League already complaining
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... e7921da560
CAIRO (AP) — The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.
The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.
Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.
Moussa has told reporters Sunday that "what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives." He says "what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians."
U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Well, Arab League is foolish in that case. You can't establish a no-fly zone when the other side has SAMs.
Well, Arab League is foolish in that case. You can't establish a no-fly zone when the other side has SAMs.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Has anyone else noticed the lack of leadership from my country, the good ol' US of A? For the first time since I could remember, the United States was not at the forefront for dealing with this kind of situation? The glacial pace of the Obama administration's reaction to certain situations is a little unnerving to say the least.
Has anyone else noticed the lack of leadership from my country, the good ol' US of A? For the first time since I could remember, the United States was not at the forefront for dealing with this kind of situation? The glacial pace of the Obama administration's reaction to certain situations is a little unnerving to say the least.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Well, "we" (i.e. the non-US world) are glad about that. The US don't have to take leadership all the time, especially not when the region is in such close proximity to other countries that are just as able to lead here, e.g. France.
Well, "we" (i.e. the non-US world) are glad about that. The US don't have to take leadership all the time, especially not when the region is in such close proximity to other countries that are just as able to lead here, e.g. France.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Mr. Obama can't take the lead in this, because to dedicate US action on a major scale requires the approval of Congress. The US is supporting the four primary coalition members (UK, France, Canada, Italy) with some of its resources. The United States does not need to be at the lead of every action, nor should it be.
France and the UK are the right countries to lead this action. Northern Africa is within reach of their bases and within their sphere of influence. Obama had to wait for the UN to authorize action, or else he is just as illegal as his predecessor. All of the powers involved had to wait.
Nigel Tufnel said:
Mr. Obama can't take the lead in this, because to dedicate US action on a major scale requires the approval of Congress. The US is supporting the four primary coalition members (UK, France, Canada, Italy) with some of its resources. The United States does not need to be at the lead of every action, nor should it be.
France and the UK are the right countries to lead this action. Northern Africa is within reach of their bases and within their sphere of influence. Obama had to wait for the UN to authorize action, or else he is just as illegal as his predecessor. All of the powers involved had to wait.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
You better know better than to trust TV analysts
Most common F-16 upgrade pack, eg. Block 50/52 C/D, is mid '90s tech. Most technologically advanced plane in operational state today is F-22. It's also late '90s tech.
The way it's been done since jet age began, is that latest fielded plane is 10-15 years behind the technology available, but not the technology fielded. Fighter crafts have a 10-15 year development cycle, from the moments of first draft, to full operational capacity. Since avionics are also pre-planned, a lot of new stuff gets invented/improved, but due to whole complexity of the project, only a small amount of components can be upgraded on-the-fly during the development cycle.
Things are about to change, as Russian and European aircraft industry started separating avionics from fighter planes. Fighter planes became modular, and their interfaces standardized, so you can build a component ready for some plane, without locking their development cycles together. Eg. Russian radar manufacturers such as Tikhomirov and Phazotron manufacture and develop systems that can be bough stand-alone, it's not tied to specific aircraft(s). Therefore, once newest Russian fighter (T-50) reaches operational capacity sometime in 2015-2017, they'll use the best available radar that's ready at that moment, not the best available radar project that was available when T-50 development started, in 2004.
Forostar said:That's not what an analyst said on TV.
Maybe you talk about the planes without any updates, and the analyst about the planes including their updates.
You better know better than to trust TV analysts
Most common F-16 upgrade pack, eg. Block 50/52 C/D, is mid '90s tech. Most technologically advanced plane in operational state today is F-22. It's also late '90s tech.
The way it's been done since jet age began, is that latest fielded plane is 10-15 years behind the technology available, but not the technology fielded. Fighter crafts have a 10-15 year development cycle, from the moments of first draft, to full operational capacity. Since avionics are also pre-planned, a lot of new stuff gets invented/improved, but due to whole complexity of the project, only a small amount of components can be upgraded on-the-fly during the development cycle.
Things are about to change, as Russian and European aircraft industry started separating avionics from fighter planes. Fighter planes became modular, and their interfaces standardized, so you can build a component ready for some plane, without locking their development cycles together. Eg. Russian radar manufacturers such as Tikhomirov and Phazotron manufacture and develop systems that can be bough stand-alone, it's not tied to specific aircraft(s). Therefore, once newest Russian fighter (T-50) reaches operational capacity sometime in 2015-2017, they'll use the best available radar that's ready at that moment, not the best available radar project that was available when T-50 development started, in 2004.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
@Tufnel: The USA does not want to take the leading role. They are already at war in two other Arab countries, and it's good for them to have an "assisting" role for once. Good for their image, to collaborate with many other countries, under UN flag. What's so unnerving about that? It's a job they can be proud of. In cycling the hardest workers are not the winners, they actually help the leading men to win (cycling before theim as long as needed). Still people look up to them, because they are terrbily important.
Seriously, some analysts have jobs which have to do with gathering such information. Maybe we could call him a specialist even, and he has his sources. Maybe he meant that the planes of the allied forces are as much updated as possble, and since we live in this century, he called it like that for the general public (easier to understand).
Thanks for your post anyhow. Interesting.
Can I still ask:
Are you telling me that in the last 11 years, nothing has changed in my country's F16's? Not a bit of technology was added?
And if something has changed, then this was not something which was developed after 1999 (21st century technology)?
Here is a nice page (haven't read it yet, maybe you did):
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article8.html
@Tufnel: The USA does not want to take the leading role. They are already at war in two other Arab countries, and it's good for them to have an "assisting" role for once. Good for their image, to collaborate with many other countries, under UN flag. What's so unnerving about that? It's a job they can be proud of. In cycling the hardest workers are not the winners, they actually help the leading men to win (cycling before theim as long as needed). Still people look up to them, because they are terrbily important.
Zare said:You better know better than to trust TV analysts
Seriously, some analysts have jobs which have to do with gathering such information. Maybe we could call him a specialist even, and he has his sources. Maybe he meant that the planes of the allied forces are as much updated as possble, and since we live in this century, he called it like that for the general public (easier to understand).
Thanks for your post anyhow. Interesting.
Can I still ask:
Are you telling me that in the last 11 years, nothing has changed in my country's F16's? Not a bit of technology was added?
And if something has changed, then this was not something which was developed after 1999 (21st century technology)?
Here is a nice page (haven't read it yet, maybe you did):
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article8.html
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
I am talking about even addressing the problem with at least some kind of remarks to the crisis. President Obama's responses to crisis is a little bit too slow. i was'nt looking for him to send in the Marines, but to know where my President stands would be a good place to start.
I am talking about even addressing the problem with at least some kind of remarks to the crisis. President Obama's responses to crisis is a little bit too slow. i was'nt looking for him to send in the Marines, but to know where my President stands would be a good place to start.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Just because I am critical of President Obama's lack of responses during multiple crisises during his presidency does'nt mean I get my information solely from Fox News. Fox News does'nt make his lack of attention to these things, he does that himself.Forostar said: