Obama: It's time for Libya's Gadhafi to go
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2011 mena protests
To answer Tident's question regarding US forces during OEDC they were:
28 KC10/KC135s
5 EF111s
24 F111s (18 actually participated in the mission)
14 A6s
12 A7s/FA18s
Unspecified number of F14s
4 E2s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm
The crew that was lost was from an F111 that was shot down by AAA. Most of Libya's Sam sites were nuetralized by the A7s and FA18s using HARM and Shrike missiles or by the EF111s using ECM.
http://www.ausairpower.net/Eldorado-Canyon.html
28 KC10/KC135s
5 EF111s
24 F111s (18 actually participated in the mission)
14 A6s
12 A7s/FA18s
Unspecified number of F14s
4 E2s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm
The crew that was lost was from an F111 that was shot down by AAA. Most of Libya's Sam sites were nuetralized by the A7s and FA18s using HARM and Shrike missiles or by the EF111s using ECM.
http://www.ausairpower.net/Eldorado-Canyon.html
Yeah quite a large strike package. The Libyan armed forces were far bigger and much more capable in the 1980s. Daffi de-fanged them in the 1990s when he feared they might be a source of rebellion. So he stripped the army and built up these small security units that we see now.
Another poster claimed among other things, that the Libyan military in April 1986 was a "relatively unarmed country". An ignorant assessment to say the least.
Again, for the tactical accomplishment the mission was exceedingly 'extravagant' (unnecessarily complex). 100 aircraft launched and we unfortunately lost 2 pilots. Maybe we wouldn't have lost any had the mission been appropriately scaled in the first place.
I expect this from someone as ignorant as yourself.
A military operation like this has extra aircraft for unforeseen contingencies and various aircraft for specific missions each playing their part.
You have
tankers for the F-111s
EF-111s for ECM
F-111's for primary ground strike
A-7s' A-6s for SAM suppression and ground strike at AAA sites
F/A18s and F-14s for CAP
E-2s for tactical management
There is nothing in that package that is "extravagant".
Just like there was nothing 'extravagant' about your idle's military spending.
I expected this from someone as delusional and ignorant as yourself. What was our national, strategic objective? Presumably to hit what our 'intel' says were targets which formed some basis for Libya's terrorist network as a retaliatory strike for what they had done and a preemptive strike against what they would do. Essentially the targets amounted to some selection of Libya's military infrastructure (bases).
Operationally the mission was to suppress their ability to react to our attack then take out the targets simultaneously.
Effectively, we targeted a number of their military bases in retaliation. That mission is infinitely scalable. As without some sustained campaign it's essentially a you hit me I hit you back harder. Theoretically in that respect, this type of mission could have been accomplished with the forces and aircraft already there. But it was consistent with Reagan being more show than substance.
Besides, I'm not the only one who's theorizes this.
But, but allegedly being fresh out of HS at the time and with no military background you know whether this is 'extravagant' or not because?
Because I know Cold War military history. It's been a fascination of mine.
You are aware that the military planners wanted precision strikes for this mission since some targets were near civilian areas.
This required aircraft fitted with FLIR and laser optic all weather equipment. Do you know which aircraft had such equipment that were on hand in April 1986? Of course you do.
The types are A-6E TRAM and F-111F's fitted with Pave Tack. Both would fly since having A-6E's doing it alone would mean having to fly two sorties each. This was not an option so the F-111's would go along.
This is how military planning operates. Don't you know that?
So you understand military planning, strategy, operation and mission execution from reading Cold War history books? What kind of fool do you take me for? If you've been in the military or worked for some defense con or something just say so and stop being a numbnut.
You are aware that the military planners wanted precision strikes for this mission since some targets were near civilian areas.
This required aircraft fitted with FLIR and laser optic all weather equipment. Do you know which aircraft had such equipment that were on hand in April 1986? Of course you do.
The types are A-6E TRAM and F-111F's fitted with Pave Tack. Both would fly since having A-6E's doing it alone would mean having to fly two sorties each. This was not an option so the F-111's would go along.
This is how military planning operates. Don't you know that?
So, you missed the part about me saying for the strategic accomplishment was scalable. Like I said before, for the strategic accomplishment (merely retaliatory) the mission could have been and should have been scaled accordingly. Meaning, the planners at the JCS level likely had options which didn't include those types of targets. Some mission or strategic objectives leave you no choice in the planning. This wasn't one of them.
If you're going to go in hard and out fast there are certain rules of thumb...one wouldn't be marshaling a massive force to do so.
You seem to be confusing something here though. I'm not interested in debating the force size per se as force size is not really something debatable at the tactical level. What is questionable to me and others is the scale of an operation calling for such a force to beget an accomplishment more political than strategic.
Point being, for the same strategic and political net...it could have theoretically been carried out by the forces already there.
Now you don't know this nor do I for sure....so don't act like it.
But I do bet you were one of the Rumsfeldian wonderlings who backed against conventional wisdom the force necessary for Operation Iraqi Freedom right?
Who'd you bet on? Shinseki or Wolfowitz??
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Mission: The USS Enterprise sails through the Suez Canal in Egypt today as the U.S. was said to be moving warships and aircraft in response to Gaddafi
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tells-world-people-love-me.html#ixzz1FMCPnMk1
HOLY FUCKING SHITSTICKS INSERTED INTO THE VAGINAS OF SEVEN HOLY FUCKING VIRGINS ON FIRE WHILE FELLATING PINK PAINTED GOATS!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THEY'RE DOING ARE THEY FUCKING INSANE OR JUST RETARDED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
How in the name of God's holy trousers can they sail a carrier through the canal? How fucking special can they be? HUGE, uber-valuable, slow target within RPG range in a country known for radical Islamism, have they forgotten Cole & Missouri? Or do they just not give a shit because the lower ranks are sacrificial pawns to them? That's a good way to lose jets, seamen and maybe even the whole fucking carrier! Even if they don't sink it the cost could be substantial and a single hit could stop flight ops, negating the presence of the bloody thing!
FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And how stupid can the Egyptian government be LETTING them sail that thru their economic lifeline? That thing sinks, blocks the canal and BANG! Egypt loses what is probably the strongest string of her economic bow at this time of great vulnerability. If the army really are running Egypt then their generals are as stupid as shinisecki and jumper.
I'm not taking sides in the little marital fracas you two are having, but you should ALWAYS have back up plans in your military ops. What happens when you don't? Eagle claw
I'm not taking sides in the little marital fracas you two are having, but Reagans financial policies (civilian and military)... well, history has shown just how flawed they were...Just like there was nothing 'extravagant' about your idle's military spending.
No it couldn't have. The planners probably wanted more assets. The idea was to strike Libya hard after all the acts of terror against both US civilians and service people.
Don't you know how many acts of aggression were carried out by Libya against us from 1981-1986.
Because of that we decided enough was enough and to hit them hard on April 1986. To do that a sizable strike package was put together. So that we didn't have to run multiple sorties.
Jeez
Yes I gleaned most of my knowledge from books, articles and actual veterans.
Your statement that Libya was a "relatively unarmed country" is complete bull.
You still didn't get it. Re-read what I wrote. But this is a quote from one of those links;No it couldn't have. The planners probably wanted more assets. The idea was to strike Libya hard after all the acts of terror against both US civilians and service people.
Don't you know how many acts of aggression were carried out by Libya against us from 1981-1986.
Because of that we decided enough was enough and to hit them hard on April 1986. To do that a sizable strike package was put together. So that we didn't have to run multiple sorties.
Jeez
Forget 'Hot Mega' for a second and what I think. What do you think is meant by that quote? Then I'll tell you what I think.
Yeah..
'Relatively unarmed", inept...6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other.:dunno: The Libyan military machine (if you can call it that) was and is a freakin' joke. If you don't know this I suggest you read up on it...If you were among 100 people who read up on Libya's recent military history (to include the Reagan era) 99 would conclude like me they were a joke. Do they have some degree of armament? Of course they do as all that takes is money to obtain and the Gadfly has money. But what good is it when the those charged with engaging abandon their arms and the ones who remain are skilled barely above novice level? They have neither the training nor will in most cases to put up a serious defense at all.
They may be getting some additional training and support since GWB took them off the shit list but Libya has the distinction of getting their asses kicked by Chad in the '80s.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Breaking news: Britain is getting tough with Gaddafi!
He's been told "If you don't step down, you're not invited to the Royal wedding!"
Oh yeah, you don't piss off the Brits! :nono:
He's been told "If you don't step down, you're not invited to the Royal wedding!"
Oh yeah, you don't piss off the Brits! :nono:
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef01347ff209fd970c-500wi
Can't they just Kiss and make up like old times?
Can't they just Kiss and make up like old times?
Because its obviously considered an acceptable risk in light of the time saved sailing around the entire African continent.
...otherwise still a very high risk if you ask me. And from my POV Libya ain´t worth that risk. Otherwise ...( if there wouldn´t be enough suicide-candidates ) , I´m sure everyone should use his head before trying to touch the ol boatie ....
Brace yourself :eek: :surprise: :eek: :surprise: :eek: :surprise: :eek: :surprise: :eek: :surprise: :eek: :surprise:
The U.S. amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge sails in the Suez canal in today as it edges closer to the Libyan coast after orders from Defence Secretary Robert Gates
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/02/article-1362098-0D6F92C1000005DC-547_634x400.jpg
U.S. Navy ships of the Kearsarge Amphibious Ready Group and the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group sail in close formation in the Red Sea on February 16 - the day after Libyan protests began
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/02/article-1362098-0D6C340C000005DC-207_634x311.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/02/article-1362098-0D6F1804000005DC-754_306x521.jpg
Gaddafi unleashes warplanes to bomb his own cities as U.S. warns that Libya is spiralling towards 'full-blown civil war'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shes-warplanes-bomb-cities.html#ixzz1FSJUm77J
If I would be Gaddhafi, I´d step down and take the invitation to the marriage ...lol.
Hopefully just the physical presence of both battle-groups is enough to make the azzhole think.
Otherwise I don´t want the US nor the UK to play * world-police * no more, I´m sure the citizens of Libya will throw this despote out the country by themselves .
Hopefully just the physical presence of both battle-groups is enough to make the azzhole think.
Otherwise I don´t want the US nor the UK to play * world-police * no more, I´m sure the citizens of Libya will throw this despote out the country by themselves .
I believe Britain has made a lot of trade deals with the Gaddafi regime lately so remember it'll be business before justice, they won't push Gaddafi out until they know his replacement will honour those contracts,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...e-of-15bn-trade-links-with-libya-2226639.html
