Libyan War

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 24 Mar 2011 20:17

Plane shot down was a Soko-G-2A-Galeb. Usually used as a trainer.

Libyan Soko-G-2A-Galeb

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Mar 2011 21:24

That's a Yugoslav trainer from the 1960s IIRC. No Yugoslavia now courtesy the same people who shot down that aircraft.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 24 Mar 2011 21:52

Initial reports of the French action said the Libyan plane, a G-2/Galeb with a single engine, was in the air when it was hit.

But French military spokesman Col Thierry Burkhard later said the plane had just landed when the attack took place.

The French jet, a Rafale, fired an air-to-ground missile, other reports said.

Earlier, the French military said their planes had hit an air base about 250km (155 miles) south of the Libyan coastline, but did not give any further information on the location of the target or the damage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12850975

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 21:54

The French pilot must have been trying to chase him in the air and the Libyan thought if he landed he would be safe. Sh1t Outta Luck is all one can say.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2011 22:31

Or the French guy wanted an easy kill. Its not luck. Its pure ********.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Mar 2011 22:32

True. Good Point.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 24 Mar 2011 22:59

They blew up the trainer becoz they could do it and get away with it. Just like Eyerak, the orders seem to be that no quarter must be given while using the UN (and Arab) permission as a fig leaf to justify those actions and as means to get rid of one's opposition when he poses no real threat and is at his weakest.

Something for our pseudo-dharmic GoI to keep in mind while they have their wet dreams about being a sooper power - singing Khumbaya does not a sooper power make. They should have sent the IAF to get some good long distance expeditionary experience here.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 25 Mar 2011 01:53

shiv wrote:Asymmetric warfare is the ONLY possible response to overwhelming military technological superiority. But "victory" can come only after many deaths on the side of the lower tech force - not least because "victory" may take 5 to 200 years

That is why an ability to nuke an aggressor if necessary. Change the rules. Get ready to take a nuke hit and ask if the other guys is ready for that. Let there be no "previous experience" of what happens after. I am sure someone will do that sooner or later of the nuclear-technological haves continue to use the latter while basking in the security of the former.

Deterrence is a state of mind. Once it s broken it is broken forever and may never be built up again. The rule for the weaker nation is "We lose anyway - so using nukes should be fine"

Great minds think alike.

As I said earlier, to deter US aggression you needn't match their capabilities in any sphere. That's idiotic - the US spends about $1 trillion/year on its military-industrial complex (almost as much spending as the rest of the world combined). Even if we could spend that much - would we really want to? By spending so much on the military over the past 60-70 years, the US has amassed an insurmountable national debt and sabotaged its long-term economic health. Beyond a certain level, military spending becomes an uncontrollable monster - it hijacks your economy by becoming such a big chunk of your GDP that you can't cut it without wrecking your entire economy. Military spending is also extremely wasteful - it employs very small #'s of people compared to the amount of capital it absorbs. It enriches a very select few but fails to provide much benefit to the majority of your citizenry. If you insist the gov't to piss away tax revenues on something, let it be roads, bridges, schools and other types of infrastructure that actually help grow the economy.

No, we don't need India to become another country enslaved by its own military-industrial complex. This hasn't worked out well for either Russia or the United States.

I'd much rather see us concentrate on building a truly robust nuclear deterrent force that cannot be taken out preemptively and frankly scares the shit out of anyone contemplating aggression. Road and rail-mobile ICBM's. Upgrading hypersonic cruise missiles like the Brahmos to carry nuclear warheads. SSBN's (several of them, so you always have at least a couple at sea) loaded with nukes to ensure that even if everything else goes wrong, at least one of your subs will still live long enough to deliver its apocalyptic payload onto your adversary's homeland.

Basically, you need a nuclear deterrent deadly enough to ensure horrific damage to your enemy even if 90% of your arsenal is taken out preemptively or fails to work. For the US, even one city getting nuked would be "horrific" and would result in national panic & economic chaos.

So, if we want to feel safe from US aggression, we just need a nuclear force versatile and survivable enough to guarantee that even in the event of an all-out preemptive assault, enough assets would survive to guarantee the destruction of at least one major American city. That's all we need, really.

Being bat-shit crazy helps, too.

If the US thinks there's even a chance that you're crazy enough to push the button, they'll blink first because they have so much more to lose.

manum · Post by **manum** » 25 Mar 2011 02:25

^^ you have taken a simple "controlled supposition" of shiv to a next distorted level...

you are saying we die anyway why do all the stuff we do while living...There is a grid one confirms to and its not as simple.
"nuclear supposition is only for weaker nations" its like weak only resorting about morality and fundamentals. and finally getting naked to save god know what.

More than deterrence or basically when talking about "Minimum deterrence" one must confirm to a bar that one understands one has irreplaceable things to loose. Lets not count mad men with Nuclear, or Monkey with sword for any theories whatsoever.

and please keep some theories at rest.

For the US, even one city getting nuked would be "horrific" and would result in national panic & economic chaos.

why our lives are not costly, or we are cavemen or we don't get panicky or we don't have things to loose? Atleast we have most densely located population. or you convert value of life in the same ration of $ vs Rs? which one is costlier?

What the **** are you talking?

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 25 Mar 2011 03:53

Coalition Action Against Libya

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 25 Mar 2011 04:03

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting all worked up about... my only point is we need a credible nuclear deterrent to avoid Libya's fate. Our conventional military forces are too far behind to ever have any hope of repelling an American offensive. Rather than trying to match the US military in conventional terms, we should instead concentrate on our nuclear forces, because that's a hell of a lot cheaper, and does a much better job deterring aggression. The US is not scared of any conventional military force on the planet, because they're all so vastly inferior as to be little more than target practice. But they ARE rightly scared of any nation that can nuke their heartland.

Anyway we're getting too far off topic here.

Back to Libya: looks like the Rafale is the only new aircraft that's going to gain any sales traction from this conflict. According to this article the Eurofighter won't have ATG capability until 2018 and the Swedish Gripen won't be making an appearance either. All the other aircraft taking part in the strikes are the usual suspects; tried and true warhorses the F-16/F-15E/F/A-18/etc. Will be interesting to see how this affects the MRCA competition. Have to agree with others that Rafale is looking better and better.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... ghter.html

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Mar 2011 04:29

None of the jets bombing Libya right now can make a claim other than "we bombed a 3rd world country". The Rafale's destruction of an old trainer on the ground is farcical at best and only proves that it can fire an A2G weapon. Whoopee.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Mar 2011 05:01

This circus proves nothing as far air crafts are concerned, outside of perhaps "network centric" and "cold start" (I would not be surprised if they had been preparing for some time, for this war). I would think that the Iraq and A'stan wars provided a lot more meaningful stuff.

Sidhu · Post by **Sidhu** » 25 Mar 2011 05:38

I am surprised at that F-16 and F-18 were not called into the fray. Also IAF ppl should have been called in to test the diff aircraft in combat.
great testing ground for MMRCA.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2011 05:46

NRao wrote:This circus proves nothing as far air crafts are concerned, outside of perhaps "network centric" and "cold start" (I would not be surprised if they had been preparing for some time, for this war). I would think that the Iraq and A'stan wars provided a lot more meaningful stuff.

The one thing that could be demonstrated is uptime and availability for action. Do all those self diagnostics and line replaceable/ hot swap units work as advertised or is something unexpected going wrong? If anything is amiss on any one side and they try to hide it you can be sure the competition will make it widely known.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Mar 2011 05:49

Sidhu wrote:I am surprised at that F-16 and F-18 were not called into the fray. Also IAF ppl should have been called in to test the diff aircraft in combat.

great testing ground for MMRCA.

Life moves in circles. What goes around comes around

I wonder if threads more than 5 pages long are useless because on earlier pages we have the same stuff asked and discussed.

Actually as pointed out earlier this is a useless testing ground for MMRCA. All of Europe and US against Libya?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 06:27

the AASM is a GPS guided weapon - the pix did not show any laser seeker head nor were the rafales carrying a damocles pod. earlier gen could only be used against static targets with preset positions. but looks like newer gen permit programming in the air against targets of opportunity.
had read of experiments with F-18 wherein GPS hit co-ordinates were updated in the air multiple times to LGBs which were already released, giving them ability to engage moving targets. I wonder if the French did the same thing to target the Galeb if it was hit while taxiing.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Mar 2011 06:40

shiv wrote: The one thing that could be demonstrated is uptime and availability for action. Do all those self diagnostics and line replaceable/ hot swap units work as advertised or is something unexpected going wrong? If anything is amiss on any one side and they try to hide it you can be sure the competition will make it widely known.

Shiv ji,

In "The World (UN)" vs. Libya? If a Rafale could "shoot down" a landing trainer, I would imagine pilots could take a wine bottle on a what do you call it ................... yawn.......................

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 06:53

correcting myself - they completed a IIR version in 2008 and tested laser guidance in 2010.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 25 Mar 2011 21:12

I agree, the only thing this conflict proves is which aircraft are ready for service. The Eurofighter has failed even in that respect.

While the Rafales haven't done anything impressive, they have at least demonstrated the ability to:

1) Show up for combat
2) Strike ground targets with accuracy
3) Not fall out of the sky

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 21:16

and the EF claims to meet what rafale is doing today in 2018 - a massive 8 years away - IF the UK can find the funds for it - the rest seem not at all keen.

its a no-show at the party as far as we can see. unless the IAF is prepared to just go with a superb a2a platform and doesnt care about a2g.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 25 Mar 2011 21:33

Singha wrote:and the EF claims to meet what rafale is doing today in 2018 - a massive 8 years away - IF the UK can find the funds for it - the rest seem not at all keen.

its a no-show at the party as far as we can see. unless the IAF is prepared to just go with a superb a2a platform and doesnt care about a2g.

I don't get one thing.. If the EF hasn't got A2G capability, how did it qualify for the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft competetion??? I mean isn't that just a waste of our time and their funds, which is more precious to them considering their situation.. How could they think that the IAF will select the EF when this deficiency is glaringly visible???

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Mar 2011 21:40

EF was always meant to be multi-role, the first tranche was always meant to be A2A
if the russians were as menacing as the old days then the budgets would have been found to bring out A2G variants much earlier, instead all the EF nations chose to extend the lives of their Tornado's and F18's in the case of Spain. conscious choices rather than basic deficiencies. The French being more independently minded, chose to implement A2G capability sooner

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2011 21:41

Maybe its not in the UK aircraft(they might not have sought it) but in the model shown to IAF and was demonstrated to their satisfaction to enable it to be short listed?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 22:14

EF has tested A2G stuff from test vehicles, but I think the full combination of A2G capabilities and testing is not there yet - not in production line atleast. and as Ramana mentioned, the users have deferred it since three of them have the capable Tornado.

but one wonders if they will ever contribute money to the cause or if the tab and risk will be entirely India's to bear if we got the EF way.

Rafale probably is inferior to EF in A2A potential (mica is outranged by amraam, both can do meteor but rafale nose is f-16 size so f18/EF can mount bigger aperture aesa radars) , but its not going to a slouch. and in A2G should likely be better and more mature certainly. it also has irst+tv combo already in place and deployed, while most EF do not seem to have irst.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2011 22:22

Victor wrote:None of the jets bombing Libya right now can make a claim other than "we bombed a 3rd world country". The Rafale's destruction of an old trainer on the ground is farcical at best and only proves that it can fire an A2G weapon. Whoopee.

Okay we get it...Rakhi Sawant (F-18 Shornet) has enticed you and is justifibly better in the sensors arena than the Typhoon or Rafale. But we don't need Unkil to tell us when to fly, how to fly and how to shoot. Thanks, but we can do that all on our own. And the Rafale and Eurofighter come without those strings attached.

And the Rafale kill was not farcical. I quote from the link below;

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... afale.html

During these missions, a Libyan Soko G-2A-E Galeb has been detected above the city of Misratah by an E-3. As it was a direct violation of the UN resolution 1973, a patrol of Rafale and Mirage 2000 was tasked to intercept the Galeb which was eventually destroyed just after landing on the Misratah airport by an AASM fired from a Rafale.

That is what happened and there is nothing more to that.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Mar 2011 22:28

UK was more interested in jasoof for AG and AS iirc. APG 81 was what the poodledom wanted.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 22:30

destroyed libyan radar 32km away from tripoli
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5548/x800.jpg

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Mar 2011 22:33

The Typhoon a2g stuff may be noise from the competition but the real poison pill IMO is the fact that the saudis fly it. India's best interest is to bankrupt Eurofighter or at least, not subsidize it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 22:41

here is footage of a band of rebels and a rebel owned tank street fighting in benghazi (caption is wrong - tank is on their side)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2ee_1300903683

constant shouting of Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Mar 2011 22:44

Iirc Libya had concluded a T-90 deal with RU in 2010, I wonder if if some have been delivered.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Mar 2011 22:47

the libyan army is reasonably well equipped compared to say chad, somalia or niger which are more like ak47, MMG, RPG7, pickup truck type bandits and militia level. they have plenty of tracked SP guns too like italian palmyria.

rebels having a meal
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2971/800xp.jpg

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Mar 2011 22:52

Rakesh wrote: we don't need Unkil to tell us when to fly, how to fly and how to shoot.

Unkil has surely told GoI something it wanted to hear about this otherwise we would not have bought critical stuff like the F404, F414, P8I and C-17 and talk about the Apache and Chinook. Time to move on with confidence befitting our capabilities.

And the Rafale and Eurofighter come without those strings attached.

I would never bet on this. The refusal to sell guns to the Gujarat police is just a pointer to the gall these guys have. They won't think twice about turning around and kicking us in the nuts. Witness poor Gadafi and his Mirages.

And the Rafale kill was not farcical. I quote from the link below;

It was a fly-swatting exercise and nothing to brag about is what I'm getting at.

negi · Post by **negi** » 25 Mar 2011 22:58

Victor wrote: Unkil has surely told GoI something it wanted to hear about this otherwise we would not have bought critical stuff like the F404, F414, P8I and C-17 and talk about the Apache and Chinook. Time to move on with confidence befitting our capabilities.

It's not that simple firstly F404/F414 are on Tejas and as you can see Unkil does not have any control over as to what weapons can be integrated with Tejas; P8I,C-17, Jalashwa and C-130Js are not going to be performing A2G missions while the MRCA will hence the former needn't be nuclear capable i.e. whatever weapons fit they have out of the box should suffice. The question is will Unkil allow a nuclear bomb/missile to be integrated with F-18SH ? I think the answer is obvious .

I would never bet on this. The refusal to sell guns to the Gujarat police is just a pointer to the gall these guys have. They won't think twice about turning around and kicking us in the nuts. Witness poor Gadafi and his Mirages.

Our Mirages are Nuclear capable, enough said.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Mar 2011 23:04

Victor wrote:Unkil has surely told GoI something it wanted to hear about this otherwise it would not have bought critical stuff like the F404, F414, P8I and C-17 and talk about the Apache and Chinook. Time to move on with confidence befitting our capabilities.

You forgot the C-130

and we bought/buying them without signing the CISMOA and LSA agreements. That says a lot about the GOI’s confidence with the Amreekis.

Victor wrote:I would never bet on this. The refusal to sell guns to the Gujarat police is just a pointer to the gall these guys have. They won't think twice about turning around and kicking us in the nuts. Witness poor Gadafi and his Mirages.

I will take the devil I know, over the devil I don't understand any day. Libya is not India. Case in point, the French turned the other way when we did things to the Mirage 2000s during Kargil, that would have made Hillary Clinton blush.

Victor wrote:It was a fly-swatting exercise and nothing to brag about is what I'm getting at.

I never read or heard the Dassault, the French Air Force or the French Govt bragging about it. You are the one who brought it up! The exact term you used was Whoopee.

But Victor, you will be victorious in the end of it all and I say that without sarcasm. You are getting your wish. Rakhi Sawant it is for the IAF.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 25 Mar 2011 23:46

Rakesh wrote: You are getting your wish. Rakhi Sawant it is for the IAF.

Bus, then am khush

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 26 Mar 2011 01:59

Onboard video from Tornado destroying libyan tanks at Ajdabiya

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2011 13:29

these hits were apparently with brimstone missiles.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Mar 2011 16:35

re EF and MMRCA - IAF must have had A2G trials of some sort, otherwise the aircraft would be disqualified
it may be, we just dont know yet

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 26 Mar 2011 19:17