How would the US implement a No-Fly zone?

[Hermitian]

So, from my limited understanding, to enforce a no-fly zone:

1: Have your planes within range of zone.
2. Send stealthy or very advanced planes in to destroy ground radars and anti-aircraft capability.
3. Be able to consistently keep enough advanced planes (better than zone's planes) in the air to enforce no-fly zone indefinitely.

Does the US have an airbase close enough to send F117s or F22s in to destroy their radars and AA capability?

Can we launch anything from a carrier that is advanced enough to perform a "first wave" function?

Would carrier planes be needed to maintain the no-fly zone?

[ramel]

The US retired its F117s years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_A...tion_Sigonella is close enough, especially with tanker support.

[Keeve]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

How would the US implement a No-Fly zone?

I think what you mean is "How did the US implement a No-Fly zone" in the aftermath of 9/11?

Here's a good starting point: Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids

[flyboy]

I'm not even sure what you're asking. Implementation is a different beast then enforcement, and much of it is dependent upon the circumstances--what you're trying to accomplish (No commercial air traffic? No fighters? No mil flying?), where, how large the area is... can you be more specific? And we're not necessarily concerned with getting rid of all anti-air capabilities--you'd really have to look at the specific capabilities of the area in question and decide what you can live with and what you can't live with. Look at it this way--do you want to risk a F-22 on a mission to destroy a radar that controls a missile that has a low probability of destroying one of our fighters? And if you decide the radar has to go, what other ways can you neutralize it without risking such a valuable asset?

The bottom line is that while there are discreet tasks that each service knows how to do to accomplish something like this, the overall plan will probably be different each time.

[TheBori]

There is really no need to destroy yhe ground based radar. You inform the powers-that-be that they cannot fly any planes. If you see a plane up there, you bring it down with any number of air assets. As in Iraq, if a ground radar site should "light up" a US plane, it gets destroyed (AGM-88 HARM missles are good for that). Air to ground, radar following missles are good for that.
It won't take too many planes being shot down for them to get the idea. Air superiority is a a simple concept with many layers. Fortunately, we have most of the layers.

[thelabdude]

While we did it in Iraq, Libya could be much tougher. I keep wondering about delivering a bunch of RPG's and stinger missiles to one of the rebel held ports. Best we beat Iran to it. With a few more fangs for the rebels, Gaddafi could have trouble keeping his military on task.

[Spavined Gelding]

Originally Posted by TheBori

There is really no need to destroy yhe ground based radar.

You disregard your opponents air-defense facilities at your peril. If you are willing to accept the routine loss of aircraft and aircrew then go ahead and blunder in, much like the light cavalry brigade at Balaclava which accomplished its mission but at crippling loss. A rational and professional air interdiction over in hostile airspace requires the degradation of hostile air defense if not its outright destruction.

[ElvisL1ves]

Be a lot easier and safer to just take out all the airfields and aircraft on the ground, in a one-time operation, perhaps with a cleanup later. As long as you're committing an act of war anyway, that is.

[Chessic Sense]

Originally Posted by Keeve

I think what you mean is "How did the US implement a No-Fly zone" in the aftermath of 9/11?

No, he's talking about the Pentagon's plans (not decision) to implement a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Gaddafi's aerial bombardment of advancing rebels.

Originally Posted by TheBori

There is really no need to destroy yhe ground based radar.

What?! Of course you have to destroy their AA capability! Otherwise, they shoot your planes down. Here's Gates laying it out for us. "Let's call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."

[Hermitian]

Originally Posted by Keeve

I think what you mean is "How did the US implement a No-Fly zone" in the aftermath of 9/11?

Aeh. I guess I kind of left that part off. The news is all alight about the US or its partners implementing a no-fly zone in Libya. Gates made several statements that making a no-fly zone is not a simple thing and involves ground strikes by aircraft. It is essentially declaring war. I was just wondering how we would do that. We have done it before, but has technology or the world changed to make this more difficult now?

Also, Libya is a fairly large country.

Originally Posted by TheBori

There is really no need to destroy yhe ground based radar. You inform the powers-that-be that they cannot fly any planes. If you see a plane up there, you bring it down with any number of air assets. As in Iraq, if a ground radar site should "light up" a US plane, it gets destroyed (AGM-88 HARM missles are good for that). Air to ground, radar following missles are good for that.
It won't take too many planes being shot down for them to get the idea. Air superiority is a a simple concept with many layers. Fortunately, we have most of the layers.

Well, unless I wrong, in the first Iraq war, we sent in a bunch of F-117s first to destroy critical anti-aircraft targets to to make it easier for following aircraft. I mean why chance losing a F-16 or F-18 when a couple of F-22s can go in an eliminate their only chances of shooting down our other planes?

Originally Posted by ramel

The US retired its F117s years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_A...tion_Sigonella is close enough, especially with tanker support.

I noticed that was a Naval Air Station. Do you think they could turn that into a major Air Force Hub? I mean, a runway is a runway right?

[qazwart]

Guys, we are talking about Libya here. Gaddafi has long ago gutted the military in Libya. After all, Gaddafi came to power in a coup, and he certainly didn't want anyone to get any ideas.

The Libyan Air Force has one Mirage fighter and maybe a few dozen MiGS used mainly, and most of those MiGS have been grounded long ago. There are actually hundreds of planes in the Air Force, but most are slow and have little capacity for bombing or maneuverability. Most are based upon designs from the 1950s and 1960s.

There are some SAM missiles which could shoot down a U.S. plane. But, most of those SAM missiles are a bunch of very obsolete SA-2 systems. (The SA-2 gained fame by shooting down an American U-2 flying over the Soviet Union in 1960).

With half of the Libyan coast in rebel hands, almost all of the Libyan Air Force Gaddafi has available is located in and around Tripoli. It wouldn't be hard to monitor the few air bases in Libyan hands and shoot down anything that launches from it.

The main question isn't whether or not the U.S. is capable of enforcing a no-fly zone, but whether it will help or hinder the rebels who don't want to look like tools of a foreign power. Until very recently, the rebels have asked the West not to interfere.

[anson2995]

Originally Posted by qazwart

The Libyan Air Force has one Mirage fighter and maybe a few dozen MiGS used mainly, and most of those MiGS have been grounded long ago. There are actually hundreds of planes in the Air Force, but most are slow and have little capacity for bombing or maneuverability. Most are based upon designs from the 1950s and 1960s.

That's overstating it quite a bit. According to recent reports, Gadhafi's air force is comprised of:

94 MiG-25 Foxbat fighters and ground attack jets, 115 MiG-23s, 30 French-built Mirage F-1s and 35 Russian-built Mi-25 and Mi-35 Hind helicopter gunships. Gadhafi also has 115 transport aircraft, including 15 U.S.-made Hercules and 40 Russian-built Il-76 and L-410 transport aircraft, as well as several squadrons of U.S.- and Russian-built transport helicopters that allows him to rapidly move his ground forces around his vast country.

The MiG25s are faster than any planes the US has, and in Iraq, MiG25s shot down an American F/A-18 and repeatedly evaded F-15s that attempted to shoot them down. As far as bombing capabilities, the MiG23s are responsible for the bombing attacks against rebels and civilians.

The US can exert air superiority, but it wouldn't be as simple or risk-free as you suggest.