UK and France send in attack helicopters to boost NATO in Libya
34 replies, posted
[url]http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/05/2011523205033961343.html[/url]
[release]French officials have confirmed that[b] France and Britain will send attack helicopters to Libya in the latest effort to ramp up NATO's targeting power against Muammar Gaddafi's forces.[/b]
Alain Juppe, France's chief diplomat, affirmed on Monday the proposed use of helicopter gunships - a move Jupee says is in line with a United Nations resolution that calls for the protection of Libyan civilians and NATO's military operations.
[b]"What we want is to better tailor our ability to strike on the ground with ways that allow more accurate hits,"[/b] Juppe said.
Gerard Longuet, the French defence minister, said Britain was also sending sending helicopters while London kept mum.
[b]"We are not in the habit of talking about any new missions we undertake until they are in operation,"[/b] a British government spokesman said.
Air strikes
NATO forces have been bombing Gaddafi forces in defence of civilians since late March, but the strikes have not yet been enough to break a deadlock between rebel and government forces.
Click here for more of Al Jazeera's special coverage
The coalition forces stepped in after a UN Security Council resolution instituted a military operation against Gaddafi forces, an arms embargo, a freeze on Libyan leaders' personal assets and travel bans on senior figures after the Libyan leader Gaddafi's violent crackdown on the popular uprising which began in February.
[b]The French daily Le Figaro reported 12 helicopters were shipped to Libya on the French warship Tonnerre on May 17.[/b]
According to Le Figaro, French special forces, who have been in Libya to identify targets for NATO since the start of air strikes, could now be reinforced to guide helicopter attacks.
'No game changer'
Shashank Joshi, an Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank,[b] says the attack helicopters can facilitate better precision targeting at the cost of being more vulnerable to ground fire.[/b]
[b]"Attack helicopters can fly low and slow. Fast jets can only fly high and, as the name suggests, are extremely fast. So attack helicopters allow you to hit things on the ground with precision,"[/b] Joshi told Al Jazeera.
[b]"It can be hit by small arms fire it could be hit by a shoulder-launch portable missile, and all of that means there is a risk now of NATO personnel being shot down."[/b]
The helicopters' deployment does not signal an escalation in NATO's mission in Libya, but rather an expression of increasing anxiety in London and Paris over the continuing deadlock, Joshi explained.
[b]"It is an escalation in the means being used to pressure Gaddafi ... but it is not an escalation of the actual mission,"[/b] he said.
[b]"The mission is still regime change and it's just one more military instrument that reflects there is British and French anxiety that this stalemate could now harden."[/b]
While the helicopters are precise to a certain degree, they are not powerful enough to function as "a game changer," because "they can't really affect the battle deep inside Libya nor can they really attack people deep inside buildings or buried inside urban areas." Joshi added.[/release]
[img]http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images/2011/5/23/2011523211330456580_20.jpg[/img]
This could possibly shift the balance towards NATO / the rebels, in theory NATO will have the ability to hit targets in built up areas with these. The risk could be high though. Helicopters are obviously a lot more vulnerable to ground attack than a fast jet.
That helicopter has a nice camo
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;30015827]What "attack choppers"
Doubt they're Apaches, they're basically missile platforms, not attack helos[/QUOTE]
Apache's, Tigers and Gazelle's according to the source I read earlier. Its defiantly Apache's from the UK, its all we have that can full fill the role of "attack chopper".
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;30015869]The Gazelle is used as an attack helo? What the christ
[editline]24th May 2011[/editline]
it might look neat but it wouldn't really be of use in a desert/urban environment[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn't it be? It can run off practically anything combustible and if it isn't broken then there's obviously no need to fix it.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;30015869]The Gazelle is used as an attack helo? What the christ
[/QUOTE]
I am trying to find more info on this, I have seen a few photos of Gazelle's with rocket launchers on the side but I wouldn't call that an attack chopper.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;30015971]They look so fragile and weak.. :geno:[/QUOTE]
But it can do a full loop it must be good.
Nice to see the UK and France contributing some more aircraft to the intervention.
[QUOTE=PrusseluskenV2;30015869]The Gazelle is used as an attack helo? What the christ
[editline]24th May 2011[/editline]
it might look neat but it wouldn't really be of use in a desert/urban environment[/QUOTE]
Gazelles were used by the Syrians in 1982 launching HOT ATGMs against IDF armor.
[img]http://img15.yfrog.com/img15/4899/syaafsa342gazelle1219.jpg[/img]
Back in the 1980s, the West German Bundeswehr used PAH-1s armed with, again HOT ATGMs.
[editline]23rd May 2011[/editline]
But anyways, like the article says they're not game changers. Air operations combined with heavy boots on the ground will change the game.
[editline]23rd May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;30015820]The risk could be high though. Helicopters are obviously a lot more vulnerable to ground attack than a fast jet.[/QUOTE]
Very true. Back in the '90s, the NTC OPFOR killed Apaches at a rate that would have completely exhausted the entire fleet by now with some very simple tactics. I remember when the Iraqs had their own "Apache day" back in 2003, where they managed to force a group of 31 Apaches to abort their mission with heavy damage.
[quote][b]"and all of that means there is a risk now of NATO personnel being shot down."[/b][/quote]
I'd have to ask Shashank Joshi this; why do you think air power is a "risk free", "casualty-safe" solution? It's not. If you're going in with military force, you will have to expect casualties, even if they're heavy.
Yup, just a no-fly zone, what with calling airstrikes on a leader's own family and bringing everything [I]but[/I] the army into it.
The saddest part is, this entire conflict is extremely blown out of proportion, overly-sensationalized, and polluted with lies, and NATO is getting ready to send even more people to their deaths over it.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30020963]Yup, just a no-fly zone, what with calling airstrikes on a leader's own family and bringing everything [I]but[/I] the army into it.
The saddest part is, this entire conflict is extremely blown out of proportion, overly-sensationalized, and polluted with lies, and NATO is getting ready to send even more people to their deaths over it.[/QUOTE]
Just like every war?
Why did Japan attack?
If you don't know, then you don't know that WE actually started their massive invasions.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30020963]Yup, just a no-fly zone, what with calling airstrikes on a leader's own family and bringing everything [I]but[/I] the army into it.
The saddest part is, this entire conflict is extremely blown out of proportion, overly-sensationalized, and polluted with lies, and NATO is getting ready to send even more people to their deaths over it.[/QUOTE]
Really? What lies has NATO or the UN put out about Gaddafi or his regime? What about it was blown out of proportion? Every war ever involves sending people to their deaths, so criticizing NATO, a military alliance for this is just dumb.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30020963]Yup, just a no-fly zone, what with calling airstrikes on a leader's own family and bringing everything [I]but[/I] the army into it.
The saddest part is, this entire conflict is extremely blown out of proportion, overly-sensationalized, and polluted with lies, and NATO is getting ready to send even more people to their deaths over it.[/QUOTE]
I guess you're also going to say that the Syria Security forces also fired upon ambulances and into funeral processions because they're dangerous.
At first I thought this was gonna be a pretty quick conflict but it's turning into another Iraq.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;30025546]At first I thought this was gonna be a pretty quick conflict but it's turning into another Iraq.[/QUOTE]
And so the war economy continues.
Good, lets hope this shortens to fighting.
[QUOTE=markg06;30015908]It can run off practically anything combustible and if it isn't broken then there's obviously no need to fix it.[/QUOTE]
What about lemons?
David Cameron is going to play the hypocrit. Like all politicans.
Made 17,000 redundant but is willing to risk attack helicopters and lives for public fame.
back on memorial day they said "remember the fallen, lest we forget"
Someone should damn well remember those who were sacked and couldn't do anything about it.
Its right of Nato to support the rebels, and I hope they kick that pathetic coward out of power. What we can't do is play the Hero 24/7. Call me an arsehole, but this country has better things to get on with.
Sooner or later Humanity is going to have to stop fighting within itself for long enough to realize our best interests, because the planet is going to go through a very shitty phase over the next few centuries.
And we are still doing nothing :smith:
Damn coward government
[QUOTE=Scar;30026615]And we are still doing nothing :smith:
Damn coward government[/QUOTE]
I thought Germany had a pledge that says they can't fight outside of Germany, only as bodyguards?
[QUOTE=Thom12255;30025546]At first I thought this was gonna be a pretty quick conflict but it's turning into another Iraq.[/QUOTE]
It's only been going on for several months and the rebels have been capturing areas throughout that time. It's not a stalemate, at least not yet, and it's nothing like Iraq.
Waste of public funding. I do not approve.
[QUOTE=Bloodlines;30027336]Waste of public funding. I do not approve.[/QUOTE]
The helicopters are already built. What funding are you speaking of, the fuel for the helicopters?
[QUOTE=Jenkem;30020963]Yup, just a no-fly zone, what with calling airstrikes on a leader's own family and bringing everything [I]but[/I] the army into it.
[/QUOTE]
Section 4 of UNSCR 1973 reads as follows
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take [B]all necessary measures[/B], notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
Please educate yourself before posting incorrect stuff.
It isn't a no fly zone, it never was and never will be. Its a military intervention.
[QUOTE=smurfy;30025938]What about lemons?[/QUOTE]
It honestly wouldn't surprise me, my dads friend owns one and he's apparently flown it on some weird stuff before.
[QUOTE=gamerman345;30026192]Call me an arsehole, but this country has better things to get on with.[/QUOTE]
I'd have thought attempting to prevent a mad dictator slaughtering civilians is a fairly worthwhile thing to do.
[QUOTE=smurfy;30025938]What about lemons?[/QUOTE]
[Insert witty reply that supports your statement, coupled with a badly cropped picture of Cave Johnson's 1960's era protrait]
This is stupidly inefficent, why spend so much money when a few bombs could end this whole thing?
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30071620']This is stupidly in efficent, why spend so much money when a few bombs could end this whole thing?[/QUOTE]
Precision is key, not a nuke or a carpet bomb on a city filled with civilians. Ghaddafi reportedly moves from hospital to hospital escaping NATO strikes as it is. This act will put more pressure on but at the same time these helicopters are much more vulnerable to his forces than jets.
Its stupid to announce all these things on the news, I can understand why they would but think of the pilots. If his forces aren't in complete disarray which I assume they aren't holding out for so long, they could possibly arm up for this type of attack?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30027408]The helicopters are already built. What funding are you speaking of, the fuel for the helicopters?[/QUOTE]
That and sticking our nose in where it does not belong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.