US/Coalition Attack on Libya Thread - WIC: Modern Warfare Mod for World in Conflict

As we had predicted with respect to use of cruise missiles -- over 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles (mix of older RGM/UGM-109C/D and new RGM/UGM-109E Tactical Tomahawks ('TacTom')) have been fired to destroy Libyan IADS, spreading out over 20 targets.

Per media reports of what is available, most of the cruise missiles were targeting 4-5 targets near Tripoli and in western Libya, mainly the S-200 (SA-5) long range SAM sites, and their supporting fire control radars. Other cruise missiles were most likely assigned against early warning radar sites, many of them which are lightly defended or not defended at all.

Although Libyan IADS is a joke with very limited or no terminal air defense capability against cruise missiles, we can clearly observe that salvo-launching of cruise missiles is indeed a real-life strategy when attempting to defeat enemy integrated air defense system network, by overwhelming them in large numbers.

SOC has diagram and analysis of Libyan IADS here: Geimint.blogspot.com

Edited by: blahdy

Also they have issues with the sam rounds. I do wonder if they use their fencers for the atack on the allied vessels.

F15E crushed, i wonder if it was a mechanical fail?

ikalugin wrote: Also they have issues with the sam rounds. I do wonder if they use their fencers for the atack on the allied vessels.

Who has issues with the SAM rounds?

Their Su-24s? Pre-military action they only had a few left and they were destroyed by either rebels or coalition forces, along with the rest of the Libyan air force.

ikalugin wrote: F15E crushed, i wonder if it was a mechanical fail?

Crashed*
Yes it was a mechanical failure. Thankfully both pilots ejected and are fine.

Edited by: Heaney

well sam rounds do have "use by" date

ikalugin wrote: well sam rounds do have "use by" date

S-200s were still fired on French aircraft, but were evaded quite easily.

well it isn't like i would say that Iraqi/Serbian/Libyan iads was robust. in the case of arabs they have shown inability to use relatively high tech weapons

ikalugin wrote: well it isn't like i would say that Iraqi/Serbian/Libyan iads was robust. in the case of arabs they have shown inability to use relatively high tech weapons

You can't sum up the whole Arab world like that...

the world is going nuts

Edited by: Heaney

The world is not going nuts...

Err so french run spec ops on lybian soil, ground invasion next?

ikalugin wrote: Err so french run spec ops on lybian soil, ground invasion next?

No.

It's forbidden by the UN resolution.

You mean ground invasion is? So what have happened in iraq? Spec ops are there as far as i know anyway.

You can stop here. Let's not start another flame war about Iraq war.

-blahdy

Quite honestly I dont disaprove of OIF THAT much
It was just that heaney stated, that ground forces invasion was forbiden by the UN, and i think OIF is a good example, of a situation, where action was taken with mirky legal side of things.
So, should need be, I wont doupt that french (and/or other party/parties) would comence such action as there is a precedent in recent history.

ikalugin wrote: You mean ground invasion is? So what have happened in iraq? Spec ops are there as far as i know anyway.

In Iraq, the UN sat there like idealist children, allowing Hussein to do whatever the fuck he wanted.

Sure they imposed "trade restrictions", but who gave a shit? Not him.

In the end, the UN were indecisive, when decisive action was required.

When the UN were still arguing over the policies and legalities and paperwork, we (the UK & USA) were liberating the Iraqi people.

However, I highly doubt there will be a ground invasion this time. It's not appropriate.

Well i am one of those boring realist types that believes that "in order for the vilage to be saved it had to be destroyed" (cant remember the exact qwote) so i disaprove of OIF and other such things.

You see i doupt that people with eastern mindset can really change it quickly, thus all atempts by a more advanced western civilasation to "liberate" or "safe" end up in colonasation efforts, which is sad.

Still i believe that everybody has a right to their own opinion and freedom of action, just i find it hipocritical to cover "realpolitic" actions with idealistic motives.

ikalugin wrote: Well i am one of those boring realist types that believes that "in order for the vilage to be saved it had to be destroyed" (cant remember the exact qwote) so i disaprove of OIF and other such things.

Eh what?

ikalugin wrote: You see i doupt that people with eastern mindset can really change it quickly, thus all atempts by a more advanced western civilasation to "liberate" or "safe" end up in colonasation efforts, which is sad.

Colonisation?

It would only be colonisation if Iraq was taken over...

The government in Iraq today were elected democratically by the Iraqi people, it was not colonisation.

And I think you're wrong about people in the middle east.

The arab spring has shown that they don't want to be under a dictatorship with no rights.

They WANT to have democracy.

Colonialism? wtf?

I would think Russian invasion of sovereign state of Georgia is something closer to imperial communist colonialism. Or a typical Russian Bullying, which is common with your culture nowadays.

blahdy wrote: Colonialism? wtf?

Exactly... I think he's probably parroting something he heard from an anti-war person (they're crazy...).

It's a democratically elected government, not the "US Colony of Iraq".

blahdy wrote: I would think Russian invasion of sovereign state of Georgia is something closer to imperial communist colonialism. Or a typical Russian Bullying, which is common with your culture nowadays.

This.

Just this.

Edited by: Heaney

hm sry, was posting from a middle of the red star chanell after party.
just HAD to use "evill imperialist" arguement.

ahem

i heard Delta force is on the ground at a NATO FOB near Tripoli

and the Rebels are at last check 50km from the city