by Luke Tarbi
As calls for a no-fly zone over Libya increase, US defense planners cite concerns over future scale and cost as cause for trepidation. And rightly so -- most no-fly zone estimates are based on US experiences over Iraq, and show the need for over one hundred fighter jets, as well as a command and control element, an airborne refueling capability, and a means to rescue potentially downed pilots. These costs can add up; it is estimated that one year of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch over Iraq cost US taxpayers between $1.4 and $1.7 billion dollars.
However, the US experience imposing no-fly zones over Iraq throughout the 1990s may not present the most accurate benchmark in terms of future scale and cost. Advances in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology combined with innovative uses of existing Navy air defense systems could allow for the potential unmanning of a no-fly zone, lowering risks to pilots and reducing costs to taxpayers. Moreover, significant geographical differences between Iraq and Libya mean that a future no-fly zone could not only be unmanned, but also implemented with fewer military assets. While the initial destruction of the Libyan air defense network would require precision strikes against grounded aircraft and surface-to-air missile sites, a potential unmanned no-fly zone could be maintained for the duration of the Libyan conflict through a combination of UAVs circling and defending locations from above, and Aegis-capable Navy ships assuming anti-air duties along the coastline.
The first half of this concept relies on the Air Force's new MQ-9 Reaper UAV, a larger and more powerful version of the famous Predator drone. Originally designed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Reaper is a combat proven platform that offers a potential anti-air capability (it can carry the AIM-92 Stinger missile). Powered by a 950 horsepower turboprop engine, the Reaper is slow by jet standards at 230 miles per hour, but as a result of being lightweight can boast a total range of over 3,600 miles and an endurance time of 14 hours when fully loaded (for a range reference, potential air bases on Sicily and Crete are both under 300 miles from the Libyan coast). Additionally, the Reaper's slow speed could prove invaluable when countering slower and lower-flying Libyan attack helicopters, whereas faster fighter jets may have more difficulty in targeting them.
The potential for air-to-air combat between a UAV and manned aircraft is not without precedent. In December 2002, a smaller Predator drone engaged an Iraqi MiG-25 while performing a reconnaissance mission. Though its Stinger missile missed and the Predator was shot down, it is noteworthy that the slower UAV was still able to get its shot off in time. The larger Reaper UAV can carry more Stinger missiles than the Predator, or could potentially carry a longer-range (and thus heavier) air-to-air weapon too. Additionally, because the Reaper would be circling above cities in a defensive role it would also be afforded a longer time period for target acquisition. However, while the Reaper could offer a defensive presence in the sky, it could not enforce an unmanned no-fly zone by itself.
The second half of this concept relies on the Navy's Aegis Combat System, the preeminent anti-air weapons system installed on every cruiser and destroyer in the US surface fleet. Originally conceived of during the Cold War, the use of Aegis nowadays is predominately to provide air defense for a nearby aircraft carrier by countering any hostile aircraft or inbound missiles. However, both its powerful AN/SPY-1 radar and SM-2 surface-to-air missiles have ranges of well over 100 miles, a distance that could extend an air defense shield over the majority of large cities and population centers in Libya.
When comparing no-fly zones in Iraq and Libya, the vast differences in their coastline length and coastal population density mean that the surface Navy could play a much larger role in enforcement duties. The State Department estimates that over ninety percent of the Libyan population lives in less than ten percent of its landmass; the majority of these people are clustered along the country's northern coast. The positioning of several Aegis-capable warships along the Libyan coastline could quickly extend an air defense shield over these populations. This in combination with Reaper UAVs circling overhead could create a credible deterrent threat to Libyan pilots, a safer strategy for US servicemen, and a less expensive option for Pentagon policymakers.
The advantage of an unmanned no-fly zone is that it increases safety by taking pilots out of potentially dangerous skies, and it lowers costs by reducing the role of expensive fighter jets, aircraft carriers, airborne refueling planes, and search-and-rescue helicopters. However, this concept has significant disadvantages as well. Taking pilots out of the sky also eliminates human intuition and judgment in potential air engagements. The USS Vincennes, an Aegis cruiser, once shot down an Iranian airliner its crew mistook for a fighter jet on radar, and UAV pilots are no more likely to be effective judges of hostile intent from their remote cockpits and video feeds. With the chances of a Libyan pilot defecting still as high as the chances he attacks, the concept of an unmanned no-fly zone presents as many risks as it does rewards. However, with the potential for substantial savings in terms of lives and money, it is well worth the consideration.
Luke Tarbi is currently a Masters candidate in international relations at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Comments
Nutzinov and carl:
You both put too much stock in the active capability of UAVs/RPVs today. There's are many good reasons why manned aircraft played a significant role in the intervention in Libya. Tomahawks are very good at taking out soft targets like SAM systems (necessarily out in the open), but hardened targets still create challenges for long range missiles and the relatively light/limited munitions of drones.
As stated, RPVs are a great piece of the puzzle, but there are significant limitations.
The goal with a no fly zone is to keep aircraft and artillery on the ground. If air to air is to be used, it means we have already failed at keeping things from flying!
UAVs are not fighters...yet. However, a hellfire missile shot into any taxing or powered aircraft on the ground might make pilots a bit antsy to get into them or maintainers to work on them or fuel trucks to service them or artillery crews to load their tubes!
Officers wishing to defect could do their country a better service by convincing their ground crews to abandon their posts and be with their families or fight along side the rebels.
A UAV would not even have to orbit an airfield all the time and could be tasked for other work as well. Forces on the ground might not know the difference. The threat of force is at times a better thwarter of conflict than conflict itself.
With 15-18 hours of on station time that is a tremendous amount of gas and crew savings compared to the fast movers et al. Plus the addition of having "eyes" on target all the time.
If I was king for a day, here is how it would run.
Clear and concise operational guidance for the use of force is paramount!
2-3 Cruisers/Destroyers providing radar/SM2/TLAM coverage.
5 Reapers from Crete allowing for 3 on station all the time.
Phase 1 TLAM shot to kill relevant IADS
Phase 2 UAV orbits over airfields. If it moves it dies. The Cruisers do what they do best, ride shotgun for the UAVs with SM2 defense in the event a fighter does get off the ground. Plus they can launch their own UAVs firescout/scan eagle for ISR etc. Remember, there are other things that fly as well, helicopters and artillery rounds.
Due to the modern marvels of logistics, this could theoretically be put into place in a week or so and remain indefinitely. A carrier off the beach is over kill and would not remain long.
I am sure there are a few hard point ready MQ-9's and necessary satellite bandwidth sitting around in boxes somewhere.
Just a thought...
Good response by LCDR Bruner. This idea is extremely naive and built on illusions of capabilities UAV/UAS/RPVs don't yet have. They are an integral piece of today's air war, but they aren't capable of carrying the day in denying the Qaddafi the use of his Air Force assets, even working with surface AAMD assets.
Our European partners will be significant players in this, with RAF and FAF assets already poised for action. USN and USAF forces will continue working together well to accomplish, hopefully well-constructed, mission goals set by our leaders. Our combined capabilities will definitely be up to it, but there is nothing easy or painless about acts of war...nor should there be.
LCDR Bruner is correct; this is an act of war.
Using CAS to attack your own civilian population is a war crime, by the way. There are some interesting options here. The ability of the USN's ADA capabilities against a nation that is mostly living along the coast is definitely sonething to consider. I would like to think the USN/USAF has the ability to locate what cruise missiles exist and that we have the intelligence for that.
UAV's to locate key leadership of the Qaddafi regime is something that may provide a tipping point between the rebels and the regime, and that is a good thing.
At the end of the day, we must ask what our preferred endstate and outcome is. Deposing Qaddafi without a plan for after, or assisting the rebels to do the same, smacks of 2002 and 2003 in OEF/OIF. That's not a happy thought. On the other hand, if we stand around and let a dictator kill his citizens with airpower and the rebellion gets crushed, that may not help our credibility, or our cause, a year or two or five when other regimes are under threat from other revolutionaries and that is in our interest.
Qaddafi successfully crushing the rebels is not in our interests or a successful outcome. Enabling the Libyans to solve their own problems in an indirect way is not a bad way to approach the problem. There ar epenalties for acting, and not acting as well.
I too believe that this is an interesting idea. The use of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are both more cost efficient and safe. But I feel that there is more to consider than those concerns put forward by Bret, although the mission will keep us out of the range of their man-pads, and the ships will take all precautions necessary to keep themselves safe from the anti-ship missiles.
First, let us not forget that imposing a no-fly zone is an act of war, and this will involve the use of kinetics and people will die. Deserved or not, the second and third order effects of this decision will be numerous. A heavy financial burden to the American taxpayers occurs regardless of the path we take to impose it, lest we forget that America currently engaged in two wars at present. The political ramifications would be hard to predict. Look at what the EU is saying about Frances remarks to support the rebels, and those were just remarks. What would the African Union say and how would that affect other issues we are involved in on that continent. How will it affect the Islamic population, or Libyas oil trade?
Second, having an officer in the cockpit is done by design. The ability to take in all available information and act accordingly in just a few seconds, often the time it takes the information from the limited scopes to get to the operator, is the hallmark of a good aviator. The available sensors on our best UAS do not yet come close to providing enough situational awareness to make the critical decisions when it counts. As a tactical naval aviator, I am all about keeping my plane and my crew safe, but the risk of inflaming an already delicate situation is far too great. To have the ability to quickly look in multiple directions and adjust the systems to the appropriate mode would allow me to make a snap decision that may prevent an unwanted shot down, and all the bad press that comes with it. How can a UAS give hand signals to another pilot, or possibly get on the radio and convince him to defect? Deterrence is huge, we do not want to resort to kinetics if we do not have to, and an aircraft carrier with her entire compliment of aircraft is much more intimidating than an almost unseen drone that was not designed with air interdiction in mind.
Lastly, the capabilities of these aircraft have not been tested for this type of operation, and even if we decided to implement them, they are in far too short of number to do the job in the near future. Although the technology is impressive and the discovery channel embellishes what they can actually do, the fact of the matter is that they simply are not yet able to do all that is required of enforcing a no-fly zone.
LCDR Michael D. Bruner, student, CGSC, ILE SG-5A; Ft. Leavenworth, KS.
The views of this post are the views of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Dept. of the Army, Dept. of the Navy, Dept. of Defense or the United States Government.
Although this plan is interesting, I have three concerns.
First, the demand for drones is very high as they are used in a variety of areas ranging from Mexico to Pakistan at the moment. In these areas, drones play a vital role in supporting security efforts. Repositioning them, along with their ground stations and necessary crew, would also take some time.
Second, even though the Aegis cruisers have some of the most sophisticated fire systems on the plant, they are not completely safe when resting miles off of Libya's shores. The threat isn't necessarily from Libya's navy or airforce. Instead, I'm concerned about the possible use of sea based anti-ship missiles. As we saw in the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war, an Israeli corvette was disabled when Hezbollah launched a C-802 missile at it. It cannot be confirmed that the Chinese manufactured C-704 and C-802 missiles are possessed by Libya's forces. Although the missile wouldn't likely sink a cruiser, the damage isn't worth the cost.
Third, I am nervous about the attacks on Libya's air defense systems. Libya's air defense systems are very weak, old, and ineffective against Western technology. However, Libya's tactical SAMs in Tripoli are placed in the city--in some cases in very urban areas. Even though collateral damage is part of conflict, the no-fly enforcers need to be cautious about this obstacle.
Boy, I like the UAV option. No risk to US pilots--and that is cool.
But hey, are we not forgetting that a ton of suicide bombers in Iraq came from Libya? Do these folks really deserve this help, and what is the return on investment here? I mean Gaddafi is a bad guy too, and he has American blood on his hands, but why not just let these bastards fight it out amongst each other?
We should ask a US soldier that was wounded by a Libyan suicide bomber what he thinks?
--------
Libyan Town Exports Grim Crop: Suicide Bombers
Reporter travels to Darnah to uncover insurgents' motives
By Caroline Zimmerman
Posted Apr 21, 2008
American intelligence has long known that the bulk of foreign combatants waging jihad in Iraq are Saudi nationals, but Libya is a close second, with much higher per capita representation. Documents found in Sinjar, Iraq, showed 112 fighters in a group of 606 were Libyan, and 52 came from Darnah, an impoverished coastal town of 50,000. Newsweek traveled there to attempt to learn why.
Darnah has a history of anti-colonial activity, but the insurgents had personal agendas, too. One thread connecting the men--both poor and prosperous, with good prospects or none at all--is an obsession with Iraq and images of violence on Al-Jazeera. "He never watched movies," said the brother of one fighter whose fate is unknown. "It was only the news."
http://www.newser.com/story/25194/libyan-town-exports-grim-crop-suicide…