Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Danish F-16s running out of bombs over Libya
F-16.net ^ | June 10, 2011 | Asif Shamim

Posted on 06/17/2011 12:04:47 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar

F-16s’s operating against forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya are running out of bombs according to a June 9 report. A request to the replenish stocks has been made to the Netherlands.

"The Danish F-16s are about to run out of bombs to continue to attack Libya," the daily Politiken said, citing unnamed defence sources.

"The Danish military has therefore asked Holland for help," it added.

A spokesman for the Danish military's logistics division could not confirm the report but said his department was speaking to other coalition partners about supplies.

"It is our job to always support operations in the short, medium and long term, and we always have a close cooperation with our F-16 partnership countries, in particular Norway and the Netherlands," Anders Paaskesen of the Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation told AFP.

Danish F-16s were some of the first jets to arrive for Operation Unified Protector and have been participating in the missions since March 20. 274 sorties have been carried out, resulting in 494 precision guided bombs being dropped, Inge Borggaard of the Air Force Tactical Command said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: f16; netherlands; oup

1 posted on 06/17/2011 12:04:53 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sparky1776; militant2; TaMoDee; freedumb2003; PERKY2004

F-16 Ping


2 posted on 06/17/2011 12:06:23 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

If a nation is not able to devote enough money to wage war against all of it’s rivals at once with the realistic possibility of prevailing then it has de facto lost it’s sovereignty, since it is then relying on allies for it’s own protection and is therefore unable to dictate the terms of their assistance.

I think it is becoming clear that all European nations have been in this situation for decades and the only reason they retain sovereignty - to the extent that they do - is because they are all in the same boat.


3 posted on 06/17/2011 12:36:50 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

There are no rivals near by in europe.
And this is exactly why all those militaries havn´t stocked up huge amount of weapons.
Just for example Denmark is not in danger to lose its sovereignty because of the simple fact there is no country near by who would attack them.
Of course if you want to play war in north africa those weapons would be needed.


4 posted on 06/17/2011 12:43:20 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Danish Vanish


5 posted on 06/17/2011 1:15:40 AM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
There are no rivals near by in europe.
And this is exactly why all those militaries havn´t stocked up huge amount of weapons.
Just for example Denmark is not in danger to lose its sovereignty because of the simple fact there is no country near by who would attack them.
Of course if you want to play war in north africa those weapons would be needed.


IMHO...

This is exactly what I'm talking about - using the fact that no nation has been sabre-rattling at their border for 50 years as an excuse to have a pathetically weak military that can't even drop bombs for a couple months from the air without running out of budget money to buy bombs. They might as well have no military in that case and just put a nice dress on. A nation that buys munitions on an ad hoc basis can only participate in wars that are more like firepower demonstrations. Their budgets become dedicated to internal social spending, and if ever they are attacked (forget that it's too late then anyway), they simply could not cut spending, raise taxes or borrow enough to put up any significant fight. The one-carrier fleet of some countries is another bad joke. It's not for national defense, it serves to prop up national pride and participate in the occasional political intervention, since in a war, that carrier could get sunk, and along with it the hopes for national defense.

Over the years, the geo-political situation changes, and a neutered military can not simply wave a magic wand and instantly become a force to be reckoned with - it takes constant training and development and a large ongoing investment, e.g., the U.S. military. As far as no "near" rivals - that doesn't hold water in today's modern world. If it did, America could get by with little or no conventional forces if it relied on the isolation of two nice big oceans and pitifully weak neighbors.
6 posted on 06/17/2011 1:18:53 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Not our problem.


7 posted on 06/17/2011 1:25:05 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Well i get your point.
And from an american point of view it does make sense.
But the european point of view is totally different.
The worst danger for european countries have allways been
other european countries.
And this threat has definitely gone in the EU.
Beside maybe the french (because they love their little wars in africa) usually nobody stocks up weapons for the simple reason you don´t need them for your defence nor have most european countries any interesst to get involved in military conflicts outside of europe.
This is why libya has really caught me by suprise too (and i´m pretty shure the european militaries have been as suprized the moment those politicians told them pleas start bombing libya ;-)
Won´t last long anyway because you can´t defend this bombing campain very long back at home because the people are against it. (even the french puplic don´t like it and it has ruined whats was left of sarkozys popularity).
As said like the US the EU does not need many weapons to defend them against outside threats.
Most europeans just have enought from wars at all.
(and beeing 10 years in afghanistan with no end in sight did not really help to change that view ;-)
Of course this means most of the countries have little to no capacity to fight an offensive war araound the globe.
But since the politicians would get eaten alieve anyway from their own population back at home they can not pull this of anyway even if they would wish.
So why prepare your self with offensive capabilities when the people back home would not let you use it anyway?
I guarantee you that the european afghanistan commitment was definitely the maxium the US could have got.
(Because if europe would send more soldiers there would definitely role some politician heads in their home country.) Without nato there would not be a single european soldier still in afghanistan.
I guarantee you this.
But Ok there was the world trade center and the US asked for help.
People understood this back then.
But as said this war was NEVER (not even in the beginning popular in europe).
Most europeans would rater sit aside and watch 10 genocides in africa before they would send just a single soldier.
Because most europeans have zero interesst in wars outside of the continent.
The this is none of our buisiness statement is pretty common.


8 posted on 06/17/2011 1:50:08 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

They have weak defense because the US has carried the burden since WWII.


9 posted on 06/17/2011 1:53:27 AM PDT by JDPendry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JDPendry

They have weak defense because the US has carried the burden since WWII.


No this is really the standart missunderstanding from americans.
They have more then enought defences against the treaths which exist for them (Which are pretty much zero).
since the cold war has gone and the EU enlargement.
Just for example why “defend” a border that more or less only exists on paper because there are not even border controlls between most of the EU countries anymore.
What “europe” really lacks are offensive capabilities.
But as said in my other post there is little to no generall interesst among the public to get involved into anything outside of the EU.


10 posted on 06/17/2011 2:05:56 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

If it was not for the US, the EU could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.... =.=


11 posted on 06/17/2011 2:18:25 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

I hear you, this is why I keep seeing Russia eventually taking Europe if America fails economically.

If America goes off a cliff economically, inflation will be very high, which will mean that only people with very high rates of pay will live comfortably.

Military pay will then become relatively very low; recruiting will be extremely difficult - maintaining conventional forces would be impossible. Of course, ships and planes will also be too expensive to operate and maintain.

And the nukes can’t be used for normal battle, just a last ditch act of desperation. If America is not directly attacked, the nukes don’t make sense, only conventional does, as using a nuke would invite nuke retalation.

So... contrary to what AAAALLLLLLLLL the experts are saying - we need to be prepared - as always throughout history - for massive conventional war. At least being able to scale up quickly with a force to be reckoned with.

If our economy was off a cliff and half our carriers were mothballed, forces cut, air force cut. Then Russia, say, attacked the U.K., taking out missiles and air defense. what if our military told our President that there was no way for us to get involved without disaster for us. And if our Congress and President decided that it was a “european problem”. The UK would be speaking Russian within 2 months. Would they use their nukes ? Doubt it, they be afraid and hesitate too long, cuz they’d be risking nuke annihilation in retaliation. Can’t have that.

From then, it’s Germany, just take out the air defenses, then go around Poland to the south and via the Baltic with a landing force. Poland won’t help, France won’t help.

The rest would fall like dominoes. The UK is the key because it and germany are the only ones who can really put up a fight, but germany can be attacked by land from Russia, it can’t. If Hitler wasn’t crazy, he would have taken out the UK before doing anything else.

Nowadays, troop transport is by air, so air supremacy is needed to safely move troops across the Atlantic in big, lumbering transports. As far as moving by ship, they’re very much easy targets.

The U.S. “defense umbrella” only extends over Europe inasmuch as we have an incredibly powerful naval and air power - and have trillions to spend on keeping them supplied.

And Russian will have both submarines AND air power in the Atlantic to harass shipping.


12 posted on 06/17/2011 2:46:33 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Sorry but this is the next wrong impression many americans have. As said the cold war is gone.
Russia is not the USSR are anymore.
There is no way Russia could conquer europe or win a conventinal war with the EU. (Let alone that not even the russian have any interesst in fighting it because the EU is their biggest trading partner and consumes their oil and gas like crazy).
I don´t know where so many americans get the impression that europe is totaly defenceless.
Because it´s not.
Believe me the weapons are there they are just not used this is all.
Yes most of europe has cut its defence budget pretty low but even with this low numbers the EU spends countless times the money russia spends.
Just for example germany alone spends about the same money on defence like russia. (now add the rest of the 26 EU countries too this list and it becomes a no contest and btw. there exists an obligation treaty for the EU countries since the lissbon treaty).
Really only the US does spend more money (granted a lot more) on defence than the EU.
This is a fact.
The defence weapons are there (not in the same numbers like the US has it but they are there).
This reports from nato paint a wrong picture about europe.
They don´t have a fighter shortage because there don´t exist anymore fighters to bomb libya for example.
They have a fighter shortage because nobody is willing to send them for a war in north africa which is more or less nothing of “our” business.
Same is for all european missions.
The weapons are there (They just rot back home in europe) because the public is just not willing to send them in large numbers for wars in forreign places.
Just for example there was the chad mission some years ago to protect some refugess somewhere in africa.
A few tousand EU soldiers for africa.
There have been reports around that they EU doesn´t even manage to get 20 helicopters for it.
Well it was true (but it was allso true that they didn´t get the helicopters because the people back home said what helos for Africa? WTF? F+ck em who cares about this hell hole so the politicians have been forced to not commit them (at least if they wanted to get voted again).
But don´t think that those choppers didn´t exist.
Quite ironic when all tell you Sorry but we can not send only a single one and one week later 50 Black hawks (from the same country) show up at a local air show ;-)
Again the weapons are there!


13 posted on 06/17/2011 3:29:55 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

But anyway i guess the main problem is NATO itself.
It should have died with the cold war or at least replaced with something new.
And the next problem was that we started the use nato for offensive millitary actions without member states beeing attacked.
This definitely now is the biggest problem.
Because NATO has so many members with so many different national interessts that it´s as good as impossibe to get everyone on board or at least to fullfill their commitments for foreign wars.
Defending a member state that is attacked is one thing.
But sending troops somewhere (and get ripped appart back home from the public) because other members may want to start a war there which is definitely not in your national interesst is a total different topic.
So no wonder NATO more and more falls apart.
Time for something new.


14 posted on 06/17/2011 3:56:02 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

Russia is the same USSR with different names; same KGB, Putin, etc., same power elites. Which do have different factions, to be sure, some more warlike than others. But nevertheless, the leadership thinks they are a bunch of cool tough guys.

They simply realized USSR was broke and could not keep up with the military spending, it was a joke. So they “collapsed” the government and told the West they were abanding communism. Which is really just a bunch of power elites anyway !

Now the power elites in Russia are free to acquire wealth without fear of being labeled a “corrupt communist” because there is no more “communism” there. Now it can freely just be corrupt. Which it is, top to bottom. Like how much the real price is of a Moscow apartment and what people declare it is for tax purposes.

The real “war” is going on to bring down the U.S. from the inside, because it will eliminate our military from policing anything. IMHO, you have a much differnent situation if the U.S. is militarily out of the picture.

Once that happens, the big rich guys in Russia - and anywhere - running business and government have no threat from anyone or anything to impede them from going back and picking up the satellite countries that they let go when they “collapsed”. Politicians historically have always seen satellite nations or colonies as cheap raw materials and labor.

IMHO, Europe is mistaken in thinking that Russia poses no threat. If you have two hungry dogs and one plate of food, you get a fight. I think many agree that the future holds the distinct possiblity of resource-related wars.


15 posted on 06/17/2011 4:19:50 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Well since the end of the USSR russia “only” has a population of 138,739,892 (July 2011 est.) people anymore.
and a GDP of $1.465 trillion (2010 est.) (official exchange rate)

The EU on the other side has a population of
492,387,344 (July 2010 est.)
and a Gdp of $16.07 trillion (2010 est.) (official exchange rate)

So do the math.
If the EU really only would spend 1% of gdp which really would be nothing! russia would still have to spend 11% (which would ruin any country) of their gdp to get to the same numbers.


16 posted on 06/17/2011 4:38:34 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

Stats are from the CIA world factbook.


17 posted on 06/17/2011 4:39:46 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

I hate to break it to you but is US forces left europe. The russian air force can kick euro air force ass. They have excellent planes and pilots, not to mention missles. They may not be the soviet union but the EU could not defeat russia alone.


18 posted on 06/17/2011 5:33:29 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Good news for East Tennessee....... we make the explosives


19 posted on 06/17/2011 5:35:14 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JDPendry

-——They have weak defense because the US has carried the burden since WWII.-——

Not true. They have weak military because after two devastating wars the Euros swore off war forever. No war, no military.


20 posted on 06/17/2011 5:38:12 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

The EU also doesnt have the testicular fortitude to fight a war. Most are a bunch of wusses and the russkies would beat the shyte out of them. They are a continent of beta males as most their alpha males first moved to the US long ago while the rest died in two world wars. Sure they may be a few tough ones but the majority of euros are sissys and yes I have be all over europe. Girly men.


21 posted on 06/17/2011 5:46:33 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

Yeah whatever.
Of course the gripen, eurofighter, f-18... and on and on are not able to win a dogfight.
And believe it or not they really have more then 1 plane for every model.
Again just because europeans don´t use most of its hardware to fight in foreign countries does not mean that they don´t have it.
As said in generall most europeans have finally enought from war.
This is a fact.
last statistic from 2008
The combined defence budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2008 amounted to €284.9 billion ($406,7 billion). This represents 1.63% of European Union GDP[, second only to the US military’s €477.4 billion ($620.5 billion) 2008

This year i guess the US did spend 700 Billion but again beside the US nobody else even spends half of the money the EU countries do.
But ok never let get facts in your way.
What not 500 european leopard 2 tanks in afghanistan?
(Sorry they are back home).
Same for most of the airplanes.
(Because most european contries simple have no interesst in bombing libya)
As said just because they are not used does not mean that they don´t exist.


22 posted on 06/17/2011 6:45:50 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

“The Danish military has therefore asked Holland for help.”
You know you’re in trouble when.....you have to ask Holland for help. “We’re out of bombs. Do you have any tulip bulbs we could drop on them? Wooden shoes?”


23 posted on 06/17/2011 7:01:30 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

The EU also doesnt have the testicular fortitude to fight a war. Most are a bunch of wusses and the russkies would beat the shyte out of them. They are a continent of beta males as most their alpha males first moved to the US long ago while the rest died in two world wars. Sure they may be a few tough ones but the majority of euros are sissys and yes I have be all over europe. Girly men.


Yeah what a bunch of wussies they are for fighting since 10 years in afghanistan. (btw. a war “THEY” did not start).
Sorry people like you crack me up.
You might think again who is doing whom a favour in afghanistan.
Could europeans do more in afghanistan?
Yeah they definitely could if they want.
But they could allso have done NOTHING too.
So show some respect because you may not have noticed it but i gurantee you there have been a lot of european soldiers killed in afghanistan too.


24 posted on 06/17/2011 7:06:56 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

Im not talking about Afghanistan, Im talking about europe in general. If you think Afghanistan is a total war scenario and your small force there is applicable I feel sorry for you. Russia would give you a total war and you would lose for my stated reasons. They own the germans with energy already.


25 posted on 06/17/2011 8:19:04 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

Well while you keep dreaming about a war with russia that will not happen i feel pretty safe here.
Weapons like this should be enoughtt hold of non existent enemies from german land and on larger scale from the EU ;-)
As said only because you don´t believe it doesn´t change reality (this is just a small part from the german army) the european armies are well capable of defending our own land without help from the US.
As said we don´t use them in foreign countries.
But make no mistake we have them and so do other EU countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy3rNEpwsLw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gUYOB1TdLQ


26 posted on 06/17/2011 9:38:16 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: darkside321

Im sure your caveat engagement forces are ready for russia. I know the Euro capability and its lacking. Im sure russia is shaking over you tube vids. Russia would do the same thing as the US would if we attacked the EU. We would destroy all your air defenses and achieve air dominance in around 2-3 days. They have spy satellites to and know exactly where your air defenses and other military assets are. Yes they may not be able to roll over the EU as easy as US air power would but they would win and your tanks would be targets from the sky. This is all hypothetical but to say that the EU alone without any help from the US could defeat russia is a damned joke.


27 posted on 06/17/2011 11:11:31 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

again you have no clue about european air forces.
Did you know that there are about 580 eurofighters alone in use at the moment?
And only 5 eu countries fly the eurofighter.
Now add all the f16, f18 , raffael, gripen, tornados...
from the rest of the 22 members to this fleet and you have an really powerfull airforce.
Jesus christ a continental invasion is not a game of “risk”
Nobody can invade an area this large.
Not the US, NOT Russia, Not the EU the other way around.
You would need millions of troops and nobody has a military this big right now.

Just a question how many planes has the US in europe?
50? maybe even 100? as if this would make any difference.
When the EU countries alone operate more than 1000.


28 posted on 06/17/2011 11:50:46 AM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MARKUSPRIME

US would if we attacked the EU. We would destroy all your air defenses and achieve air dominance in around 2-3 days.


Now you have finally proven that you have no clue at all.
Yeah the US could destroy all air defences on the freaking CONTINENT of Europe and get total air dominace in 2-3 days.
LOL
Yeah dream on.
Let me guess in your world of fantasy all the US would have to do is send 2 or 3 aircraft carriers and contintal european air space is yours.
Who cares about little details like that standart combat aircraft no even have the operation range to get everywhere (let alone the fuel to fly back).
But who cares about such little details right?
What comes next refueling over hostile teritory?
Lol this may work in afghanistan but definitely NOT
over a hostile europe.
You know we don´t fire rpgs at planes.
Blelieve it or not but we have pretty fancy rockets too ;-)
Alone that you But as said it makes no sence talking anymore because sorry but you have proven that you have no clue about warfare.


29 posted on 06/17/2011 12:16:39 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
They might as well have no military in that case and just put a nice dress on.

That's funny right there.

30 posted on 06/17/2011 12:18:33 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: darkside321
Blelieve it or not but we have pretty fancy rockets too ;-)

About a dozen or so, last I heard.

31 posted on 06/17/2011 12:20:20 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

When they run out of bombs Gadaffi will claim victory.

Much like the fighter standing there, his face a bloody mass, saying “He isn’t hitting me as hard as he was, must be getting tired, I am wearing him down”.

Remember Saddam, when BUSH II went after him - ‘I am the true leader, where is George H W Bush, Maggie Thatcher? They are gone, I am still here’


32 posted on 06/17/2011 12:28:11 PM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98) Time to clean House (and Senate) again. Incumbents begone!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

When they run out of bombs Gadaffi will claim victory.

Much like the fighter standing there, his face a bloody mass, saying “He isn’t hitting me as hard as he was, must be getting tired, I am wearing him down”.

Remember Saddam, when BUSH II went after him - ‘I won the last time. I am still the leader, where is George H W Bush, Maggie Thatcher? They are gone, I am still here’


33 posted on 06/17/2011 12:29:33 PM PDT by xrmusn ((6/98) Time to clean House (and Senate) again. Incumbents begone!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

About a dozen or so, last I heard.


No this was bombs ;-)
As said european militaries are not prepared for an large or long going attack war.
(i never denied this).
Especially when you start the bombing only 36 hours after the UN resolution.
I would have loved to see the faces of the military comanders when the politicians told em that they should start bombing libya tomorow ;-)
While they try to explain those idots in chief that they
cut the resorces for something like this 20 years ago.

But defence in our own backyard is something totally different.


34 posted on 06/17/2011 12:46:59 PM PDT by darkside321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Poor guy doesnt understand the concept of salvos of long range missle strikes and stand off weaponry decapitating command and control and air defense.


35 posted on 06/17/2011 3:58:35 PM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson