A team of U.S. and international experts assesses the impact of various nations' airpower efforts during the 2011 conflict in Libya, including NATO allies and non-NATO partners, and how their experiences offer guidance for future conflicts. In addition to the roles played by the United States, Britain and France, it examines the efforts of Italy, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Qatar, the UAE, and the Libyan rebels.
Precision and Purpose
Airpower in the Libyan Civil War
Download eBook for Free
|PDF file||9.9 MB||Best for desktop computers.
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
|ePub file||12.7 MB||Best for mobile devices.
On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view ePub files. Calibre is an example of a free and open source e-book library management application.
|mobi file||30.2 MB||Best for Kindle 1-3.
On desktop computers and some mobile devices, you may need to download an eBook reader to view mobi files. Amazon Kindle is the most popular reader for mobi files.
Purchase Print Copy
|Add to Cart||Paperback466 pages||$49.50||$39.60 20% Web Discount|
- How did each of the countries involved in the Libyan intervention decide to participate?
- What was the role of each nation's air force during the conflict, from deployment to basing to operations over Libya?
- From an operational and strategic perspective, what lessons did each nation take away from the experience, and what additional insights or lessons should be derived from those experiences?
Between March and October 2011, a coalition of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states and several partner nations waged a war against Muammar Qaddafi's Libyan regime that stemmed and then reversed the tide of Libya's civil war, preventing Qaddafi from crushing the nascent rebel movement seeking to overthrow his dictatorship and going on to enable opposition forces to prevail. The central element of this intervention was a relatively small multinational force's air campaign operating from NATO bases in several countries, as well as from a handful of aircraft carriers and amphibious ships in the Mediterranean Sea. The study details each country's contribution to that air campaign, examining such issues as the limits of airpower and coordination among nations. It also explores whether the Libyan experience offers a potential model for the future.
Airpower Prevented an Early Regime Victory
- The air campaign enabled the opposition to survive Qaddafi's offensive in March 2011.
- Imposition of the no-fly zone and the continuation of coalition air strikes had a profound effect on the Libyan rebels beyond the protection those strikes provided from air and ground attacks.
Airpower Enabled Rebels to Go on the Offensive
- Aerial intervention made possible not merely a victory against Qaddafi, but a Libyan victory.
- The availability of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, especially of developed targets, was central to the conduct of the air campaign.
Intervention Was Done Cheaply and Effectively
- No coalition personnel were killed, or even seriously wounded, carrying out operations over (or in) Libya.
- Target planners and aircrews generally succeeded in their considerable efforts to avoid civilian casualties.
- The war is estimated to have cost the coalition several billion dollars, a relatively low figure compared to other conflicts.
- Several nations' air forces were stretched to the limit of their abilities to sustain aircraft deployments.
Airpower Was Intertwined With Politics
- The Libyan aerial intervention was unusual in having a rationale that explicitly revolved around a mandate to protect civilians.
- The Arab states' most important strategic contribution was in the political domain and in providing assistance to the Libyan rebels.
- The United Nations' endorsement of the intervention heavily influenced the participation of some countries.
- Applying the "Libya model" of using airpower to enable victories by indigenous ground forces to other settings is potentially powerful but will often be more difficult, especially where political conditions are less favorable than in Libya.
- Develop provisions among NATO countries to enhance their ability to operate as an alliance within ever-changing coalitions, anticipating that it will be hard to predict the roster of players in some future endeavors.
- Prepare to deal with the unanticipated absence of significant allies.
- Build capabilities for cooperation with indigenous forces, which is all-important in cases such as Libya and should be first among many areas of further investigation into improving strategies and techniques for aerial interventions.
- Develop standardized procedures and templates for information sharing (to include classification protocols) with "'NATO-plus"' partners to ease transition and integration issues.
- Invest in munitions with limited kinetic effects, such as Brimstone, which demonstrated their worth in Libya.
- For non-U.S. members, plan to address shortfalls in available capacity for air refueling, suppression of enemy air defenses, intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance collection and analysis, and other "enabling" functions that the United States predominantly contributed to the Libya campaign.
- Recognizing what airpower cannot do — and communicating this effectively to national leaders — is as important as envisioning what it can do.
Table of Contents
Examining the Air Campaign in Libya
Strategic and Political Overview of the Intervention
The Libyan Experience
The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support
The U.S. Experience: Operational
The British Experience: Operation Ellamy
The French Experience: Sarkozy's War?
The Italian Experience: Pivotal and Underestimated
The Canadian Experience: Operation Mobile
The Belgian, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian Experiences
The Swedish Experience: Overcoming the Non–NATO-Member Conundrum
The Arab States' Experiences
Victory Through (Not By) Airpower
Timeline of Events in Libya
Air Order of Battle
Research conducted by
The research reported here was sponsored by General Philip M. Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and conducted within the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.