The date is 1994, and two years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the repercussions
of the sudden fall of the Iron Curtain are still rippling across Eastern Europe.
In the former nation of Yugoslavia civil war has broken out, and now several factions vie
for power, each seeking to carve out an independent nation for themselves.
With the UN's backing, NATO has rushed to contain the fighting and aid the streams of
refugees fleeing the violence.
With all sides in the conflict targeting civilians, the UN approved the creation of a no-fly zone
over former Yugoslavia.
Unfortunately the UN stopped short of allowing NATO to enforce the no-fly zone with military
force, and for six months NATO E-3 Sentry aircraft flew along the perimeter of the crumbling
Yugoslavia and making note of numerous violations of the no-fly zone.
With over five hundred violations, NATO at last managed to win a vote by the UN Security
Council to use military force to enforce the no-fly zone.
Flying from Hungary and skirting the former Yugoslavian border, a NATO E-3 Sentry uses
its powerful airborne radar to penetrate deep into the no-fly zone and search for targets.
All sides in the conflict have been warned that military force has now been authorized,
but it's unknown if any of the combatants believe NATO will have the nerve to actually
use force.
At the same time that the E-3 Sentry is conducting its routine patrol, two American F-16s enter
the no-fly zone en route to provide air support for UN forces on the ground.
Their radars make contact with six unidentified bogeys, and after the E-3 Sentry repositions
itself so the mountainous terrain doesn't block its radar, it's able to confirm the
contacts as six Bosnian Serb fighter bombers with two additional aircraft in tow.
The F-16s immediately issue a “land or exit” order to the aircraft, warning the pilots
to abide by the rules of the no-fly zone and immediately land their aircraft or exit the
no-fly zone.
The Serb jets ignore the warning and continue to their target as the E-3 Sentry vectors
in an additional flight of F-16s on their location.
To the horror of everyone watching, the Serb aircraft drop bombs over their target- a military
factory and adjacent civilian buildings.
The intercepting American F-16s are immediately given the go-ahead to engage.
Knowing they were under pursuit by the American F-16s, the Serb jets immediately turn back
and scream for their base in the north.
An American F-16 opens fire with a single Aim-120 AMRAAM at long range, and in seconds
one of the eight aircraft is in flames and tumbling out of the sky.
The remaining aircraft immediately hit the deck, flying at extremely low altitude and
dodging and weaving through the mountainous terrain to avoid the American radar.
The F-16s follow suit, undeterred, and press the attack, their afterburners easily catching
up with the Serbian Jastreb fighter-bombers.
The lead F-16, now in close range, fires off a salvo of two AIM-9 Sidewinders, and each
of them find their mark, sending two more aircraft tumbling out of the sky.
The lead F-16 is now low on fuel and out of missiles though, and so he pulls out of the
attack and hands the chase over to his wingman who has been flying top cover up above.
The second F-16 screams down out of the sky and joins the chase, letting loose with his
own sidewinder.
The missile detonates a few meters behind the aircraft and shreds the tail section of
the Serbian Jastreb, forcing the pilot to try and limp back home before eventually being
forced to ditch.
Both F-16s are now low on fuel though and are forced to break off the engagement.
Unfortunately for the Serbian aircraft, the second flight of American F-16s has now arrived
on-scene.
This second flight is also low on fuel but gives chase, and one of the Fighting Falcons
manages to drop in behind a Serbian Jastreb and put a sidewinder straight up his tailpipe.
The F-16s are forced to break off the attack, leaving the survivors to limp back home, though
they will eventually lose five total aircraft both to the attack and being chased to low
fuel by the American F-16s.
The previous scenario was the only combat engagement between NATO aircraft and hostile
aircraft operating in the no-fly zone established over the former Yugoslavia during the war
that shook the nation back in the early 1990s.
Historically, no-fly zones were zones of control where a nation's aircraft enforced their sovereignty
over said airspace, and thus they have been in effect since the first World War.
However, no-fly zones as we know them today are a relatively new development, and meant
to be used as a peacekeeping tool or to limit civilian casualties in the case of war.
Air power allows combatants to bring incredible destructive power against their enemies, and
in many cases, against civilians which are either deliberately targeted, or accidentally
caught in the crossfire.
In order to limit the scope of destruction from a conflict, the international community
has at times enforced no-fly zones in combat areas in order to suppress the air power of
two rival factions.
These no-fly zones are enforced with the goal of keeping civilian casualties as low as possible,
or to prevent one militarily superior faction from strong-arming another.
In a more practical sense for the rest of the world, they also serve to keep civilian
aircraft out of a conflict zone and thus keep them safe.
No-fly zones will primarily be enforced to keep hostile aircraft grounded, but they can
also serve to authorize peacekeeping forces to use their own air power to neutralize ground
forces.
During the Bosnia War, the NATO-enforced no-fly zone also gave authorization for NATO aircraft
to conduct close-air support and ground-attack missions in support of UN forces on the ground,
or to eliminate enemy forces targeting civilians.
NATO aircraft frequently attacked concentrations of artillery and tanks, aiming to keep these
weapons from being used on the civilian population which was being massacred at the time.
After the first Gulf War in Iraq, two separate no-fly zones were enforced by the allies.
One in the north of the country was placed to help prevent attacks on the Kurdish population
by Saddam Hussein's regime, which had previously launched poison gas attacks against Kurdish
towns.
In the south a no-fly zone was established to protect Iraq's Shia population from retaliation
by Hussein for their support of the allied war against him.
In response to the Libyan civil war, a no-fly zone was established in 2011 over the nation,
with the aim of stopping the helicopter barrel-bomb attacks being carried out against the civilian
population.
These barrel bombs were devastating, and killed dozens while injuring many more.
But how exactly are no-fly zones enforced?
One of the key lessons of the Iraqi no-fly zone is that in order to enforce the no-fly
zone, one must have a credible military deterrent that can respond to air space intrusions.
Without Turkey's support for the northern no-fly zone, the allied countries found it
difficult to enforce the no-fly zone, as there were simply no air fields local enough to
house military assets that could maintain routine patrols.
Thus the effectiveness of the no-fly zone was questionable, and violations by Iraqi
aircraft were frequent.
In the south though, aircraft from Saudi Arabia and US aircraft carriers could easily enforce
the no-fly zone.
In order to enforce a no-fly zone, the enforcers require the ability to track and then respond
to any unauthorized incursions.
This means that the enforcers require the use of powerful radar capable of covering
vast swathes of territory at a time.
Though ground-based radar can be used for the task, ground-based radar can be easily
avoided by extremely low-flying aircraft.
Thus airborne early warning aircraft such as the American E-3 Sentry are typically used
for the task.
These aircraft carry powerful on-board radar that can scan hundreds of square miles of
airspace at a time, and with their high-altitude vantage point, they can be very difficult
to hide from.
Though as in our opening scenario, low-flying aircraft using mountainous terrain can still
hide from airborne radar if they know the location of the early warning aircraft and
simply fly low and behind the cover of terrain.
For this reason it's important that your early warning aircraft be supported by additional
units which can fly patrol routes that minimize the number of blind spots hostile aircraft
could hide in.
However this can quickly become expensive as these aircraft aren't cheap to operate,
and thus early warning aircraft typically fly less-predictable patrol routes so that
hostile aircraft aren't able to consistently use the same routes to avoid being spotted.
In addition to an early warning aircraft, you then must have the means to physically
enforce the no-fly zone, and this means only one thing: fighter support.
In order for the no-fly zone to be credible, these fighters must be able to rapidly respond
to violations and engage offending aircraft when needed.
This means that an enforcer typically has two options.
The first option is to maintain routine patrols of the air space by fighter patrols, this
can be expensive though and require the use of tanker aircraft to support the fighters
by providing in-flight refueling.
In certain scenarios this can increase the risk to aircraft by ground forces using anti-air
weapons, as tankers are completely defenseless, as are aircraft in the midst of in-flight
refueling.
For this reason, tankers typically operate from the periphery of a no-fly zone, meeting
their assigned fighters for a gas up and then returning home.
This however can also quickly become very expensive, and unless you have a large pool
of available aircraft and pilots, can quickly fatigue both men and equipment.
Each hour a fighter aircraft spends in the sky typically means three or more hours of
routine maintenance to keep that aircraft operational, and with constant patrols the
costs quickly become astronomical.
For this reason, the second, and preferred option, is to house responding aircraft on
air fields either bordering the no-fly zone or within the no-fly zone itself.
This way once a violation is spotted, aircraft on alert can quickly take to the air, rather
than keeping aircraft constantly in flight and on-patrol.
This can come with its own risks though, and an enforcer operating from an air field must
constantly work to secure the air bases's ground 'footprint'.
This is an area of territory around the air base from where aircraft taking off or landing
are vulnerable to ground-based anti-aircraft weapons.
Typically this footprint extends for a few miles around the air base, and an additional
few miles along the axis of the runway.
To secure this area, militaries use routine ground patrols of infantry or other security
forces.
In the end in order to enforce a no-fly zone, you must have the ability to credibly do so,
which includes not just the physical resources, but the political will.
This was something that the Serbian forces in the Bosnia war did not believe NATO had,
and led to the incident in our opening scenario.
It is also important to have international support for your no-fly zone, as it's rare
that an enforcing nation will have the territory to operate from near a combat zone unless
it happens to occur right next door.
This was a major problem for NATO forces trying to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq
after the first Gulf War, as the lack of Turkish support meant that NATO aircraft couldn't
use Turkish territory to enforce the northern Iraqi no-fly zone.
Do you think no-fly zones are worth the expense?
Tell us in the comments.
Then watch our other video “Why Does Each US Air Force Pilot Helmet Cost $400,000?”
As always if you enjoyed this video don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more
great content!