Friendly Fire from american planes that killed british troop

[falc]

Just thought i'd let you know that the video is up on the sun website and here is a link to the article.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060289,00.html

I have watched the video and can't believe it, but it does contain swearing so you've been warned

[21QUEST]

Unbileveable :x .

" I think so", "Looks like", "I believe so". So not sure then. Thought the conversation at the end was interesting.

Eyes were moist watching that :( :evil: .



Ben

[Steve H]

Dreadful state of affairs, However does anyone think this 'self aggrandising exclusive' of the 'Scum'
Newspaper really helps the situation or just stirs up a Hornets nest?
Don't get me wrong, the American pilots were bloody stupid, but I can't help thinking that this 'scoop'
does more harm than good.

[Alpinestarhero]

Awfull situation. Seems like the pilots where given bad info, so its not entirly their fault. However, why did they fire at the target (that they beleived to be the enemy) when they wernt given a direct instruction to do so? (at least, I never heard a direct instruction).

And apparently they where never trained to identify coalition forces (I.E us brits).

Quite upsetting to watch, that video.

Matt

[DanDare]

Nah I don't agree, I think the video should of been made available to the coroner or the family.
By with holding it and making a scene, sooner or later it will come out and cause controversy.
Which it has.

As for the video its a bit hazy as to what's really going on as we cannot really see what they are really seeing, only the HUD.

Fog of War I'm afraid, they were told no friendlies in area and the Russians do have rocket launchers that have orange rockets on. The pilots were national guardsman ( TA ) and were on their first sortie. I challenge anybody to say they would be calm in that environment for the first time.

Feel sorry for all invloved but its certainly not the first time and won't be the last.

As for the reason of with holding the vidoe due to sensitive info on the HUD............Like what?
A-10 have the same weapons systems for years. Most of that data is replicated in most flying sim games. Not sure if that was just a cop out excuse.

R.I.P All our fallen servicemen.

[Demonz]

What struck me was the time for that official sounding abort communication to come through from the British forces via whatever routing it was doing. It was at least a couple of minutes behind the pilots finding out they were friendlies via another link.

Although I never read the Sun unless I am at the barber I think good for them on making it public and keeping the US/UK government on their toes. We get enough bullsh*t from them all.

[the_runt69]

Dont forget in the first gulf war we lost more troops to a warthog attack than we did to the Iraqis, The American communications with their allies are not the best in the world.
The pilot even told their HQ they had orange flashes on.

H

[northwind]

Awfull situation. Seems like the pilots where given bad info, so its not entirly their fault. However, why did they fire at the target (that they beleived to be the enemy) when they wernt given a direct instruction to do so? (at least, I never heard a direct instruction).


I gather that's normal... They get clearance to fire at opportunity within certain areas... And here, they contacted their ground spotters and had it confirmed that there were no friendly targets within the area. So why scapegoat the pilots? Sad as it is, these things do happen.

What I thought was more interesting about the video is that it blows out of the water all the claims about security risks from releasing it... There's no justification on those grounds to withhold thje information in it.

[Baph]

IMO, the video wasn't released, not due to the HUD, but due to various bits of audio in the video. Now that radio code names are known (eg, "Manilla") they will need to be changed.

That, combined with the embarrassment factor that neither the ground control, or two aircraft, couldn't recognise allies after spending a good few minutes flying around them, would be enough for the Americans to not want to disclose the video. Also, I don't think the Americans wanted to acknowledge that they allow crews to use discresion when in combat. "Do I shoot now & hit the target, or do I wait for authorisation from HQ & possibly miss the target because the window has gone?" In combat, where a delayed reaction could mean the end of your life, I'd prefer the freedom to decide for myself. However, I hasten to add, I wouldn't of fired if I couldn't tell allies from rocket launchers (but that's more a hindsight issue now anyway).

Following the incident, the pilots (and ground control IMO) should of been thrown in jail, but the military "justice" system doesn't work the same way the civil one does. No doubt they were "punished" on the quiet, but not nearly as severely as they would of been in civil law. Also, because they've already received "punishment" I doubt that anything more will happen to them.

Yes, it was wrong to deny the coroner the video, but IMO, if the family had of seen it, it would of been made public knowledge anyway.

The whole incident, and aftermath, is nothing more than a series of minor mistakes, amounting to a major tragedy.

[northwind]

IMO, the video wasn't released, not due to the HUD, but due to various bits of audio in the video. Now that radio code names are known (eg, "Manilla") they will need to be changed.


That's what I thought, but they get changed frequently anyway in case of intercepts so that doesn't seem to hold water

[Baph]

IMO, the video wasn't released, not due to the HUD, but due to various bits of audio in the video. Now that radio code names are known (eg, "Manilla") they will need to be changed.


That's what I thought, but they get changed frequently anyway in case of intercepts so that doesn't seem to hold water
That was just an example :) there's a lot of audio in that video that I could imagine the American's didn't want to release.

[Steve H]

What struck me was the time for that official sounding abort communication to come through from the British forces via whatever routing it was doing. It was at least a couple of minutes behind the pilots finding out they were friendlies via another link.

Although I never read the Sun unless I am at the barber I think good for them on making it public and keeping the US/UK government on their toes. We get enough bullsh*t from them all.

I agree, but we get the same amount (if not more) Bullsh*t from the media in this country.
The BBC being just as bad imo.

[Baph]

The BBC being just as bad imo.
The BBC have been absolutely terrible over this story alone.

Funny story. We've just been talking about this issue in the office, and one of the guys turns around to us all:

"You know, I used to work with an ex-Marine. This guy helped to train a lot of American Marines. I remember him telling me years ago that he's never worked with an American who hasn't been shot by his mates!" :shock:

[Tiger 55]

Following the incident, the pilots (and ground control IMO) should of been thrown in jail, ...............The whole incident, and aftermath, is nothing more than a series of minor mistakes,

So you'd throw them all in jail for minor mistakes? War fighting is a filthy, nasty ****ing business that no good man or woman should ever have to get involved in and people are going to die. It's a ****e state of affairs but it's never going to stop.

If we're going to throw people in jail then there are 2 other candidates who spring to mind pretty quickly. :x

[Baph]

Following the incident, the pilots (and ground control IMO) should of been thrown in jail, ...............The whole incident, and aftermath, is nothing more than a series of minor mistakes,

So you'd throw them all in jail for minor mistakes? War fighting is a filthy, nasty f*cking business that no good man or woman should ever have to get involved in and people are going to die. It's a sh*te state of affairs but it's never going to stop.

If we're going to throw people in jail then there are 2 other candidates who spring to mind pretty quickly. :x
A mistake (due to negligence or otherwise) that results in the death of someone, is manslaughter (causing death without intention/malice). During war, causing enemy casualties would not be considered a mistake under most circumstances.

A jail term, IMO, is suitable for manslaughter, however, that would be a decision for the courts, not me to make. As I'm sure they did with the soldiers responsible for this incident.

And I agree completely about those two people you refer to.

[Ed]

Following the incident, the pilots (and ground control IMO) should of been thrown in jail, ...............The whole incident, and aftermath, is nothing more than a series of minor mistakes,

So you'd throw them all in jail for minor mistakes? War fighting is a filthy, nasty f*cking business that no good man or woman should ever have to get involved in and people are going to die. It's a sh*te state of affairs but it's never going to stop.

If we're going to throw people in jail then there are 2 other candidates who spring to mind pretty quickly. :x

What I find objectionable about all this is the extent of the attempted cover up by the British Government. The coroner demanded release of the video but the Ministry of Defence stonewalled and refused it, so the coroner dished out severe criticism of the Government for blocking his investigation.

The coroner's reward? He has been sacked.

Sacked for doing his job, which is to get to the truth of what happened.

So these families were denied a proper investigation, purely because the British Government is so frightened of the truth, and so frightened of offending our American friends. I suspect that the families don't want a witch hunt, they just want to know what happened. But the truth hurts, doesn't it.

[Tiger 55]

A mistake (due to negligence or otherwise) that results in the death of someone, is manslaughter (causing death without intention/malice).

Must admit I hadn't thought about it that way. But now that I have, I do think that for a mistake to be manslaughter you have to be committing a criminal act in the first place, otherwise there would be no need for verdicts like accidental death.

That said, I am a Scot (where we don't even have such a crime as manslaughter) pontificating about the death of an Englishman caused by an American in Iraq and as such I'm going to shut the hell up.

Any lawyers out there?

[Stig]

First off, having been in the Signals in the Army for a fair few years, and having done ground to air communications several times, I can tell you that there is nothing in all of the broadcast that could be deemed a security risk. Code names and any other sensitive information would have only been deemed secret at the time. Code names and such have a very short life span for obvious reasons.

As to trying to apportion blame and potential deserved punishments, I have no comment to make about that apart from if I were the pilots and had to live with the fact that I had killed an allied soldier by mistake, having to live the rest of my life with that knowledge, would be a life sentence indeed.

[Ping]

As to trying to apportion blame and potential deserved punishments, I have no comment to make about that apart from if I were the pilots and had to live with the fact that I had killed an allied soldier by mistake, having to live the rest of my life with that knowledge, would be a life sentence indeed.
I totally agree.

I don't like the way the press is demonising them either.

[Blue_SV650S]

Brother in law is a Royal Marine ... he served in Iraq ... this is a direct quote ...

"We were more concerned about being shot by the Americans than the Iraqi's!!" :shock:

His commando group all wore Union Jack (Union Flag if you are into technicalities ;)) underpants and if Americans were in the area they used to pull them up out of their cammo gear so they were clearly on display ... basically they found it less risky potentially revealing themselves to the enemy than risking blue-on-blue with the Americans!! :shock: That is a sad state of affairs in modern warfare!! :cry:

[Baph]

An interesting event that may have implications on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6339021.stm
Basically, a US marine killed an Italian Intelligence Service operative, was tried in the US, and not convicted. Now the Italian courts have ordered that the Marine face trial in Italy.

Could be the start of a precedent, might not be though.

[Mr Toad]

Not being flippant, but our friends over the water have always had a reputation for being a little trigger happy

In the second world war there was a joke doing the rounds -

When British bombers flew over, the Germans took cover
When German bombers flew over, the British took cover
When American bombers flew over, everyone took cover

many a true word spoken in jest :cry:

[northwind]

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.

[Viper]

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.

100% agree with the above. Well put northy

[Baph]

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.
I'm by no means saying that everything that happens in a military setting should be dealt with in a civilian court. Of course that's ludicrous.

However, having said that, the ultimate responsibility for pulling the trigger is the pilots, and the pilots alone. If at a military inquest he could show (or someone on his behalf could) that his actions were as a direct result of information that other people provided, then IMO, the guy pulling the trigger isn't at fault. However, if there's any uncertainty, that's a different story.

I disagree with the fact that he had explicit permission to open fire, I don't remember the ground controller authorising it (I could be wrong there though). It could be that during combat, armed forces are expected to use discretion & take out enemy targets they perceive to be of threat to allied forces without explicit permission from HQ. That would then allow for adaptability.

However, in this specific case, the pilots voiced concerns of seeing orange markers. Yes, they were told no friendlies were in the area. But in that situation, I'd like to think that I'd see that as "Well, I'm not sure if that orange blob is really rockets, or if it's an allie marker. Maybe HQ got it wrong, maybe there are friendlies in the area." Having never been in that situation, that's all hypothetical.

To me, the pilots come across as being trigger happy, pretty much deciding very early on to "get him." IMO that's a bad state of mind to be in, in a combat situation or not.

[Razor]

We can "armchair warrior" this all we want. It won't change the fact that somebody died in a stupid incident in a pointless war.

[DanDare]

We can "armchair warrior" this all we want. It won't change the fact that somebody died in a stupid incident in a pointless war.

Its not pointless at all! George Bush is getting his Oil cheap now! :oops:

[PsychoCannon]

Everything else aside, Orange rockets? WTF????

[Filipe M.]

Everything else aside, Orange rockets? WTF????

Would you rather have Vodafone red rockets? :-k






Sorry, someone had to 8-[ Taxiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[northwind]

However, having said that, the ultimate responsibility for pulling the trigger is the pilots, and the pilots alone. If at a military inquest he could show (or someone on his behalf could) that his actions were as a direct result of information that other people provided, then IMO, the guy pulling the trigger isn't at fault. However, if there's any uncertainty, that's a different story.

I disagree with the fact that he had explicit permission to open fire, I don't remember the ground controller authorising it (I could be wrong there though). It could be that during combat, armed forces are expected to use discretion & take out enemy targets they perceive to be of threat to allied forces without explicit permission from HQ. That would then allow for adaptability.


Point is, there was no uncertainty. They voiced their concerns, they was told "there are no friendly units in that area", and acted accordingly. They were on engage-at-will orders, which means you don't ask permission to shoot, or so I'm told.

Turn it around... That British convoy comes under attack from a large group of insurgents... Should they wait till they're completely, utterly 100% sure, with confirmation and explicit authority to fire, before firing? Or is it more important that they're flexible enough to be able to react quickly? It's cost a life here, how many lives does it save that you'll never hear about?

If I make a mistake, then I get slapped wrists, but if I make a mistake but with the acceptance and confirmation that it's OK from my colleagues, you won't get far trying to blame me alone...

[Baph]

Point is, there was no uncertainty. They voiced their concerns, they was told "there are no friendly units in that area", and acted accordingly. They were on engage-at-will orders, which means you don't ask permission to shoot, or so I'm told.

Would you trust your eyes more than a remote radio controller? The pilots weren't sure if what they saw was an allie marker, or a rocket launcher. That's my point. I would hazard a guess that a more experienced pilot would of been able to more clearly identify the vehicles. However, that is simple speculation.

Turn it around... That British convoy comes under attack from a large group of insurgents... Should they wait till they're completely, utterly 100% sure, with confirmation and explicit authority to fire, before firing? Or is it more important that they're flexible enough to be able to react quickly? It's cost a life here, how many lives does it save that you'll never hear about?
I posted about that before on this thread. I fully realise that happens, and IMO, that's better than having to wait. However, there has to be a level of responsibility somewhere along the chain.

If I make a mistake, then I get slapped wrists, but if I make a mistake but with the acceptance and confirmation that it's OK from my colleagues, you won't get far trying to blame me alone...
If I make a mistake, and its serious enough, not only do I risk loosing my job, but there's also the possibility of legal action. That means either being sued, or possibly jail time. I can be prosecuted under the laws of the country that my mistake directly affects. I knew that when I signed the contract.

[Blue_SV650S]

..

Its all about setting appropriate ROEs (Rules of Engagement), even in a conflict there are still strict ROEs ...

In this instance I feel they weren't 'gun-ho' mind (they clearly asked if there were any friendlies in the area before pulling the trigger) ... but I mean "Looks like they have orange on them" ... my god regardless of what intel say, bearing in mind what the orange is there for ... and the implications of getting it wrong ... take a close fly-buy first to get a confirmed visual, not just assume they are frigging orange missiles!! ... I mean WTF?

Anyway as I see it, that was where the mistake was made and the point at which this should never have happened ...

Also it didn't take them long to find out they were friendlies AFTER they pulled the trigger ... whatever method (radio??) they got this, why wasn't it used to check prior?!

[Baph]

In this instance I feel they weren't 'gun-ho' mind (they clearly asked if there were any friendlies in the area before pulling the trigger) ... but I mean "Looks like they have orange on them" ... my god regardless of what intel say, bearing in mind what the orange is there for ... and the implications of getting it wrong ... take a close fly-buy first to get a confirmed visual, not just assume they are frigging orange missiles!! ... I mean WTF?
Exactly!
Also it didn't take them long to find out they were friendlies AFTER they pulled the trigger ... whatever method (radio??) they got this, why wasn't it used to check prior?!
I suspect that was because of the fact that the British troops got on the radio pronto, and the British radio controller jumped on the American frequency screaming things that you couldn't ever post on this forum :shock:

[PsychoCannon]

OK I'll wade in.
These guys are in control of "TankBusters".

From a technical point of view:

Now I'm not military but my understanding is people put in the seat of planes designed to raze entire columns of armour have identification of vehicles pummelled into them for obvious reasons.

Our Vehicles don't LOOK like anything the Iraqi's have, the Identification panels are distinctive and A10's target their guns through magnified scopes so he'd get a real close up look at what he was shooting at.

Also, why the second pass?
Not only would you of got a good close up of the ID on the vehicles and clearly seen they are British,

Also in Blue on Blue, and an A10 can't be mistaken for ANYTHING ELSE! you pop smoke that shows you are a friendly and that it's a Blue-blue situation.
When they got hit in the first run they would of popped the smoke, I'll check up on that but no way in hell did they not know it was an A10 and that = American.


Now from an emotive point of view:

Yes he was told no friendlies but when in doubt you ask for and get confirmation, he didn't even ask for confirmation to open fire.
Yes this suggests maybe they orders to "engage targets of opportunity" but that does not = shoot anything you feel like it means if you see and confirm a target of opportunity, take it out.

If you are in doubt enough to check the "orange things" 5 times, surely you check and get permission to open fire OR AT LEAST do a fly by to confirm! they circled but did no fly by to confirm.
There is nothing out there that could of threatened an A10 to excuse him not taking that move and if they weren't friendly, they had no where to go, the 2 A10's would of minced all of them in moments.

I'm getting conflicting reports about these guys stations, some pass them off as reservists some say they were senior, either way they should of confirmed their targets, if not before opening fire, after the first run and when they saw the smoke.

And the Orange Rockets comment was because it sounds like they are fishing for an excuse to fire here, I've NEVER heard of such a thing......

Fluorescent orange markers that can be seen from the air are chose for a damn good reason and should of set alarm bells ringing for the Pilot AND his controller, they have been standard for YEARS.

And I'm sorry but there is no excuse for an A10 not to take a closer look, there isn't a damn thing in Iraq that poses a threat to them, certainly not at the range he'd need to confirm what he's shooting at.

Personally it seems they realised they were running out of time and had to make a call and despite all the doubts wanted to get a kill before they went home and convinced themselves that Orange rockets on an organised convoy were more feasible than Orange Friendly markers.

[arc123]

We all know the Americans have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

My issue is with the powers that be here - MOD/Whitehall denied this video even existed for 3 years. Now theres loyalty for our serving armed forces :roll:

[The Basket]

The American pilots made a mistake, but with a 30mm gatling gun.

I don't blame them, just the situation that they were in.

The Iraqis would have plenty to attack a low flying A-10 with...Shoulder launched SAMs, heavy flak and automatic machine guns. It would have been very unwise for a slow flying aircraft to fly low and slow over a possible enemy.

[arc123]

It would have been very unwise for a slow flying aircraft to fly low and slow over a possible enemy.

really? They seemed to be happy flying up there for a good few minutes before actually opening fire on bright orange convoy :wink:

[PsychoCannon]

To be honest more than blame I'm interested in what they are going to do to try to prevent things like this happening again.

Yes Blue Blue will always happen, sad fact, but this could of been prevented.

Running around covering your asses doesn't help anyone in the long run, it happened, people know it happened and the truth will out.
Instead of wasting time giving people the run around fess up and make sure it doesn't happen again.

I'm still doubtful the Iraqis have anything that could hurt an A10 though...these things are designed to go up against mobile armour that is usually escorted by mobile AA....and an Iraqi with an RPG is going to get lucky? pppffffft I want his luck so I can go play the lottery :)

As for flak I've not heard of them using that yet =/
I know they keep alluding to "advanced weapons" from Syria but I've yet to hear of any mobile AA or flak cannons and I'm fairly sure that would be big news =/

[The Basket]

It would have been very unwise for a slow flying aircraft to fly low and slow over a possible enemy.

really? They seemed to be happy flying up there for a good few minutes before actually opening fire on bright orange convoy :wink:

Flak, machine gun fire and SA-7s only reach so far. An RPG is not a surface to air missile. The A-10 is armoured but not invincible. ZSU-23-4 "Shilka" is a mobile flak battery that can shoot down A-10s all day long...the iraqi army had plenty. And the worst case is always what you plan for.

[Blue_SV650S]

The American pilots made a mistake, but with a 30mm gatling gun....

I actually think this highlights something else that stuck me at first ... several mins flying about and 2 strike runs '000s of rounds of ammo and only 1 dead ... if that was actually the enemy they were 'taking out' then they would have done a pretty lousy job and expended all that resource!! ;)

[PsychoCannon]

I need to review the video when I get home but it looks like he targets a single vehicle instead of strafing the entire column hence the reduce casualties.
Also didn't seem to be following the gun line but again I need to look when I get home and maybe even get on some fighter forums and get (forum) expert opinion.

[The Basket]

The American pilots made a mistake, but with a 30mm gatling gun....

I actually think this highlights something else that stuck me at first ... several mins flying about and 2 strike runs '000s of rounds of ammo and only 1 dead ... if that was actually the enemy they were 'taking out' then they would have done a pretty lousy job and expended all that resource!! ;)

It was strange that they used the gun...if they dropped bombs or guided missiles then the death and injury toll would have been higher...

[PsychoCannon]

OK so POPOV 36 can't even tell his right from his left and keeps getting East/West mixed up which probably didn't help his handler track where the hell he was talking about...dammit....
Anyone know much about Millitary ranks?
These guys were a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major

I don't think the A10 carries bombs, it's cannons tear apart armour easy enough at 3,900 armour piercing rounds a minute (65 rounds a second) and a large ammo capacity.

It can carry ECM and air-to-air but I'm not sure they carry bombs or ordinance like that as they don't need it and it's not what they are designed for.

They are meant to be low altitude close air support and weapons platforms (or something like that)

And I still don't know how they ID'd scimitars as flat bed trucks....

[The Basket]

OK so POPOV 36 can't even tell his right from his left and keeps getting East/West mixed up which probably didn't help his handler track where the hell he was talking about...dammit....
Anyone know much about Millitary ranks?
These guys were a Lieutenant Colonel and a Major

major and Lieutenant Colonel are both senior ranks...equal to Wing Commander and Squandron Leader in the RAF. These would mean the pilots are old timers with plenty of experience...although not necessarily combat experience.

[PsychoCannon]

Sweet baby...and at that level he messes up his left and right several times while doing a slow circle round a target? what does that say about the rest of them....
He is told no hostiles in the area but he's given the wrong direcion over the radio and not even in co-ords but east/west which he goofs up.

Then he asks for Arty fire into the area but goes in without waiting for it?

OK i'm dropping out of this conversation before my head explodes, I have a cousin and a very good friend out there at the moment and this is ****** me off because I want him home in one piece.

[northwind]

If I make a mistake, and its serious enough, not only do I risk loosing my job, but there's also the possibility of legal action. That means either being sued, or possibly jail time. I can be prosecuted under the laws of the country that my mistake directly affects. I knew that when I signed the contract.

Yes, but if you communicate through your chain of command and have your legitimate concerns clarified, and then act, you wouldn't expect to be scapegoated would you?

Ally markers aren't the be-all and end-all, the reason being, you can buy orange spray paint from any hardware store and become invincible to air attack. The tags did their job, which was to cause the pilots to query the identity of the targets, and they got a confirmation that they couldn't be friendlies, simple as.

This isn't ww2 here, there's no reason that a controller shouldn't know exactly where friendly units are. If it's a case of US and UK systems not meshing, as it was in the first Gulf War, then that's a problem that's way above the level of pilots and ground callers.

[Blue_SV650S]

This isn't ww2 here, there's no reason that a controller shouldn't know exactly where friendly units are. If it's a case of US and UK systems not meshing, as it was in the first Gulf War, then that's a problem that's way above the level of pilots and ground callers.

That's a bigger problem than you might think ;)

£/$Billions have been spent on just that to date and its ongoing ... here's a buzzword for ya .. 'C4ISTAR' 8) Explained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTAR)

[northwind]

I was thinking more having someone with 2 computer screens in front of them :) Or call-and-respond IFF, Icould build you something that'd do that...

[Blue_SV650S]

I was thinking more having someone with 2 computer screens in front of them :) Or call-and-respond IFF, Icould build you something that'd do that...

So you would want to sit in a tank in a warzone that has a bit of kit that electronically broadcasts "I am a UK tank and positioned right here"???? :shock: ;) :D

Dear Mr and Mrs Northwind ... we regret to inform you ..... :D

[northwind]

Do it right, aye... I'd sooner have that than the US guys shooting at me :) Call and response, ie, plane pings column, column pings back, and vary the activation codes so that it's not realistic for a hostile to do it or to fake the response. Fairly simple to implement...

[Blue_SV650S]

Do it right, aye... I'd sooner have that than the US guys shooting at me :) Call and response, ie, plane pings column, column pings back, and vary the activation codes so that it's not realistic for a hostile to do it or to fake the response. Fairly simple to implement...

IFF has been in aircraft (military and civilian) for years ... its is a well proven technology ... and yes it is shocking that it hasn't been implemented in ground forces!! :shock:

[northwind]

Well, in that case... Why are we arguing? :)

[Blue_SV650S]

Well, in that case... Why are we arguing? :)

Coz that is always more fun!!!! :D

[Ping]

Do it right, aye... I'd sooner have that than the US guys shooting at me :) Call and response, ie, plane pings column, column pings back, and vary the activation codes so that it's not realistic for a hostile to do it or to fake the response. Fairly simple to implement...

8-[ Hey, things'll only escalate if they bring me into it.... =;

[21QUEST]

Do it right, aye... I'd sooner have that than the US guys shooting at me :) Call and response, ie, plane pings column, column pings back, and vary the activation codes so that it's not realistic for a hostile to do it or to fake the response. Fairly simple to implement...

8-[ Hey, things'll only escalate if they bring me into it.... =;

I'm 100% with you on that :P :wink:



Ben

[husky03]

Casualties of war-plain and simple-not nice ,but war is just that.
Thoughts go out to the families of those killed and injured having to watch the moment when your child is killed.The issue here seems to be the attempt to supress information.
As for the Tabloid paper-I wouldn't wipe my ar$£ with that one -full of scumbags who take whatever the public opinion is.

husky

[Tomcat]

Well that was horrible to watch. I know nothing about planes and warfare. but on a human level, both pilots sounded gutted at the error that was made (whoever made the error I can't comment). However, Surely where humans are involved errors happen.

If I was a parent to the guy killed I would feel a little reassured to see that footage, to hear the horror of the realization of what had happened, and the show of feeling and remorse.

In my opinion the pilots will never forgive themselves, and have to live with that.... i hope that if anyone else is also responsible for it (ground man etc) then they are aware of their responsibility and feel remorse for it.

Very sad, for all involved. Not for one minute when they set off in their planes did they intend to harm or kill their own. But they were at war, so they intended to kill someone ..... ?

Oh and the Sun is garbage that is just trying to get a juicy scoop out of this... and the bbc who only show certain parts of the conversation, that in my opinion made it sound callous, which when you watch the whole thing it is not.

[Sideshow#36]

Don't even get me started. Spam W***ers!