'Rogue pilots' friendly fire

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
politics.guardian.co.uk...

The pilots account of his "mistake" is a pack of lies!

The USAF doesn't give incompetent people the A-10 Thunderbolt, it is an awsome weapon that makes tanks almost redundant.

Just the same way that drivers licenses aren't issued to the blind!

Thanks for the link, Jimmy1880. It's obviously hard to judge from a transcript but he sounds a little confused, maybe even slightly paranoid. Not knowing what the red smoke would signify seems unusual, that doesn't seem particularly difficult to remember either.

It also seems clear that he didn't have authorisation from the ground or AWACS to fire which possibly explains the 'rogue' tag. It is clear that they were told about friendlies in the area and I would have thought that they would need to be certain of the identity of their targets in that case. That they weren't and elected to fire anyway doesn't bode well.

The use of amphetamines by the USAF could have contributed to these kinds of incidents. Sending a guy up in a heavily armed planed high on amphetamines doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Here is two more recent articles,

Someone heard on radio with an american accent saying "Someones goin to jail for this" This story makes me feel sick to my stomach

observer.guardian.co.uk...

securebar.secure-tunnel.com...

An Apology To Deltaboy and other Thread Contributors.

I would like to apologise for making a complete arse of myself and confusing two completely separate incidents (one in Iraq and a more recent one in Afghanistan).
I skimed a number of reports provided by the press service we use and failed to check dates etc. I am an imbecile and offer my profuse apologies.

I will now get my coat and leave quietly.

Fang

Hi There,

Here's an interesting development regarding 'blue-on-blue'...

news.bbc.co.uk...

It seems it was a double mistake, one from the ground, and that of the pilots unable to identify the units on the ground. At least the pilots show genuine remorse, so I feel the 'rogue' pilot concept can be dropped. However, we still have the issue of multiple blue-on-blue situations being commited by US forces. One is bad enough, and perhaps, in all the chaos...understandable and regrettable, but other occasions become suspect, not in the 'rogue' sense, but in the incompetent sense. Especially when British forces do not commit such acts on US forces.

It really should not be happening, not with the technology available, and it also begs the question, what errors have occurred on civillians?

best wishes

[edit on 6/2/07 by elysiumfire]

Here is a link to the released A10 cockpit video when the British were accidently attacked..

www.thesun.co.uk...

Chilling, the pilots noticed the flourescent tarp on the back of the tanks but mistook them for rockets??

the video is sickening

Gung ho b*****s,

They made so many mistakes it's unreal, I wouldn't trust those pilots with microsoft flight simulator let alone the Thunderbolt.

The stupid, incompetant fu****rs even asked for artillery to shoot off an identifying round into the area to confirm whether they were friendlys or not, they didn't wait for it, NOOOOOOOOOOO! One of the pilots started fireing before he got permission to! "They have orange panels" turns into "I think they are Orange rockets" WTF!!!!

Cpl Matty Hull R.I.P. brother

I hope the entire United states Air Force feels utterly ashamed, but I don't think they will it will probably be the attitude "Crap happens"

Bunch of W*****s

[edit on 6/2/07 by Jimmy1880]



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
In this particular case the US pilot commited fratricide! I was in Iraq when this happened and there was an outcry.

The amount of training a pilot needs before he is let loose on a battlefield is immense, flying the vehicle is just a small part of it. One of the sections in pilot training is vehicle identification, pilots are trained to be able to identify NATO and Enemy vehicles by electronic or manual means. A fully trained pilot should be identify every vehicle he is likely to encounter purly from a sillouette. The US pilot knew what he was doing.

As far as identification goes ground units have infrared tags put on the vehilces that identify them as coalition forces. These tags are only visible using night vision and they glow very bright. Otherwise during day time no competant pilot would mistake a NATO vehicle for an enemy one, especially one so widly used as the Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle.

If the pilot was following protocol he would have had to tell his air command (AWACS) that he had spotted potential hostiles AWACS would have advised him him if freindly's are in the area. The Army has a system that sends a signal from each vehicle to a communications satellite. The satellite beams each unit's location back down to a central computer, which plots friendly vehicles on a screen in blue. Enemy vehicles spotted by field units can be plotted on the screen in red. The whole image is constantly updated and sent back out to individual units for troops in the field to see. The pilot should have had waited for authorization to fire, he didn't and commited fraticide!

I hope he is rotting in a military prison somewhere.

Many other similar incidents have happened in Iraq, it is this reason that British and American troops have been largly seperated because incidents like the one above affects the morale of british troops in an extremely detrimental way, if the two forces were together in Baghdad and blue on blue continued to happen we would have probably witnessed US vs. UK firefights on the streets of Baghdad.

example of incidents of Blue on Blue in Iraq in 2003:

March 22: A British Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet is accidentally shot down by a US Patriot missile. The Tornado's two crew are killed.

March 22: A US soldier at a camp in Kuwait lobs grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers, killing two and wounding 11 others.

March 27: 37 US Marines are injured when US troops mistakenly fire at each other near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

March 28: A British soldier is killed and four others are injured in the region of Basra when a US A-10 ground attack aircraft fires on them.

April 2: An F-18 US fighter jet is downed, probably by a US Patriot missile. The pilot is reported missing.

April 3: A US serviceman mistaken for an Iraqi soldier is shot dead by his own troops in central Iraq.

April 6: 18 Kurdish fighters are killed and 45 wounded near Arbil in northern Iraq when US aircraft mistakenly bomb a joint US-Kurdish convoy.





[edit on 3/2/07 by Jimmy1880]

you make some good points but why have you only listed the US friendly fire incidents there were several cases of UK troops involved in friendly fire incidents

Originally posted by mojoberg

you make some good points but why have you only listed the US friendly fire incidents there were several cases of UK troops involved in friendly fire incidents

There has not been One single incident of UK attacking US forces, actually!

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
They made so many mistakes it's unreal, I wouldn't trust those pilots with microsoft flight simulator let alone the Thunderbolt.

Agreed, they are unprofessionals. I've heard they were reservists, and it seems they wanted to add a Kill to their names.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The stupid, incompetant fu****rs even asked for artillery to shoot off an identifying round into the area to confirm whether they were friendlys or not, they didn't wait for it, NOOOOOOOOOOO! One of the pilots started fireing before he got permission to!

It does appear that way. Frightening.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
"They have orange panels" turns into "I think they are Orange rockets" WTF!!!!

The Orange rockets get me...bright orange rockets in the middle of a desert, or anywhere...the idea is just daft.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
I hope the entire United states Air Force feels utterly ashamed, but I don't think they will it will probably be the attitude "Crap happens"

The US ambassador to the UK had a meeting at the MoD this morning....apparently the Pentagon are talking about punishing the person who leaked it, rather than actually expressing remorse for what happens on the video.


The pilots themselves seemed more concerned they would be spending time in jail then actually the fact they had just killed Friendlies.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880

Originally posted by mojoberg

you make some good points but why have you only listed the US friendly fire incidents there were several cases of UK troops involved in friendly fire incidents

There has not been One single incident of UK attacking US forces, actually!

who said anything about uk forces attacking us forces.
If you make a point of listing the Us friendly fire you must also list the UK on Uk friendly fire incidents. eg the challenger tank attacking another challanger or the royal marines firing and killing another royal marine in Iraq

Originally posted by mojoberg

you make some good points but why have you only listed the US friendly fire incidents there were several cases of UK troops involved in friendly fire incidents

who said anything about uk forces attacking us forces.
If you make a point of listing the Us friendly fire you must also list the UK on Uk friendly fire incidents. eg the challenger tank attacking another challanger or the royal marines firing and killing another royal marine in Iraq

The Challenger incident was a battle scenario at night where UK tanks were fighting Iraqi Tanks. In other words "in the heat of battle"

but no the Thread is about an incident by US pilots, if you want to put the particulars of UK freindly fire then please do so, but I am not obligated to.

Here's my artists impression of the Fratricide in Iraq

Originally posted by Jimmy1880

Originally posted by mojoberg

you make some good points but why have you only listed the US friendly fire incidents there were several cases of UK troops involved in friendly fire incidents

who said anything about uk forces attacking us forces.
If you make a point of listing the Us friendly fire you must also list the UK on Uk friendly fire incidents. eg the challenger tank attacking another challanger or the royal marines firing and killing another royal marine in Iraq

The Challenger incident was a battle scenario at night where UK tanks were fighting Iraqi Tanks. In other words "in the heat of battle"

but no the Thread is about an incident by US pilots, if you want to put the particulars of UK freindly fire then please do so, but I am not obligated to.

All im saying is that friendly fire has ocurred for both militaries and that you are being biased by just showing the American blue on blue. And bytheway this thread is not about US friendly fire in general it is concerning only one incident




[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Jimmy1880

but no the Thread is about an incident by US pilots, if you want to put the particulars of UK freindly fire then please do so, but I am not obligated to.

bytheway this thread is not about US friendly fire in general it is concerning only one incident

Yes that's what I said Thread is about an incident by US pilots THINK


I used other examples of US mistakes to outline the amount of errors happening, yes on occasion during the heat of battle UK on UK fire has occured but alot of the US freindly fire was not during the heat of battle e.g

The US shooting down a British Tornado thinking it was an Iraqi missile???
The shooting of Canadian and British soldiers on the ground again by a A-10 thunderbolt???

both the example above were caused by negligence and carelessness.

Maybe a bit of pride swallowing is in order here, I normally don't get into slanging maches with someone who hasn't done his research but you are touching a raw nerve


[edit on 6/2/07 by Jimmy1880]

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The Challenger incident was a battle scenario at night where UK tanks were fighting Iraqi Tanks. In other words "in the heat of battle"

If “the heat of battle” were some form of an affirmative defense to this activity, would it not also apply to this particular situation?

The incident mentioned in this thread occurred on March 28, 2003, (just days after the invasion) during a heated operation to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers north of Basra belonging to the Iraqi 6th armored division. According to the leaked video, the pilots were also of the understanding there were no allied vehicles “this far north” at the time.


mg

Originally posted by missed_gear

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
The Challenger incident was a battle scenario at night where UK tanks were fighting Iraqi Tanks. In other words "in the heat of battle"

If “the heat of battle” were some form of an affirmative defense to this activity, would it not also apply to this particular situation?

The incident mentioned in this thread occurred on March 28, 2003, (just days after the invasion) during a heated operation to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers north of Basra belonging to the Iraqi 6th armored division. According to the leaked video, the pilots were also of the understanding there were no allied vehicles “this far north” at the time.


mg

No, how on earth could a pair of planes, that are not coming under fire, doing a routine patrol, how can that be classed as in the heat of battle

I could sit here all day and argue the "yeah but's" and "what if's" the fact of the matter is the pilot who fired had no authorization to do so, he chose to ignore the visible signs that they were NATO forces, he asked for a marker shot to be fired by artillery so they could confirm who they were but never waited for the marker the list goes on.

I just wish everybody would calm down and just stick to the facts.

Fact 1. A British serviceman was killed by an A10 Thunderbolt II with the pilot mistakenly thinking the orange recognition panel was in fact, orange missiles on a flat bed truck. [WTF?]

Fact 2. Forward Air Controllers and IWIS and AWACS confirmed there were no friendly forces in the area. [Lack of Intel and compatible IFF?]

Fact 3. The Ministry of Defence denied there was any voice recording or video footage of the incident. [Let’s hope it’ll all blow over and go away.]

Fact 4. The Americans said there was a video and voice recording of the incident. [We Love you Brits, but not that much!]

Fact 5. The Inquest opens with the Coroner stating that as he had seen the video footage and heard the voice recording prior to opening the inquest.

Fact 6. He [Coroner] can see no reason why the MOD should deny its existence – given the American position of admitting that such a video and voice recording does in fact exist.

Fact 7. He orders the MOD – who has a copy of the video and voice recording – to release it for public viewing at the inquest. The MOD refuses.

I don't know what else to say really. These situations are becoming more and more frequent.

I also believe that saying the guy concerned was not a full time pilot but was a Reservist is - to use a Yank expression and one they can readily understand - pure baloney!

It matters not whether he is full time or part time. If he [or she] wears your country's uniform, then he or she represents you and should be up to scratch. If this guy was a cowboy, then why was he flying?

I can only say that the standard of recognition training we Brits receive is second to none. That onviously cannot be said for American pilots - as has been demonstrated time and time again!

This new ATSN news submission has the video link that supposely didn't exist as well as the audio to it. Terrible stuff but the pilots were told by the ground that there were no friendlies in the area, however they saw "orange panels" and still did not recognize.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.liveleak.com...

Heres a direct link to the video, its at the bottom of the page. Its an accident. No doubt about it. Not a bunch of rogues. They took their time if friendlies in the area and if it was the enemy before engaging.

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
No, how on earth could a pair of planes, that are not coming under fire, doing a routine patrol, how can that be classed as in the heat of battle

There was this little thing going on called an “invasion” (please note the date of the occurrence in my previous post). Also, there are many portraying/treating these events as a new incident when it is not. Christopher Finney was awarded the George Cross for his bravery under fire following the incident, which was publicised at the time.

Furthermore, this was no “routine patrol” as you claim…the mission was to clear the Iraqi VI Armored out of the area…The A-10’s primary function is to strike ground targets and these pilots were engaging ground targets prior to this incident, specifically “tubed” launchers.

The leaked 15 min. video alone is not nearly as oversimplified as your summation. This is a horrible, horrible incident and it may be fair to say it is also horrible to spend the rest of one's life living with this error by all parties involved. As for the “buts” and “what if’s”…who is arguing this??

The fog of war is very real, to your point; as you have aptly noted in your previous example.


mg