Thread Tools
Old October 29, 2002, 04:38   #91
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
I'm not sure if this clarifies anything. Interesting twist though.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...5748449347_2//
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old October 29, 2002, 10:33   #92
SpencerH
Civilization III PBEMCivilization III MultiplayerBtS Tri-League
Emperor
 
SpencerH's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back in BAMA full time.
Posts: 4,502
Heres the link to the Canadian final report.

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi/00n...nal-report.doc

I skim read-it. There were no AAA guns, (3PPCLI doesnt have any). I didnt see a reference to caliber of mg so there may have been .50 cal's firing that night though. Along with the small arms live fire range there was a "tank-stalk" ie haul an AT weapon along a ditch at night and blow the crap out of a target (if you're good). The Canadians use 3 AT weapons, M72, 84mm Karl Gustav, and TOW. I cant see anyone hauling a TOW through the mud for training. They're too heavy and too valuable plus the report mentions platoon level AT training ie no TOW. So we're probably talking about the KG.

The pilots must have interpreted the AT fire as AAA. IMO the pilots overreacted and are clearly at fault but they should have been briefed about the live fire excercise (which puts some higher up's also at fault, perhaps the majority of the fault).
__________________
We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.
SpencerH is offline  
Old October 30, 2002, 07:39   #93
Tingkai
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 888
SpencerH: Thanks for the link to the report.

It answers a lot about this debate and it clearly shows that:

a) The pilot who dropped the bomb (pilot2) was trigger happy, he disobeyed orders and he should definitely be charged with manslaughter;
b) The flight commander/squadron commander was incompetent;
c) There was a massive breakdown in communications that could have and should have been avoided;
d) The coalition commander failed to ensure vital information reached the necessary people; and
e) "Making a decision under fire debate" is not relevant to this case.

Here are some important details from the report. This is a bit long, but it is interesting.

Trigger Happy Pilot
The investigators noted several "disturbing contradictions" about the pilots' behaviour.

1) Four minutes before declaring "self-defence" pilot2 tells the AWACS that he has bombs. (about the time he spots the surface fire)

"It is unusual for a fighter formation to make such a comment to the controlling authority [when they are returning to base] This comment is inappropriate and the reason for it is unclear," the report states.

2) 90 seconds before declaing self-defence, pilot2 asks permission to use his 20mm cannons.

"Such a request seems to contravene accepted logic and procedures. Combined with the previous call to Coffee 52’s intentions are suspect," the report states.

Now you might think this guy is under attack and the politicians won't let him fire, but...

3) After spotting the surface fire, Pilot2 flys closer to the firing, and occasionally slows down "below optimal maneuvering speed."

The report describes this as "surprising," contrary to orders and "accepted defensive reactions."

4) After marking the target, the two aircraft continue to fly a normal "calm and relaxed" flight pattern for about three minutes with no evasive maneuveurs, even though they claimed there was surface-to-air fire. Neither pilot calls for defensive maneuvers or gives defensive directives.

5) The pilots disobey standing orders by not moving out of the risk area.

6) After dropping the bomb, the pilots remain in the risk area even though standing orders say they are supposed to leave.

"It is particularly alarming that neither of these experienced fighter pilots ever initiated a defensive reaction after the bomb had impacted."

7) Pilot2 calls self-defense and later claims his flight commander was under attack.

"Such an assessment defies the documented facts."

8) After calling self-defence, Pilot2 never warns his flt/cmdr about this "attack" There are no calls to break left or right.

9) The pilots reported rapid fire aimed at them, yet the actual fire was six AT rounds and small arms fire aimed at one target on the ground.

10) Both pilots had combat experience, yet their reported perceptions of the surface fire was completely inaccurate.

Add that all together and it equals trigger happy pilot. This guy would have known the situation in Afghanistan meant there were a lot of friendlies all over the place. He was near the Kandahar airport which was well-lit.

"Given the complex nature of the ground order of battle and the widely dispersed friendly forces [censored] aircrew should have erred on the side of caution in attempting to discern the type and source of observed ground fire."

Now this is only one side of the story so I won't say the guy is guilty of manslaughter, but he definitely should be charged with manslaughter.

COMMUNICATIONS BREAKDOWN
More alarming was the fact that aircrews did not know about the training exercise because they were deleting vital information sent to them.

The military sends out Airspace Control Orders that tell aircrew a lot of information, including the location of training areas.

The F-16 squadron filtered the ACOs through a computer saying that otherwise they would be overloaded with information. The AWACS squadron did the same thing.

As a result, the f-16 pilots and the AWACS crew do not know about the training exercise.

The two pilots are particularly to blame for the information failure. One was the Squadron Commander and the other was the missions officer in charge of briefing pilots.

Both of them are responsible for reading the ACOs.

Senior commanders never checked to see if the units were actually getting the vital information.

"As much as the F-16 pilots bear final responsibility for the fratricide incident, there existed other systemic shortcomings in air coordination and control procedures, as well as mission planning practices by the tactical flying units, that may have prevented the accident had they been corrected."
__________________
Golfing since 67
Tingkai is offline  
Old October 30, 2002, 09:10   #94
Saint Marcus
Civilization II MultiplayerCivilization III Multiplayer
King
 
Saint Marcus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Scio Me Nihil Scire
Posts: 2,532
disturbing...
__________________
Quod Me Nutrit Me Destruit
Saint Marcus is offline  
Old October 31, 2002, 19:37   #95
orange
Civilization III Democracy GameNationStatesDiplomacyApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
orange's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: It doesn't matter what your name is!
Posts: 3,601
Quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
All I can say is that it would be sad if these people got stiffer sentences than those responsible for My Lai.
you've gotta be god damn shittin' me
__________________
"Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

"I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui
orange is offline  
Old October 31, 2002, 21:43   #96
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Tingkai, Your analysis seems to hold together to a great extent. However, at one point you conclude that

9) The pilots reported rapid fire aimed at them, yet the actual fire was six AT rounds and small arms fire aimed at one target on the ground.

10) Both pilots had combat experience, yet their reported perceptions of the surface fire was completely inaccurate.

Both pilots seemed to make the same mistake concerning whether the AT fire was aimed at them. Yet you conclude that only pilot2 was trigger happy.

I think we need to know more about perceptions of AT fire from altitude. How does one tell whether there is fire at all. How does one tell where it is aimed? What procedures are there to confirm one way or the other.

Until these questions are answered so as to exclude the possiblity of a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, there still remains the possiblity that the pilots thought they were under attack.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old October 31, 2002, 22:13   #97
SpencerH
Civilization III PBEMCivilization III MultiplayerBtS Tri-League
Emperor
 
SpencerH's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Back in BAMA full time.
Posts: 4,502
Clearly the pilots thought they were under attack, nobody would suggest that they knew they were dropping a 500lb bomb on their allies.

If this event had taken place in a 'real' war zone it might be more understandable. If one of the weapons on the ground gave off a signal so that the F-16's thought they were being targetted by a SAM it might also be more understandable. But they werent in a forward area and there were no 'tones' to signal that they were targetted.

This was a bullshit attack perpetrated by what can only be described as high-strung amateurs. **** knows what they would have shot at next, Air Force one maybe.

I dont believe that they should be charged with manslaughter or any other nonsense but they should never fly again and possibly should be discharged along with their superiors. Maybe they can join the ATF, they seem to have the right cowboy mentality.
__________________
We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.
SpencerH is offline  
Old October 31, 2002, 23:01   #98
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Tingkai, Your analysis seems to hold together to a great extent. However, at one point you conclude that

9) The pilots reported rapid fire aimed at them, yet the actual fire was six AT rounds and small arms fire aimed at one target on the ground.

10) Both pilots had combat experience, yet their reported perceptions of the surface fire was completely inaccurate.

Both pilots seemed to make the same mistake concerning whether the AT fire was aimed at them. Yet you conclude that only pilot2 was trigger happy.

I think we need to know more about perceptions of AT fire from altitude. How does one tell whether there is fire at all. How does one tell where it is aimed? What procedures are there to confirm one way or the other.

Until these questions are answered so as to exclude the possiblity of a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, there still remains the possiblity that the pilots thought they were under attack.
Weapon fire from a distance at night can not be distinguised as to type. Generally, you use the size of the muzzle flash, and the color of tracers. With AAA, you use different color in the tracers to distinguish caliber of ammunition, so that gun crews on the ground can have a chance to follow their own tracers up and not get lost with everyone elses, to check their track on the target. Tracers in NATO standard ammo types are different colors from tracers in Warsaw Pact standand ammo types (note for any smartasses out there: Yes, the WP is long gone, but it's ammo and standards aren't.), so you can use that to get an idea of who and what is shooting your way.

Since tracer use at night gives a longer term clue to your location than the muzzle flash, it is often not used, or used only in specific situations. If you don't have tracers as a visual cue, all you have is muzzle flash, which from a distance, all looks sort of round, no matter what direction you are in relation to it. With a heavy weapon, you just know something big is shooting, but you don't know what. Since those guys saw a FLIR image of a gun, they knew a gun was firing, but again, the time is critical. If they're cruising for minutes flying racetracks around the target, that's one thing.

I had problems loading the report earlier, so I don't know if there are any maps or illustrations of the flight path in relations to the Canadians.

There are a few things Tingkai quoted in the report that indicate a misunderstanding of combat flight issues.

1) - it's inaccurate to refer to this as strictly a fighter formation. The F-16 is both fighter and attack capable, and in the gulf war it flew more CAS missions than any other aircraft type. Clarifying to your controller that your multirole aircraft is configured for ground attack doesn't seem out of place. There certainly was no airborne threat from the Taleban, so the primary function of all combat aircraft in theater was ground attack.

3) - The Canadians who wrote this report have apparently never studied "Wild Weasel" and "Iron hand" tactics. (SAM busting and AAA suppression, repsectively). There's a lot of hunt-counterhunt that goes on, including things like AAA firing to draw attention, while SAM and other AAA wait for the Iron hand aircraft to commit to an attack on the visible firer, then they all cut loose. Presumably the pilot here is attempting to tempt other hidden AAA or SAM units to respond to him.

4) No real evasive maneuvers can be attempted without jettisoning their ordnance. In fact, high-G maneuvers can peel the ordnance right out of their mounts, possibly causing airframe damage. If you have to maneuver hard, you have to dump ordnance.

5) and 6) in themselves are not excusable.

8) You can't break with ordnance, because the bleed off of energy is too high - the only way you regain energy for speed/altitude is to go to FMT or afterburner, which makes you the biggest IR target on the planet.


The ACO issue is inexcusable, but not on these guy's parts for filtering them. The problem there is too much information burying a few really critical items of information. Poor organization and prioritization by the senders, in other words.

The other problem is that regardless of mass spam and paperwork, NATO forces still do not use air-ground IFF beacons, and for a designated training area, GPS/INS/LORAN data could have been broadcast to automatically give warning that they were entering a fieldex area. The technology is available, it's just not a procurement priority.

I don't think what I've seen here and read so far goes to finding the standard of negligence for manslaughter, but certainly there are court-martial offenses here. They had no information to lead them to believe that they might be attacking friendlies. They just ****ed up in other ways, though, and that shouldn't be tolerated.

I would think administrative separation with forfeiture of all benefits would be appropriate, and it would still send a message throughout the ranks.

The real asskicking needs to be in the Congress and the DoD bureaucracy to force them to procure and install force-wide the technology improvements to avoid these kind of communication and command issues.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old November 1, 2002, 12:41   #99
Tingkai
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:47
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Weapon fire from a distance at night can not be distinguised as to type...
Adding to your points, it is completely understandable that the pilots misjudged the heights of the tracers (they thought burn out was about 10,000 feet, helicopter pilots flying at the time said 1,000 feet). It is difficult to judge distance at night.

What is questionable is the pilot's perception of the number of rounds and direction of shots.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
1) Clarifying to your controller that your multirole aircraft is configured for ground attack doesn't seem out of place. There certainly was no airborne threat from the Taleban, so the primary function of all combat aircraft in theater was ground attack.
But if the primary function was ground attack and there was no airborne threat then why is it necessary to state you're equipped for ground attack. This would have been taken as a given.


Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Canadians who wrote this report have apparently never studied "Wild Weasel" and "Iron hand" tactics. (SAM busting and AAA suppression, repsectively). There's a lot of hunt-counterhunt that goes on, including things like AAA firing to draw attention, while SAM and other AAA wait for the Iron hand aircraft to commit to an attack on the visible firer, then they all cut loose. Presumably the pilot here is attempting to tempt other hidden AAA or SAM units to respond to him.
The chief Canadian investigator is an experienced fighter pilot. He would be aware of Wild Weasel and Iron Hand.

The problem with this theory is that the pilots had standing order to withdraw if shot at and assess the situation. They didn't do that.


Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
4) No real evasive maneuvers can be attempted without jettisoning their ordnance. In fact, high-G maneuvers can peel the ordnance right out of their mounts, possibly causing airframe damage. If you have to maneuver hard, you have to dump ordnance.
You're right if you're talking about extreme evasive maneuvers, but these pilots didn't do anything. They continued flying along in a "relax and calm manner," according to the report.

If you're being shot at, would you continue flying in a straight line?


Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You can't break with ordnance, because the bleed off of energy is too high - the only way you regain energy for speed/altitude is to go to FMT or afterburner, which makes you the biggest IR target on the planet.
I didn't make myself clear. The point is: if your partner is being shot at, there should be a natural reaction to warn your partner. No warnings were given.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The problem there is too much information burying a few really critical items of information. Poor organization and prioritization by the senders, in other words.
You're right. The report criticized the higher command for failing to ensure that vital information reached the pilots.

However, the two pilots involved in this case (the squadron commander and the missions officer) also held position where they were responsible for ensuring their men received vital information.

They failed to do their jobs and they should be court martial for this failure. (Rank has its priviledged, but also its responsibilites).


Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The other problem is that regardless of mass spam and paperwork, NATO forces still do not use air-ground IFF beacons, and for a designated training area, GPS/INS/LORAN data could have been broadcast to automatically give warning that they were entering a fieldex area. The technology is available, it's just not a procurement priority.
The report looked into this, but all of the information is censored other than the fact that they looked into this issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't think what I've seen here and read so far goes to finding the standard of negligence for manslaughter, but certainly there are court-martial offenses here. They had no information to lead them to believe that they might be attacking friendlies.
Yes, but they had no information that they were attacking the enemy. This could have been a battle and the pilots don't take the time to figure out the friendlies.

That is unacceptable and it fits the definition of manslaughter which is basically doing something that you should reasonable know might cause death.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The real asskicking needs to be in the Congress and the DoD bureaucracy to force them to procure and install force-wide the technology improvements to avoid these kind of communication and command issues.
Yup, and the other thing is what you mentioned earlier about the deployment of the National Guard.

We've got a situation where an Air National Guard Squadron Commander and Mission Officer disobey standing orders, launch an attack without knowing what they are attacking, and fail to ensure that vital information is provided at a briefing.

That says to me that there are massive systematic problems within the ANG.
__________________
Golfing since 67
Tingkai is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team