Friendly fire video released.

[Tribesman]

The fault lies with both the controllers and the pilots .
The pilots didn't clearly establish where they were and where their "targets" were .
The controllers didn't clearly establish where the planes were and where the friendlies were .
The problem was that the planes were no longer over their original target .

Plus of course not waiting for the marking rounds was very stupid of the pilots .

[Sir Moody]

Wouldn't the siganl give away your position to the enemy?

probably but it has to be better than orange panels to let your air forces know who to shoot...

there must be a better way say uv paint or something that the aircraft cameras could pick up... i dont know but surely there has to be something better than orange panels (which of course if we the public have been told you can bet the insurgants etc know and will use)

[Watchman]

Actively broadcasting an IFF signal sounds to me like a Bad Idea as far as the modern battlefield goes. Wouldn't that be like yelling to the other guy "hi it's us here, please shoot us!" ? Plus I'd imagine it was suspectible to electronic warfare anyway, making it kinda unreliable.

Some sort of reactive system that responds to queries ("Are you USMC XYZ123? No ? Eat missile then.") would to my layman's thinking appear like at least somewhat safer alternative, if one still suspectible to all kinds of interference.

Which kind of leaves the tried-and-true method, some sort of "field-sign" and Organic Eyeball 1.0(tm) as have been used since men first started trying out this newfangled organized warfare thingy.

[lancelot]

Wouldn't that be like yelling to the other guy "hi it's us here, please shoot us!" ?

You dont even have to go to that much trouble with americans as your allies!


Did anyone just see the UK ITN news a few minutes ago? They had a bit of footage of the next door neighbour of the pilot.

He considers the pilot a hero, then went on to criticise the UK and europe's lack of action in the war on terror and then implied it was somehow all being left to the americans like it was in WW2!

What a prick!

So we have an ally killing 'hero', the Uk not doing enough on the war on terror (er...arnt we there in Iraq with you...getting shot at by you?) and a profound misunderstanding of history...

What a genius...

[ajaxfetish]

So we have an ally killing 'hero', the Uk not doing enough on the war on terror (er...arnt we there in Iraq with you...getting shot at by you?) and a profound misunderstanding of history...

And a neighbor who, while representative of an unfortunately large number of Americans, is by no means representative of us all.

I agree with what most here have said. Friendly fire is a tragedy, and one that we must do all we can to prevent, but one that is all but inevitable in the chaos of an actual war. The pilots were a little too hasty in my opinion. Since they noticed the orange panels (even if they may have somewhat resembled rockets) and they gave them pause, they should have waited for a stronger confirmation and erred on the side of caution. How much stress and fatigue may have inhibited their good judgment I don't know. More responsibility seems to lie with the controllers who assured them there were no friendlies in the area. I'm sure neither had any desire or intention to harm friendly troops, and the ground controllers were probably just as horrified by what happened as the pilots were.

The concerning part, again, is the denial of the tape. I think Redleg expressed that best, and I can't even see why it would need to be classified except to avoid embarrassment. The pilot is neither a hero nor a villain, but a soldier who made an unfortunate mistake in the line of duty. The important thing is how we respond to situations like this: whether we come together and learn from them, or whether we lie about it and divide ourselves further.

Ajax

[Redleg]

The fault lies with both the controllers and the pilots .
The pilots didn't clearly establish where they were and where their "targets" were .
The controllers didn't clearly establish where the planes were and where the friendlies were .
The problem was that the planes were no longer over their original target .

Plus of course not waiting for the marking rounds was very stupid of the pilots .

The fault lies with more then just the controllers and the pilots.

What was discussed in the mission briefing prior to departing for the mission? Did the British and the American's coordinate with each other where the units in the field were expected to be? We the combat graphic passed between all the headquarters involved? Why wasn't a NFA or RFL established to protect the british convoy from just such a possiblity? Why wasn't the friendly unit markers for british units included in the briefing? Why wasn't the british using the same control panel techniques of the American Army? (This is suppose to be the same for all Allied units in the combat area)

There is a lot more to combat coordination for a Close Air Support Mission then the simple placing of blame that your attempting here. The only part that you are 100% correct is the not waiting for a marking round. All parties screwed up in that regard.

In otherwords the whole damn chain of command involved on both sides screwed the pooch on this event. To much information does not seemed to have been passed between both the American's and the British. The American Military has the greater share of the blame because of the failure to mark the target and proper target identification by the pilots - but there is a whole lot more to this particlur espisode of friendly fire then what is being reported in the papers.

Attempting to paint this tragic event as anything other then what it is - a tragic event by individuals that have been in combat for some time, probably flying at the limit or beyond them that were established in training. Poor coordination by all concerned as anything other then what it is - a tragic mistake on the battlefield - Anything else borders on a false conclusion.

Focus on the stupidity of the Chain of Command at the Pentagon that attempted to deny the existance of the video and the recording of the cockpit to FAC communications that is pretty much standard fare for the military. Focus on the stupidity of the British MOD who knew the tape existed in the first place - since the British Military also functions in a very similiar way to the United States in this regard.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Excellent analysis, Redleg. I agree.

[Slyspy]

Yeah, no one likes an incompetant, ill-advised and ineffective cover-up like the dear old MoD!

In the old days it was easy - you just said "killed in action" and nobody would speak up who knew any better. These days you have accountability, video tapes, nosey journos and the like and the MoD hasn't quite caught up.

I say the primary fault on the day lies with the pilots. The radio records suggest that they did everything right up until the last moment, when they made a bad call. They failed to identify the targets but did identify what looked like friendly markings. So they called their controllers for confirmation. The controllers mistakenly (it seems) confirmed the target. Still in doubt due to the markings the pilots requested the targeting round. Then they made their mistake: eager to catch the vehicles before they got to the village they attacked before the arty had marked the target.

The strange thing is that they seem almost certain that the target is friendly and that there is some difference between what the controller is saying and what they themselves are seeing. They ask for one final confirmation and then don't wait for it.

Edit:

Redleg's analysis of the situation leading to such events is very good.

[KrooK]

Hmm sad things.
But soldier must know that "if is firing at you - don't be worse"