Probably this is just a myth as no one has mentioned it, but don't all Allied Aircraft use a fandangled computerized vehicle recognition system? I thought this had been developed after the very sad loss of the 9 British Infantry lads to 'A-10's!!! in the First Gulf War?! obviously not as there appear to be a few replies from our own Fly Boys in the thread?

To reiterate though what has already been mentioned here, those Pilots had doubts about the identity of the 4 vehicles, one of them convinces the other that the Orange Markers must be some form of rocket launcher, he even suggested they get back to base as they were running short on fuel and probably also in the back of his mind he wasn't convinced they were enemy vehicles! and the other finally goes along with the idea, the Orange Panel Markers were designed to be recognised from above, surely their training drums into them not to attack vehicles with either the Orange Marker or the V symbol!!!

Its all very sad and for it to be A-10's again is unforgiveable!




Gundulph

Reading this sad thread has made me think back to some of the comments made here and in other places at the time that one British major serving in Afghanistan wrote home an e-mail describing the RAF there as 'useless'. Think also of those youtube vids where the British soldiers in Sangin or Musa Qala start cheering like mad when the A-10 rolls in.
I also recall a friend coming back from Telic 1 telling me the biggest lesson he had learned out there was how good the Americans were at Close Air Support and how bad we were by comparison.
Well, this is the reverse of the medal. The RAF people are better trained (nb AFV recog !!) and more careful about their calculations in the cockpit. The Americans, by contrast, will roll in and drop it 'near as you like' to friendly forces.
There doesn't seem to be a way to get the best of both worlds. Perhaps though this is a day to remembere the qualities of RAF pilots.

Briefly:

1) They were low on fuel and due to RTB.

2) 3-6 picks out the HC Column while the FAC is directing them onto iraqi targets.

3) 3-6 note the orange panels

4) 3-5 checks in with their FAC but not any others in the area.

5) 3-6 isn't sure he looking at iraqi vees while 3-5 is in fact looking at iraqi vees

6) 3-5 insists they're iraqi while 3-6 isn't even sure 3-5 is looking at the same thing

7) 3-5 gets impatient when 3-6 still voices doubts that they're IDing the same thing. 3-5 points out they're almost out of loiter time.

3-6 follows 3-5 lead and so suggests they're rocket launchers

9) 3-5 settles on them being iraqi MRLs and part of the Iraqi force IDed by their FAC and doesn't want them to get away.

The packet gets strafed twice.


I wouldn't blame the pilots to the extent of cowboyism, but there was definetly a communication failure, plus other contributing factors and a needless sense of urgency to not let the enemy get away, when there was clear doubt about the target's ID.

Yes, all blue on blues are tragic and no-one on here is saying that is was deliberate, but I think we have to differentiate here:

The way I see it, is that there are "heat of the battle" blue on blues where there is incoming and situational awareness has gone for a ball of chalk and "gross negligent" blue on blues. I think the majority of us participating in this discussion are in agreement when we severly question the level of training received by the pilots and their own self discipline with regards to RoE.

It was a tragic accident and as has been mentioned, the pilots in question will have to live with their actions for the rest of their lives. If however there is no investigation and the pilots are not called to account for their actions, then what kind of message is this sending to other pilots ? "Don´t worry, if it does happen, you´ll only get a slap on the wrist" ? I´m not suggesting that they be jailed or hung, drawn and quartered, but lessons NEED to be learnt from this incident.

No board of inquiry or no investigation means that the status quo still exists and no lessons are learnt.

Seems to confirm that there was an internal investigation - From www.usatoday.com/news/...fire_x.htm

"A U.S. Air Force official conducted its own investigation into the incident in 2003, but the results of that investigation were not publicly released, said Lt. Tony Vincelli, spokesman for the Boise-based 190th Fighter Squadron, where the A-10 jets are based."

It would be interesting to look at their ROE? Not having a dig at Americans, but if you are on a coalition op and different nations are operating under different ROE..............

I suppose this case saddens me because it cannot really be described as 'fog of war'. To me, it is more reminiscent of the GW1 Turkey Shoot on the Basra road.

Somebody should point out to them Horse is part of his rank not his nickname.

I dunno...

I am in a real quandry over these cases!

I think it comes, like many other issues these days, down to trust and faith in the system, which seems to have been lost.

Ideally the incident should have been investigated by those who understand and appreciate the realities of the situation. These authorities should then have been trusted to do something about it. This may have happened, but nobody is saying.

I have to admit to a deep unease with the current trend of UK based coroners investigating military deaths. This is not to say that deaths need not be properly investigated, but the current trends and associated media circus cannot be the right way to go. All that we are doing is weakening the military at the expense of the mass media. The fact that the SUN seems to feel that it can broadcast classified material with impunity is a case in point.

My heart goes out the the family, but as has been said before, is it really in their long term interests to have this trailed out? I really don't believe it helps them, and I for one would not want my family put in the position that they felt they had to go along with the circus.

It comes back in some ways to single issue campaigning beloved by both the media and the politicians. We should not be dealing with such issues in isolation but it is all to easy to snipe and score points. The only effect of such action is sticking plaster management which is only interested in covering up the effects rather than dealing with the causes.

This particular one goes to the root of some of our major problems...

We have lost faith in our CoC as seemingly we are not trusted to investigate and deal with our own affairs. Step by step, central government and the MoD have been taking over power which lay in the hands of the military. We have lost huge amounts of control of procurement and logistics. It would seem we are no longer trusted to conduct our own legal affairs. This is not obvious to the average joe soap who still thinks that the CoC are a bunch of ignorant toffs. Most of the long term strategic decisions have been out of miitary hands for years. We are now in the wonderful position where the civil servants have most of the power, but no responsibility. Any c*ck up can then be blamed on the miltiary with yet another excuse to grab a bit more power.

The mandarins have been doing it for years with British manufacturing industry...

I have the deepest suspicion that this is (yet again) a "heads we win, tails you lose" game with the mandarins in the ministry.

All of this is dangerous, as all we end up with is shifting power from the military to the politicians, sorry I mean civil servants.

(Out of paranoia pills again....)

HE117
A few points. Firstly when you bring a bpdy back to the UK for burial the law says you must have a coroners enquiry, this is not new or in any way sinister. In most cases it is a simple afairs the facts are reported and the coroners does his bit and that's it. In this case despite there having been two enquiries one in the US and one here no one was prepared to say what really happened and the coroner has had real difficulty in discharging his legal responsibilites. So the reason we have a long drawn out nausia for the family is not the coroner but the MOD and DOD who have been trying to suppress some of the information.

You say the authorities (military) should be trusted, but as I said the coroner has a legal responsibility and the authorities you say we should trust have in reality been found with their hands in the sweety jar.

In the end we reduce the chances of these things happening by being open and honest, show me the evidence that those you wish us to trust have been open and honest, not that long ago this tape didn't exist now it does, have you got a good explanation for that.

Peter

Perhaps the British Government could learn something from the yanks about NOT hanging our troops out to dry in a media circus.

I am sure the incident was investigated by the US authorities and apropriate action taken without announcing it to the world. Why assume anything else?

Sounds far better to me than the media circus surrounding some of our soldiers and officers accused of "war crimes" and made scape-goats of by our own government.

Seems the yanks actually believe in being loyal to their Armed Forces.

Having said that, I still cant see why they didnt release the footage. They would not have had to release details of the identity of the pilots concerned.

Not being a great fan of the scum, as even when they seem to be 'doing whats right' it's only in cases where it's in their own interests, according to the BBC, "The Sun has released footage to television and radio stations, but is not giving other websites permission to use clips".

Are they claiming copyright? Are you allowed to restrict access to material you didn't get legally in the first place? What a bunch of hypocrites.

Perhaps this tragedy puts in context the Harrier aircrew who were criticised last year for being unwilling to drop on TICs without positive identification.

Maxi - The change is that in the past we buried our dead where they fell. It was only after the Falklands this changed, again due to a single issue campaign.

Please do not confuse "open" and "honest"; not all things that are "open" are honest, and equally not all things that are "closed" are dishonest. Context is everything so do not confuse perception with reality...

On Radio 2 now
Jeremy Vine

Why indeed ? Life is so much more amenable through rose-tinted specs.

What colour panels will the British Forces employ in future since Orange is hard to discern ?

BTW, I was interviewed on R 5 Live shortly after 1200.

D.Y.

Exactly and as a result the law (should the military be above the law) says you have an inquest, learn to live with it.


I agree which is why I said open and honest, equally closed is not what we should do as a norm in a democratic society. I am not interested in the persecution of the pilots, that will not change what happened, rather that we use the experience to reduce the risks of this happening again. If it is kept closed and hidden you cannot learn from it, instead perhaps every ground support pilot should be shown that tape as part of their training.

This tradgedy cannot be undone, but if we do not use it to learn and be better then it really is a total waste.

Peter

Sickening……..

May god help the family and friends of Matty Hull

I find it disgusting that this information has been supressed for for years by our government (i expect it of the yanks) but how dare torry blair go on about OUR BOYS doing a good job, when things like this happen. And nobody can tell me he was not aware of this video. Somebody will be hung out to dry, but i suspect it will be the source of the leak of this video. Also apparently 32 british soldiers were killed by friendly fire in the first war, but no official records were kept.

There are a number of issues:

1. As often stated, information should not be leaked and those who leak should be prosecuted. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to every rule no matter how stringent and it can be judged as a matter of conscience and necessity. In this case, it is difficult not to conclude that this leak was in the public interest for reasons outlined below.

2. There was no reason to maintain the protective marking of the footage and the transcript. The transcript could easily have been released, redacted or sanitised, if there were issues with classified data on the footage. Operational air pictures are routinely classified but this classification is to protect current ongoing operations, ie. callsigns, unit dispositions, codewords. It is good security practice to review the classifications of PM material and to downgrade whenever possible. Remember the Apache gun camera footage that was released within the last month, days after the Afghan rescue op.

3. There appear to have been many faults. The aircrew and the ground controllers appear to be slapdash at least. The aircrew appear genuinely shocked and full investigation of the incident would perhaps help them to come to terms with their remorse. They are only the last line in the decision making chain, and should not be hung out to dry. There appear to be fundamental failings of doctrine, procedure, equipment, interoperability and training that are inexcusable. Not least, all UK AFVs should be fitted with IFF or similar secure position/identification equipment, regardless of the cost. Leaving aside the fact the MoD have sat on their hands since Granby, this should have been done as a UOR. I know from my own experience of other platforms that were hurriedly fitted with situational awareness equipment as part of the UOR programme, despite integration problems, at short notice.

4. It is difficult not to conclude that there was an institutional reluctance on the part of both MoD and DoD to suppress this information to avoid controversy. It is also difficult to avoid the conclusion that DoD said "no" and MoD said "thank you" as usual. So much for the relative values of past losses, respect for bereaved families and potential future losses over bad headlines.

5. I wonder what the respective chances are of US personnel facing extradition and charges vs UK journalists facing extradition and charges.