C2 failures costing lives in AFG

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Mr Happy, Oct 9, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    From Janes this week

    Good to see that NATO goti ts sh!t together. If true...

    Interesting that its highlighted Kandahar - who's serving there?
  2. What Janes says is true. It's the basic premise underpinning FIST. You know, the project that's meant to be replacing BOWMAN at Section, Platoon and Company level following the decision in 1999 that BOWMAN wasn't going to be up to the job. Which begs the question...............

    As for interoperability between us and allies, it continues to happen more by accident than design.
  3. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I thought FIST was all that ultimate soldier plasma rifle with battery's in your body armour gps arty on tgt at the press of a button business. E.g. a bit more than 'just replacing bowman'. My uncle was on the bowman project for nearly 20 years and as I understand it, its all fkced because of the royal artillery.
  4. Mr Happy

    That's what some would have had you believe a few years ago. I believe this rumour intensified when someone stuck posters of futuristic weapons up on a wall in Shabbywood, inferring this was what FIST was all about.

    But, according to MoD and Industry blurb, FIST is due to deliver the SA80 replacement in phase 3, about 2015. However, this is a bit out of date. Phase 1 is/was due next year, but don't hold your breath. It is this first phase which is, in part, the BOWMAN PRR/VHF/PUDT etc replacement, the premise being that improved and integrated C4I (plus miscellaneous other factors which are being dealt with under other programmes e.g. PECOC) increases tempo, thus reducing casualties. This is the beginning and end of the FIST justification. The clue is in the title. F- Future. Yes, we know that. S - Soldier - Yes, it's for the soldier. T - Technology. Yes, that's what MoD buy. But the big I - Integrated, is the key and what the MoD haven't bothered about in the Infantry before. That's what will make the difference, and if it can't be delivered then the project dies.

    The implicit acknowledgment here is that, without improved C4I/Integration/BOWMAN replacement, casualties are higher than they should be. Also implicit, when read in conjunction with various Select Committee reports, is that the MoD have known this for many years yet chose to spend money on BOWMAN, which they KNEW wasn't good enough and is not under remit to integrate BOWMAN, never mind integrate it with other systems the soldier uses. If FIST is not progressed satisfactorily, then the issue is compounded.

    Batteries? BOWMAN buy old, excessively heavy batteries which don't work properly and haven't been integrated properly with the chargers. (There was a TOTAL recall last year of one type, which is a bit of a bummer when we don't have enough in the first place and are fighting wars on a number of fronts). No power > no C4I > increased casualties.

    Press a button? Well, perhaps not the buttons shown on the old advertising (on the right side of the rifle, operated by the left hand) but the replacement C4I kit will certainly improve matters. GPS? Already got it, but the capability it provides will be better utilised.

    This is discussed in detail on the BOWMAN thread in "Infantry" and is open source.
  5. I think Kandahar is predominantly Canadian, who've suffered rather a lot of friendly fire.
  6. FF?

    Mine strike yes, what FF?

    Apart from the 2002 USAF F16 incident.
  7. There have, I believe, been two other incidents of this, not sure when though, I'll have to get back to you. Either way the Canadians I know are still pissed off about the 2002 one.
  8. 1 definately about a year ago during Op MEDUSSA in the Panjwai valley. Think it was an A10 but not sure.
  9. 2002

    29 March 06 - Pte Costall
    4 September 06 - Pte Graham

    So two other incidents.
  10. http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/training_1446___article.html/forces_fort.html
  11. Hello winnfield,

    thankyou for posting those articles.
    Most,or at least the most lethal,fratricides involve close air support.
    Speed and altitude make it difficult for a pilot to recognise friend and foe on the ground and pilots do not have the situational awareness of the troops they are supporting,who may have been in contact for some time before the aircraft arrives on scene.
    Lateral thinking might suggest the addition of more organic firepower to ground units to reduce their dependence on air support,thus reducing incidence of air support being called for in the first place.
    Ground assets are typically far cheaper to purchase and operate than air assets and can be with the units they support all the time.
    Would this be practical?