L/Cpl of Horse Matty Hulls death unlawful

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Machristo, Mar 16, 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. Dunno if it's been posted yet (sorry if it has), but the coroners decision is in and it was 'entirely avoidable'.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

    Where does this leave anglo-american relations? And I wonder what the chances of Lt Col Kohntopp ever facing a prosecution are?

    Edited beacuse I'm a mong.
     
  2. It puts Anglo American relations back to around 1776 I'd say.

    It shouldn't just be the Pilots who are held accountable, those bean counters in the MOD also have a lot to answer for regarding their failure to procure simple IFF technology.

    RIP Matty.
     
  3. Unfortunately in the same place as before.
    George says 'jump beyatch'

    Phony says 'how high boss' :highfive:

    Nothing is likely to change (IMO).
    SP
     
  4. I am listening to the press conference, and as usual, his widow is being dignified under the barrage of stupid questions.

    How different this could have been with some honesty from MOD and USAF.
     
  5. She is dignified and eloquent for someone so young
     
  6. Agreed - astonishing dignity shown by Lcpl Hull's widow.

    She has behaved impeccably throughout - a great credit to her husband's memory
     
  7. I'm sorry, but comments like that are bullshit!
    You can not say that the IFF would have worked. They had an identification system and it was disregarded. You also obvioulsy don't understand how "simple" it really is!

    OS
     
  8. The term “IFF” is often misused. It can be a generic term, encompassing Combat ID; or specific equipment, for example, aircraft IFF. The MoD dismissed “IFF” as the solution for land troops some years ago.

    I think what is meant here is “Combat ID”. And then, in simple terms, split that into Mounted CID and Dismounted CID.

    Many suppose BOWMAN will deliver both. Indeed, recent (2002 – 06) Committee of Public Accounts and National Audit Office reports clearly infer this. One of them says Combat ID will be in-service in 2006 (last year). Is it?

    The common denominator between DCID and MCID is that the object, be it an individual soldier, his section leader or the platform must transmit his position by data. Firstly, BOWMAN doesn’t do this for the individual, as the MoD decided not to buy data-enabled PRR, so in turn there is no requirement to integrate fully with his section leader, except by voice. “PRR Mk2” re-inserts data (if the funding survives), but when? BOWMAN does permit the section leader and the platforms to transmit their position over, primarily, PRC354 and platform equivalents, VMOL/VMOP. This requires bandwidth, which is pretty limited. But we also know that PRC 354 is “unfit for purpose”. Neither is it widely in-service yet, and where it is it’s not the radio of choice. Many have its predecessor, some have a BOWMAN upgrade. And to complicate matters, it was reported 16 months ago that PRC 354 and PRR were to be replaced under another programme – whose remit doesn’t include Combat ID. So, BOWMAN is pretty limited and requires complementary programmes and capability (heard that before).

    Assuming a higher echelon actually receives the necessary data (big assumption), can it be seamlessly transmitted to friendly forces? This degree of interoperability may be desired, but as it’s unfunded it remains an aspiration. Listen to the cockpit audio on the A10/Scimitar tape and its clear the “UK” voice warns of friendlies after the event. Too many voice links in the chain.

    So, contrary to the MoD’s claims (in their responses to above reports) it would seem not a lot has happened since 1992, when the committees recommended the MoD “redouble” their efforts on Combat ID. But then, the double of nothing is – nothing. I’m being slightly unfair here – work is going on, but I doubt if it was tasked in 1992 and I suspect it’s largely re-inventing the wheel. I’d feel more comfortable if the programme charged with replacing PRR and PRC 354 had DCID in its remit, and the MoD announced interoperability with allies was now funded policy. Perhaps I’m out of date?
     
  9. The other thing here is the A10 does not have data-link. An unusual oversight for the USAF. Sadly USAF has not seen the need to make any changes after this incident. I like the phrase "the double of nothing is nothing." Don't suppose the people who were looking into combat ID were ever in danger of themselves having to enter a kill box with some orange tarpaulin draped on top of their vehicle; up against an enemy and the ANG.
     
  10. IFF can be established by means of a simple and inexpensive transponder. What is good for air frames should be good for ground vehicles.

    Whilst the Bowman Situational Awareness Module has potential, it does indeed have flaws outside the mere bandwith issues.

    Whilst units can transmit position reports down to section or even vehicle level, a conslidate report has then to be made and transmitted up the chain to the relevant parties.

    One can only assume that air assets will be made made aware of all friendly call signs on the ground as a result of this information.

    The problem being, the information is only as good as the last consolodated report.

    There is still wide scope for human error.

    In the case of Matty, had the pilots followed proper procedure, I doubt we would be having this exchange.

    That is why we need better technology, to prevent the cowboy factor.
     
  11. Agreed.

    This item led the BBC R5Live News at midday, including live interview with a British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF) spokesman. Amongst other things he pointed out the essential part played in the inquest by Mrs Hull's legal team. BAFF was therefore calling for legal aid to be available to bereaved service families in such circumstances, as recommended by the Deepcut Review but so far rejected by the Government.
     
  12. Well done Hackle, keep up the pressure, I would not want to be a relative going into these Inquests without legal representation.

    If I can help you in any way you have my support.
     
  13. Let's not forget in the finger-pointing and the USAF-bashing (entirely justifiable I'm afraid to say) that we're talking about an inquest into the unlawful death of L/Cpl Hull.

    RIP, L/Cpl Hull.
     
  14. As an aside, is it not the case that there has been a decision not to renew this particular Coroner's contract?

    If so, it's another example of messenger homicide, and so typicial of the vindictiveness surrounding those who wish to expose the truth.

    Wait (not too long, I'd guess) for more MoD dissimulation.
     
  15. As always i'm struggling with phrases used by the media to explain what happened. They observed, aquired, engaged & destroyed vehicles on the ground in much the same manner as someone might bag a brace of grouse on 12 August. No mention of 'accident' was mentioned until a sewage cart hit a windmill

    (ie lots of sh*t & a very big FAN!!)