First off, I understand about the "fog of war." I also understand about how a professional army becomes and stays professional.

I seriously am starting to wonder about the co-ordination of NATO/UN forces at this point.. Friendly fire is one thing, but ask any professional in a military:
Once is a mistake or a fu*k up.
Twice is fu*king stupidity.
Three times is enemy action.

Joke all you like, this is the second time that a USAF pilot has fired on friendlies and killed them.

What's it going to take to get the pilots, intel and theatre ops commanders to co-ordinate to not kill our own? Politics aside, the Military is supposed to kill the bad guys, not their own, whats it going to take to figure out a method to keep flyers from strafing the wrong guys?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

How does one mistake guys who look like this



and drive things like this



for guys who look like this



and drive things like this



More fuel to the anti-war sentiments. Hardly worth replying to anymore...

Being anti-war is not a bad thing, I'm sure we can all agree that war should be a last resort but necessary in some instances. I don't think we should have went into Iraq, at least not like we did, but I do believe that we must stay now. If we leave then a warlord or terrorist group take over Iraq and be 10 times the threat that saddam was. I hate that we went into Iraq but if we leave now there will be another attack and we will have to go back in anyway. Lets finish the job.

BTW: If I was Canada I would tell the US military that the next time this happens they will be fighting alone. Also we should pay for the Canadians funerals.


_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marihuana.
-Gun control kills!

Of course its all the American's faults. Never mind that the Canucks there might not have passed up their location to US forces, or that they might not be wearing proper ways to ID. Nope, clearly, when a mistake happens, its the US fault.

O noes!

Smokey:
#1: AMERICAN pilots strafed friendlies. This is point of fact, Taliban forces have no aircraft, and US birds were the only ones in the air.
#2: Canadian Troops' movements were reported, we have at least comperable GPS and radio technology as US forces.
#3: NO UNIT WORTH IT'S BOOTS MOVES OUT OF POSITION WITHOUT COMMUNICATING THIER MOVEMENTS, THEY DO THAT SO THEY DON'T GET THE SH*T SHOT OUT OF THEMSELVES.
#4: Canadians called for air support. Americans had the EXACT position of Canadian forces, and Air Support only took 10 minutes to get there.
#5: It's not like you're going to see a flag, and there are no such thing as infantry designators to my knowledge. That's why you use GPS Co-ordinates to designate your position.

Reverse the roles. Put yourself in their boots... whatever. Get your rectal/cranial inversion looked after. Someone f*cks it up, kills fellow soldiers, they should pay the price, but here's a bit of info: EVERY TIME a US pilot has fired on and killed other nation's soldiers, their punishment has been minimal or non-existant. Other nation's pilots haven't managed to kill US soldiers when in support in 5 theatres (Iraq 91, Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Afghanistan, Iraq 03)... What's the difference? Professionalism? Volume of attacks? Luck? Whatever it is, other countries can do it, why not the US?

I'm not saying a word about the war in Iraq, because this isn't about that... Afghanistan is where the problem is at, and it's more or less an afterthought. Maybe I'm a little hung up on this, but it seems to me that when you do the right thing the right way for the right reason, these kinds of "friendly fire" incidents don't happen as often or at all.

I'm not hanging this on any other USAF or US military personnel other than the pilot that was at the controls, and the air boss of the area. They are the ones that had the power to avert this.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

It's got nothing to do with assigning blame "because" it's the US. It could be any country, doesn't matter. What matters is that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for the deaths they cause. If it's the enemy, you get a medal. If it's your fellow soldiers or allies, you get court martialled. End of story.

First thing they teach you when hunting is MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SHOOTING AT. It's not hard.

I have nothing against war, I have nothing against killing. I just don't like the idea of causing more damage to ourselves than the enemy. The point of war is to kill the enemy. Friendly fire is only acceptable when it's foreign civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time because that can't be helped sometimes. It is NOT acceptable when it's fellow soldiers who radio their location every time they move, because it means that somebody somewhere didn't do their job.

Gam:

#1: Null and void.

2. Are you sure they're reported? How accurate were they? In know in the heat of battle the radio and your grid location is the last thing on your mind. Getting to cover, returning fire, and taking it to the enemy takes center stage.

3. See point number two. Murphy's law is a mother @!#$

4. The Canadians called it. Maybe they called for it to be too close? I know that for motars and arty there's a thing called danger close, which is where you have to acknowledge that there's a higher possibility of it landing on you instead of the other guys.

5. Actually, there are markers that can be used. IR chem lights, IR flags, 9V battery's connected together to get really hot, VS17 panel, ect. Did they use any?

Reverse the role? Hey bud, guess what? I am that role. US infantry currently in Iraq.

How much air support do any of these other countries use? You pretty much answered that right there. You don't hear about many deaths from underwater basketweaving, but if a lot more people started doing it, it just might be more common.

I'm glad so many people can do the job better than us. Why don't you come show me how?

You guys are complaining there's been no action taken. Jeez, it's only been like what, a week since it happens? How about an investigation?

Combat is not hunting, end of story.

O noes!

Just stop drugging your pilots before a mission. NOBODY else uses "perks" to keep their pilots awake on mission and they seem to stay awake and make it home. Please, try it.

The first time the USAF bombed Canadian forces in Afganastan they disobeyed orders and we drugged. Do you really think it's much different this time? That time our troops were wearing radio becons, hemet beacons and their location was well known and a training area for God's sake.

Stop drugging your pilots, please.

PAX

Smokey wrote:I'm glad so many people can do the job better than us. Why don't you come show me how?

Combat is not hunting, end of story.

Actually Combat IS hunting. It's just that your prey is smarter and armed and civilians tend to frown when you keep a souvenir of the kill. War isn't about liberating oppressed people or securing territory or any of that "we are the world" PC liberal crap. It's about killing the enemy until he gets sick of the casualties and surrenders.

I don't pretend to be smarter than anyone, but if I was a soldier in Iraq right now I'd build a remote bomb detonator that flashes every frequency for half a second. You drive around with it and if eventually you'll pass a bomb making hideout and KABOOM!!! Their own bombs will blow in their faces. (Terrorists always use remote detonators in case their guys chicken out and they have to encourage him to go meet Allah) It's not hard to make.

Smokey wrote:Gam:

#1: Null and void.

Explain.

Quote:


2. Are you sure they're reported? How accurate were they? In know in the heat of battle the radio and your grid location is the last thing on your mind. Getting to cover, returning fire, and taking it to the enemy takes center stage.

I'm pretty damned certain. Why? read your response to #4. If you called in air support, wouldn't you give your location too? Would YOU risk your ass getting shot off? If they had time enough to request help, they'd more than likely give information about position... you touched on that in #4 as well.

Quote:


3. See point number two. Murphy's law is a mother @!#$

True enough. Slip-shod maneuvers aren't covered under Murphy's Law... Someone screwed up, they oughtta pay. I won't hold my breath waiting though. Apparently its okay.

Quote:


4. The Canadians called it. Maybe they called for it to be too close? I know that for motars and arty there's a thing called danger close, which is where you have to acknowledge that there's a higher possibility of it landing on you instead of the other guys.

That's not information that I have.

Quote:


5. Actually, there are markers that can be used. IR chem lights, IR flags, 9V battery's connected together to get really hot, VS17 panel, ect. Did they use any?

That's not information that I have. However, you'd think that the Mujahdeenis would have figured most of that out by now.

Quote:


Reverse the role? Hey bud, guess what? I am that role. US infantry currently in Iraq.

How much air support do any of these other countries use? You pretty much answered that right there. You don't hear about many deaths from underwater basketweaving, but if a lot more people started doing it, it just might be more common.

Which is why I said that.

Point of fact, in Afghanistan, the balkans, and other coalition operations, you lean on other force's assets when and where they are... why is it that you see a higher incidence of friendly fire episodes when US air support is called in? I'm talking per incident (or per capita if you want to think of it like that). Can you imagine the hell that would be raised if a British close air support craft did the same thing to a US army/marine outfit?

Quote:


I'm glad so many people can do the job better than us. Why don't you come show me how?

Now you're putting words in my mouth, I don't appreciate that.

What I was saying is that there is a problem, and ignoring it isn't helping.

Quote:


You guys are complaining there's been no action taken. Jeez, it's only been like what, a week since it happens? How about an investigation?

How about the repatriation and funeral?

I know about the investigation part, and frankly, I'll reserve comment until it's done and I see what information I can get.

Quote:

Combat is not hunting, end of story.

Hunting is combat, only if you're in the Cheney party aparently.

I understand what you're saying, but look at it like this: under fire, one of your squad-mates starts firing into the group of you... what do you call that? The only difference I see is that the pilot had time to line up his attack... he had time to screw it up.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I think the issue is that most of the pilots that do this think this is Top Gun: The second mission on the Nintendo.

Real life doesn't have a "reset" button.

Remeber, this isn't the first time a FUBAR of this magnitude happened...remeber when that USAF pilotr strafed a New Jersey elementary school?


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

it was a pair of A-10 Thunderbolts.

'nuff said. they're not fancy, typically don't rely on GPS or IF transponders, shoot a whole LOT of really big bullets really fast. it's the claymore of modern military technology; it cuts a giant swathe through anything in front of it, it's slow, loud, and has a very distinct shape. designed primarily to quickly destroy tanks, NOT strafe personnel.

now, i'm not saying the pilots are excused or not excused from the action, because there was a slip in command somewhere and someone messed up and there's a lot of factors none of us know about, but if a pair of Thunderbolts was called in for air support (instead of more elegant systems; Blackhawk, Apache, Cobra), the battlefield has to be pretty broad. it's really easy to lose someone out there (especially in the minimum area that an A-10 would be able to strafe). ask RailS or anyone else that's seen the sandbox, @!#$ goes haywire quick.

so maybe it wasn't the US pilot's fault. Maybe the Canadian foot soldiers moved a little too far in any given direction. let's not be so quick to blame.

besides, if you don't notice an A-10 in time to take cover from it, you deserve to be shot.

just my .02

By the timeyou see the A10 visually, it's too late. That's the whole point of the "low" portion of low and slow.
I certainly would not call the A10 primative, they certainly do carry IFR nav equipment and there's no reason they wouldn't have GPS as well. They must carry IFR, everyone aircraft has to, period.

We should wait until the facts come out, but after the last time, we have some expectations of what happened. Hard to blame us. It's not exactly the first time the USAF has fired on Canadians. I don't see the navy hitting the wrong tagets with missle attacks or artilary. I don't see the artilary guys doing it, or the Marines storming the wrong place. This seems to be an Air Force issue.

In times when the Canadian forces airmen have been flying along with the USAF we have not shot up the wrong target. Sure we fly fewer sorties, but if the USAF bombs the wrong target 1 in 100 times, and we have flown 4000 sorties, we've had plenty of opportunity to screw up.

The one thing that really bothers me is that if a civilian was caught with the drugs in their system that the USAF uses, they'd go to jail. For some reason somebody out there thinks it's OK to pop "perks" then fly a multimillion dollar weapons platform.. They could drive a call leagally but the can fly a combat aircraft... WTF?

PAX

Hahahaha wrote:
The one thing that really bothers me is that if a civilian was caught with the drugs in their system that the USAF uses, they'd go to jail. For some reason somebody out there thinks it's OK to pop "perks" then fly a multimillion dollar weapons platform.. They could drive a call leagally but the can fly a combat aircraft... WTF?

PAX

Most drugs we're not "illegal" until people started having too much fun with them. Cocaine used to be an over the counter medicine in Mexico until the early 50's. Heroin started off as a pain killer. PCP was given to horses.

What the USAF pilots take is 5mgs of Dextroamphetamine or Dexadrine. Which is nothing since the dose is supposed to be 10mgs to start with. Of course that's what the Department of Defense is telling the public and they can hardly be trusted. I'm pretty sure pilots take more. In any case, it keeps you sharp for 10 to 12 hours and is fairly safe. They give it to kids with ADHD when Ritalin doesn't work.

^^^And i'd rather have ADHD. Why not getting pilots that can do the task rather than giving them drugs?

What next? Steroids for the infantry?


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

GPS didn't begin expirimentation with Satellite 1 of the constellation until 1978, the A10 Thunderbolt has been in the USAF inventory since 1976. A10s have been in design and production for ten years before delivery. That puts the birth of the A10 at 1967. The A10 was not designed to rely on GPS, because GPS did not function/totally exist by the time the A10 went into service. Production of the A10 ceased in 1984 (last delivery made). the A 10 relies on minimal avionics, including GPS and IF (and no, not every aircraft has to have it, semicolon). It was not until 1999 that GPS was integrated into the A10 flight platform, but on an unknown scale.

A lot of older A-10's have become Reserve and National Guard property, meaning that funding for GPS integration comes out of a much smaller budget, and as a few reservists and national guardsmen do, they just go without.

there's some facts. let's wait on more.

And Aircraft avionics are never updated at all. That's why those 1963 747-100s cannot use ILS landing systems /sarcasm.

Point: It doesn't matter when it was built, it will have modern avionics. Certainly every commercial airliner must have IFR equipment and while I understand that the military follow different rules it would be so benefitial to the forces I cannot see them going without.

GPS is not expensive any more.

At any rate, I guess we should just wait to see what comes of this. Not much I bet.

PAX