Blue-on-blue

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 07 Feb 2007, 04:13

It was, but it was designed to do so in a much simpler battlespace (no requirement to talk to AWACS and higher commands at the same time as talking to the guys on the ground).

They now have the OA-10A (2-seat A-10 with extra radios for airborne FAC) and the A-10C is going into production with additional radios to handle the extra radio requirements.

The Blue-On-Blue have all been caused by Ground-based FACs or simply unit commanders and not Airborne FACs or the F-16 Fast FAC or F-16 Hunter/Killer team.

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 07 Feb 2007, 04:37

Ill agree with your last two statements Chris

BUT - I think if you do a little more web trawling and look again at your first
statement you will find that the enviorment that gents flew Bird Dogs in SOLO was as complex then as now - they conversed with a Super Connie
On station somewhere over Thailand, up to five or six differrent airborne strike packages, ground forces and other "nails" - Ive met some of the guys who flew 23TASS that flew out of NKP at the same time said ex father in law did - The job they did was beyond belief - and they DIDNT have "blue on blue" events (Im sorry there is something about that phrase that literally turns my stomach Friendly fire incidents have been around since Pontius was a pilot - the end result is lamentable and in the final analysis comes down to exactly what the reporter alluded to - unseasoned troops eager to get that first blood - well sorry if they had taken a little while and thought maybe that and other similar incidents in GW1 wouldnt have occurred.

Thats it Im off my soap box and gone

Leif

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 07 Feb 2007, 12:39

DaveB wrote:I've been trying not to comment on this but am finding it difficult. True, blue on blue happens.. it happened in the Falklands and it will continue to happen. Points taken from the comments made above as read. My disappointment is that the news channels here are showing 'seconds' of the encounter.. edited at that. You can watch the full 15min track as linked by Tonks and get a better feel for what was happening.. what was going through the pilots heads at the time. The edits shown on the news do not give the same background giving Joe Public a slightly different impression of the pilots actions. OK.. there is no way any news programme can dedicate this amount of airtime to a single piece of footage but I seriously question the wisdom of what has been shown.

Yes, I agree...The brief news footage was very poor information. Study of the full 15 minute video leads me into a much better understanding of the situation and makes me feel greater sympathy for the A10 pilots...They made a very serious mistake but they were slightly led into it. I feel for them and the families of the dead and injured :think:

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 07 Feb 2007, 16:05

Lief, I understand what you are saying, but that is where the A-10s have an actual airborne FAC and aren't trying to act as both airborne FAC and the attacker (which is what they were essentially doing in these past B-on-B incidents), so they're carrying the load of the FAC's responsibility in talking to the ground forces and/or ground FAC plus actually putting the rounds on target in an aircraft that was never designed to do that. They were always supposed to work with an OV-10 or OV-1 FAC so they only had to talk to one person once they were on station. The FAC talked to the guys on the ground and the AWACS, which left the guys putting bombs and bullets on target only had to worry about properly identifying the target and hitting it based on what his airborne FAC told him was the target.

One thing I've noticed as well is that when these guys have been called in, they have never used smoke ID to positively identify the "friendlies", something that was a must in Vietnam, so I wonder if something as simple as that could have prevented these incidents.

ivanT3 · Post by **ivanT3** » 07 Feb 2007, 19:58

Hi,

Just want to be sure that everyone has read this. There can be no doubt that this is a training issue and a personal responsibility issue.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html

Very sad and it makes me very angry indeed, as many things these days do. Being an American is more difficult for me these days for sure.

Ivan....................

ivanT3 · Post by **ivanT3** » 07 Feb 2007, 20:34

OK, I wont go into it other than to say that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with who wrote down the information. Some of the info should be taken on it's face value. It is well known that a large number of reserves in Iraq right now are in way over their heads.

Did they? or did they not fire out of line? Did they have enough training? There are simple answers to these questions and I'd be happy to read informed answers to them. Those who I talk to, are clear on the problem of training and that some of the folks flying over there are in rough shape training wise.

Ivan......................................

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 07 Feb 2007, 23:37

I reckon if it was the otherway round... then our boys would have been sent over to pond pronto.
One would also think that a Major or Lt Colonel would be experienced in procedures regarding target ID ect?

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 08 Feb 2007, 03:01

If they were reservists, not necessarily. We had Generals during Desert Storm that had never seen combat nor had been in any heavy exercises (due to our "peacetime" training restrictions that really don't make training all that realistic).

Also, one thing to remember, while they may have had orange panels on them, one must remember the problem that the US encountered in Vietnam - Fakes. If you use the same Identification procedures for long enough, eventually the enemy will begin copying you, thus making it impossible to reliably tell whether or not they're friendly. That's why it has to be multiple methods to verify that they're who they say they are. The IR Identification is on the side of the vehicle and not the top and the A-10s were most likely not using any IR targeting from the sounds of it, so there was no real expectation that they'd be going heads down to verify if they were shooting the right guys or not when they're flying heads out trying to find the bad guys they've been told to shoot.

I seem to remember there being a British Apache team that recently shot up some troops in Afghanistan recently for similar reasons as well - looking outside, talking on the radio and not being clear on who was where. It's just the way things go unfortunately. You do your best to prevent Blue-on-Blue, but it does happen and it happens more often when the guy calling in the fire is on the ground than when he's in the air because it's hard to relate to what the pilot is seeing from a totally different angle.

Rich · Post by **Rich** » 08 Feb 2007, 05:42

My son served as a commander of a Scimitar in 7 Armoured Brigade in Gulf war 1, having done 22 years myself in the same regiment and knowing a bit about US military ways through my own expirience my biggest worry was our allies

Not good for making yourself inconspicious, the panels with the V on its side I believe is the reflective panel mentioned in my time we had no such thing, it seems there are more than just 1 each side.

Son of Rich with laser designator I think

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 08 Feb 2007, 12:07

I have pondered long and hard at whether I should post on this subject as never (thankfully) having ever been called into active service when in the RAF but, as the A10s' were circling and the convoy moving at the time, would it not have been (hindsight is a wonderful thing) to have made a high speed run at lower altitude to obtain a better ID of the convoy?

I appreciate that, if this had turned out to be the enemy there would have been a risk of return fire but with the second acting as wing man he could have given instant fire cover?

Equally, if they were as the pilots thought, carrying missiles, surely these could not have been launched effectively at any fast moving target when the convoy was still in motion?

I appreciate that my comments and questions may raise a few eyebrows though having said before, I have never been in a conflict and cannot possibly imagine the tenseness and fear that combat can bring, but they were not in a situation that demanded immediate action whereby they had only maybe less than a second to make that split second decision to shoot as some fighter pilots did during the second world war when engaging many hundreds of aircraft and on occassions sadly, as we know, that decision sometimes turned out to be wrong.

Different today I know, but the decision making in this case was not of seconds............... but of minutes.