Raaf refused to 'drop bombs'

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Aussie pilots 'refused to drop bombs'

March 14, 2004

AUSTRALIAN F/A-18 pilots refused to drop their bombs on up to 40 missions during the war on Iraq, it was reported today.

Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney told a newspaper he and other pilots defied the orders of American commanders because they decided there was no valid military reason to drop their bombs.

He said the US Air Force operated under different rules of engagement to Australia and he did not believe they were more "trigger happy".

Australian Defence Force Chief, General Peter Cosgrove, said there was no action taken against the pilots after they aborted the missions.

However, it was unclear whether the US had carried out any of the missions after they were aborted by the Australian pilots, the Sun-Herald said.

AAP

Quote[/b] ]RAAF aborted dozens of missions

By Frank Walker

March 14, 2004

Australia's F-18 pilots refused to drop their bombs in dozens of missions during the Iraq War, one of the pilots has revealed.

The pilot said each of the 14 RAAF F-18 Hornet pilots aborted three to four missions during the war, often because intelligence given at pre-flight briefings did not concur with what they found at the target.

In a rare insight into the enormous dilemmas faced in the battle skies over Iraq, Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney last week described how he and other Australian F-18 pilots had to weigh up life-and-death decisions in a split second before dropping their bombs.

He said pilots broke off many missions after they saw the target and decided there was not a valid military reason to drop their bombs. The revelation the RAAF aborted dozens of bombing attacks came during interviews with service men and women to mark the first anniversary of the start of the Iraq War on March 19, 2003.

During the war the Defence Department acknowledged that one RAAF Hornet pilot had aborted a mission set by Allied headquarters. On March 23, four days into the war, Air Marshal Angus Houston said an RAAF pilot called off an attack because of poor weather and lack of air support.

It appears there were fundamental differences between the US-dominated headquarters and Australian pilots over what constituted a valid military target.

Squadron Leader Pudney said under Australia's rules of engagement pilots had to ask themselves on each mission whether it was right to drop their bombs. "Each guy would have made that decision once to half-a-dozen times in the conflict. It was presented as being just one pilot in one incident, but it was all of us several times. We were providing an identification of targets in conjunction with ground forces, and if we were not 100 per cent sure we were taking out a valid military target in accordance with our specifications we just did not drop."

Squadron Leader Pudney would not comment on the reasons missions were aborted. But it seems it was often to avoid killing civilians unnecessarily.

"As we approached the target area we confirmed we had the right place. Then we'd run a check provided through our training that we were doing the right thing by our rules of engagement."

He said most decisions were made in the air, but some were command decisions. Debriefing after the missions was done in an "honest, open and forthright environment".

"You don't always make the right decision, but we were always leaning towards not making the wrong decision.

"When I decided not to attack it was because there was some small doubts in the back of my mind saying, 'Is this really what I need to be doing, is this going to help win the war right now or is it going to stop our boys on the ground getting targeted?'."

He said he did not believe the US Air Force was more trigger-happy, but it operated under different laws of engagement.

Chief of the Defence Force General Peter Cosgrove said yesterday there had been no recriminations against the Australian pilots. But he would not comment on whether the US subsequently did any of the missions aborted by the Australians.

Nor would he say whether there had been a failure of intelligence at the pre-flight briefings.

General Cosgrove said "very few" missions had been aborted and when it did happen it was mainly due to mechanical or weather reasons. But he supported pilots' decisions to break off the bombing.

One British pilot exploded a missile his plane had launched after he saw the target was a workman's hut in a quarry. Intelligence had said it was a tank.

Hmm says a lot about the mentality prevalent in the US army beat first ask questions later.... but good job by those pilots who refused to do such bombings.

[Llauma 0]

To check the target before you drop the bomb is like whiping your ass before you shit.. that seems to be the US mentality.

[Acecombat 0]

Atleast its good to see common sense prevailing for once dont you think ...

[Llauma 0]

Atleast its good to see common sense prevailing for once dont you think ...  

I agree.. I don't know if the US soldiers lacks common sense or if they are following order no matter what.

Honestly I don't know which one of those two would be more disturbing.

[Harnu 0]

I wouldn't say its the airmen that lack common sense. Every U.S. Military service member is supposed to follow orders, it what you're taught and told to do. It's the higher chain of command, if anyone, that you should be blaming for the fault. For not haveing the best intel on the targets, or not establishing and procedure to check the target, bomb it, confirm it's destroyed, then get out.

[Llauma 0]

I wouldn't say its the airmen that lack common sense.  Every U.S. Military service member is supposed to follow orders, it what you're taught and told to do.  It's the higher chain of command, if anyone, that you should be blaming for the fault.  For not haveing the best intel on the targets, or not establishing and procedure to check the target, bomb it, confirm it's destroyed, then get out.

So an order should be followed no matter what?

I would have hoped that it would have been that they lacked common sense cause that would have meant that they just don't know better.. If you do have common sense but still do something you feel is wrong just because that's the order then you are truly evil.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't say its the airmen that lack common sense. Every U.S. Military service member is supposed to follow orders, it what you're taught and told to do. It's the higher chain of command, if anyone, that you should be blaming for the fault. For not haveing the best intel on the targets, or not establishing and procedure to check the target, bomb it, confirm it's destroyed, then get out.

If I was in the higher chain of command I wouldnt want to be blamed for what was done by the idiot who reported a hut as a tank and the idiot that shot a missile at the hut that he saw wasnt a tank. I would prefer that the pilot aborted the mission and would probably be annoyed with the idiot who told me it was a tank and made me order a plane to go take out a hut.

[Llauma 0]

If I was in the higher chain of command I wouldnt want to be blamed for what was done by the idiot who reported a hut as a tank and the idiot that shot a missile at the hut that he saw wasnt a tank. I would prefer that the pilot aborted the mission and would probably be annoyed with the idiot who told me it was a tank and made me order a plane to go take out a hut.

Don't forget that the hut might have been a terrorist training camp. Just imagine the hundreds of thousand small boys being raised in such huts.. They might become terrorists one day.. so call it a pre-emptive strike.

Also bomb the cousins hut too cause he might become to hate USA now as they killed his cousin and as you kill the cousin you need to kill his friends too as they also might become terrorists one day and they might start a terrorist camp in Syria and buy nukes from Castro which he received from North Korea.. So the conclusion is that we need to nuke Cuba and NK!

This could happen.. honestly, this really could happen!

God bless America!

[ralphwiggum 6]

how about using Iraq thread instead of making a new one? you've been here long enough to know that Ace.