Reports clear u.s. soldiers in missile incident

[Mister Frag 0]

From http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/18/friendly.fire.report/index.html

Quote[/b] ]Reports clear U.S. soldiers in missile incident

From Mike Mount

CNN Washington Bureau

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 Posted: 8:14 PM EDT (0014 GMT)

Two reports say U.S. soldiers believed a British Tornado was an enemy missile.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. soldiers who shot down a British warplane during the invasion of Iraq believed an enemy missile was heading for them, separate U.S. and British investigations reported.

A U.S. Army Patriot missile hit the British GR4a Tornado over Kuwait as it was returning from a mission over Iraq on March 22, 2003.

The fighter's two crew members did not have a chance to eject and were killed, according to the report.

The plane was shot at by a U.S. Army Patriot missile battery protecting U.S. ground troops.

None of the soldiers were faulted by the reports, which were released May 14.

The heavily edited U.S. report blamed the incident on the British plane's failure to transmit a signal identifying it as a coalition aircraft.

The British report, while coming to the same conclusion, highlighted many weaknesses in the operation and procedures of the Patriot anti-missile system.

British investigators found the Patriot missile system was operating without all of its communications equipment, resulting in a lack of contact with its headquarters, and a limited view of the sky, resulting in "reduced situational awareness," according to the report. (Full Story)

The British inspectors also found that rules of engagement for the Patriot missile battery "were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft from being identified as an enemy missile."

The report said the crew had been trained to look for generic threats rather than specific Iraqi threats.

British investigators, unable to find the exact cause for why the jet was not signaling that it was a friendly aircraft, said it was most likely due to a "power supply failure" of which the crew was unaware.

The Patriot missile system was first used during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and was credited with a number of enemy missile shoot-downs. Later analysis found that the Patriots had actually missed most of their targets.

After several billion dollars worth of upgrades, the Patriots hit nine of nine incoming missiles during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, although one also hit a U.S. Navy F-18, killing its pilot. That incident is still under investigation.

U.S. Army officials said they are asking Congress for $43 million in the Defense Department's fiscal year 2005 budget for Patriot upgrades and improvements, including fixing shortfalls identified in the system during the invasion of Iraq.

Edit: Fixed embedded hyperlink

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]The British inspectors also found that rules of engagement for the Patriot missile battery "were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft from being identified as an enemy missile."

Ignorant as i am of all the facts nonetheless that sounds fairly serious.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

though it seems the previous quote may be derived from this quote from the embedded hyperlink

Quote[/b] ]"not sufficiently robust to prevent a friendly aircraft without a functioning IFF system being classified as an anti-radiation missile."

Which somewhat qualifies it with the apparent necessity for the IFF to have failed. (Nice of CNN to simply things like this for me, so that i dont have to think).

[Baphomet 0]

I can't wait for them to clear the pilots involved in tossing a missile into that wedding party...

I mean really.

Just when I felt a tinge of outrage about unfair treatment for us westerners/white/non muslims from terrorists... The U.S does something like that.

Sheezus H, monocle-wearing Christ.

Not that I don't feel for the plight of Iraqis. I do really, however I'm on average more critical of the actions of my own nation and it's neighbors/allies. So it was quite a switch to feel the way I did about Nick Berg.

First the Abu Ghraib incident and now a family gathering busted up by a hellfire or two...

[Badgerboy 0]

Here is the official civilian friendly report.

And here's some other titbits

Quote[/b] ]If the Tornado was in fact at 10 to 15 miles range (as well as at 17,000 feet - according to the RAF report), then this indicates that a subsonic air-supported vehicle was mis-classified as a supersonic homing missile. If this was the case, the Army needs to explain how a subsonic aircraft following pre-established flight-approach rules could possibly have been mis-classified as an anti-radiation missile by the Patriot's artificial intelligence software. The Army also needs to explain why the Patriot Unit was allowed to operate autonomously when it could not directly communicate with its Battalion headquarters, and why the unit was allowed to engage any target under these inherently unsafe conditions of operations.

Quote[/b] ]A careful reading of the RAF Report indicates that the Patriot Fire Unit did not have its imbedded data recorder operating during the shoot-down of the Tornado, which basically means that there is no reliable information about what the Patriot operators saw and how they responded. It is not even clear to me that the IFF Mode 4 on the Tornado failed, as we do not have recorded data from the Patriot unit and can therefore not be certain that the Tornado was properly interrogated as claimed by the Patriot operators.

[Badgerboy 0]

Sorry to drag this back up, but people might find this interesting

Quote[/b] ]Patriot 'Blue-on-Blue': the plot thickens

By Lester Haines

Published Tuesday 6th July 2004 11:03 GMT

CBS-11's Robert Riggs - the embedded journalist who witnessed first-hand the shambolic operations of the Patriot missile during the last Gulf War - has fuelled the continuing controversy surrounding the "Blue-on-Blue" incident, which saw the high-tech projectile bring down an RAF Tornado.

Rigg's latest report suggests that the Patriot system had persistently failed in correctly identifying hostile targets. Significantly, it reveals that there was a false missile firing incident just hours before the Tornado met its end. Furthermore, it contains evidence that Patriot's failings are being ignored, or even covered up, to protect several big-bucks contracts to supply the system to foreign governments.

On 22 March 2003, the Tornado - crewed by Flt Lt Kevin Main and Flt Lt David Williams - returned from a sortie over Iraq. The Patriot system identified the aircraft as a hostile anti-radiation missile and duly brought it down, killing both crew members.

The subsequent Ministry of Defence report (PDF) concluded that the tragedy was due to a combination of factors:

The Patriot Battery crew were monitoring for Iraqi Tactical Ballistic Missiles when [Tornado] ZG710 was tracked by their system. The symbol which appeared on their radar indicated that an Anti-Radiation Missile was coming directly towards them. The track was interrogated for IFF [identification friend or foe] but there was no response. Having met all classification criteria, the Patriot crew launched the missile, and the Tornado, mistaken for an "Anti-Radiation Missile", was engaged in self-defence. The Patriot crew had complied with extant self-defence Rules of Engagement for dealing with Anti-Radiation Missiles.

Regarding the Patriot battery's crew, the report notes:

Patriot crews are trained to react quickly, engage early and to trust the Patriot system. If the crew had delayed firing, ZG710 would probably have been reclassified as its flight path changed. The crew had about one minute to decide whether to engage. The crew were fully trained, but their training had focused on recognising generic threats rather than on those that were specific to Iraq or on identifying false alarms. The Board concluded that both Patriot firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident.

It's worth comparing this analysis with Rigg's original account of what was really happening on the ground:

This was like a bad science fiction movie in which the computer starts creating false targets. And you have the operators of the system wondering is this a figment of a computer's imagination or is this real.

They were seeing what were called spurious targets that were identified as incoming tactical ballistic missiles. Sometimes, they didn't exist at all in time and space. Other times, they were identifying friendly U.S. aircraft as incoming TBMs.

We were in one of the command posts. And I walked in and all the operators and officers are focused intently on their screens. And so you know something's going on here. And suddenly the door flies open, and a Raytheon tech representative runs in and says, 'Don't shoot! Don't shoot!' Well, that got our attention real quick.

In the end, though, it was the Patriot system itself - and not the crews - which were the root cause of the anarchy, as CBS now reveals:

Spurious "ghost" missile tracks showed up on Patriot Missile battery radars hundreds of times before and during the invasion, causing chaos and confusion as soldiers struggled to determine the real from the false.

Soldiers operating the multi-billion systems had only malfunctioning cell phones with which to communicate with other batteries in often-futile efforts to learn whether targets were real. CBS-11's embedded reporter, Robert Riggs, witnessed periods in which missile battery personnel had no communications with air controllers.

Military sources now suggest that the problem of ghost tracks has still not be resolved. According to CBS: "During training conducted in Yuma, Arizona three months ago the Patriot radar continued to produce false targets in exercises against Marine aircraft."

Joseph Cirincione, a former congressional investigator who led an inquiry of the Patriot's performance during the first Gulf War, said: "This is inexcusable that this problem has not been fixed." He concludes that "military officials are loath to say anything that might threaten Raytheon's sales of the system abroad".

Despite CBS's dogged pursuit of the facts, the US Army has yet to acknowledge any problem with the Patriot system. When confronted with the latest evidence, Patriot manufacturer Raytheon referred CBS to the Army, which declined to comment.

CBS has, nevertheless, obtained declassified material which - although heavily censored - makes reference to the false firing incident which occurred just 12 hours before the Tornado was downed, during which a Patriot battery "auto engaged a spurious track. Missile fired before they could override".

Victoria Samson of the Center For Defense Information - described as "an independent defense department watchdog group" - is quoted as saying that the Army is "trying to blame the friendly fire incidents on anything but the Patriot missile defense system. The technology seems to be sacrosanct. The people not so much."

And the reasons for this are simple enough, according to Cirincione. There are "billions of dollars on the line in overseas sales. The last thing you want to do is tell Saudi Arabia or Taiwan or Japan that there is something wrong with the system." ®

Linkage

Why has nothing been done about this systems failings? Its been underachieving since 1991, and its still a liability.

[theavonlady 2]

From what I've heard over here, the Patriot systems have been overhauled a few times over since 1991. The ones in place today are not the same shmattahs (Yiddish for rags ) that they were in the past.

That doesn't mean that they're great. It means that they're improved.

Was there anything better, as of last year, to put in the Patriot's place?

And if they're still not perfect - and that's what I've understood - accidents like this are going to happen.

And if they've sent the Patriot system back to the drawing board, you're most likely not going to hear about why and what's being done until they roll out the next version.

That article makes me want to post another tin foil hat pic but Placebo's blood pressure is acting up, so I'll restrain myself.

[Badgerboy 0]

I believe the current version is the PAC3.

Quote[/b] ]Was there anything better, as of last year, to put in the Patriot's place?

And if they're still not perfect - and that's what I've understood - accidents like this are going to happen.

It is a very capable SAM system, one of the best. However it is being used in situations it can't possibly be effective. It did sod all in the last Gulf war, and its looking like it didn't get anywhere near the kills claimed in the recent conflict.

And no its not perfect, its bloody awful. Its being used for a task it was never designed for, and backed up by a shoddy support system that is going to end in more accidents.

If the support and tracking side of the issue could be fixed, it would be safe to operate in the field. At the moment, it a liability to everyone.

[theavonlady 2]

If the support and tracking side of the issue could be fixed, it would be safe to operate in the field. At the moment, it a liability to everyone.

Yes. I'm not disgareeing with those points.

I just wonder had Saddam had to 30 something remaining launchers they said he had (and Iraq did have and use those home grown and some Chinese missiles), what might the potential results have been with no Patriot systems at all?

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]I can't wait for them to clear the pilots involved in tossing a missile into that wedding party...

Show me a solid article that this actually happened. There were many more reports saying that there wasn't a wedding at all, and that the explosion was caused by an insurgent IED.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The British inspectors also found that rules of engagement for the Patriot missile battery "were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft from being identified as an enemy missile."

Ignorant as i am of all the facts nonetheless that sounds fairly serious.

A war is the only and first time a military infrastructure can be tested. A lot of mistakes and risks can be eliminated beforehand by creating the right Standard Operating Procedures and improving communicational tools but in the end a soldier needs "WAR" experience to properly handle his machinery. At the beginning of world war II many of those FF errors occured and it took a lot of casualties untill the military was action-experienced enough to prevent those from happening.

Learning by making error is a normal component of the learning curve in any job, but in the military it unfortunately costs lifes.

We can say the Americans are too stupid to handle the guns they build but in the end every nations would have made the same errors. We are all lacking real war-experience since decades. The russians in WWII didnt even bother learning from it, they had enough man-power and a FF incident was too unimportant to try to change it.

[bn880 5]

One thing I can say is that I don't believe any US soldiers fired on friendlies knowingly, so I would say it is impossible to charge them criminally. However there are still extreme issues with FF, most likely hinged upon bad training/procedures.

[theavonlady 2]

One thing I can say is that I don't believe any US soldiers fired on friendlies knowingly, so I would say it is impossible to charge them criminally.

No but there could be procedural or manufacturer's negligence. I doubt the latter as I'm sure the company's (Raytheon? ) legal team would have put the appropriate clauses in the contracts to avoid such liability.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Show me a solid article that this actually happened. There were many more reports saying that there wasn't a wedding at all, and that the explosion was caused by an insurgent IED.

I´ve seen both videos, the wedding video and the video of the deads the day after. You could clearly identify some of the musicians who were playing at the wedding on the other video.

It was a wedding, nothing else.

Guardian article

Hope this sorts your mind.

[drow 0]

If history shows us anything, its that the US can get out of anything, bombing Allies... nothing new to the US Military.