Oops! F-16 Jet Fires On School

[FerretFangs 0]

Er guys, it was an accident. Most likely a weapon malfunction.

[Tovarish 0]

Er guys, it was an accident. Most likely a weapon malfunction.

Right...so the cannon just happened to go off as the F-16 was in a dive, pointed at a school?

Likely.

[-=BT=- Matty R 0]

lol 7000 feet and at night.. with a cannon.. hes bound to miss.. unless he was using laser target..

[hardrock 1]

lol 7000 feet and at night.. with a cannon.. hes bound to miss.. unless he was using laser target..

uhm ... so what in a war where he has to attack an enemy tank platoon that's threatening their troops at night? is he bound to miss and hit some slums 3 miles away?

I think they're trained to do that, so IMO he shouldn't miss if he's practisizing just 3 miles away from populated area

[dabitup 0]

Just be glad it wasn't a AGM-65 (correct?) MAverick.....oh god.....or a 500 IB GBU LGB!

But accidents happen.....you know what? maybe he was decending and then do a bank to the correct heading, and accidentaly squeezed off a few rounds.

EDIT: maybe he is trigger happy and can't stand flying a few miles without shotting his main cannon like me

[havocsquad 0]

I agree with hardrock, there is no room for screwups in an area filled with filled with civilians over densely populated areas.

He should have followed proper flight weapon arming procedures.

During peace time, training, and Red Flag:  Verify Master Arm is OFF

1.  Turn Master arm on when you are confirmed "Fence In", in enemy terroritory or over training grounds airspace.

2.  Coordinate and verify nav position with tower or AWACS

3.  Verify ground target coordinates with tower, AWACS, or FAC.

4.  estabolish radar lock or FLIR lock on ground target

5.  Follow flight attack plan (How you intend to approach and attack the target.)

   -  This can vary based on possible airborne or ground defense threats, and the type of attack approach.

6.  Attack the right target.

7.  Gaze and gloat shortly about destruction done to target.

8.  Egress out.

9.  Land.

[shinRaiden 0]

The news reports were saying that this was initiated over a training range that used to be in an isolated rural area, but has now been built up and suburbs stacked up to the fence line.

But to echo Havocsquad and others there seems to have been some lack of proper proceedural diligence, we'll just have to wait for the report.

[Akira 0]

Presently taking a course in Flight Physiology, it is possible that he was under some form of spatial disorientation or illusion, that took him 3 miles of course....especially at night.

But damn you'd think the Air Force would have properly trained IFR pilots! With all the gadgetry and GPS capabilities plus ATC contact one would think SOMEONE would say...hmmm...he isn't where he is suppose to be.

[FSPilot 0]

FSPilot, our training mistakes usually lead in the pilot being killed or at least ejecting thus grounded.

Yeah so do ours. You make it sound like (and the media makes it seem like) we're out there blowing up schools every day, that's just not true.

Also bear in mind that most countries don't train nearly as much as we do. Because we've got so much more activity we're bound to have more mistakes.

[Jinef 2]

Your not blowing up schools everyday. I'm sure there are exceptions on the sabbath.

Oh and we train and deploy regularly. UK forces are actively deployed in over 15 countries around the world at any one time. We just iron out mistakes and glitches before we give our pilots their wings.

I have seen US units do cross training with us and they are nowhere near the standard of our pilots. US forces rely on technology and computers instead of personal ability. Ever fly the training routes of valley and you will see the difference between our training and flying at 25,000 feet over the Nevada desert.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]You make it sound like (and the media makes it seem like) we're out there blowing up schools every day, that's just not true.

Anyone trained enough to fly an F-16 shouldn't blow up a school anyway! Or be 3 miles off target!

There are serious training issues the US military needs to address, since Desert Storm on...

[FSPilot 0]

Oh and we train and deploy regularly. UK forces are actively deployed in over 15 countries around the world at any one time. We just iron out mistakes and glitches before we give our pilots their wings.

You also don't do half of the work that the US military does.  If you had to do all the missions that the US military flies I'm confident you'd see an increase in mishaps too.

I have seen US units do cross training with us and they are nowhere near the standard of our pilots. US forces rely on technology and computers instead of personal ability. Ever fly the training routes of valley and you will see the difference between our training and flying at 25,000 feet over the Nevada desert.

Judging by this I'd say you've never flown with any US pilots.  US forces don't rely on technology any more than any foreign forces do.  They use it, they don't rely on it.  Hell some of our guys still train in celestial navigation.  The fact that you think that the only routes they fly are at 25,000 feet over the desert makes me question your credentials.  I could point out hundreds of MTRs that weave through hazardous terrain at low altitude.

[dabitup 0]

Quote[/b] ]You also don't do half of the work that the US military does. If you had to do all the missions that the US military flies I'm confident you'd see an increase in mishaps too.

THANKYOU!!!

Quote[/b] ]Yeah so do ours. You make it sound like (and the media makes it seem like) we're out there blowing up schools every day, that's just not true.

Also bear in mind that most countries don't train nearly as much as we do. Because we've got so much more activity we're bound to have more mistakes.

TRUE!!

Quote[/b] ]Judging by this I'd say you've never flown with any US pilots. US forces don't rely on technology any more than any foreign forces do. They use it, they don't rely on it. Hell some of our guys still train in celestial navigation. The fact that you think that the only routes they fly are at 25,000 feet over the desert makes me question your credentials. I could point out hundreds of MTRs that weave through hazardous terrain at low altitude.

You guys should listen to FSpilot. He is right.

[Jinef 2]

Ok, i'll take your word for it as I know you speak the truth. It's just the minority that destroys your reputation. You should just cut your reserve units out of the equation, all they do is waste money and fuck up.

National guard units generally cause the British military forces more grief than the enemy whenever working with the Americans.

You are wrong on some things though, you will find out soon enough though.

You would be suprised by the extent of the UK forces actually.

We will find out who screws up things next,

RAF

USAF

USAF national guard

As I definitely find a distinction between them.

The best US Aviators in my opinion on a general basis are the Narines and the Navy. Also a few national guard units who fly SAR are ok, they seemed a bit overconfident in their HH 60s but also knew their shit and their environment well, most were skiers or hikers and that counts for a lot.

[havocsquad 0]

Don't forget the top USAF F-15C squadrons, well what's left of them now anyways.

Those pilots are the best of the best in air-to-air combat ops for the US, period. Not the Navy or Marines come close to these guys.

One of the few areas of the USAF which is still in good shape.

[denoir 0]

Yeah, the USAF has got a pretty bad rep these days with various FF kills, bombing weddings, Go-Go pills etc

A part of it has certainly to do as FSPilot says with the large number of missions. I think however that there's a certain "shoot first, ask questions later" culture.

[SPQR 0]

I think however that there's a certain "shoot first, ask questions later" culture.

Others would have said Self-Defence...

Nevertheless, piloting by night is already a tough task, strafing making pilots fly low (more dangerous at night) isn't helping much. And having a suburb so near from a live-fire area chill me a bit.

Moreover, the good new is that nobody was hurt and this is the most important. Better an empty school hit than a neighbour house full of people...

Asking myself a question about surrounding suburban lights ? Were they none so the pilot couldn't see much about the living area and flight route error ?

[FSPilot 0]

You should just cut your reserve units out of the equation, all they do is waste money and fuck up.

I don't think they should be cut out of the equation, they should probably just be removed from combat. At least not until they're as proficient as the regulars.

You would be suprised by the extent of the UK forces actually.

I probably would, but I know that they're not nearly as involved around the world as the US is. Not in terms of manpower at least.

[nolips71 0]

listening to yanks go on like this never ceases to be amusing

[somebloke 0]

Hmmm.....School or target, school or target...Oh wait School is Target *gunfire*.

I wonder if he was having a coffee while flying the aircraft, that would explain it a bit more.

Manpower is nothing compared to skill.

I doubt many USAF pilots have charged down RAF valley, narrowly avoiding mountains and hikers, in thick fog, while it's raining, in a BAe Hawk.

I used to go campin in the valley area, bloody good fun watchin the planes doing all sorts of crazy low level flying things.

[FSPilot 0]

Hmmm.....School or target, school or target...Oh wait School is Target *gunfire*.

I wonder if he was having a coffee while flying the aircraft, that would explain it a bit more.

Manpower is nothing compared to skill.

I doubt many USAF pilots have charged down RAF valley, narrowly avoiding mountains and hikers, in thick fog, while it's raining, in a BAe Hawk.

I used to go campin in the valley area, bloody good fun watchin the planes doing all sorts of crazy low level flying things.

Low level high speed training is part of any USAF or USN fighter pilot's training.

And since when did flying low at high speed have anything to do with friendly fire or accuracy? Just because a pilot can fly low doesn't mean he's going to hit his target, or that he's a "good" pilot in the first place.

Maybe some of you should look into flying planes before you start criticising pilots?

[Acecombat 0]

Low flying is being brought up as an issue because it requires skills , you can roam up in sky without having to fear that you'd clip your wings with something. And firing missiles isnt that skillful a task .... *radar buzz ..lock* , press button ... *boom* hurrah  

[somebloke 0]

My point was that if the USAF has the skill to fly at low level, surely it would have the skill to engage a ground target with a cannon, accurately and not a school.

[Jinef 2]

Guys, the RAF low level flying training is just mandatory as in today's theatre of operations the RAF needs to deliver ordnance accurately in areas of high anti aircraft and surface to air missile threat. Thus all we see on the ground in North Wales is RAF fighters flying low, however they are actually practicing attacking targets and avoiding missile radars. A typical training mission will involve having two flights attack the same target from 2 different directions, one flight will tear down a valley to the target and simulate dropping anti material bombs to subdue infantry and AA, the next flight has to time it's attack within a margin of 5 seconds to avoid the blast of the other's weapons and hit the target at the prescribed time. They are learning mission management and how important timing is.

FSPilot is correct, the UK has nowhere near the manpower of the United States, obviously.

However during the Bosnian conflict and both Gulf wars British aircraft have failed to destroy a single civilian target that I or the media knows of. This is because we employ our aircraft and pilots in a higher risk environment as to avoid civvie casualties.

We have more pilots killed this way yet pilots are more expendable than civilians, pilots are operators of war machines whose job is to kill and get killed. Civilians are usually not responsible for the situation thrust upon them and should not be blamed by having bombs dropped on them.

I severely doubt the many of the Americans here share this attitude. They probably see their pilots as higher beings and would gladly ignore whether they have killed a few civilians or not.

About the top F15 squadrons, the have some bloody excellent pilots among them. I know a F3 pilot who has been on red flag and he was impressed. We still usually beat you though

@Somebloke -

It's not skill at flying, it's not very difficult, you just need to keep focused and not lose orientation. The worst thing that can happen is (especially on long flights, e.g. Tornadoes in the first gulf war were flying nap of the earth for a few hours at a time) you to get almost mesmerised by the ground flying under you, 2 seconds of that and your dead. Just try holding your intense concentration for more than 40 minutes, not easy.

The biggest problem is situational awareness, some of the RAF exercises will involve on having interceptors try to sneak up on students and instructors in their training aircraft and see how long it takes before he notices, usually on first attempt it's when the F3 or whatever blasts over head full reheat scaring the student to shit and making the instructor laugh like a lunatic ....

You need to know what is going on, if you don't then likelihood is you are going to fuck up and do the wrong thing. Such as blow up a friendly position that is dug in 600m away from the enemy

your supposed to engage. Very easy to do. How many times do you when playing flight simulators just skip the background info and intel and just go straight to the plan? I'm reckoning that's what the NG units do for real.

[nolips71 0]

here here