It was bound to happen sooner or later

[Tovarish 0]

Story here

[Longinius 1]

Friendly fire isn't.

[Supah 0]

I just saw it on the news. But in an operation this size this was bound to happen. Ill leave the "Its the american way" comments to others. Friendly fire is a ever present risk and as the US is the sole possessor of airpower there it would be difficult for this to happen to anyone else. Just showes how difficult CAS is. MB IFF (Identification friend or foe) for ground troups and armour? or would the radiotion caused by such a beacon be a hazard as it could cause cancer? Radar energy can cause cancer.

[USSoldier11B 0]

That really sucks.

I wouldn't mind taking one for the team like in Platoon when they dump nape right on the firebase becuase charlie is everywhere. But just to be waxed by mistake.....ugh!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ April 18 2002,08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Radar energy can cause cancer.<span id='postcolor'>

Try saying "you know, that radio is hazardous to your health" to a guy getting shot at.

[Supah 0]

True but then again the same could be said about agent orange or what ever the defoliant was called that was used in vietnam. Or the radar of the HAWK system the dutch army uses. It too causes cancer and though they may not care immediatly 10 years down the line when they find out the cant have kids they will care. The designers and planners who make these things DO have the capabillity to think about matters like this regarding equipment.

[Tovarish 0]

I just hope the government dosen't make another blunder on this one, I'm afraid they might use this as an example of why we should pull out of Afghanistan soon and why we don't need to spend more on the military. Pretty soon we won't have one left to speak of.

[Supah 0]

Your airforce is atleast better then the New Sealand one, that dimwit female prime minister just dismantled it. You guys atleast got some cool F-18's.

[Wobble 1]

"Neither U.S. nor Canadian officials had information about what caused the error. The countries plan a joint investigation."

"Henault said the area is recognized as a training area and the aircraft were using very strictly controlled routes"

well if this was a training area.. the AC were probably doing target bombing on a designated area..

so it is probably either

A: the troops strayed into the ACs target area

B: the planes targeted the wrong area.

so.. it was night time.. and the ac were following "strictly controlled routes" that means that the AC multiple nav and targeting computers had the target area programmed in and the pilots followed..

"Canadian Defense officials said their soldiers were on a nighttime training exercise about 10 miles south of their Kandahar base"

so did the planes coputer mess up and fly the plane to the wrong place and bomb the wrong place? or did a few troops lose their directing in the dark and stray into the wrong area..

it will be very very easy to see if the planes were in the wrong area.. as all training missions are recorded both in voice and nav (just like civ jets) but if it was the ground troops in the wrong area (soldiers in the dark) it will be harder to see where things go wrong..

eather way.. totally sucks...

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ April 18 2002,08:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your airforce is atleast better then the New Sealand one, that dimwit female prime minister just dismantled it. You guys atleast got some cool F-18's.<span id='postcolor'>

The majority of our F-18's are mothballed, the maintenance on them sucks. There was an incident were the rudder fell off one while in flight and when they checked the fleet a good number were corroding from the inside. There's a reason why our troops are the only ones wearing jungle cammo in Afghanistan, the government just dosen't spend on the military.

*edit* The few F-18's we sent to Bosnia had outdated radio equipment, so other allied AC had to switch from their encrypted radio channels to open radio channels to talk to them. That's pretty damn pathetic.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Unfortunately, shit happens (especially when explosives are involved, it seems). It would seem that the best way to operate is observe Murphys Laws, and assume the guy on the other end doesnt know shit about what hes doing.

That way, if he does his job right, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Lets see, the report says they were LGBs dropped from an F16, which would mean that the airplane wasnt designating its own target, it had a ground asset designating his target for him, right? that would mean that either their was a guidance failure in the bomb itself, or the people who were designating for the F16 royally screwed the pooch. The report doesnt say whether the Canadians were the group designating the target... if it wasnt, it may have been another group involved in the exercise, which wouldve received info downlinked from a recon source (UAV, Satellite, Human, etc) and either misinterpreted it, or received bad info. So anyways, the causes would have either been: Error in bomb's guidance (but it said 2 mightve been dropped... 2 failing at once is highly unlikely, but possible), Error in designating the target, or the Canadians had been too close to the target, or maybe the pilot just screwed up and made a bad drop.

[Wobble 1]

a 500 pound LGB is the smallest LGB I think.. but still you dont have to be too clode to one to get killed..

it says the ground troops were firing at "inert" targets.. so i guess the plane was aswell..

A good explination would be that the proper target WAS sighted and the bomb release WAS good.. but the bomb lost the laser earley in the flight.. that would allow it to drift up to a few hundred meters from its target .. coupule that with troops that have gotten a tad too close to the target area of the plane and the situation can be less than dandy really quick..

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The report doesnt say whether the Canadians were the group designating the target...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe our air force uses LGB's, so I think it's highly unlikely that the Canadians were designating the target

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 18 2002,08:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The report doesnt say whether the Canadians were the group designating the target...<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe our air force uses LGB's, so I think it's highly unlikely that the Canadians were designating the target<span id='postcolor'>

Well yeah, but if they were cross training with the US, I would imagine that some Canadian forces have received training in designating targets. After all, it was a US aircraft. And I dont think the Canadians would be too psyched about being part of a training op where an American team designates a target for an American plane to drop American bombs on.

[Wobble 1]

well the F-18 can designate its own targets.. either by manually scanning with the flir or by slaving it to the ground/sea/MAP radar.. so its possable the plane was designationg itself.. but as tex says.. it wouldent fit into the training mission real well..

all that would have to happen to REALLY get scred over would be for someone to accidently point the laser designator down.. or drop it.. then the bomb would fly right to them.. but I think if that had happened there would have been more the 4 casualtiis

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a 500 pound LGB is the smallest LGB I think.. but still you dont have to be too clode to one to get killed..

it says the ground troops were firing at "inert" targets.. so i guess the plane was aswell..

A good explination would be that the proper target WAS sighted and the bomb release WAS good.. but the bomb lost the laser earley in the flight.. that would allow it to drift up to a few hundred meters from its target .. coupule that with troops that have gotten a tad too close to the target area of the plane and the situation can be less than dandy really quick..<span id='postcolor'>

yeah, the 500 pounder is the smallest LGB.

That is a good explanation, but it couldve occurred in other ways also. Alot of Friendly Fire doesnt occur because the unit firing missed its intended target, but because they hit their target, it just turned out they were shooting up their own guys.

[Wobble 1]

I agree tex.. but the problem is these were GROUND troops.. not vehicles or tanks.. but just people.. planes dont drop LGBs on human targets.. (barring the cave plinking things but thats more of a bunker situation).. plus since it was training there was no change they though it was enemy troops..

if the plane was lasing for itself the polit could see exactly what he was dropping on (as weve seen on tv) but if he was slaved to a ground designator he wouldent get any more infor other than a heading and a count down to release.

but

[Aculaud 0]

All i can say is this war is F***ed!

I also heard we are dropping cluster bombs in close proximity to where we drop food parcels, and its not un common for children to get ahold of the bomblets believing that they contain food. Sometimes i think this whole war on terrorism is just a stunt to boost morale for the Bush administration. On the news, they were showing in detail, the weapons they were using on a large scale, smart bombs and whatnot, as if they were just trying to show off how buff our military is. Not to be anti-patriotic, but death happens every day in the rest of the world. Only in America does it make headlines.

[Wobble 1]

yup.. evil america is at it again    

poor ole bush isnt happy with having the highest approval rating in history (even pre sept-11th) so hes starting a war.. yup.. the WTC wasnt destroyed that was special effects..

"war is fucked"..

all wars are fucked.. thats what makes it war

I also heard we are dropping cluster bombs in close proximity to where we drop food parcels

well that shouldent be an issue seeing as how the talibanna convinced most folks that they were poiesned anyway..  and a bomblet doesent look much like a giant ornag box/package eather..

these people have grown up during the soviet occupation and spend their lives dodging landmines.. they are not idiots

now ignorant, dumbshit accusations aside..

I wonder if maby part of the wings on the bomb came off or something.. that would make it go swirling off like crazy.. long distance of varaition would be possable..

[Wobble 1]

also.. were the troops in fron of or behind the target in relation to the plane-target.. because its commin practice for a plane to delay dropping for a bit so that when released the bomb will dive at a steeper angle... but if it lost sight of the target it could fly a LONG way past the target ??

[Aculaud 0]

I meant this war is fucked as far as our involvment in it. Its almost like its just a show of force. In the first 8 or so weeks alone, over 3,700 civillians were confirmed dead. we've already dropped 3 (probably more now) sub nuclear bombs, all of which result in mushroom clouds, and have a considerable minimum safe distance. Our little campeign has caused nearly 70 percent of the people in three major cities to flee.

And P.S. the color of the bomblets and the color of the food packages are nearly the same.

[Wobble 1]

well any non-nuclear bomb is "sub-nuclear"

maby we shouldent have done anything then.. ya know.. just say "mr binladen.. please dont do that again, we know you hate us for who we are and what we stand for but please leave us alone" then said "mr taleban, sorry you harbor terrorists and starve your own people to death, and murder them for crimes such as learning, teaching and showing their face, please be nicer"

yea, great plan rocketman..

or better yet.. lets not use aircraft.. lets forgoe the greatist military advancments in history and just toss troops into meatgrinders like the soviets did during WW2... yea thats a great idea too.. hmm...

people get killed in war.. good bad, wrong guy right guy.. and the US tried to avoid this shit by asking the taleban to let us look for bin-laden in afghanistan.. bush gave them more then enough time to consider it and they basically told us "fuck you, he owns us" (which is more or less true) if those poor civs over there wanna point the finger at someone.. maby they should point them at the idiot leaders of their murdering thieving "goverment" who basically said "fuck you moron, come get us" to the world biggest superpower and then hid behind their own people as meat shields when they got what they asked..

yea the war is fucked.. its long overdue..

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,09:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also.. were the troops in fron of or behind the target in relation to the plane-target.. because its commin practice for a plane to delay dropping for a bit so that when released the bomb will dive at a steeper angle... but if it lost sight of the target it could fly a LONG way past the target  ??<span id='postcolor'>

Honestly Wobble, I dont know, and I doubt we will know... between the military trying to cover its ass and the press screwing things up, I doubt they will actually getting around to getting what actually happened written down.

And Acculaud, where exactly are you getting your information? We havent dropped anything near a tactical nuke in Afghanistan... and mushroom clouds are a surprisingly normal effect in explosions... just not nearly as large, bright, or distinctive as a nuclear device's mushroom cloud would be. 3,000+ civilians confirmed dead... not true. A number of 200 would be exaggerating.

[Aculaud 0]

Iv got my sources, which by the way, are actually objective, as a pose to CNN. Its an organization called the mourning commute. They're local

[Longinius 1]

"maby we shouldent have done anything then.. ya know.. just say "mr binladen.. please dont do that again, we know you hate us for who we are and what we stand for but please leave us alone" then said "mr taleban, sorry you harbor terrorists and starve your own people to death, and murder them for crimes such as learning, teaching and showing their face, please be nicer""

The US didnt go to Afghanistan to free the people there. That had nothing what so ever to do with it.

"A number of 200 would be exaggerating"

This number is far to low as there have been incidents reported with casualties close to 100 people.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html#appendix1

One professor who looked into it estimated around 3 000 killed civilians.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm