Friendly Fire: US downs RAF Plane.

[Woof]

Had to happen sooner or later

A missing RAF aircraft returning from an operation in the Gulf may have been shot down by a US Patriot missile.
The Ministry of Defence said there was no immediate news of whether the crew survived and described them as missing.

Group Captain Al Lockwood, spokesman for British forces in the Gulf, told Sky News that evidence suggested the plane was engaged by a US Patriot missile battery in an apparent incident of so-called friendly fire.
He said: "We try hard to keep friendly fire incidents to a minimum and we'll be very keen to investigate this with our US colleagues to find out exactly what went wrong."
It is thought the plane came down in Kuwait but no details of the type of aircraft or its mission have been released.
A US official confirmed that a Patriot missile battery "may have engaged" the aircraft near the Kuwaiti border.
The incident was the latest to hit the estimated 45,000 British forces in the Gulf.
On Saturday, two British Royal Navy Sea King helicopters collided over the Gulf, killing the six British and one American.
The previous day, eight British Royal Marines and four American Marines died when their CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed before dawn in Kuwait.

SOURCE

[LHC]

Unconfirmed, but obviously true.

[Gayle29uk]

It gets worse...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...919832,00.html

[Deffeh]

i think the incidents speak for themselves. Please, no one jump in with the usual "stupid america" line, someone will report on the situation sooner or later

[LHC]

It was perhaps the pilots fault for flying in the wrong place.

[wu_trax]

is it just me or are there a little too many frindly fires / accidents in this war ?

[Judge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
is it just me or are there a little too many frindly fires / accidents in this war ?

What we have is an open and honest admission by the countries taking part in this campaign, a realisation that in the past, attempts to cover up FF incidents has led to even worse situations (politcally).

By definition FF incidents are not good, but to attempt to hide them is a lot worse.

[Sub]

Originally posted by wu_trax
is it just me or are there a little too many frindly fires / accidents in this war ?

Maybe it's a communist plot to try and destroy the UK army bit by bit.

[acousticset]

and people laughed at me when i said america ahd bad accuracy

[LHC]

If you ask me, that's very good accuracy.

[Judge]

Originally posted by acousticset
and people laughed at me when i said america ahd bad accuracy

Accuarcy has noting to do with it.

They hit what they aimed at, the fact that they hit a "Friendly" is wholly due to human error, not a lack of accuracy.

[Woof]

Being open and up front is the point.
We've had three helicopters and one RAF plane downed by accident, and the accidental attacking of news reporters.
Probbaly, the allies are responsible for more allied deaths than the Iraqis are at the moment.

It can only get worse the closer the allies get to Baghdad.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Judge
What we have is an open and honest admission by the countries taking part in this campaign, a realisation that in the past, attempts to cover up FF incidents has led to even worse situations (politcally).

By definition FF incidents are not good, but to attempt to hide them is a lot worse.

-------------
Interestingly the first report came from Iraqis, saying that THEY had shot down an american plane. Is it likely that their intel is so good after days of getting their communications bashed, that they would know if an american plane was shot down by patriot missiles ? I think not.

The first coalition response(hours later) to the Iraqi claim was that all their planes were accounted for. Then they come later with the Friendly Fire theory.

Now, this smells of propaganda, "we must not let the Iraqis think they have a chance of shooting down anything".... It's all about building up an image of invulnerability, and no I do not fall for it.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Judge
What we have is an open and honest admission by the countries taking part in this campaign

That makes it then!

[Judge]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
-------------
Interestingly the first report came from Iraqis, saying that THEY had shot down an american plane. Is it likely that their intel is so good after days of getting their communications bashed, that they would know if an american plane was shot down by patriot missiles ? I think not.

The first coalition response(hours later) to the Iraqi claim was that all their planes were accounted for. Then they come later with the Friendly Fire theory.

Now, this smells of propaganda, "we must not let the Iraqis think they have a chance of shooting down anything".... It's all about building up an image of invulnerability, and no I do not fall for it.

Does your Mother let you play with sharp objects?

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Judge
Does your Mother let you play with sharp objects?

--
Unlike you I do not live with my mother. Go back to propaganda class kid.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
--
Unlike you I do not live with my mother. Go back to propaganda class kid.

You have not got a clue have you?

Never mind dearie, one day they will let you out of that padded cell.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Judge
You have not got a clue have you?

Never mind dearie, one day they will let you out of that padded cell.

--
lol, except for calling names do you have anything else to contribute with Mr Genious ?

[Judge]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
--
lol, except for calling names do you have anything else to contribute with Mr Genious ?

Perhaps if you actually bothered to look.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Judge
What we have is an open and honest admission by the countries taking part in this campaign, a realisation that in the past, attempts to cover up FF incidents has led to even worse situations (politcally).

By definition FF incidents are not good, but to attempt to hide them is a lot worse.

---
Is this what you're referring to ?

Please explain to me how the Iraqis "accidentally" reported the downed plane BEFORE the coalition forces.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
-------------
Interestingly the first report came from Iraqis, saying that THEY had shot down an american plane. Is it likely that their intel is so good after days of getting their communications bashed, that they would know if an american plane was shot down by patriot missiles ? I think not.

The first coalition response(hours later) to the Iraqi claim was that all their planes were accounted for. Then they come later with the Friendly Fire theory.

Now, this smells of propaganda, "we must not let the Iraqis think they have a chance of shooting down anything".... It's all about building up an image of invulnerability, and no I do not fall for it.

my first thought aswell, this all sounds a lot better than casulties caused by the enemy...

[Ditcher]

Well, friendly fire anti-aircraft fire has been pilots worst fear since ww2. Nothing strange here......

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Ditcher
Well, friendly fire anti-aircraft fire has been pilots worst fear since ww2. Nothing strange here......

--
it's the timing that is strange. First the Iraqis say they shoot it down, then next the US cllaims friendly fire, how could the iraqs know if they hadn't done it themselves. It could be luck of propaganda,, but that seems unlikely.

[Nusselt]

well you see the patiot missiles are designed to shoot down r**head pilots, whereas british pilots wear a handkerchief tied with a knots at all four corners (it is hot in the desert after all), the patriot missile just got confused thats all.

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
--
Unlike you I do not live with my mother. Go back to propaganda class kid.

looooooooooooooooool


judge you lost man

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Woof
Being open and up front is the point.
We've had three helicopters and one RAF plane downed by accident, and the accidental attacking of news reporters.
Probbaly, the allies are responsible for more allied deaths than the Iraqis are at the moment.

It can only get worse the closer the allies get to Baghdad.

huh? are you stupid? One mechanical failure, two that COLLIDED, and some reporters moving into a fking hostile area like morons (nevermind that yesterday, the guy said he had been shot at by Iraqi's, I'm wondering exactly where he changed his mind).

As for the aircraft, we have to wait and see.

[Judge]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
looooooooooooooooool


judge you lost man

I dont think so,

I retorted quite eloquently, and more to the point Factually.

Whereas to suggest that a 46 Year old Grandfather is a Kid, and lives with his Mother, is not only stupid it is ignorant of the facts.

And just so all you f*ckwits get this straight, I am NOT an AMERICAN, although sometimes I am ashamed to be considered a European.

[Woof]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
huh? are you stupid? One mechanical failure, two that COLLIDED, and some reporters moving into a fking hostile area like morons (nevermind that yesterday, the guy said he had been shot at by Iraqi's, I'm wondering exactly where he changed his mind).

Err, no.
Just stating the facts thats all.
There have been three helicopters lost, and that's all i stated.
I never once implied they were lost in fighting.
Mechanical failure or combat losses, they still died, thats the point

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Place your bets now!
How many more allies will the yanks kill?

p.s Innocent Iraqi civilians do not count
p.p.s That grenade incident is not included.

my bet is another 3 dozen.

[Kurashima]

This topic is straying DANGEROUSLY off topic , and the Mod-Raid sirens have now begun sounding.

The danger of a closure should this continue to be a personal flamefest is now at Defcon 3.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Rick
Aside from being stupid your also completly wrong.

Patriot missles shoot down missles.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Rick
Aside from being stupid your also completly wrong.

Patriot missles shoot down missles.

Patriot Missiles will shoot down whatever theyre targetted at.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Kurashima
Patriot Missiles will shoot down whatever theyre targetted at. Ever seen the specs? They couldnt take out a Plane instantly on impact , but they would create enough damage to pretty much remove all chance of control from the pilot.

(Think "Shrapnel" in the air .... the patriot works by detonating and throwing multiple warheads into the path/vicinity of the missile , knowing it only needs 1 hit to destroy it .... now imagine flying a plane into that).

very few anti-air missles actually do impact the target by design. Thus they have larger warheads. The british Rapier system is much smaller than standard AA missiles, because it does impact a target. (in theory at least. It was crap in the falklands war)

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
very few anti-air missles actually do impact the target by design. Thus they have larger warheads. The british Rapier system is much smaller than standard AA missiles, because it does impact a target. (in theory at least. It was crap in the falklands war)

After reading up on the specs , i am not 100% sure on the shrapnel effects of a Patriot , hence ive removed the previous posts.

BTW , did you know that the Patriots had a distinctly poor performance record in the original gulf war, and shot down i think less than 30% of Iraqi scud missiles.

[wu_trax]

if i remember correctly from the last gulf war they said in the news these rockets were designed to be used against aircrafts and only updated to be used against missles. that was the explanation for the poor performance in the last gulf war. but then ts been 12 years and there will be a lot of technological advances.

[Structural Integrity]

I heard a brief explanation of the POSSIBLE cause of the incident yesterday in some Dutch TV program. The guy explaining was a Dutch military expert.
The patriot installation has the capability of running "automatically", shooting down everything that comes near it, except when the flying "object" identifies itself correctly. The guy assumed that either the patriots or the aircrafts identification system failed, and thus the patriot targetted and fired.

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Kurashima
After reading up on the specs , i am not 100% sure on the shrapnel effects of a Patriot , hence ive removed the previous posts.

BTW , did you know that the Patriots had a distinctly poor performance record in the original gulf war, and shot down i think less than 30% of Iraqi scud missiles.

yes, the patriot record was, and by all accounts, still is awful. It was never designed to shoot down scud type missiles.

The military and Raytheon, the missile's Massachusetts-based manufacturer, officially set the Patriot's success rate at 70 percent for Scuds launched at Saudi Arabia and 40 percent for those launched at Israel.

However, the Israelis say that no more than 2 percent of the Scuds launched at their country were intercepted, and the General Accounting Office, which conducted its own study, estimates overall effectiveness at 9 percent.

a quick look at this from google show's the original patriots were proximity based, but the recent versions are direct hit types. Which will have decreased their accuracy,

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
I heard a brief explanation of the POSSIBLE cause of the incident yesterday in some Dutch TV program. The guy explaining was a Dutch military expert.
The patriot installation has the capability of running "automatically", shooting down everything that comes near it, except when the flying "object" identifies itself correctly. The guy assumed that either the patriots or the aircrafts identification system failed, and thus the patriot targetted and fired.

your explanation seems very dodgy. No system in the world would EVER be run on automatic. However,

read this from an ex-raf pilot about how friendly aircraft and patriots interact.

i'd quote the relvant parts, but most of it is.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
your explanation seems very dodgy. No system in the world would EVER be run on automatic. However,

read this from an ex-raf pilot about how friendly aircraft and patriots interact.

i'd quote the relvant parts, but most of it is.

Once in friendly airspace, it would also have adopted a non-hostile flight profile, slow speed with lights on. A profile that no Iraqi Mig pilot would adopt if he managed to reach coalition territory.

The missile system would have been at the highest alert state ready to intercept Iraqi surface-to-surface missiles, potentially carrying chemical or biological agents.

It would have its own block of sky assigned to it, a Weapons Free Zone' (WFZ) that the Tornado crew would have known the whereabouts of.

The Patriot operator is at liberty to engage any target that enters his WFZ. It is possible that this could happen automatically. This is understandable if you consider the crew have only a very few seconds in which to decide and shoot at a Scud Missile before it lands.

It COULD be that the operator put the thing on auto to get some coffee . Perhaps it was on auto to target incoming scuds.
Then when the IFF of the tornado failed the patriot targetted and destroyed.
It seems a rational explanation to me, although I'm not sure why the hell they'd put it on auto as you can see those scuds coming from the other side of the country.
I can't believe that the operator would've shot it down, as the article states that he had PLENTY of time to validate the target.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
It COULD be that the operator put the thing on auto to get some coffee . Perhaps it was on auto to target incoming scuds.
Then when the IFF of the tornado failed the patriot targetted and destroyed.
It seems a rational explanation to me, although I'm not sure why the hell they'd put it on auto as you can see those scuds coming from the other side of the country.
I can't believe that the operator would've shot it down, as the article states that he had PLENTY of time to validate the target.

I believe from talking to operators of Airfield Protection Systems, that the auto-engagement is effectively a dead mans handle.

The operator has to apply positive presure to keep the system safe.
To activate the auto, he simply lets go, this is to ensure that in the event of the operator being killed, the system still works.

As to the Patriot System, I have no specific knowledge as the people I know operate UK systems not US, but I suspect it is similar, if not the same?

[Woof]

Sky reports that america has bombed a bus containing Syrians civvies fleeing Iraq.