B-1B bomber "Blue on Blue" in Afghanistan 10jun2014...

[Stratofreighter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/world/asia/friendly-fire-strike-kills-5-special-operations-soldiers-in-afghanistan.html?hpw&rref=world :(

[Lonewolf_50]

The bomb doesn't know
If you're friend or foe
Danger Close and RoE
A thin shield made for thee.


Too thin it seems, in this case. :(

RIP, to our brothers in arms. :{
This scenario is every air-to-ground mission's worst nightmare. :(

[Boudreaux Bob]

Everything looks like a Nail when all you have is a Hammer!

Anyone care to argue the benefit of having A-10's giving Close Air Support rather than a Strategic Bomber?

The difference between that awesome Cannon raining HE rounds on the Attackers as compared to using GPS guided Bombs cannot be disputed.

If I was on the ground needing help I would want either an A-10 or AH-64 providing the help.

Perhaps we need to reassess the Mission, ROE's, and decide that this just isn't working and it is time to pack our Bags and come home!

[Cows getting bigger]

Doesn't it seem a bit contradictory that the war is (nearly) over and the coalition is still dropping bombs from strategic aircraft? :ouch:

[Robert Cooper]

The wrong tool for the job. The B-1B is not a CAS aircraft.

Bob C

[West Coast]

This is just horrible, plain and simple. I pray a proper investigation gets to the bottom and the root cause, be it systemic or human is identified.

Like it or not the Bone is a CAS aircraft, having filled this role extensively during the GWOT. This tragedy is just that and isn't a judgement on the aircraft in that role.

If fratricide is the determinant of effectiveness in role, then the A-10 shouldn't be flying CAS either.

Take the opportunity if possible to attend a combined arm exercise and watch the Bone at work and you'll like what you see. It's not a CAS platform in the same way the A-10 conducts its business, but it has its place.

The early reports I've read is that this was a mis ID and not an improperly delivered munition.

[JustT]

Firstly my condolences to the family and friends of those who died in this incident.

CGB
The use of a strategic asset with zero in-country basing requirement during a period of reducing footprint seems sensible to me.

West Coast
I agree.

As we all know “CAS is action by fixed- and rotary wing aircraft against hostile targets, which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of friendly forces for fratricide avoidance and targeting guidance” (AP 3002). CAS is a mission type; it is not a design attribute. If you want to get Orwellian, all attack aircraft have CAS capability but some are more CAS capable than others.

[sandiego89]

Agree with West Coast. This trajedy is not an indictment on the war, the B-1, or the the crews in the air and on the ground. Things can and will go wrong, and we learn.

CAS has evolved and has come a long way from "drop 50 meters west of my smoke".

Agree that slower movers are sometimes best for troops in contact support, but we do not have those aircraft in direct support of every ground operation, or they can not get there in time for urgent retasking. The B-1 is not just a strategic platform, it has demonstrated it's ability to work with troops on the ground. Is it the best for every scenario? No. The B-1 also has tremendous time on station capability that other aircraft do not have.

[Boudreaux Bob]

I suppose we can argue about whether the B-1 is a CAS aircraft and that our current capability of dropping precision munitions is adequate, and that our ROE's are not un-necessarily endangering our Troops, but I would submit that we are continuing to fight a War with no real concern for the reality of the situation.

We are drawing down assets while we still have Troops in contact at very close quarters with a determined enemy which is growing stronger as we are are growing more and more unable to control the Battle Space.

It would seem we would maintain adequate CAS assets in country to grant sufficient assistance to the ground troops. That means helicopters, A-10's, and other Aircraft and Weapons Systems including Artillery so that all of our Ground forces can bring the maximum amount of Firepower onto the Enemy in a very timely manner should they elect to engage our Troops.

How much you want to bet there was no Artillery cover for these Troops?

How much you want to bet there were no Apaches able to promptly assist?

You reckon the investigation will address those kinds of issues or will they just look to see what immediate cause there was for this sad tragedy?

All we are doing now is "Running out the Clock"....and losing good men and women in the process.

[BOAC]

Quote "If that is 'friendly fire" I would hate to see the enemy's" Unquote

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

All we are doing now is "Running out the Clock"....and losing good men and women in the process.
...and to achieve what, exactly?
Given the rate at which Iraq is currently collapsing, anyone think the current Afghan regime will even manage 2 1/2 years?

[Cows getting bigger]

JustT, sorry for the confusion but my slightly cryptic point was that we appear to be on the way home without having achieved the desired end state, just like Iraq. The West seems to be making a habit of kicking some sand about, spending a few dollars, bringing some bodies home and then losing the political appetite to finish the job (whatever that job was).

One wonders where the interventionist merry-go-round will take us next?

[Danny42C]

The mortar smoke-bomb (smoke colour to taste) on target worked fine in Burma in '43/'44. Don't think there was ever a blue-on-blue with Vultee Vengeance operations.

Very occasionally a squaddie would get up too close to the action in his eagerness to start the mopping-up when we'd finished, and there was a "wild bomb", but that was just hard luck. :( RIP all.

D.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

RIP

Duncs:ok:

[knowitall]

Re the B1B as a CAS platform

An aircraft with the enough fuel to fly from one side of Afghanistan to the other at mach1+ if needed in an emergency is pretty useful.

as is one with enough fuel to hang around all day

and plenty of weaponry on board if required

it also has the same targeting pod as carried by the A10 and many other fast jet types

[Momoe]

Knowitall,

All your points are valid, however it's doubtful the B1's operating height was the same as the A-10's or RW assets.

Lot more confidence on the ground when you can see your CAS and advise your position (and the enemies) relative to the CAS.

Could still have been a rogue however.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Tell me about the Cannon, Rockets, and Missiles the B-1 carries will you?

[West Coast]

Not every CAS asset can be an A-10 Bob.

I for one am not trying to hold the Bone up as equal to the hog, specialist as compared to a generalist.
That said, when the hog is headed back to the tanker or is out of ordanance and doing show of force passes only, the jack of all trades B-1 is greatly appreciated.

[RAFEngO74to09]

For anyone who has not kept up to date with very recent upgrades:


Dateline Edwards - B-1 LCTP Phase II upgrade - YouTube


B-1 Lancer IBS Upgrade: A Historic Event - YouTube


Three-Star General tours upgraded B-1 at Dyess - YouTube

[500N]

That first video answers one of my questions, the manual entry of co-ordinates.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Westie,

The simple answer is there is a role for the Drones, B-1, F-16, F-15, A-10, AC-130, AH-64, and OH-58 and even the B-52 as well as organic Mortars and Big Bore Artillery.

If our brilliant military leadership and not so brilliant political leaders have limited the resources available to the Troops on the Ground to the extent they do not have full access to all of those choices then something is very wrong about that.

The War is not over until the last Ground Troop is safely on a large passenger airplane leaving the Area of Operations. Assuring their safety by overwhelming Fire Support should be maintained until that point.

The way things seem to be going in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, and Somalia, perhaps we might want to just declare Victory in the War on Terrorism and re-deploy our Forces to the Mexican Border.

We have had it proven to us repeatedly in the past month that even Three Year old Kids can enter the country illegally. What is to stop a determined Islamist Terrorist from doing the same thing?

We owe so much to our wonderfully incompetent President don't we?

[West Coast]

Bob

I truly understand your point. Problem is there isn't going to be a CAS specialist around 24/7. This especially so with certain types of ground ops.

I hate to sound like Rummy and say you go to war with the Air Force you have, not the one you want, but there's a reality to it that can't be denied.

There's advantages as well to the Bone doing CAS. Some far flung op in the dark continent, NEO or actionable info that puts boots on the ground in short order, the bone is overhead with no traditional AF CAS to be seen.

At this point we don't know that the same outcome would have differed with the A-10/other

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Anyone who knows what happened in this situation will appreciate that the same could have happened to an A10, F16, GR4, or any other aircraft in Afghanistan with the same type of weapons. It's nothing to do with the type, more to do with the actions.

[Lonewolf_50]

The wrong tool for the job. The B-1B is not a CAS aircraft.
Respectfully disagree.

Ten years ago, its shortcomings as such a platform were well known, but a 250 lb bomb (lase and GPS kits available) was in the works.

With the proper FAC/JFAC-to-Aircraft link and procedures, it does better than you might expect. But yeah, I"d rather an A-10 for a variety of reasons if it were me on the ground.

For Boudreaux Bob: some day, over a beer, I'll try to explain how CAS and airborne fires have evolved since Viet Nam. They have. Even the Marines like the new way of doing it.
Artillery is LESS ACCURATE and LESS PRECISE than air delivered munitions in the year of 2014.

Until then, cheers.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Does not "Less Accurate" but available trump "More Accurate" but not available?

My argument is all about having Supporting Fires "On Call" and available in a timely manner.

Nothing has changed since the concept of Combined Arms when it comes to having superior firepower at hand when it is needed by Troops in contact.

I fully understand Technology has greatly improved the Accuracy and Effectiveness, but that presupposes it being available and timely. Otherwise, the Grunts are out there throwing Copper Jacketed Lead Rocks at the Bad Guys who might just have a Tactical Advantage on them.

I know first hand what both situations feel like.

When the Good Guys showed up it changed the whole outlook on the Day's Activities.

It was Dumb Iron Bombs, Napalm, and 20MM Rounds in conjunction with 2.75 Inch Rockets and 7.62mm rounds from Helicopters but it allowed Watashie to be here to talk about it.

The presence of an Air Force FAC coordinating the support also aided in the process of getting help to us. We were all by ourselves for a few minutes until the Cavalry showed up but when they did it made a World of difference.

The Artillery was still beating the place up when all the Airplanes and Helicopters left for Happy Hour.

Timeliness was what mattered then as it does today. When your Butt is swinging in the Breeze it gets awfully windy.

[Lonewolf_50]

Bob, for engagements away from populated areas, yes, it's still pretty much the same.

For engagements in "urban terrain" and even in thinly populated areas like towns and rural communities, arty and mortars have too many downsides, many of them tied to what RoE seems to have as a template.

The concern for who is being hit by various fires all to often put the ground commander in a position where he can't call in a mortar or artillery mission. A ground commander was probably not as constrained in this way in Viet Nam, where you had up close and personal experience.

Welcome to the brave new world.

It's a different sort of :mad: sandwich to be an infantryman these days.

PS: "on call CAS" remains the wish of every ground commander on any square foot of turf. It is still a limited asset controlled by a higher HQ. That hasn't changed, except that there are probably fewer tubes and fewer aircraft available for that call.

Someone seems to have laid a little six sigma/lean on combat operations. :mad::mad::mad:

[West Coast]

Your post is correct and follows time old CAS traditions.

Problem is the new and splintering non traditional battlefield that allows for artillery and AH-? support isn't always the norm. With SF's playing a larger role further out ahead of the tail, assets like the B-1 come into their own.

[TURIN]

We owe so much to our wonderfully incompetent President don't we?

Which one?

The one that got you/us into it?

The ones that continued it?

Or the one trying to get you/us out of it?

:ugh:

[Boudreaux Bob]

Turin,

The current "One" sure seems bound to build upon his successes it would appear. The "One" could have snapped his Imperial Fingers and without consultation with Congress or his own Military and simply ordered it done just as he does on so many other occasions.

We are seeing the results of his good Thinking are we not?

Libya, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan all spring to mind of late.

Are you trying to suggest he has set the example for Leadership that your own leaders should imitate?

[GreenKnight121]

Anyone care to argue the benefit of having A-10's giving Close Air Support rather than a Strategic Bomber?

The difference between that awesome Cannon raining HE rounds on the Attackers as compared to using GPS guided Bombs cannot be disputed.

If I was on the ground needing help I would want either an A-10 or AH-64 providing the help.

Like the following examples of superior CAS by A-10s?
Desert Storm:
A-10 strafes U.S.Marine OP in Khafji (daytime) (4 dead)
A-10 Strafes U.S.Marine Convoy FOR 4 passes (daytime)
A-10 shoots U.S. Marine LAV with Maverick (daytime) 7 dead
Washingtonpost.com: Fog of War - Post Archive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/archive/post020391.htm) (I know a Marine who was with that unit at that time)
A-10 attacks British Marines convoy of Warrior vehicles (9 dead)

Iraqi Freedom:
A-10 attacks British Blues & Royals Warrior vehicles (daytime) (1 killed 5 wounded)
A-10 attacks U.S. Marine AAV (daytime) (up to 10 dead - 18 killed, some by Iraqis, some by A-10, and some by both. In the end only 1 was A-10 only, and that is the only "official" BoB fatality)
Friendly Fire Marred Iraq 'Battle' - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/friendly-fire-marred-iraq-battle/)
A-10s (2) attack NATO forces, killing 1 Canadian soldier


And these by AH-64s?
Desert Storm:
AH-64 (3) attacked 2 US Army vehicles, killing 2 and wounding 6
Operation Desert Storm: Apache Helicopter Fratricide Incident (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-OSI-93-4/html/GAOREPORTS-OSI-93-4.htm)

Afghanistan:
Of two helicopters called in to support operations by the British Grenadier Guards and Afghan forces in Helmand, the British WAH-64 engaged enemy forces, while the accompanying American AH-64D opened fire on the Grenadiers and Afghan troops.


And this by a RAF Harrier?
In Sangin Province, an RAF Harrier mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban on 20 August 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who in a leaked email called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan".


Anyone who knows what happened in this situation will appreciate that the same could have happened to an A10, F16, GR4, or any other aircraft in Afghanistan with the same type of weapons. It's nothing to do with the type, more to do with the actions.

Exactly - the list is long, and contains almost every aircraft type used.

[Boudreaux Bob]

You can add the two Blackhawks downed by the F-15 in Iraq too that list as well, and the Tornado whacked by the Patriot Misslie in Saudi and lots of other Blue on Blue incidents.

Technology has come a very long way since the Gulf War.

Marking the target and communication is the key and in these days making sure the GPS Coordinates being given and received are all correct, correctly entered.

It is never going to be a perfect science as there are too many things that can go wrong both on the human level and with the weapon systems employed.

By very definition CAS connotes a need for communication and a way to accurately fix the Target and the Friendlies.

Go down through that list and see how many failed those requirements.

[GreenKnight121]

And the point is, that when you look at the list of "friendly-fire" incidents, the A-10 leads with more incidents than any other platform.

Which is the exact opposite of what you were claiming in your earlier posts.

[Boudreaux Bob]

That is not what I said at all GK and you know it. I made no comparison of any aircraft when it comes to Friendly Fire incidents. That is your own doing and not mine at all.

I pointed out my personal choice would be the A-10, AH-64, and the AC-130 if I needed CAS as that is what they are designed to do and carry a greater choice of Weaponry.

The one similar event I recall occurred when the SpecOps guy changed batteries in his GPS and as a result incorrect Coordinates were passed to the Aircraft.

That could have happened no matter which aircraft was dropping the GPS guided Bomb.

I suggest an A-10 or AH-64 can deliver Cannon fire much closer to Friendlies than the B-1 can drop Bombs for no other reason than the Kill Radius of the Bomb compared to the Cannon Rounds.

[airsound]

Green Knight
In Sangin Province, an RAF Harrier mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy by 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban on 20 August 2006. This angered British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who in a leaked email called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan".The major no doubt had good reason for being a bit cross, and even for sending his intemperate email. But his account of strafing has to be called into some doubt, because the RAF Harriers in theatre at the time didn't carry guns. (Don't ask) But anyway, no one could have been 'strafed' by an aircraft without a gun.

airsound