US Navy Shooting down an Iran Airbus

[Founder]

I saw a tv program on National Geographic yesterday about a US Navy warship that shoot down an Iranian Airbus in the persian gulf. The main reason for the shootdown was lack of contact between the aircraft and the warship. The navy ship wasn't even equipped with a radio that could communcate on the civilian frequencies...

One thing that baffled me was that they were broadcasting warnings to the airbus on a military frequency, how dumb can you get? Do they actually belive that all civilian aircrafts are monitoring military frequencies...?

3/10 warnings were transmitted on the civilian emergency frequency but they never told anyone which aircraft they were talking to, only the speed and heading which of course was GS...

This was in 1988, is it still like that or did the navy learn something from this experience?

[john_tullamarine]

I think, first, that you should pay less attention to the detail of a TV documentary and read an authoritative report on the incident.

It was a whole lot more complex a situation than what you are relating in your post. Certainly there were mistakes made on the ship and lessons learned .. but it was not a cool, calm and laid back set of circumstances and there was mucho stress in the air ... a very good example of the man-machine interface and HF problems associated with high stress and high workload in the midst of carry over thoughts from a then-recent incident where a sister vessel had been significantly damaged by a inadequately defended air to surface attack.

Add to this the aircrew's presumably being a tad complacent and possibly not looking after their own SA as best they might have done.

Keep in mind that a TV doco brief does not necessarily seek to present a balanced view of the formal investigation but may, in fact, put an editorial spin on the whole thing.

[vapilot2004]

The USS Vincennes - and Iran Air flight 655 - very sad loss.

The USN was in the Persian Gulf protecting Kuwaiti tankers from attacks. At the time of the missile strike on the Iran Air flight, the Vincennes was in a battle with several Iranian gunboats.

The USS Stark attack which killed 37 sailors was fresh in the commanders memories. The area was considered a war zone due to the deadly attacks on tankers and other traffic in the Gulf region.

Unfortunately for the Iran Air flights crew and passengers, the IFF aboard the Airbus A300 failed to respond to the ship's routine interrogations. The failure was documented by numerous radio and radar recordings on and off the Vincennes. The IFF system is designed to discern freindlies from possible threat aircraft.

In addition to the equipment failure aboard the doomed airliner, the Iran Air crew was apparently not monitoring the civilian emergency frequency when several calls went out with course and speed data. Guard frequency was also used in an attempt to ward off the fast approaching aircraft.

The airliner,off course about 4 miles west of the normal route by commercial air traffic was headed directly for the Vincennes. There were no AWACS aircraft aloft to assist with ID.

President Reagan stood behind the captains decision and while he was publicly 'saddened' by the loss, I don't believe there was ever a formal apology although I feel that there should have been despite the wartime posture of both countries.

Certainly not a happy story, but completely different situation than the Soviet attack that brought down a Korean Air flight.

[Founder]

Good point...

But still it amases me that they don't have the equipment onboard to communicate with civilian aircraft. There has been several incidents where civilian aircraft have wandered into different types of airspace and were shoot down. JAL over russia is a good example...

I did read the official report, the short one, and one thing that the tv cameras catched but not the captain was the navigations officer saying out loud that they were entering iranian waters... they were'nt even in international waters when the shoot down took place...

Sure there might be a lot of things happening at the same time with a lot of confusion, I've been such as well but when you start to loose a grip over the situtation like that captain did he should done what every IFR student knows, relax, think it over, take a step backwards and get a grip on the situation... and most important, double check your information...

The Swedish airforce has a saying, trust is good, controll is better... no one doublechecked the information that the captain recieved. This is called negligence...

I've worked in the Swedish airforce and it's interesting that we've got better communications equipment than the US Navy...

[Agaricus bisporus]

Founder, ir's good to see you watched through that documentary and came out with such a commendably balanced view of events (!); and even if you are susceptible to believing a documentary contains all the facts it is as well to actually consider them all, and not just those that suit your particular preconcieved bias.

The navy ship wasn't even equipped with a radio that could communcate on the civilian frequencies3/10 warnings were transmitted on the civilian emergency frequency. Oh dear, do make up your mind! Maybe they didnt have a full civ VHF set, but can you explain a situation that the USN might have anticipated prior to this when one would have been necessary? Talking to airliners is hardly within the normal remit of the USN.

Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!

Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Why off route in a war zone? Not on guard in a war zone? Now thats dumb!

How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be? And how would that have clarified the situation?

No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers or MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so cheerfully slagging off.)

it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a 300-life critical decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember: a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one. It just happened to be incorrect.



I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...

[Founder]

I'm not saying that this is the captains fault, of course he is in charge and has full responsibility BUT there must be a "system error" when procedures doesn't work...

As far as I know the civilian airbus was listening to the emergency frequency but since no identification was broadcasted like a transponder id, just a heading and a speed indication which in this case was 65 knots faster than the max airspeed of the aircraft that time...

There were a series of events which caused the shoot down, BUT again, why didn't anyone doublecheck the information. The radar control officer thought that he saw the aircraft descending when infact it was ascending, this was confirmed by the warships computer loggs... if someone would have double checked this info, those people onboard the aircraft would have survived the day and the captain would probably still be a captain today...

[Founder]

Founder, ir's good to see you watched through that documentary and came out with such a commendably balanced view of events (!); and even if you are susceptible to believing a documentary contains all the facts it is as well to actually consider them all, and not just those that suit your particular preconcieved bias.
. Oh dear, do make up your mind! Maybe they didnt have a full civ VHF set, but can you explain a situation that the USN might have anticipated prior to this when one would have been necessary? Talking to airliners is hardly within the normal remit of the USN.
Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!
Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Now thats dumb!
How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be?
No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers and MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so confidently slagging off.
it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember, as a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one.
I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...

First of all it was an F14, the iranian airforce doesn't have F-15's... Seccondly the Iran F-14A doesn't carry any Air-Surface weapons. It is a strict A-A combat aircraft... it's weaponery is limited to sparrows, sidewinders... And anyone who's ever had to deal with US military equipment knows that they are always checking that the weapons which they've sold are not used in any way so that it might hurt US interests.

The warship did have a capability to transmit on the civilian emergency frequency, but that's it...

What my country would be flying? I'm not even going to comment that...

And when it comes to identification, just saying the squak code which they had would have identified the aircraft and the aircraft would have known that they were talking to them..., all civilian ATC's knows this...

What does the wx radar have to do with this?

- "Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. " it did appear in the doc...

[vapilot2004]

There were a series of events which caused the shoot down, BUT again, why didn't anyone doublecheck the information.

No time - the non-responsive Airbus was shot down literally within seconds of reaching the airspace above the warship.

The radar control officer thought that he saw the aircraft descending when infact it was ascending, this was confirmed by the warships computer loggs..

Side scan radar was not availabe which would have given more accurate height data.

Oh,and WX radar is not something an enemy attacker radiates - another way to differientiate civ from military - had the Iran Air flight had the unit on (SOP ?), surely would have had a different outcome.

[gonso]

I am not going to get involved in the dispute here. Could somebody tell me though....why on earth the Captain and one of the officers of the Vincennes were commended with a medal???

On what grounds? Well, if it was indeed an F-14 I can see why they would be commended. I can also see why they were not charged with negligence and manslaughter. But a medal of high honour!!! For what?

They (in hindsight) screwed up. Yes, they had a very good excuse. Did they save the ship? From what? Blue ice? :confused:

[Founder]

No time - the non-responsive Airbus was shot down literally within seconds of reaching the airspace above the warship.
Side scan radar was not availabe which would have given more accurate height data.
Oh,and WX radar is not something an enemy attacker radiates - another way to differientiate civ from military - had the Iran Air flight had the unit on (SOP ?), surely would have had a different outcome.

I think that they had time, the radar officer started tracking the aircraft as soon as it took off from the airport, there was at least several minutes before the aircraft was shoot down. The warship made a formal request to shoot the aircraft down if it came within a 20 mile radious of the ship. The range of the weapons were 12 miles.

The weather radar would have been picked up, you've got that right...

but the fact is that you don't shoot at something which you don't know what it is... The main rule of combat, don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...

[morning mungrel]

You seem to have a lot of answers founder, especially for someone who wasn't there, and has watched a "documentary"of the incident. Ultimately, the crew of the Vincennes were incorrect. Did they know that at the time? How about you tell us all how much combat you've seen? How many times you been shot at? Thought so. Nice and easy to make your criticisms from you nice comfortable chair. They also have to live with their actions. Does that make it right? Of course not. As they say, "when you have walked a mile in their shoes"............The main rule of combat my friend is to be able to go home afterwards........

[Willie Everlearn]

USS Vincennes (CG 49) was decomissioned during a ceremony at Naval Base San Diego June 29, 2005, after 20 years of service to the U.S. Navy.

This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!

[Willie Everlearn]

Here's a link.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
The Captain's name was Will Rogers, not JP Jones. (sorry about that)

[Captain Airclues]

Posts such as the one by Agoricus bisporus make me realise why there will always be conflict in the world. However, while the 'military can do no wrong' brigade continue to vent their anger, it is important that more logical minds examine all of the facts so as to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Many lessons were learned from this incident and many have been acted upon. An example of this is the use of wx radar as an SOP, which was only introduced after this incident. However, as those of us who operate through this region know, some of the lessons have not been learned.
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues

[Founder]

You seem to have a lot of answers founder, especially for someone who wasn't there, and has watched a "documentary"of the incident. Ultimately, the crew of the Vincennes were incorrect. Did they know that at the time? How about you tell us all how much combat you've seen? How many times you been shot at? Thought so. Nice and easy to make your criticisms from you nice comfortable chair. They also have to live with their actions. Does that make it right? Of course not. As they say, "when you have walked a mile in their shoes"............The main rule of combat my friend is to be able to go home afterwards........

I've been shot at several times, but only during training... how about u?

I see that you dont know the rules of combat established by the Geneva Convention. First rule of war, you do only combat enemy soldiers. He is only a soldier if he is identified as hostile and is capable of causing you harm.

The main reason for me posting this thread as I wrote in the first post, have they learned anything, are there civilian radios onboad US warships today?

[Founder]

USS Vincennes (CG 49) was decomissioned during a ceremony at Naval Base San Diego June 29, 2005, after 20 years of service to the U.S. Navy.
This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!

This is what I wanted to know, how it is today... it seams nothings changed?

[Founder]

Posts such as the one by Agoricus bisporus make me realise why there will always be conflict in the world. However, while the 'military can do no wrong' brigade continue to vent their anger, it is important that more logical minds examine all of the facts so as to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Many lessons were learned from this incident and many have been acted upon. An example of this is the use of wx radar as an SOP, which was only introduced after this incident. However, as those of us who operate through this region know, some of the lessons have not been learned.
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues

Do you know any more detalis regarding what was changed after the incident and what may need to be changed?

Good post btw...

[Thunderball 2]

The following letter appeared in Flight International, 6 August 1988. Copied
without consent from the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
Volume 7: Issue 34
Friday 12 August 1988
"When I was a kid I was intrigued by an advertisement for a pair of
binoculars with which I would be able to see 'the craters of the moon' and
'France as if it was only a mile away'. I saved up and bought them, and
when they arrived they were, in fact, a rather nice pair of wide-angle
10*50s. I never saw France, but I certainly saw the craters on the moon.
The other day, from a vantage point on the South Downs, I thought I'd put
the old 10*50s to the test again. Visibility was okay, but there was a lot
of wind and fairly low cloud around. I looked in the general direction of
Gatwick Airport and after only a minute I saw the unmistakable profile of a
One-Eleven climbing out, smoking visibly. Then a slightly larger aircraft -
almost certainly a 737, a -200 I'd say, the engines were not big enough to
be a -300. These are some binoculars, I thought: even if France doesn't look
a mile away, at least Reigate Hill does.
Only a few minutes passed before a relatively huge shape climbed into the
air - an ex-BCal DC-10, the overall design of the livery clearly to be seen.
Not only was this a DC-10, and not a TriStar, but it was an ex-BCal '10. It
turned north soon after take-off, and flew away from home a while, and even
from this aspect it was definitely a '10. I watched it climb and turn,
disappearing into cloud and then reappearing again. Good sport this, I
thought, give me a clear day and I could follow a widebody all the way from,
er ... well ... Bandar Abbas?
Just a moment! What's going on? Am I really distiguishing between
near-identical wide-body aircraft from all aspects at almost *three times*
the slant range at which the captain of the USS Vincennes launched two
Standard missiles and destroyed an A300?
In disbelief I double-checked the scale of the map in the AA Book of the
Road. No doubt about it, these aircraft are well over 20 miles away, and
that '10 must have been 30 miles out when I lost sight of him. The Airbus
was only nine miles out, at 7500 feet on a clear day when the missiles were
fired. Okay, the A300 was motoring, but tell me which direction he was
coming from and with my 10*50s I reckon I'd have narrowed the field to a
757, 767 or an A300 before you could say 'F-14' - and certainly before he
got within nine miles.
I've never seen an RCA Aegis system advertised in Exchange and Mart but,
even if I do, I don't think I'll buy one.
[signed]

[vapilot2004]

The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF).

Actually all airliners carry an IFF responder - it's called a transponder and upon interrogation, will reply with it's squawk code. The difference between a military aircraft and a civilian airliner is that the military transponder response is encrypted and allows for secure ID of friendly craft.

Apologies, Cap Airclues, I did not mean to cloud the issue by referrring to the A300's transponder as an IFF per se, but it is an IFF compatible device - sans encryption.

The Iran Air's transponder did fail to reply to the Vincennes IFF interrogations.There are records on this.

The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed.

While I don't have the report in front of me at the moment, I would bet a dollar to a donut that the Vincennes RIO would have certainly mentioned speed and bearing in his calls.

Please enlighten me to any data to the contrary if you have a spare moment.

[Founder]

Actually all airliners carry an IFF responder - it's called a transponder and upon interrogation, will reply with it's squawk code. The difference between a military aircraft and a civilian airliner is that the military transponder response is encrypted and allows for secure ID of friendly craft.
Apologies, Cap Airclues, I did not mean to cloud the issue by referrring to the A300's transponder as an IFF per se, but it is an IFF compatible device - sans encryption.
The Iran Air's transponder did fail to reply to the Vincennes IFF interrogations.There are records on this.
While I don't have the report in front of me at the moment, I would bet a dollar to a donut that the Vincennes RIO would have certainly mentioned speed and bearing in his calls.
Please enlighten me to any data to the contrary if you have a spare moment.

He did mention speed but that was the ground speed of the aircraft and he did mention heading... however that's it...

[Thunderball 2]

...whatever, but the fact remains that someone on the bridge of the Vincennes should have picked up a pair of binoculars.

The video taken on the bridge at the time was widely shown a few years ago. Not the finest hour for the United States Navy. And a human tragedy on a huge scale.

[PAXboy]

I also saw the programme and there are two other points mentioned that might be germain to this discussion:
The civ a/c departed 30 mins (I think) behind schedule. When the Vincennes looked at the civ flight schedules, no a/c should have been there at that time. This became another small piece of the jigsaw building to the supposition that it was hostile.
The departing field is a mixed Civ + Mil. It appears that, the Vincennes radar op picked up a mil a/c on the ground and - through a mishandling of the roller ball (similar to computer mouse) held the mil a/c and this ID was confused with the civ a/c that then took off and was monitored.

In other words, like all disasters, this was a classic Swiss Cheese.

[morning mungrel]

As others have pointed out, this was a really good example of Reason's model. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, but given the information available to the captain at the time, and his responsibility for the ship and it's crew I find it very difficult to imagine that I or anyone else would have done differently. Maybe I was a little on the sarcastic side for you to really get my point.:confused:

[7gcbc]

...whatever, but the fact remains that someone on the bridge of the Vincennes should have picked up a pair of binoculars.
The video taken on the bridge at the time was widely shown a few years ago. Not the finest hour for the United States Navy. And a human tragedy on a huge scale.


bang on the money there thunderball, bang on.

awarding a medal is simply insulting, still with luck, we will all see the unravelling of the american machine sooner than later, they way they are going , and the quality of their deployments thus far , indicate that they are running out if ideas, skill and will power, sooner rather than later, and by the way can anyone speak chinese ?

oh, I'm really looking forward to that intrigue when it arrives.........NOT.

[vapilot2004]

awarding a medal is simply insulting

The Reagan administration followed the age-old 'in for a penny ........" on this one.
Slap in the face, innit ?

still with luck, we will all see the unravelling of the american machine sooner than later, they way they are going , and the quality of their deployments thus far , indicate that they are running out if ideas, skill and will power, sooner rather than later

Well I certainly hope that things will hold out at least until 2009 when we change our *cough* ruler. Oh, and it is probably best not to underestimate the quality and quantity of a nation's willpower.


Not the finest hour for the United States Navy. And a human tragedy on a huge scale.

Indeed. I don't think the USN is at all alone in the free world
(let alone any past tyrannical w o r l d s.)
when it comes to making deadly command decisions.

can anyone speak chinese ?


Ahh, talk is futile - only a properly timed bow will be required by then. :}

[vapilot2004]

Server went down as I was attempting to add this most important bit:

While it is best to probably not underestimate the quality and quantity of a nation's willpower, you can be sure that there are pretty good odds in overestimating the relative intelligence of the American electorate :uhoh:

And it is good to have friends in the world - G-d knows we need 'em. The next few decades are not going to be easy, considering where we are now.

[Captain Airclues]

Im afraid that I don't have time to read the USN report. However page 10 of the US Senate hearing (Sept 8th 1988) states that the AEGIS computer saw a Mode 3 squark of 6760, which was flight 655's assigned code, although the identification supervisor incorrectly reported it as 6675.
Also, on page 54 of the above report, Admiral Fogarty states that "Due to heavy pilot workload during take-off and climb-out and the requirement to communicate with both Approach Control and Teheran Center, the pilot of Iran Air flight 655 probably was not monitoring International Air Distress".
The exact wording of the radio transmissions are not given in the Senate report, only that warnings were given. However it did identify several technical problems with the radio equipment and the fact that simultaneous warnings from USS Sides could have garbled the transmission.
This was a classic case of a multitude of minor errors combining to cause an incident. It is the classic 'swiss cheese' scenario. Hopefully, if the military have an equivalent of our CRM courses then lessons will be learned so as to prevent this happening again.

Airclues

[Founder]

Does anyone know if they've installed civlian airband radios on USN ships?

[donpizmeov]

Yes Founder, USN warships do have VHF radios.

Don

[tug3]

Have seen the docu/dramas and read (summary of) report and content to draw own conclusions from those.

Spare a thought also for the souls on Clipper 103 and in the town of Lockerbie itself whose lives were undoubtedly lost in retaliation for the Vincennes' actions.

All for the sake of a very small scalp prior to heading into port.

How very sad...

Rgds
T3

[Founder]

Have seen the docu/dramas and read (summary of) report and content to draw own conclusions from those.

Spare a thought also for the souls on Clipper 103 and in the town of Lockerbie itself whose lives were undoubtedly lost in retaliation for the Vincennes' actions.

All for the sake of a very small scalp prior to heading into port.

How very sad...

Rgds
T3

I'm not familiar with Clipper 103 or Lockerbie, just what I've heard in the media, could you tell me at about them? How are they related to the Vincennes actions?

Best Regards
Tim

[tug3]

Tim

It is a commonly held belief, and one I personally subscribe to, that the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988 was an act of revenge for the downing of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes.

This being commissioned by Iranian intelligence services and executed through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, with involvement also on the part of Lybian intelligence services. (Ghaddaffi having had an adopted daughter killed during the USAF raids on Triploi in 1986 probably only too happy to assist).

Not wishing for the thread to drift, Google yourself and a few thousand hits will come up. Here is a link to just one:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/lock-j15.shtml

Rgds
T3

[DOJETDRIVER]

I'm not familiar with Clipper 103 or Lockerbie, just what I've heard in the media, could you tell me at about them? How are they related to the Vincennes actions?
Best Regards
Tim


You are not familiar with 103, only what you've heard in the media? If you are in Europe, HOW could you not be familiar with 103?

Only what you hear in the media. Wasn't this documetary about the Airbus shootdown a form of media?

[Founder]

You are not familiar with 103, only what you've heard in the media? If you are in Europe, HOW could you not be familiar with 103?
Only what you hear in the media. Wasn't this documetary about the Airbus shootdown a form of media?

I did read about the Airbus shootdown before I saw the documentary... But I havn't read anything about the 103... but I will =) You see I wasn't that old when these events took place...

[Founder]

Tim
It is a commonly held belief, and one I personally subscribe to, that the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988 was an act of revenge for the downing of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes.
This being commissioned by Iranian intelligence services and executed through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, with involvement also on the part of Lybian intelligence services. (Ghaddaffi having had an adopted daughter killed during the USAF raids on Triploi in 1986 probably only too happy to assist).
Not wishing for the thread to drift, Google yourself and a few thousand hits will come up. Here is a link to just one:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/lock-j15.shtml
Rgds
T3

Thanx for the info, it's interesting and I'll read more about it =)

Kind Regards
Tim

[Thunderball 2]

For pity's sake THE AIRCRAFT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY AND POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH 7 X 50 BINOCULARS. IT WAS A CLEAR DAY. SLANT RANGE AT INTERCEPT 7.5 MILES.

[PAXboy]

Indeed it might have been but: when you have a warship bristling with technology and you have great faith in that technology and have been trained that your entire job is to work through the technology and then the technology will bring you the enemy ... ? I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being.

Just an afterthought ... It seems as if this warship only had electronic lookouts. There may well have been 'manual' lookouts who had seen the civ a/c and would have been expecting that the guys down below would know about it and were preparing to strike a mil a/c. They might have been rather surprised when the civ got blasted.

[Founder]

Indeed it might have been but: when you have a warship bristling with technology and you have great faith in that technology and have been trained that your entire job is to work through the technology and then the technology will bring you the enemy ... ? I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being.
Just an afterthought ... It seems as if this warship only had electronic lookouts. There may well have been 'manual' lookouts who had seen the civ a/c and would have been expecting that the guys down below would know about it and were preparing to strike a mil a/c. They might have been rather surprised when the civ got blasted.

I counted at least 4 lookouts on the bridge from the offical navy film about the incident, but if the had a view of the area where the aircraft was I do not know...

[7gcbc]

For pity's sake THE AIRCRAFT COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY AND POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH 7 X 50 BINOCULARS. IT WAS A CLEAR DAY. SLANT RANGE AT INTERCEPT 7.5 MILES.


he has a point.


Indeed it might have been but: when you have a warship bristling with technology and you have great faith in that technology and have been trained that your entire job is to work through the technology and then the technology will bring you the enemy ... ? I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being.

perhaps further training is required ?

[Desertia]

I too saw the documentary, and if anything I thought it underplayed the pressure the Vincennes' crew was under; and also, the fact that US military in a hot zone are naturally trigger happy anyway.
Yes it was an unfortunate set of circumstances, and yes there are lessons to be learned from the incident, but to award medals to any of the people responsible is crass in the extreme.
As for it being linked to 103, I've never heard that version of events, I always thought there were other factors at play, especially given Libya's involvement.
I would ask one thing though: I thought AWACS would be able to discern an F14 from an Airbus? And if so, how come there wasn't one up?
Also, to the person who said that the US vets what it sells to potential enemies, I would think the Falklands would have taught the US that the Exocet is a very good bit of anti-ship technology, and if the French can make money out of it they will sell it, even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia

[Founder]

I too saw the documentary, and if anything I thought it underplayed the pressure the Vincennes' crew was under; and also, the fact that US military in a hot zone are naturally trigger happy anyway.
Yes it was an unfortunate set of circumstances, and yes there are lessons to be learned from the incident, but to award medals to any of the people responsible is crass in the extreme.
As for it being linked to 103, I've never heard that version of events, I always thought there were other factors at play, especially given Libya's involvement.
I would ask one thing though: I thought AWACS would be able to discern an F14 from an Airbus? And if so, how come there wasn't one up?
Also, to the person who said that the US vets what it sells to potential enemies, I would think the Falklands would have taught the US that the Exocet is a very good bit of anti-ship technology, and if the French can make money out of it they will sell it, even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia

If I was in charge of the Iran military and decied to buy the Exocet missile I would have chosen the MM38 or MM40 version which can be launched from a ship or corvette. That would be a lot cheaper and easier than trying to get the F-14's radar to work with the AM39 Exocet missile... We've got similar anti-ship missiles in the Swedish Airforce and I know that the engineers had a very rough time trying to convert the missile systems to work when we switched aircraft from the AJ-37 Viggen to the JAS 39 Gripen.

Best Regards
Tim

[Double Zero]

I was told by someone in the RN that the Iranians had a couple of fighters - presumably F-14's though F-4's were mentioned - hiding alongside the airbus until the last minute - so may be interpreted as either using it as a mask while checking out, illuminating, targets- or as a deliberate decoy...

Presume F-14's if a radar signal was received, as it would be recognised from the threat library ( unless they've cobbled the Tomcat radar onto a Phantom ) but otherwise even Aegis may not be that wonderful at range with other large targets around...?

Either way I just feel sorry for the Vincennes guys ( not to mention the Airbus occupants ) - they wouldn't have been there at all if the Iranians weren't being twerps.

[ex_matelot]

Heres how the RN handle it..

Initial detection-gather intel from EW,radar,opintel,visual in possible

Report track on AAWC or LAAWc net to task group..''new unknown track 1234...Squawking....etc"

Track continues to close-warnings reader mans 121.5/243 and issues warnings giving position of a/c from known landmark/vrp brg/dist

Track continues to close-no id as yet,no response from warnings,appears to be flying an attack profile and not squawking-Update track to suspect,report on AAWC LAAWC net,transmit on link 11/16-air threat upgraded to yellow/red.

Track continues to close-warning readers give warnings,roe dependant then stand to ciws/trackers...

The next phase involves an initial whoosh and a splash some time later.

The USN procedures differ not one iota from the RNs,the ops room guidelines on anti-air warfare are all laid out in a nato publication which (surprisingly) can be viewed online-its called ATP-1c.There are various other ones also but I dont think it good to post those here.No doubt all on google anyway though!

[regor]

I also saw this programme and I seem to recall that the crucial factor seemed to be that the Vicennes had inadvertantly strayed from international waters and was in Iranian territorial water when the Captain made his decision to fire.
There was undoubtedly a catalogue of minor errors that lead up to this decision. However, from a political stance the ship should never have been in the location it was in when it fired upon the Airbus. Whilst historically, friendly fire or misidentification of a military target is a well documented phenomena, it does seem that the Americans in particular, have a policy of shoot first, ask questions later.
The fact that there was no formal apology shows the contempt for which the American government holds for Iranians, civilian and military alike. This is not that surprising, given their foreign policy for the middle east region.

[Gnadenburg]

even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia

The Iranians are very resourcful. To keep their F14's flying for so long after an embargo, testament to this. Granted, Oliver North's clandestine supply of parts.

A few years ago, I watched an F14 take off from Shiraz, underslung were two whopping great missiles. I assumed they were some sort of anti-shipping waepon, however, read somewhere the Iranians had modified Hawk SAM's as air-air missiles. Resourcful people!

[PaperTiger]

I also saw this programme and I seem to recall that the crucial factor seemed to be that the Vicennes had inadvertantly strayed from international waters.That's certainly one point of view, though not universally shared. And I don't think 'straying' quite conveys the alacrity with which Vincennes went after the boghammers. Hoo-rah !

[Founder]

That's certainly one point of view, though not universally shared. And I don't think 'straying' quite conveys the alacrity with which Vincennes went after the boghammers. Hoo-rah !

It is a fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the Airbus was shot down.

[ex_matelot]

It is a fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the Airbus was shot down.


Which is probably due to the Vincennes officer of the watch failing to update snaps.I know that on SSCS,ADAWS and CACS command systems on RN warships,if snaps is not regularly updated for errors then the whole command system is out also.Cannot see the USN being much different.

I also remember the yanks locking up our helo whilst it carried out a surface search,luckily the call on guard was picked up and answered by our ops room as the cab could not respond due to the imposed emcon criteria.

HAve seen many balls ups by over zealous American PWOs in my time...but also by ours as well.We are human afterall-no matter how gucci the radar is.

[PAXboy]

The documentary made some note that the Vincennes had gone where it should not. They had the retired senior commander of that area stating in plain laguage that the Captain had gone into Iranian waters without his consent. But they still gave the man a medal and still did not apologise.


Slightly off topic, from earlier in the thread. I said, "I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being."

And a reply was: "Perhaps further training is required?"

Well the Human Remains department did not think so. About two years later, I was talking to a maintenance engineer from the company that supplied the equipment - by that time at an another location. I asked about the installation and whether it was still in place? The engineer replied, "That install was such a complete mess that, eventually, we had to strip it out, reinstall and reprogramme it." I kinda doubt that anyone apologised for that either.

[PaperTiger]

It is a fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the Airbus was shot down.That's not what I was questioning (read my post again), rather the characterisation of the incursion as inadvertant. Their blood was up and I doubt they cared whose waters they were in, having interpreted the ROE to suit what they were doing.
Long thread on usenet at the time, and I recall the consensus being that 'scenario fulfilment' played a big part in this. That and the 'altitude decreasing/altitude increasing' call. Say both in a quick, stressed voice and they sound exactly the same :ooh:

[Founder]

That's not what I was questioning (read my post again), rather the characterisation of the incursion as inadvertant. Their blood was up and I doubt they cared whose waters they were in, having interpreted the ROE to suit what they were doing.
Long thread on usenet at the time, and I recall the consensus being that 'scenario fulfilment' played a big part in this. That and the 'altutide decreasing/altitude increasing' call. Say both in a quick, stressed voice and they sound exactly the same :ooh:

Okey, I might have missunderstood you. You're right about the increasing/decreasing sounds the same but the fact was that the radar operator testified afterwards that the aircraft was decreasing without knowing the true facts until after the hearing...

Kind Regards
Tim