Blue on Blue.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I heard on the radio that the widow, through her lawyer, has appealed to President Bush for full information on how her husband died. She knows already that he died on active service in face of the enemy. She knows that he died as the result of a tragic mis-identification, by a US pilot, of his vehicle as a hostile rocket launcher. She knows that the US pilot was distraught when he discovered the result of his error. What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).

To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!

[nigegilb]

Maybe you are not aware of the aims of an inquest. The Coroner's remit is to find out exactly why a death has occurred, to seek the truth. If there are facts that are being witheld why shouldn't they be requested if it would help the Coroner with his task? Bush offered her any assistance when he met her, she is now asking for that assistance. She has been made to wait 4 years by this Govt for this Inquest.. Do you know if her lawyer is being paid? Some lawers do not take payment. I spent a day with one the other week. He was not charging for his time. There are people of priinciple out there. Not everyone is motivated by money you know.

Edited after PM

[Pontius Navigator]

Nig, PM please.

[Chugalug2]

Flatus Veteranus wrote:
What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
What a precedent indeed FV, it might even lead to the most extreme action having to be taken, you know, like proper procedures and equipment, or full and effective joint training and ROEs. A bizarre concept of course, but we live in bizarre times! I have read some hard nosed posts on this forum, but yours is right up there in the lead. I don't know if you have been bereaved in circumstances similar to Mrs Hull, I would hope not, but she comes across to me as both dignified and reserved, like, well, a grieving widow. She has been treated with dismissive arrogance by the MOD for four years. Her husband went to war to close with and destroy the enemy. Instead he was destroyed by his own side. Even if Mrs Hull didn't wish to know why, many others do, including myself. We can't have a situation where such tragedies are swept under the carpet as being too embarrassing. Just as in Flight Safety, the overwhelming motive must be to avoid a repetition as far as is possible. If real reform of CAS SOPs had been instituted, that would have leaked out by now. And how would you know that the US government would be defendant in any case? For all we know the fault lay with the British CoC. We just don't know, and that's the point. If there were real Opsec considerations here, well fair enough, but far more likely is the closing of ranks to suppress a complete c***-up. If Flight Safety, both RAF and civilian, was run on that basis, I strongly suspect that I, for one, wouldn't be around today!

[Abraham Zapruder]

I heard on the radio that the widow, through her lawyer, has appealed to President Bush for full information on how her husband died. She knows already that he died on active service in face of the enemy. She knows that he died as the result of a tragic mis-identification, by a US pilot, of his vehicle as a hostile rocket launcher. She knows that the US pilot was distraught when he discovered the result of his error. What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).

To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!

The most shameful opinion I have yet seen on this thread.

[airborne_artist]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

"The death of British soldier after a US fighter pilot opened fire on his convoy in Iraq was "entirely avoidable", a coroner has said.....Andrew Walker [the coroner] said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light.""

[nigegilb]

So, Matty Hull's widow with great dignity states that the verdict of unlawful killing draws a line under this whole thing. Would you kindly withdraw your disgraceful post now FV?

[Flap62]

Agree whole-heartedly.

FV, your post was an insult to a brave man who died for his country and to a widow who has carried herself with dignity throughout this shameful episode.

[The Gorilla]

I now expect this country to do everything it can to bring the killers to justice using that wonderful Anglo American extradition treaty which has so far been one way traffic. If not then my MP Shona Mcisaacs (yes another Scottish MP sitting in an English seat) might well have to find alternative employment in a couple of years time.. and she knows it!
:mad: :ugh:

[US Herk]

Sadly, you lot have confirmed my suspicions - heads on sticks. This widow is being used for political purposes to underscore an unpopular war waged by an unpopular leader. Her grief is being drawn out for purely political motives.

Unlawful killing - sounds a lot like murder, but murder requires intent. Is there any kind of "lawful" killing?? Other than combat, I mean. In combat, it's OK to kill people - it's your job. So when a tragic accident occurs, we then hypocritcally state that killing what you truly believed to be the enemy is now unlawful as it turns out it wasn't the enemy at all.

This is precisely the lunacy that makes the poor 18 year old at the front gate of the camp, carrying his "trusty" SA-80 (which he's probably never actually shot) know that if he tries to use deadly force to prevent unauthorized entry - even by terrorists - he will go to jail for "unlawful" killing or "excessive" force...

Nothing in my tirade takes anything away from the widow or her sacrifice. Combat isn't exactly a safe area to be in. People actually die. Sadly, it occasionally occurs at our own hands - never intentional, often preventable (with 20/20 hindsight), but should never be pursued in a criminal manner.

That's the true disgrace.

[green granite]

Isn't it amazing how contrite the MOD can appear when it realises that it's attempts to mount a cover up have been found out and the facts are made public :ugh:

[tucumseh]

US Herk

“This widow is being used for political purposes to underscore an unpopular war waged by an unpopular leader. Her grief is being drawn out for purely political motives”.


I suspect you have not had the privilege of watching and listening to Mrs Hull facing the worlds press after today’s verdict. A privilege. She is clearly not being used. She is erudite, intelligent and very, very impressive. It is the MoD, our Department of Constitutional Affairs and the US Government who have drawn out her suffering – nobody else.

When asked if the MoD had been helpful to her, she replied yes, they’d helped with her hotel and travel. A great put down. The mighty MoD reduced to the level of a hotel booking service. Beautifully delivered and dripping with contempt.


”Combat isn't exactly a safe area to be in. People actually die. Sadly, it occasionally occurs at our own hands - never intentional, often preventable (with 20/20 hindsight), but should never be pursued in a criminal manner.
That's the true disgrace”.


I’d agree only if this tragic event, and others discussed earlier in the thread, had not been foreseen and ignored. Some more so than others but when the exact same thing happens in 1991 and nothing is done about it, then that is negligence and abrogation of Duty of Care. Coroner Walker says “Unlawful killing” but the “true disgrace” is that the people who allowed it to happen continue to prosper, both in MoD and politics. It is they, more than the pilots, who have been unlawful.


I wish Mrs Hull and her family all the best for the future. LCoH Hull would be very proud of her.

[Chugalug2]

US Herc wrote:
Sadly, you lot have confirmed my suspicions - heads on sticks
And whose heads would they be? It is not the business of the coroner to point an accusational finger at anyone, that would be for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), or Mrs Hull herself if she wished to proceed with a private prosecution. She has stated that she is content now that she has been told that her husband's death was avoidable and unlawful. I very much doubt if the CPS will take any action either ("not in the public interest"). You, and others on this thread, have missed the point entirely. Mrs Hull knew that she was being lied to, and that there had been a complete "Snow Job" done on her. She would not be fobbed off, but it has taken four years for her to prove her point. How dare you suggest that she has been used, on the contrary she has refused to be used, and shown herself to be strong and determined in her grief. As Tuc says, CploH Hull would be proud of her, I know I am. The lessons that should be learned from this, and all the other blue on blue tragedies, must be learned and implemented. If we owe nothing else to this brave lady, we owe her that.

[Thunderbird 2]

Unlawful killing is a Coroner's Verdict - he cannot say it was Accidental Death because it wasn't. He is not a Judge but a Coroner whose job is to investigate an unexpected death of a healthy individual and to ascertain cause of death before a Death Certificate may be issued. It is a very ancient system under English Common Law and predates any of the British Armed Forces and Britain itself and even a united England.

Had the American side been more forthcoming it could have been resolved ages ago, but now it never will be.

Pat Tillman's parents were lied to, the uniform and body armour were destroyed so no evidence survived, and stories were fabricated which when exposed made the Rangers look a shabby unit with a mendacious military command.

Why the evasive behaviour ? It is so shabby.

These pilots either made a mistake or were incompetent or both. If their actions are the highest standards of the USAF then we have been warned. If they followed USAF procedures to the letter we know they need changing. If they did not follow procedures the USAF has some serious problems.

The fact is that in 1956 John Foster Dulles shafted Britain at Suez and as a consequence Britain did not get involved in significant overseas military interventions again until The Falklands in 1982....Blair stupidly jumped into a war situation for which Britain was simply not equipped - the exercises in Oman showed that.....he should not have committed resources he could not equip.

Having taken that risk he now has unleashed public anger that so much has gone wrong through sheer incompetence. It is a bit amateurish. If orange panels don't do it how about having British soldiers wear red uniforms as at Yorktown to help pilots recognise them........or how about equipping British vehicles and Tornados with rockets to retaliate in friendly-fire incidents ?

[Bluntend]

Do British fighting vehicles not have some form of IFF?

[nigegilb]

Err, no, orange tarpaulin.

[tucumseh]

"Do British fighting vehicles not have some form of IFF?"

That would require funding. UK Governments don't do funding. And senior officers don't like asking as it's career / gong limiting.

[nigegilb]

Coroner's words;

The coroner said the act was a "criminal one, since the pilots broke with the combat rules of engagement in failing to properly identify the vehicles and seek clearance before opening fire.

"The pilots chose not to take steps to confirm the identity of the vehicles in the convoy - that he could easily have taken," he said.

"The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard for the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict.

"I'm satisfied, having given careful consideration to all the evidence that I have heard in this inquest, that this is a case where I can properly consider whether an unlawful action and manslaughter applies here.

"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."

[brickhistory]

"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."

Guess all CAS platforms will need to be two seaters from now on - one for the pilot, one for the JAG.

[Bluntend]

A CNN poll (in which 128611 people have voted) suggests that of those voting 90% (115568 votes) beleived that Blue on Blue is inevitable, whereas only 10% (13043 votes) beleive its not. I'm inclined to agree with the poll - accidents will continue to happen. What is important is that as with Flight Safety, we learn from those accidents and take steps to prevent another occurance. Sadly, given the US DoDs apparent view that this was a random unfortunate accident and that sh!t happens, I suspect the only thing that will come out of this is an increasing lack of faith amongst coalition forces of American professionalism, skill and their desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with their allies.

[Chugalug2]

Now that we have paid tribute to Mrs Hull, and rightly castigated those who belittle her, let us also celebrate Mr Andrew Walker. How strange that an ancient and arcane office, that of Coroner, should succeed when the 21st Century, state of the art, joined up government of Bliar has so singularly failed, and shown to be both contemptuous and duplicitous towards such a remarkable lady. Or perhaps how typical. As he and his grisly gang set about the reduction of our remaining institutions, including the armed services, to utter impotence by "modernising" them into the servile servants of the "peoples" PM, we have been privileged to see the old system in full working order and pointing a finger at him and his clique. Not for much longer of course, such independence cannot be tolerated. Mr Walker's services will be dispensed with come June, and future "military" inquests dispersed around the country to other (more pliable?) coroners. The historical raison d'etre of this independent system could not have been more dramatically illustrated. Our forefathers knew which side was up, and cared about it. We don't it would seem. Well done Mr Walker. I don't know if you ever served, but these past months you have served your country and its service people well!

[nigegilb]

Well said Chug, very wise words. I have already spent some time with the Wilts Coroner. These men seem to be cut from the same cloth. The Wilts Coroner has promised a frank and fearless investigation into the downing of XV179, of that I am absolutely sure.

I wonder why Andrew Walker is being dismissed, the deaths continue unabated, does anyone have any faith left in this Govt or this MoD?

[D O Guerrero]

Having not read much of this lengthy thread, I hope I'm not repeating other posts. However...
I do find it incredible that the DoD find this incident apparently so agreeably accidental. It should be a wake-up call to them to sort out the obviously massive issues surrounding their target identification procedures and possibly ROE. Having watched the tape a couple of times, I am astonished at the lack of any formal investigate procedure by the pilots concerned. Yes, they are busy people, but surely more than a cursory examination of the potential target is required? What do you RAF boys do? Certainly in the Navy there is a formal drill requiring input from several positions in the Ops Room to establish to the highest practical degree whether a target can be engaged or otherwise. Yes, before anyone starts, I know its different in the air. However, there was clear doubt in the pilots minds. And if there wasn't, there certainly bloody well should have been. Were they asleep when they were briefed about the orange tarpaulins?
This isn't yank-bashing for those that think it is. The pilots concerned were negligent and incompetent. They should be either bought here and prosecuted, or dealt with properly in the USA at Courts Martial. Examination of the shambles that led to the USS Vincennes shooting down and airliner shows that there are clear (and very easily solveable) problems in the US approach to positive identification of hostiles. I'm not saying we're perfect, but in terms of Blue-On-Blue, the US are far from it.
I am absolutely disgusted that after the (admittedly foolhardy) support that we gave to the US over the Iraq potmess, that they cannot see to it that these cowboys are adequately dealt with. Their current stance is a massive f*** you for all concerned.

[mojocvh]

Unbelievieable, 1994 here we are.

[Abraham Zapruder]

Rather sobering images of the aftermath of this tragic event:

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060982,00.jpg

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060981,00.jpg

Let us pray this will be the last incident of its kind and that lessons will be learned.

[US Herk]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe the Coroner had full access to the exact ROE in place for that mission. Therefore, with that as his baseline, any conclusions reached are done so with only partial information and therefore, suspect at best. This is the part called "reasonable doubt" that we, as civilised countries, provide to those accused of crimes.

Why are you not screaming for better IFF, better battlefield ID, better anything? This has been about nothing more than finding another angle to criticise your government, your leader, & the unpopular war...apart from the few that just want to see the pilots swing.

I'm sorry, the widow is being used.

No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity.

[nigegilb]

US Herk you have just made an excellent case for full and open cooperation to be made fron the US Govt. Pity it chose not to eh? I, too, am disappointed that the Cororoner did not criticise lack of IFF amongst other things. The Coroner stated that not all facts were made available. Surely now, the US should change policy, this has been a disaster in many ways, and is causing waves of anger over here. Not your best day as a Nation, friend.

[BEagle]

Well stated, nigegilb.

The culture of "Shoot first, ask questions later" has got to change. No matter which nation you're talking about.

[Chugalug2]

US Herk wrote:
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe the Coroner had full access to the exact ROE in place for that mission....

I'm sorry, the widow is being used.
No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity

You are quite right, he didn't. He said he didn't. He begged the US government for them. He was refused. The UK government said that it didn't have them either. As the coroner observed that is a shocking admission. So it would seem LCploH Hull and his comrades were also unaware of them. Are our troops still unaware of your ROEs when fighting along side of you, or is someone lying?
Will you please stop your mantra of "the widow is being used". It is insulting to her, to those who are posting here, to the coroner, to this nation!
The witch in this case is now the US government. Your country still has great respect in this country because of our shared historical endeavours, and is given a lot of rope. Your government has managed to hang itself with that rope over this case. The contemptuous way that proper process in the UK has been treated by our closest ally has concentrated minds wonderfully here. There will be repercussions I think.

[D O Guerrero]

US Herk - "I'm sorry, the widow is being used".

You are either here to play devil's advocate, or you have been irretrievably brain-washed.
The Coroner should have had access to the ROE in force, you're right. However the US Govt denied him that. In the absence of it, it is nonetheless very clear from cockpit video that the pilots knew full well that they had grossly violated the profile, whatever it was. They engaged a friendly target, displaying the correct identification symbol. No ROE profile in history has authorised that, or ever will.

What is wrong with you people??

[996]

I am reminded of the cartoon depicting two vultures sitting on a bough and one says to the other "patience my ass, I'm going to kill something". This is a simple case of typical US gung ho attitude carried out by inappropriately trained aviators. The target was of no conceivable threat, they failed completely to recognise the target and failed to utilise any power of reasoning they might reasonably be expected to have.

This will not be the last time this sort of thing happens, the US system of combat procedure and indoctrination in fatally flawed as a consequence of having to cope with its cultural and educational diversity. Remember the Blackhawk that got shot down mistaken for a Hind!!!!! the fighter controler was in the same AWACS that was supervising the Blackhawk!!! The Fighter Pilot was disciplined for failing to engage on the first run when he decided he was not convinced of the target legitimacy. He was ordered to the IP and to re attack. He did so.

This is the mentality, autonomy of action is not permitted. You will comply.

[cokecan]

US Herk wrote:

Why are you not screaming for better IFF, better battlefield ID, better anything?

whats the point of installing yet another recognition system for USAF CAS to willfully ignore? a six foot square orange panels - that they did see - that every cook and bottlewasher from Poland to Hawaii knows 'Don't fcuking shoot me you inbred, slope-faced, reindeer **** eating moron!' not enough? why bother with an IFF system if USAF pilots disregard it? they saw the standard 'Friendly' recognition sysatem, yet disregarded it. if we were to have IIF on our ground callsigns what would the excuse be then - 'err.. the signal might have been forged... or err... come from space aliens, or... err...i saw the light but disregarded it, but i didn't hear the tone because it was drowned out by my Billy Ray Cyrus album'

they saw the Orange panels, but instead of the blindingly obvious conclusion of 'they are probably friendlies and are either in the wrong place or the FAC is looking in the wrong direction' decided to make up some fancifull ****e about 'orange rockets'. orange rockets FFS? now i've seen pictures of Orange rockets (not many to be fair) but if i saw orange things on unidentified vehicles in a battle zone where Orange was the standard recognition symbol for my side i'd have about 400 hundred options. 399 would be 'you are looking at a friendly callsign, there may have been a fcuk-up with positioning'.

what makes it even worse is that when POPOV35 suggested 'Orange Rockets', the incredulity in POPOV36's voice was obvious, yet still he allowed an attack to take place.

fog of war doesn't cover this. fog of war is lots of nasty things happening at the same time, watch the video, there's FA happening - no RWR screaching, no frantic calls for air support from ground callsigns - these half-wits could of been flying over Arkansas and had more going on.

[Clockwork Mouse]

The British Army BOI report is available in full on The Daily Telegraph on-line.

[Impiger]

Odd isn't it that when 2 F15s fly into Ben Macdui while under RAF ATC direction we have a court martial and a charge of causing death by negligence, but when POPOV shoot up a British column there is no disciplinary case to answer!

Just an observation - nothing more.:hmm:

[Clockwork Mouse]

Had a look at the Friendly Fire forum about this incident on the American Military.com.

A few positive and balanced comments but an awful lot of posts that reveal a chasm of misunderstanding between our two cultures. Some believe that Mrs Hull is being politically manipulated or out for revenge or profit; that the coroner is out for his own political ends, is a left-wing pinko anti-American like many Brits and has wilfully overstepped the boundaries in his findings; that there is a strong ambulance chasing element behind the British expressions of outrage. Above all, a strong conviction that in war mistakes happen, so we should just accept it.

Rather depressing. For me the shining light in all this unpleasantness has been the courage and professionalism of the coronor and the courage, dignity and humanity of Mrs Hull.

[Thunderbird 2]

Perhaps Cultural Awareness of Arabs is impossible if Cultural Awareness of England and its institutions is absent ? Anyway we know that the Coroner's Office is almost 1000 years old and that Mr Andrew Walker is a Barrister......

http://www.lbwf.gov.uk/index/environment/env-funerals/coroners.htm

[aw ditor]

I may have missed it, if so my apologies but has there been a Coroner's Court Finding on the two crew members sadly lost to "Friendly Fire" in the Tornado, shot down at the beginning of GW2?

[US Herk]

One last time & I'll do it slowly with small words.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE ROE.

Based on the above statement, we can conclusively state:

WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.

You can bitch & moan all you want about the non-cooperating US government & cry "cover up" all you want, ROE will not be released to someone who does not have a need to know. I'm sorry to say, a British Coroner, no matter how ancient his post may be, does not have any right whatsoever to classified ROE. It's called Operational Security, or OPSEC. It will not be divulged. To do so would be reckless & negligent.

Now, you may argue to your heart's content about whether or not it should be divulged, but accept it as fact that it will not be. Therefore, you cannot know all the answers. That said, you cannot come to anything other than a guessed conclusion.

This "duty of care" nonsense you've picked up from your association with the EU is a slippery slope of blame & liability control - nothing good will come of it. It serves only the ambulance chasers.

It appears you either will not listen to reason, are intent on continuing to confuse politics with logic, and will cut your own throats to spite a despised PM. I think it's best if I leave this thread.

[Chugalug2]

Yes, I think you are probably right, if all you can offer is patronising cant. Of course Opsec should not be compromised. Our worry is that it has been, as the last refuge of scoundrels. Goodbye!

[tucumseh]

"I may have missed it, if so my apologies but has there been a Coroner's Court Finding on the two crew members sadly lost to "Friendly Fire" in the Tornado, shot down at the beginning of GW2?"


BOI report here.....

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/pdf/maaszg710.pdf

Infers IFF was unserviceable, but if you read the recommendations it emerges failure warnings were not integrated into the cockpit, which sheds a somewhat different light on matters. More so, when you obtain, under FOI, confirmation that the integration of such warnings is optional, despite them being fundamental to the safety of the aircraft and aircrew.

Not sure the Coroner appreciated that little gem from 2*, 3* and junior ministers.

[cokecan]

US Herk,

i don't particularly give a fcuk what ROE were in place. the aircraft commander is soley responsible for what he does or does not do - if he can't handle the responsibilty of making his own decisions about when and when not to engage a ground target then he shouldn't be in charge of a bag of chips let alone an Aircraft.

if these ROE were - potentially - so requiring of 'if its not waving a (fcuking big) US flag, Kill it' why was this not discussed at any stage either between the pilots or between the FAC and the pilots?

bit unusual, yet it didn't attract comment... odd that.

or, perchance, is this yet another makey-uppy 'security reason' to be used to attempt to cover-up incompetance?

[rab-k]

I posted this previously, but for the benefit of US Herk and those who didn't see it - "one last time & I'll do it slowly with small words".

THE ROE WERE KNOWN TO A SEPARATE AND PREVIOUS ENQUIRY:
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/nao.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/Para10b.jpg http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/JP03.jpg http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_09_3.pdf

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/rab-knight/Type3.jpg

What the UK Coroner also appears not to have been worthy of being told by the US DoD was what the "prescribed restrictions set by the JTAC" (Joint Terminal Attack Controller) were, whether POPOV35, acting as attack aircraft flight leader, failed to ensure that POPOV36 did indeed "initiate attacks within the parameters imposed by the JTAC" and/or whether the JTAC (MANILA HOTEL) failed "to maintain control of the attacks", either of which would have been a failure to adhere to the above procedures. Perhaps the finger of blame should also point at whoever undertook "the tactical risk assessment" and authorised the "Type 3 control" in the 'Kill Box' within which Matty Hull and his colleagues were presumably known to be operating.

US Herk - I'd be most interested in your comments re. the above.

[Flap62]

US Herc

Please do not assume that many posters here are speaking without having been in the seat - not always true! We have seen the transcripts and can see the huge flaws in the procedure. Banging on about ROE will not cover for a complacent and unprofessional attitude in the POPOV cockpits.

You might also like to review some of your posts. There is a creeping tone of " well, you don't need to know and even though we killed your next of kin it was for a reason". This attitude has been the biggest single reason that your country is now despised throughout most of the world.

We are one of your few allies. It might be best not to treat the memory of our servicemen and women, along with our due legal process with the contempt that you reserve for the rest of the world's culture and beleifs.

[brickhistory]

We are one of your few allies. It might be best not to treat the memory of our servicemen and women, along with our due legal process with the contempt that you reserve for the rest of the world's culture and beleifs.

And there we have it. If US Herk or I or any other American denizen of this forum held the UK in contempt, then we wouldn't deign to even be on here.

This thread, however, like most has descended into "stoopid Yanks," "Blood thirsty bastards," etc, etc. Who is showing contempt?

Two A-10 pilots, a FAC, and two governments screwed the pooch and a British serviceman died as a result. Tragic, yes. Regretable, yes. Fixable, hopefully yes (but no system or set of people will ever be foolproof).

It is indeed a very slippery slope, one already hard to keep one's grip on, to introduce civil criminal proceedings into a military conflict. My comment earlier about a JAG in every cockpit was on point. What hue and cry will arise when a CAS pilot hesitates or even refuses (unlikely, but work with me here) to fire unless everything lines up?

Please don't nitpick the last statement, there are obviously a million variations to every situation.

Finally, how would your posts read if the aircraft in question had roundels and not the star and bar on the side?

[cokecan]

Brickhistory,

Finally, how would your posts read if the aircraft in question had roundels and not the star and bar on the side?

if an RAF/RN aircraft attacked a US ground callsign despite seeing standard NATO recognition features then i'd quite happily see the pilot shot at 9am on a monday morning outside the Officers mess.

with any luck a 'stray' round might get that silly tart of a Flt Lt who managed to make herself - and the rest of the RAF - look a complete arrse by (apparently) slagging off every other trade for their 'less stringent' duties in the sandpit.

no national bias here, though the US's pool of goodwill over such events is somwhat reduced by the regularity of the occurence and the attempted cover-up that almost allways occurs

[mojocvh]

Brick:
"Finally, how would your posts read if the aircraft in question had roundels and not the star and bar on the side?"

The same. But let's face it, the RAF aren't the ones with a long history of previous in this department.

US Herk:
Glad you're going. You are what is known in the British Armed Forces as an arse. I have worked with some exceptional people from the US. Its just a pity they don't post on here as I (perhaps naively) believe that most Americans do not think like you. If I'm wrong and they do, you're all in more trouble than I first thought. But then I'm guessing you're not that far up the Command Chain, so I suppose it doesn't really matter....

Terrible post, look in the mirror to see an arse matey

[BEagle]

Please don't let the thread degenerate into abuse.

The fact, brickhistory and US Herk, is that in addition to systemic errors in their failure to adhere to theatre RoEs and their own SOPs, there is a basic core mentality which needs to change.

For many years I deplyed to Incirlik in support of Allied operations in Iraq. Initially, the purpose of the operations in Iraq were to keep an eye on Saddam's activities and to ensure that the terms of the cease fire were adhered to.

But later, there was a huge change. I was frankly appalled at the attitude of some of the ANG units who seemed desperate to find an opportunity - any opportunity - to kill something. One so-called ANG commander actually complained to the armed recce units that "If you guys don't stir something up, then we might have to go home next week without having dropped any ordnance". Bloodthirsty shoot-em-up cowboy mentality, I have to say. And hugely different to most of the regular units who'd been there 10 years earlier.

If there is any doubt (as there most definitely was here), you do NOT shoot. What can you not understand about such a simple concept?

[Impiger]

Does anyone know if there is a similar thread running on Canadian Prunery sites about the A10s that seem to have shot up Canadians in Afghanistan recently? Be interested to know if there is a more accepting approach from fellow North Americans.

[Pontius Navigator]

What hue and cry will arise when a CAS pilot hesitates or even refuses (unlikely, but work with me here) to fire unless everything lines up?

There was indeed such a case a short while back that was addressed here on pprune, and elsewhere, at great length - you may recall it without prompting. There was a hue and cry.
The CAS ac was unable to positively identify the intended target and confirm that there was sufficient distance between target and friendlies.

No ordnance was dropped and no one was killed (on either side) as a result.
There was no immediate threat, unlike the mis-ident on the Tornado, the only issue, as Beags pointed out, was the potential failure to drop ordnance on a potential target to gain a possible 'bomb' symbol on the cockpit.

PS, it is true, like the Belgrano, that the putative north bound missile TELs could have stopped and turned around at any moment. There was no reason therefore not to replace Popov with another CAP just in case.

[Zoom]

Re BEagle's last post, during GW1 I listened to a radio interview of a pair of A-10 pilots who had been strafing Iraqi troops and they were talking extremely excitably, finishing with the statement, '...it was a turkey shoot!' I felt shocked by the evident 'gung ho-ness' in their attitudes. The following day there was a 'friendly fire' incident by A-10s which resulted in the deaths of 9 British soldiers.

What is a turkey shoot?

[UnderPowered]

"I was frankly appalled at the attitude of some of the ANG units who seemed desperate to find an opportunity - any opportunity - to kill something. One so-called ANG commander actually complained to the armed recce units that "If you guys don't stir something up, then we might have to go home next week without having dropped any ordnance". Bloodthirsty shoot-em-up cowboy mentality, I have to say."
I was the armed recce mate to whom that comment was directed. It was not a serious comment. It would be wrong to use that as evidence in a discussion such as this.

[brickhistory]

It would be wrong to use that as evidence in a discussion such as this.

Good on you for providing the context. Took a bit wind out at least one sail..........

[BEagle]

How can you possibly have known that such a stupid comment wasn't general at the time? You might have thought that it wasn't a serious comment and was aimed purely in jest at you - but others certainly considered it to be a serious comment.

And the tasking to support that gung-ho ANG idiot's aspirations certainly ramped up for the next few days until, thankfully, they buggered off back to their day jobs in the US as airline co-pilots or whatever.

[Bluntend]

I have always been overwhelmed by the pride American citizens have in their service personnel. It is easy to see, however, how the 'Support the Troops' mindset can cloud judgement and how the desire to regard every US servicemen as an infallible hero, can stand in the way of wanting to find out why they make mistakes. I am sure that the airmen who attacked the convoy will be wracked with guilt at what they did but to ignore (or withhold) any evidence that could lead to preventing just one similar accident in the future is what is truly reckless and negligent. The US DoD’s desire to protect its servicemen and women is commendable, but to fail to implement or assist in a robust investigation is inexcusable. It is extremely disappointing that the US is prepared to put their allies’ lives (and possibly operational success) at risk simply because it is reluctant to accept that sometimes its heroic troops fcuk up.
And as for all this talk of the “reasonable doubt that we, as civilised countries, provide to those accused of crimes”, I have two words: Guantanamo Bay.

[BEagle]

Tonight's ITV Evening News named each of the 16 US Marines of Red Platoon who were involved in the shooting of the unarmed ITV reporter, Terry Lloyd, and his interpreter in 2003.

For those who don't remember, Mr Lloyd was unlawfully killed by shots fired into the back of a makeshift ambulance by US Marines.

Coroner Mr Andrew Walker has called on the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions to demand that the Americans bring the perpetrator of a possible war crime before a court of law. However, the US remains defiantly silent.....

[UnderPowered]

Sorry about this, its off the topic, but to answer your question, Beagle:

I know they were bantering because I knew them well, because while I was hanging my arrse out to dry taking piccies overhead Mosul, they were on my wing with their pods on the AAA/SAM sites, warning me about the launches. That's heads in, sausage side, protecting me.

All the weapons they launched were in collective self defence, in response to people shooting at us; NEVER before we were shot at.

We sat in the tactics boards every month discussing what was OK, what was not, what we should and shouldn't do. Granted, as professional aviators they wanted to do their jobs, to the best of their ability, and did celebrate success, but your assertion is an extrapolation.

I am sorry this has clogged up an important discussion, and I hope my post has not devalued the hurt at Matty Hull's loss, and the loss of all our mates.

[BEagle]

Sorry - it was the ANG Commander's comment which was later repeated by a Mad Dog. Hence I do NOT consider it banter, there was an underlying desire to kill something -anything - and that is what my colleagues and I found so very distasteful.

It was a wholly different and somewhat inexplicable attitude compared to that which prevailed in earlier, more reasonable years at Incirlik.

[Bluntend]

Theres an interesting article on this subject by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6468391.stm

All the more reason to understand what happend, why it happened and to try and stop it happening again. IMHO.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Gentlemen, during the first night of Telic II, I was part of a joint ops HQ in a sandy place where I witnessed the most appalling of comments by an american serviceman. An american army Major called across from his Spectre desk to another sqn representative - 'hey did your guys get to kill anyone yet'. I gained a public apology from him after pointing out that 'everyone in the AOR was someones husband/wife/son or daughter and that they were human beings'. I also had contact with many of the warthog ANG pilots both during the planning phase and on the Op itself and found them gung ho and desperate to drop ordnance - no-one will convince me otherwise.:=

Also following the unfortunate downing of a coalition aircraft in another blue on blue I was witness to another americans comment of 'thats war, she-ite happens', he was dragged over his desk by an army chap of all people and thrown off the JOC floor never to return.

It happened twice, I was witness to it and as God is my judge I believe that this 'America is great, God bless America' attitude pervades to the detriment of external scrutiny. Its a cultural issue that will never go away.:ugh: