Another Blue on Blue

[GalleyTeapot]

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ThreeBritishSoldiersKilledInAfghanistan.htm

RIP fellas

[_Quiet_Mason]

Just heard about this on the news.

RIP guys.

[hibbs007]

RIP, 'Brothers in Arms'.

[fantaman]

What a tragedy, rest easy fellas :(

[Guzlin Adnams]

Rest in peace friends.

[coolblackcat]

RIP; We'll never forget you.

Even though the news seems to be acusing the US, accidents do happen, sadly.

[Double Zero]

Having worked on a test range where even the best Test Pilots had trouble finding dayglo targets at pre-briefed positions, without being shot at, I feel sorry too for the pilot/s involved unless something proves otherwise.

At low level & high speed in a fast jet ( don't know the circumstances of this tragedy ) no-one has time - seems to me from my comfy chair that laser designation - which I worked with - is the only thing to use; not experienced with GPS weapons.

Do our guys have enough designators ???

P.S, I am well aware that such things as a bomb retarding fin deploying late or not at all, or some such sod's law, will make the best kit fail...

[moggiee]

Even though the news seems to be accusing the US, accidents do happen, sadly.

All too frequently when the USAF is involved, it could be argued.

[SPIT]

It only seems as if the USAF can only identify US personel and equipment ??

[flash8]

how many blue on blue the other way around? Zero methinks.

[Double Zero]

That has to be balanced against the numbers involved - and the fact that British kit is usually a stage or two behind on IFF - be it aircraft or vehicles.

I don't dispute there are some trigger-happy U.S. pilots, that again is a matter of numbers, if we had hundreds of aircraft in theatre I expect it would happen to us too - but I doubt anyone drops a bomb unless his HUDWAC is happy.

[tucumseh]

Every time a tragedy like this happens we see speculation. Talk of IFF. Lack of interoperability with allies. MoD policy is consistent and clear. On IFF, it may be fitted but it does not have to be integrated properly so that it actually works, in effect rendering the platform unfit for purpose. See Tornado / Patriot thread. (For the purposes of the DIN, this has been reiterated numerous times under FOI, twice this year to my knowledge). I know, I’m using an airborne example, but it illustrates the higher level attitudes toward safety and protecting our Servicemen. And, in my opinion, interoperability with our own forces is a poorly funded aspiration; interoperability with other countries, if it occurs, is largely co-incidental. An aspiration does not become policy until properly funded.

My sincere condolences to the families. But, like the Tornado incident above, and others, it may well have been an accident on the day, in the heat of battle, but dig deeper and key elements will have been predictable, predicted and ignored. In precise detail.

[Roger the cabin boy]

RIP Lads.

A tragic accident, but please do not forget that the USAF have saved dozens of British lives in Afghanistan, as many of us can testify.

[nigegilb]

I wouldn't rush to blame the pilot. Someone made the point the US never seem to do this to their own side, well read this. Still short of equipment, when will the MoD learn?

Eyewitness account of an F15 airstrike

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:06am BST 25/08/2007

Squirming in the bottom of a ditch we waited anxiously for the comforting sound of an F15 fighter to finish off the enemy.

"Start digging in with your eye lashes lads because this is going to be close," one of Royal Anglian sergeants said to the sweating teenage soldiers around us.


The F15E is probably the most advanced fighter-bomber aircraft currently on operations

"They are going to drop something big," said one of the signallers co-ordinating with the forward air controllers up on a nearby hill.

The soldiers had all seen it before and kept their heads well down. Several 500lb bombs were about to be dropped within 300 yards of our position. It was a sobering proposition.

The day before we had watched from the comfort of the hills as Harriers and F15E Strike Eagles pounded Taliban positions on the other side of the valley.

From that distance it seemed surreal but now we were about to be in very close proximity. First came the high-pitched shrill of the F15s canons. The aircraft banked and turned for a second run dropping two 500lb bombs whose thundering detonation made the ground shake from where we cowered.

Later that day I chatted to the Royal Artillery gunners who called in the aircraft asking why it had taken so long.

They had waited for 45 minutes because although the American plane had the Sniper identification system - which gives the pilot a "real time" television relay of the ground - the British did not have their Rover Terminal - a piece of equipment which allowed them to see what the pilot was looking at.

The near hour-long delay could have caused serious difficulties if it had been a large Taliban force about to overwhelm us.

American air power is seen as a vital aid for extracting troops from ambushes or long battles with the enemy. Dozens of aircraft patrol the skies over Helmand where more than half of all bombs used in Afghanistan have been dropped in past three months.

But the problems faced in a contact when the enemy are almost of top of you are immense. At times, with the threat of being overwhelmed, troops have to request "target close" fire.

It is believed that this is what killed a Royal Marine, Jonathan Wigley, last December when an F15 air strike was called in very close to British positions around the town of Garmsir. The case is still under investigation.

The F15E is probably the most advanced fighter-bomber aircraft currently on operations. With a pilot and navigator/bomb aimer and the highly advanced Sniper or Litening targeting pods it should be very difficult to make a mistake.

Equipped with a Rover Terminal, the infantry would be looking at precisely the same image, which should eliminate mistakes.

The ground operator simply sends co-ordinates for his and the enemy’s position like a text message. Either the co-ordinates were sent wrong from the ground or entered incorrectly in the air.

If it was done by radio then there is always the chance of being misheard. Of course, the bomb itself could also have been defective and gone off course. Hopefully the truth will emerge from the board of inquiry.

If it is British equipment that failed there will be major repercussions for the Ministry of Defence. If it was American kit, then relations that are currently being strained by Iraq can only come under further stress.

[TheSmiter]

Hear hear nigegilb

The media rush to condemn US gung ho incompetence is deafening - the facts will be attributed to the fog of war, a state of which naturally does not exist as that would require proper resourcing.

The armchair warriors should hold their breath, they have no concept of the reality of the situation, either in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Never forget:

Every defence pound is a wasted pound.

Gordon Brown PM

[Jackonicko]

The quote "Every defence pound is a wasted pound" is stark and shocking, and I thought I'd try to find it.

But on Google it can only be found on another PPRuNe thread, in a post by you, Smiter, on 17th May 2007.

So where is it from?

[McDuff]

I'd put my money on Ken Clark. He was a great one for questioning defence expenditure when he was Chancellor. Then, a couple of years ago, he was on Radio 4 saying that if he were Chancellor again he would be cutting Defence spending "you can always cut Defence ..." (or pretty close to that).

[tucumseh]

I think the quote was a “metropolis of waste”, and best read as part of a pretty good (but flawed) Max Hastings article here……..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2139590,00.html


“Gordon Brown as chancellor was right about one thing concerning the MoD. It is still a metropolis of waste. Lord Drayson, the procurement minister, is a success story aboard what is otherwise an unhappy ship, but he is wrestling with a bureaucracy capable of seeing off Solomon. The service chiefs of staff possess much less executive authority and policy-making influence than the top civilians, most of whom know little or nothing about the armed forces or war-fighting. The Defence Management Board has become a chronically unsatisfactory instrument for decision-making”.


GB is right about the waste. It’s chronic, and successive CDPs and Ministers have condoned it and been quite happy to put this in writing under FOI. Most recently Ingram in my own experience – just waiting for his successor to confirm he agrees. I’ve said before – while I agree Defence is underfunded, I can quite understand the Treasury being reluctant to throw good money after bad while successive regimes chuck it down the drain. (I know, Health, Welfare…..). However, if the Treasury are as all-powerful as everyone thinks, they should push for a zero tolerance policy on deliberate waste (as opposed to, for example, research and development expenditure which bears no fruit. It is sometimes better to try………).

I disagree about Lord Drayson. He could have taken a stance on a relatively minor issue, saved a huge amount and put his marker down. He didn’t. As ever, the solution is simple. Adhere to PUS’ mandated policy on financial probity. Rescind the ruling that doing so is a disciplinary offence. Result? Less waste.

Don’t necessarily agree with his comment about service chiefs Vs Civilians. DECs are the Customer. They are predominantly Service led. They state their requirement (or are meant to). If you don’t ask you don’t get. The mechanism for asking was perhaps bureaucratic, but it worked. Then the beancounters dismantled it and made it even more bureaucratic. Drayson should get his head round that one, instead of saying the processes and procedures that worked are a waste of time.


Nigeglib’s post is spot on. It highlights the fact that increasing operational tempo reduces casualties. Having to dig in for an hour waiting for a simple comms link is ******* criminal in this day and age. So, Max, instead of slagging civvies for knowing nothing about the armed forces and warfighting (which is not always true), qualify the remark but conceding that few DEC officers have the slightest scoobie about technological solutions and the art of the possible. The classic example which most can understand is their long time insistence on high quality real time video over BOWMAN VHF, but there are hundreds more. What planet……?

Sort this out. Then you’ll have funds for proper Combat ID and Self Protection.

[Shackman]

Once again, something goes wrong somewhere in the chain – a tech malfunction whether of weapon or delivery system, misident or misplot of a grid, or even a simple early realease. In this case three of our own pay the ultimate price, but immediately we have the baying hounds of the press and politicians wanting ‘answers’ and ‘blame’ and Boards of Inquiry. What we are involved in is War, with a capital W. Almost none of our politicians or press editors/hierarchy (and probably not that many of our senior officers) have experienced the intensity of operations that all our forces are facing daily in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is not the Falklands, Bosnia, Northern Ireland or any of the small conflicts they might have been in before but something else completely different. You can read all you like, but unless you’re there you don’t KNOW.

It’s called the ‘fog of war’ for a reason. The best laid plans etc do not always go the way you expect, and sometimes s**t happens. This time it did, but how many other guys have been able to say thank you to CAS, sometimes really up close and personal, for getting them out of the dark stuff, and how many lives have been saved. I know it is no comfort, but the crew of the F-15 are probably equally upset at the outcome.

Maybe the politicians would like to send out some Health and Safety teams out to sort out the problems – they could deploy in front of the troops and carry out risk assessments before anything happens – just like at home, where H & S insist (say) we have new step ladders with handrails to change lightbulbs, and the budget goes on this instead of some essential piece of operational kit – particularly if it’s something to work with others and not of the highest priority in the UK.

Having said all that, my condolences to their families and the fellow members of the Vikings, who were always a great bunch to work for and with – a highly professional outfit.

RIP guys

[BEagle]

I was once told that most people use DD:MM.MM, but the US uses DD:MM:SS?

Is that really true?

When the .MM are >60, it's obvious - but can you be sure whether N32:15.26 E63:23.45 means N32º15'26" E63º23'45" or N32º15.26' E63º23.45' when some smelly bugger is trying to kill you?

When close air support is as close as has been described, the difference can be very significant indeed.

(Please note that these lat/long values have no specific relevance and were just used as examples of somewhere in NW Helmand)

[US Herk]

I was once told that most people use DD:MM.MM, but the US uses DD:MM:SS?
I'm not a fast-jet nor CAS guy, but none of the aircraft-specific kit I've worked with in my 16+yrs with USAF ever used DD:MM:SS that I can recall....

The handheld units, on the other hand, often have changeable units so that you can "speak" to others not using a standard. Standards are typically spelled out in SPINs. That doesn't prevent the odd fat-finger SNAFU of someone on the ground inadvertently changing their units on their hand-held devices.

In no way am I even implying that is the case here - I don't even know what they were using. I'm simply stating that if it's a question of units, it's just as likely to be the handheld vs aircraft...

Someone mentioned TGO laser guidance - sadly, it's not always an option for reasons, various.

[ORAC]

Old aircraft, such those you flew Beagle, used degrees, minutes and seconds; most modern military aircraft use degrees and decimal minutes; some use degrees, minutes and decimal seconds. Which can cause confusion.

Modern C4I systems know of the problem and annotate their output format is known. Older systems require the receiving system to know which format the legacy system uses.

With data link systems, such as L11 and L16, the postion is given in yet other formats (did mention GEOREF and range & bearing from a daum n which(?) format).

On top of such is issues is, of course, the problem of which Geodatum the maps/system is being used on each end as well as the coordinate system. Not all maps are in WGS84, let alone Lat&Long, or UTM, or MGRS.

In short, it's not any simple question, and there is no easy answer, particularly with errors creeping in with conversion between systems/datums.

But it doubt severely it had anything at all to do with the incident in question...

[Chugalug2]

Given the piece that Nigegilb quotes, and the testimony by tuc of the wanton and incompetent waste exercised by the MOD, I have every sympathy with the US CAS guys. They must dread a call from the Brits, with their limited or complete lack of equipment to make this hazardous procedure less so. Bits of Orange Dayglo Panels etc are no longer good enough, even the Taliban could presumably rise to that. If our leaders insist on our troops fighting side by side with the USA, then they should be equipped to the same degree especially with regard to communications and IFF. I suspect that US training presupposes the possession of such equipment by ground troops that they are supporting, and it is possible that given the media hype over this and other incidents they may yet insist on that. In the circumstances that may be no bad thing, for if the MOD is not prepared to equip our troops properly for their own sake perhaps it would do so for the sake of the "Special Relationship"!
Of course as already said, it may well be that this tragedy was caused by entirely different circumstances, hopefully we will eventually be told, to some degree or other. But the general situation regarding ground equipment for CAS operation would appear to be yet another MOD dog's breakfast to add to all the others. Brown can mutter all he likes but lives are on the line here and wars cost money so he should pay up! The tragedy is that these lives are lost now and many more lives ruined as a result, that is the real waste of the "metropolis of waste" of the MOD!
RIP lads and my very sincere condolences to your loved ones left to grieve for you.

[Self Loading Freight]

"The classic example which most can understand is their long time insistence on high quality real time video over BOWMAN VHF, but there are hundreds more. What planet……?"

Erm, sorry? Did you just say what it looks like you just said?

R

[tucumseh]

SLF

Yes. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to introduce brevity into such a serious and tragic thread.

My point was to illustrate what I believe to be a serious deficiency in the acquisition system whereby much needed kit is delayed or rendered unaffordable by “requirements” which have supposedly been robustly scrutinised for feasibility. They waste resources - time, money and manpower. A procurer can no longer dismiss such a “requirement” as an aberration. It will be set in concrete as far as the bureaucrats are concerned and it takes an age and a day to persuade the “system” that it should not be in your remit, especially if it is a Key User Requirement. All procurers will understand what I mean. You are answerable to an IPT “Management Board”, many of whom will be junior to you and non-technical, for the delivery of complex technical systems which few of them can begin to understand. If you’re arguing with them over something that defies the laws of physics, you’re being unnecessarily diverted from delivering proper capability. This is an everyday occurrence.

Sorry about the drift but it’s directly relevant to the general problem of ill-equipped troops, which will inevitably raise its head again when the Select Committee sit again to discuss the lack of progress on Combat ID.

[nigegilb]

From today's Times;

"The present rates in both theatres [Iraq and Afghanistan] are what you would expect for major hostilities, rather than the low-intensity warfare that the fighting is portrayed as being,” she said.

British concerns over the problem led the US air force to loan 12 Rover video receivers to the British forces in Afghanistan. These allow the British forward air controller to see precisely what the US pilot is seeing through his cockpit video.

Critics point out that 12 is not sufficient to ensure that every patrol on the ground has one. They question why, given how often US pilots provide close air support, the MoD does not buy more video receivers itself."

So, the nickname, the "borrowers", which part timer Browne denied was true a few months ago, now appears to have high level support.

US pilots must dread being called in to support British troops on the ground. The efficacy of the MoD and Service Chiefs at a time of war. Has anyone told them we have been fighting in Afg for 5 years?