RAF aircraft 'hit by US missile'

[IceHouse]

Anyone have any more info?

[gulf_slf]

BBC NEWS REPORT

RAF aircraft missing in Gulf


An RAF aircraft which was returning from an operational mission is missing, a Ministry of Defence spokesman at Central Command in Qatar has said.
It was not yet known what type of aircraft was involved or where it disappeared.

The statement from the spokesman said there were "no further details at this stage."

MoD Helpline Numbers
Royal Navy and Royal Marines - 08457 414544
Army personnel - 01980 615500
RAF personnel - 01452 712612 ext 7080 or 7045
It comes after two helicopter crashes involving British crew, on consecutive nights.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, two Royal Navy Sea King helicopters collided over the Gulf, with the loss of all seven crew members - six British and one American.

And 24 hours earlier a US Chinook crashed over the Kuwaiti desert killing eight British and four American service personnel.

Baghdad has endured a fourth night of bombing on Saturday, but not on the scale witnessed on Friday night.

It is not known whether the missing plane was involved in the air strikes on the Iraqi capital.

RAF crews also fly support and cover missions.

US and Iraqi forces have clashed in the desert just 160 kilometres (100 miles) south of Baghdad.

And Iraqi pockets of resistance have remained in southern Iraq, with an exchange of fire in Umm Qasr.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has told a Sunday newspaper the military strategy is aimed at avoiding civilian casualties.

More follows.

[USE THE RUDDERS]

Sad news,just breaking

RAF aircraft appears to have been shot down by a Patriot missle

[Cpl Plod]

An RAF aircraft is missing, following reports that it was hit by an American missile.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman at Central Command in Qatar said it had been returning from a mission over Iraq.

It was not yet known what type of aircraft was involved or how many crew were on board, although a search for survivors is underway.

It is thought the plane was brought down by a US Patriot anti-missile system stationed in the Gulf to protect Kuwait and coalition forces stationed there.

The MoD spokesman said there were "no further details at this stage."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2877349.stm

[DrSyn]

Gp Capt Al Lockwood has just been on the Beeb confirming the suspicion that the (unspecified) RAF aircraft was brought down by a US Patriot battery. What with the 101st grenade tragedy, not a great start to the day really :(

[S76Heavy]

With friends like these, who needs enemies:(

I think there are some hard lessons to be learned when the show is over, most of them about how to avoid unnecessary casualties..

My thoughts go out to all berieved

[Radar Muppet]

Why does this come as no real surprise?

Our allies are (and always have been) bloody cowboys who shoot first and question later. I have seen it many times before and cannot see it stopping here.

Sort yourselves out, Americans, or your allied aircrew will become a lot less allied.

My sincerest sympathies to the families of the poor individuals concerned.

[Chilli Monster]

Ok - the list so far.

1) A300 (the Vincennes incident)

2) UK Warrior AFV's in Gulf War 1

3) 2 UH60's at the end of Gulf War 1

4) Canadians on a training exercise in Afghanistan

5) 1 UK aircraft

The phrase 'bumbling amateurs' springs to mind. All the toys in the playground without the ability to play with them properly.

[moggie]

Sad but sadly inevitable.

I hope to god that they got out.

Maybe we should shut down and wait for the Yanks to get their acts together - they tell us that they don't really need us, anyway.

[garp]

Is it not so that every airplane flying around in the area has to be an allied plane since the IAF isn't flying anymore?
Real shame.

[mutleyfour]

Appalling news, I find myself full of sadness and rage at the same time.

Its such a shame that this sort of thing happens, especially so when your hoping that it doesn't. Lets hope that this is the only Blue on Blue!

I echo the thoughts above and hope that the crew managed to get out in time.

God Bless.

[propulike]

Guys and girls,

Don't go jumping to conclusions and allocating blame until all the facts are out. The full story has not been released yet, and until it is we cannot tell what happened, apart from some more of our comrades are missing.

God Bless them, and the thoughts and prayers of my family are with theirs.

[Scud-U-Like]

This is not my area of expertise, but, is it possible the ac could have been mistaken for a missile? Was the ac squawking? Was it flying where it shouldn't have been?

I think at this early stage, it isn't particularly helpful to jump to conclusions.

I too hope the crew managed to bang-out.

[DamienB]

I think there are some hard lessons to be learned when the show is over

Yeah - don't go to war with the US on your side.

Journalist acquaintance tells me the MoD just said the type involved is a Harrier.

[nav attacking]

Moggie, you seem to forget there are aircraft other than fast jets out there, not everyone can bang out...

Brings me to another point. Who was the idiot to release such scant information to the press. "An RAF aircraft is missing....." Every single family with aircrew in theatre is now dreading the phone to ring. We can only imagine how they must be feeling.

Information about how the war is going and the spread of misinformation as part of psychops are part of modern warfare but lose tongues giving partial information can only cause more grief and concern than is necessary. Get a grip out there, news should only be given out when families have been informed and you can then give real information.

As to slagging the Americans off all the time, at least they have some of the best kit that money can buy. I believe that Patriot is an auto-acquire system that relies on modern IFF systems for it to avoid blue-on-blue. Lets just hope that this wasn't due to our inferior kit failing at a crucial time. Only time will tell and even then we probably won't get the full story.

My thoughts are now with every family that has members or friends out in theatre.

[Ali Barber]

It is extremely unlikely they were following a Scud profile, but they could have been confused with an anti-ship missile (fired against land targets earlier) or possibly an Al-Samoud. That said, I am sure they were following a whole host of routeing and recognition procedures coming back from the other side of the lines and the US do not have a great track record in blue-on-blue. Let's wait for the real story before we start leaping to conclusions.

Hope they got out and, if not, my comiserations to friends and family.

[Evo]

Journalist acquaintance tells me the MoD just said the type involved is a Harrier.

BBC saying it is 'confirmed' as being a Tornado GR4

[moggie]

Nav attacking - you are quite right. The same though about non-bang seat equipped aeroplane crossed my mind just after I posted (as a truckie myself this is unforgiveable).

Fingers crossed for crew member(s).

[nav attacking]

Lets cut the speculation and wait for the real news...

Brian Burridge has just been on BBC and refuses to say what type or how many personnel were on board. I hopehe is chewing somebody out right now for letting the press know.

[brit bus driver]

Press conference scheduled for 1100 UTC according to BBC news, to be headed up by a US major-general.

[topofdropman]

The usual talking heads on Fox news were saying that, as there are clear guidelines and procedures governing the routing and IFF codes for coalition aircraft, it must be the RAF crew's fault for not following these strictly.

I am fully behind action in the Gulf and the US in general, but this makes my blood boil. I remember a Jag mate telling me how he was nearly shot down on the way back from a sortie in Gulf War I, as the IFF codes etc did not stop him being "painted" by Allied air defences and followed by F15s. The Jag resembles the Mirage (various variants of) from certain angles.

Fox made no mention of the blue-on-blue in Gulf War I (A10 vs British Army). My dad was in the SBS in combat and he said he lost more men to the US than the nation they were battling at the time. And this is going back some. Therefore, given the long and inglorious record of US blue-on-blue, the instant implied blame on the RAF flies inthe face of history.

Sad day indeed. Rant over, my thoughts return to the crew, families, friends and partners to whom my deepest sympathies extend.

(As a long-time lurker, it is sad that my first post is made through sorrow and anger).

[Chimbu chuckles]

I made the point about the US' habitual blue on blue months ago on Dunnunder.

Just cowboys.

When your ally inflicts greater casualties than the 'enemy' side do is it not time for some hard questions?

Sad for the families involved...my thoughts are with them.

Chuck.

[Biggus]

Before we all start slagging off the Americans (and I am not defending anyone!!) lets just remember that blue-on-blue is not limited to just them (they seem to do more than most - but then they have more assets!). In the Falklands war a Type 42 RN destroyer (and I am not having a go at the RN either!) shot down an AAC helicopter. And our wonderful MOD tried to hide the fact/cover it up!!!

Lets just wait for the facts shall we?

[Smoketoomuch]

I wonder if this is related? I heard it on radio, just after a US guy attacked his own alarms were going off all over and a Patriot fired.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/international/worldspecial/23GREN.html
... Shortly after the grenade attack, a Patriot missile was launched from this camp, about five miles south of Camp Pennsylvania. Sirens roared the alarm, and a mid-air explosion was seen overhead as the Patriot intercepted a missile. It was not immediately clear what kind of missile was shot down, or where it had been fired from.

[Hilico]

According to the BBC, the aircraft had no chance; "the Patriot missile travels at about Mach 3, and the aircraft was coming into land at less than Mach 1." D*mn! I KNEW we should have stuck with the Saro Supersonic Lander.

Sincere condolences to the crew's family.

[Eboy]

My condolences to all involved in this tragedy. As said, we need to see the details. The point is made, and I agree, that, statistically, Americans will have more friendly fire incidents because they have more soldiers and more weapons. We do it to ourselves more than against allies, including in 1991. Any loss such as this is unacceptable and will be investigated. You can dump on the Americans but, if Britain is ever threatened, I would be there tomorrow if called up.

[Heartbreaker]

Oh come on. UK..you already shot yourselves down yesterday including an American serviceman. Two Sea kings.

Bit of balance please. :rolleyes:

[Prijon]

Without jumping to conclusions too much, even if the ac's IFF/SIF were U/S it doesn't mean that it can necessarily be engaged straight away. There are other ways to ID ac..... Let's see what info comes out.


My condolences to family and friends involved.

[Jackonicko]

This sort of blue on blue can never be condoned - it always indicates lax procedures or a cavalier regard of procedures. But in these circumstances, with no credible air threat, surely there should have been more time for the Patriot operators to check and double check. The chances of it being an incoming 'Fencer' were, after all, remote.

Will those two Ameriocan contributors who made the remarks about Britain's record in Northern Ireland and vis a vis the two Sea Kings please show some dignity, sense and sensitivity and edit or remove their crass remarks.

[SASless]

Let's see here.....two SeaKings run into one another....bloody idiots! From the same squadron....same ship....rank amateurs....don't they know what they are doing? Maybe we should not allow our guys to ride in Limey helicopters?

Seems to me to be an offensive concept....does not begin to square with the facts....only serves to show how close to the surface some questionable attitudes run. I did not hear that when that tragedy occurred. I seem to remember it was messages of condolences just as in the CH-46 crash.

As so many others have said.....wait until the facts are known before you trumpet your prejudice. In each of the cases presented.....mistakes were made. I dare say, we are not unique in that. What determines the difference between a professional and a non-professional?

[Sick Squid]

A lot of allies have lost their lives in the last couple of days, and feelings on this thread are running high. Emotions are being vented, and that is a very good thing.

Can I ask that you just take a 5 minute pause before sending what you have written please. In that pause think about the men who have lost their lives, their families, friends and colleagues, and also the servicemen who will have to live with the consequences of this for the rest of their lives.

Thank you. On behalf of everyone who helps run this site our deepest and heartfelt condolences to all involved. Pray to whichever God you choose that this is over very soon.

Sick Squid
For all the PPRuNe Admin Staff.

[mutleyfour]

SASless, I don't really want to turn this thread into a slanging match, so I'll keep this brief:

There's a lot of difference between falling of a bicycle and being pushed off one by your friend!

[Gingerbread Man]

A search has begun for the downed aircraft. Does this mean that they are going to recover wreckage, or is there still a chance that the crew survived? I know that the ACES seats used by the USAF have transmitters in them to locate the seats after they have been used. Do the Martin Baker seats have anything similar, and if so, are we to assume that there was no chance to eject, seeing as we have heard no reports about the crew?

Ginge :(

[SASless]

Mutley,

When you discover the "perfectly run" war...please let me know. Artillery has fallen short for ages, Squadie's have shot their own by mistake, gunship rockets have hit the wrong place, air strikes have hit the wrong people, and anti-aircraft fire has targetted friendly aircraft. That is the nature of war. It is a very complex business that is far from a perfect process. Mistakes as have happened with the Tornado aircraft are a tragedy. The bombing of friendly troops is a tragedy. Two aircraft running into one another is a tragedy. Does it matter, how it happens if other than premeditation?

If you wish to use the "pushed off the bike" concept....we could also apply that to one of the Seaking crews. Someone there made a mistake too....and people died. I did not see any posts suggesting that.

My point is simple.....some of the posters here....and it is clear who they are....take every opportunity to slang anyone other than themselves when unfortunate events occur. They ignore the facts, the circumstances, and the motivation. It usually stems from a position of predjudice and arrogance. Usually, there are enough other participants to this forum that accept the truth and in time remind those that hold such objectionable opinons of the error of their position.

We are engaged in war with a common enemy...we are on the same side. Mistakes happen in war.....and usually people die as a result. War is a very dangerous business at the best of times. Fratricide has been a problem for all....all....military forces.

Irrational ranting does not help the situation and certainly identifies the one doing the ranting as being off base. It could just as easily have been an American aircraft and crew.....and if the air defence system was manned by British crews.....they too could have made the same mistake. We do not know if it was a crew error, a system error, a command and control error, or what.....to immediately throw out the kinds of statements made by some, is simply...."sad".

[topofdropman]

When I wrote, "rant over", I meant about Fox TV's talking heads blaming the RAF crew for the Patriot intercept. And they went on to talk about the "horrific losses" sustanied by the Tornado last time around. They did not mention the JP233 and its delivery profile, but sought to imply that the Tornado and/or RAF aircrews have a history of losses due to inadequate kit or training. That is what I find insulting. The Patriot was a tragedy, and my heart also goes out to the men or women who fired the missile and must be going through hell. The US, too, has my full support and always has. :D

[Smoketoomuch]

Sky news has footage of Patriot engagement - shows v large explosion above Kuwait camp, time and location make it likely it was Tornado according to report.

[fabs]

If I could just go slightly 'off subject' for a minute, the new helpline telephone number for the RAF is 08457 800900. Not now the extension numbers as reported in the media until yesterday.

Fingers crossed for the GR4 crew, I prey they got out in time:(

[T_richard]

GOod Morning All,

First my condolences to the families of all the brave souls who have or will die in this awful conflict.

Secondly, the first page of this thread is basically a rock thowing party against the US military. Weell you may have spoken too soon, according to MSNBC at 1025 hrs EST the British warplane's ID transponder may have failed. This has not been confirmed by other news services, but it suggests that those of you who despise the US, its people, and its military might want to wait until the facts are in before you start throwing the sh*t.

Of course, based on what I have read on this website, weaving facts into your anti-american rants might take the purpose out of your lives

[Bullet Tooth Tony]

I deleted my previous post which came across a completely anti American which I certainly am not. I apologise.

I do however maintain that this happens far too often with the American forces. Decision making is an essential aspect of military operations and it is where, as human beings, we are supposed to be superior to any computer system.

Before that Patriot was fired I would like to think that the operator weighed up a number of possibilities. Likely threat, profile being flown by the "target", visible identification (maybe), the ACO's. Even if the Tornado wasn't sqwawking (we don't know) would you/should you still fire if when the above points are considered, it doesn't quite add up. I know that decisions have to be made VERY quickly, but that is what they/we get paid for.

Maybe the above options were considered. Maybe not.

Heartfelt condolances to family and friends of ALL casualties of this conflict.

[ORAC]

The Guardian:

British defence chiefs said today that an investigation has been launched into the shooting down of an RAF Tornado by a US Patriot missile battery while it was returning from a mission over Iraq early this morning.

The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told BBC1's Politics Show that "urgent reviews" were under way into the "friendly fire" incident, which has left two British airmen missing close to the Kuwaiti border.

Group Captain Al Lockwood, the spokesman for British forces in the Gulf, said a joint UK and US investigation had been launched. "We will get to the bottom of it to make sure there is no repetition," he said. "We're looking now for the evidence of the aircraft's crash site - and obviously the crew members."

US central command today confirmed that a Tornado GR4, the fighter-bomber version of the aircraft, was returning from an operational mission early Sunday when it was "engaged" by the missile battery.

The Ministry of Defence later announced that the jet was based at RAF Marham in Norfolk. A spokesman said: "The next of kin have been informed. Two airmen remain missing."

The commander of British troops in the Gulf, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, admitted this morning that one of his planes had been shot down "by mistake".

Air Marshal Burridge, speaking from central command in Qatar, told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost that coalition forces were now "deeply engaged" in searching for the downed aircraft. "This is a sad moment but we will put it behind us as quickly as we can in a military sense and carry on to our objective," he said.

[solotk]

The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told BBC1's Politics Show that "urgent reviews" were under way into the "friendly fire" incident, which has left two British airmen missing close to the Kuwaiti border.

Would this be the very same Geoff Hoon, that said in parliament during the first debate "Combat Identification systems were being procured, and would be fitted in time"?

Just wanted to be sure :mad:

[TC27]

I agree with those who say that until the details of the crash are known its pointless and unproductive to play the blame game.

[Jeep]

Smoketoomuch:

I think your summise has a lot of merit in it.

Very sad.

[kbf1]

Jet II: I do not find it offensive, rather it is quite accurate. It was first posted on an army forum and accurately reflects the feelings of a lot of UK servicemen, the army especially who have suffered disproportionately from "friendly fire".

I will compromise with you and take the pic down if you can give me a single instance of an American serviceman being killed through British "friendly fire" in recent conflict post WW2 operations where there was clear and demonstrable negligence on the part of the perpitrators?

I am not anti-American, rather I have an issue with the gung-ho cadre of shoot first, ask the relevant questions later US servicemen. That picture may be shocking in some senses, but it makes a valid point, namely that this is not a game and people die when rash, ill-considred decisions are made or ROE ignored.

Let us for argument sake presume that the RAF Tornado shot down by a patriot was off-course and not transmitting IFF. The ROE, if stringently applied by someone with good a/c recognistion skills should have prevented, or at least dramatically lessened the chances of that incident from happening. I am all in favour of waiting to see the outcome of an investigation. Let us hope that it is not a cover-up such as the one involving the A10 pilots who hit a British Warrior AFV in GW1 who were shipped home on the same day and lost in the system long enough to bog British requests for a court-martial down in diplomatic red tape.

My feelings run very high on this issue and I decline to water them down to make anyone here feel comfortable.

[SASless]

KBF.....what a load of bollocks....

You do not know what the ROE are in the situation under issue.

You do not know the sequence of events that led to the launch.

You sit there in your lounge....beer in hand....and suppose to tell those directly involved what happened.

You read criticisms by others from your side of the saltwater divide that suggests all might not be well with the RAF IFF kit and insist only the Yanks could be at fault.

There is a very real threat of attack in theather as we speak.....

The ramifications of allowing a successful Bio/Chem strike through indecision or delay justifies stringent dedication to defence of the coalition forces.

Get real! When the facts come out....then make up your mind about who/what is at fault.

As to British Blue on Blue.....read the posts....RN in the Falklands as listed above....also I recall a British Army artillery barrage that whacked British troops as well during that one. You cannot blame us for those events.....we only provided you in-direct assistance on that one.

[46Driver]

kbf1,
First of all, have you ever served in the military - do you have any sense of the "fog of war"? There have always been instances of friendly fire - and there always will be. You are not dealing with airliners on final approach but an ever changing and fluid environment.
Second, imagine the flip side. Iraqi aircraft studying and then copying our flight profiles - just so one aircraft can get in and drop anthrax or vx.
We have seen friendly fire too much - our Air Force took out a couple of Blackhawks a few years ago, the Marines biggest loss in the last Gulf War was some LAV's destroyed by A-10's.
Friendly fire, always regretable, happens.

[kbf1]

I have just hit the delete button rather than post what I was about to, frankly my piss is boiling with anger and I have already spent long enough on the phone with £6 on this subject today. I could be arguing the point till we are all blue in the face.

I will say a couple of things:

1. 9 years service and counting thanks. Operated with the yanks before, mixed feelings about them. Good guys, overly gung-ho at times which worries me and a lot of Brits.

2. You can argue this from all sides with endless possibilities, just as you can a TEWTS.

3. Last time in the Gulf we lost more servicemen to blue-on-blue than to enemy action. Thus far the same tally applies. It is about time some difficult questions were asked of the Americans.

4. I'm entitled to my opinion even if it disagrees with yours.

[Captain Gadget]

kbf1

Jet II: I do not find it offensive, rather it is quite accurate.

SASless and I do not always (usually?) see eye-to-eye - we have crossed swords before on this forum on the subject of this war.

BUT in this case I agree wholeheartedly with him. The time for arguing the rights and wrongs has passed. We are at war, we are allies, the facts are anything but known. Saddam's cronies have internet access.

Your graphic is in bad taste and I join SASless and Jet II in asking you to remove it immediately.

Gadget

(Edited by Captain Gadget on realisation that said graphic had just been deleted): Good thinking, Batman.

(Edited again on realising that it was Capt PPRune himself who had deleted said graphic): Not quick enough, Batman. Thanks, Danny.

[T_richard]

kbf1

#1 You ARE entitled to your opinion and you are free to state it. How you state it will directly determine the response you receive.

#2 Your posts have been tasteless, insensitive and inflamatory. We do not know the facts yet you already have someone to blame. If you have spent 9 years in military service as you say, then you must have learned something about waiting for the truth to be fully disclosed before rendering a verdict. It's my guess that you just like to bash Americans, you have an old grudge that hasn't been resolved to YOUR satisfaction so you use this forum to put the two together in an infantile rant unbecoming of a true member of HM service. Seek some therapy, before you implode.

[Danny]

kbf1, I find it offensive and I have removed it. You don't know all the facts yet but you don't hesitate to jump in and level accusations about gung-hoism. Were you there? How familiar are you with the operation and decision making flow of a Patriot missile battery? Not very I wouldn't hesitate to presume.

Have you ever been in actual combat? Have any of those posters above who are so quick to show their anti-American ever actually been in combat? I don't just mean as part of some resupply umit or logistics unit but as part of a front line combat unit? I doubt it and it shows. The confusion of what is actually going on is acute. You only have to watch the embedded reporters asking soldiers they are with if they know exactly what is happening and their disappointment when they don't get a decisive reply.

This 'blue on blue' incident is tragic and no doubt lessons will be learned from it but jumping in here and venting off on our allies is premature and uneccesary. It's bad enough trying to stop the vocal minority of anti-war/anti American from swamping some of the threads on this site without giving them moral support from those who are quick to condemn without all the facts.

Specualtion on what happened is fine but conclusions with comments that show acute prejudice are not welcome.

[SASless]

Ah, but Gadget...we did so in an honorable fashion I hope....really!

[mvand003]

in GWI RAF/AAC borrowed M4 Mk X IFF from the Americans, and handed it back after the war

the question is, did they borrow the (NATO standard!) kit agian this time or has the UK MOD installed it by now?

keep in mind, for a ground base air defence operator it is way worse than to let slip a valid (high speed, jamming, negative IFF, non ACO) target trough than to kill a vital target in weapons free / TBM automatic that in this case sadly turned out to be a friendly

hope GWII will be short and decisive, good luck to every one out there

[Captain Kirk]

I have logged onto this thread seeking news of close friends – as, I suspect, will many others. I can barely believe some of the insensitive and bigoted nonsense that I have read and would not expect it of the gutter press, much less professional military aviators.

I have served around the world alongside US Forces, including operationally in this theatre – I have only ever found them to be meticulous professionals.

Kbf1 – I am appalled by your pious and ill-informed comments. That we lose more lives to fratricide than enemy action could be taken as a fairly dramatic measure of the efficiency of the US at engaging the enemy.

Of course, we must strive to reduce the chance of blue-on-blue engagements but fratricide is a harsh reality of warfare and often the function of human frailty, amplified under the stress of combat. I trust that those contributors with some clever point to make are entirely familiar with their own performance under demanding and harrowing circumstances. If so, they should be ashamed of their entirely inappropriate and offensive comments. If not, then I suggest that these PC warriors keep their comments to themselves and learn some respect for better men and women.

[Captain Gadget]

Mr SASless, Sir

Ah, but Gadget...we did so in an honorable fashion I hope....really!

Of course. As I have said previously elsewhere on this forum, the time has come to climb off the fence.

I considerably outstrip kbf1 in years of service (although out of the mob now), and I am privileged to have spent much of my time working with colleagues from the US. I am pleased to say that I never found issue either with their professionalism or with their dedication to duty, although admittedly I did always have to train them to make a decent cup of tea.

The missile operators, as well as the Tornado aircrew and their families, are in my thoughts and prayers this evening. So are those myopic gits who think that they could have done better and won't do this tragedy the courtesy of waiting for the evidence.

Yours aye

Gadget :ok: :ok:

[Tourist]

I think a few people on this website should calm down their vitriol a bit.
Banter is always good, but slagging Yanks for their possible (I say again possible) errors, is frankly disrespectful to the victims of such tragedies, and I think that journos should get a day off from abuse under todays circumstances.
there, piece said.
feel a lot better now

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Trying to avoid the mud slinging, but isn't it disappointing that the majority of coalition casualties have been self generarted so far?

[Captain Gadget]

Tourist

Couldn't agree more. mate. However, you might get more readership if you renamed your thread...come to think of it, perhaps allusions to grass (freshly mown?) might not be in terribly good taste anyway?

Gadget

[T_richard]

WBoy

Has there ever been a major conflict withou friendl fire casualties? I am not a military historian, but gut tells me it would be rare for that to occur.

The fact that those are the majority of the total casualties may say something about the early success of this mission. Frankly, I don't put much stock in such analysis, lets wait till this war is over before we tally up all the mistakes.

[46Driver]

We quite often had exchange officers from the Royal Navy in our Marine Corps squadrons - damn good people - and if you are ever in a scrape, the first people you want on your side are the Brits and Aussies. My condolences - as I am sure the rest of America's - goes out to the families of the Tornado pilots.

(and to Captain Gadget - I am one of those Americans who could never figure out hot tea - or soccer for that matter...)

[ORAC]

WB SATCO, I find the fact there have been only a handful of casualties due to enemy action thankful. I pray that it remains that way, but fear that they will escalate as Baghdad is approached.

And those casualties will be overwhelmingly suffered by the Americans, British forces staying in the south to clear up around Basra.

[kbf1]

I am going to make a final post on this issue in an attempt to calm things down a bit (me also, and point generally taken).

T-Rich: I accept wholeheartedly the first point you make.

As for the second, I reiterate what I have previously said, we will have to wait for the full facts to come out. There is a risk however that they never will, and therefore lessons will not be learned.

After GW1 when the A10 attacked a formation of the Cheshires the pilots were immediately flown out of theatre and were never formally brought to book over the incident. The Americans (just like many other nations, Britian being no exception) don't like their dirty laundry being hung out to dry and whitewashed the incident. We can never be sure that a repeat isn't on the cards because we can't be sure that SOPs were ammended as a consequence of that incident.

As for bashing Americans, you can draw your own conclusions. I have my reasons for NOT hating them, but that is not to say I will not be critical of the US Military where I think it appropriate. My comments are made from a position of anger for many reasons and in the absence of the context gained in person-to-person conversation it is easy to read more into what I have written than was actually intended.

For those of you who took offence at what I have written, I apologise. This isn't the first time I have apologised in 3 years on this forum, it probably won't be the last. The poster that was put up came from an army bulletin board where opnion on this subject is at vast odds with the general opinion that has been voiced here. I belive it made some valid points and expected some criticism for it. Danny chose to remove it, and as this is his train set I will not seek to put it up elsewhere.

Gadget: In years to come I too will be able to say "9 years is nothing". You have been in a lot longer than I have, and fair play to you. My experience of working with the Americans has been decidedly mixed. Many were outstanding, some gave me cause for grave concern. I have met one officer of notable seniority who thought that "A-Rabs" were lower forms of human life and who held some "interesting" views on what should be done with them. I have met US servicemen with what I view as little regard for human life. I mentioned a "gung-ho cadre" in a previous post, that is not to imply the entire US military is the same, and it would be to distort my intentions to suggest otherwise.

Kirk:
I am appalled by your pious and ill-informed comments. That we lose more lives to fratricide than enemy action could be taken as a fairly dramatic measure of the efficiency of the US at engaging the enemy.

The last part of your comments cause me a lot of concern. The US may be efficient at engaging the enemy, but is that any sort of defence that would satisfy the colleagues of those killed by american friendly fire? To suggest that mistakes do happen when there is a battle of high intensity going on all around is reasonable, but when incidents take place in relative lulls is not. If a threat assessment is low and the engagement intensity is low then it would be unreasonable to suggest that friendly fire incidents are nothing more than an a measure of efficiency. In this instance, if there were Scuds raining down and an imminent ground counter-attack your comments would bear scrutiny. In this instance I don't see that they do.

Danny: Final comments understood.

[Captain Gadget]

kbf1

Gadget: In years to come I too will be able to say "9 years is nothing".

I didn't say that. What I will say, though, is that it takes a better man to climb down than it does to let rip in the first place - these are difficult times. Good on yer for that, at least. There are others on this site who could do with learning from you.


Gadget

[rivetjoint]

My thoughts go equally to the families of the Tornado crew and to the crew of the Patriot system, both who will be wondering now what went wrong.

[lanciaspezzata]

Noone so far has mentioned AWACS aircraft.

What exactly do these aircraft control? With whom do they operate? Is the "control" over the entire air battle area? Who controls the AWACS?

Do the AWACS have comms with things like missile batteries? What control function do they have in that respect?

Could the AWACS have seen the conflict develop and could they have done anything to stop this awful result?

Are AWACS being used in this conflict?

[Captain Kirk]

Kbf1,

You were doing so well right up to the last bit!

Read my post again!
The next line reads ‘Of course, we must strive to reduce the chance of blue-on-blue engagements…’
I am not complacent.

You then go off again about reasonable vs unreasonable behaviour in circumstances about which you know nothing!

STOP SPECULATING!

And, to make it more plain for you, I fear that I AM a colleague of those killed.

Just stick with your apology and, in future, please apply a little more thought and consideration before sounding off in the first place!

[T_richard]

kbf1

I have some issues with certain points in Your most recent post but I can read it without seeing red. Wouldn't you have made a better case for your argument if you ahd written your last reply first and skipped all the tasteless posts that preceded it? I assume you are grown man, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and further assume that you have some education. Given those two assumptions, isn't it likely that you could present your POV reasonably without inflamatory speculation and tasteless artwork. By the way, just because some other A**hole used it doesn't mean you have to. As my mother would say when I was young" If he jumped off a bridge would you"? THere may be a British alternative to that maxim

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

For Christ's sake, will some of you guys please stop suppositioning as to what may or may not have happened and who is to blame in all of this. What do you honestly think you will achieve by slagging people off when you haven't a blasted clue what actually went on.

Like Captain Kirk, I fear I may have lost a couple of mates of mine. My thoughts are with the families concerned and the community at Marham.

[Jackonicko]

No-one's answered the question. I can see that in the Falklands and even in Desert Storm, there was a real danger of enemy air attack, and AAA/SAM operators did not have the luxury of doing any more than follow well established procedures.

In these circumstances, with no credible air threat, surely there could and should have been more time for the Patriot operators to check and double check, and to demonstrate greater flexibility. The chances of it being an incoming 'Fencer' were, after all, much more than remote.

[T_richard]

TSP

I pray for your mates, that was my first comment at the beginning of this thread. Unfortunately some of your fellow men have followed the "ready", "Fire", "Aim" approach to analyzing the early reports to the end that The US was the great monster. I couldn't let that stand, but my apologies for my insensitivity. I could have walked away.

[Smoketoomuch]

Jack - this came on top of reports of missiles beiing moved south [how I don't know] and shortly after the mad US soldier attacked his own. It happened live on radio, ground alert sounded after grenade attack, then breathless reporter said 'Now... oh - we have air alert, I see a missile, something has just blown up in the sky'

[Scud-U-Like]

My deepest sympathies go to the families of the lost crew. :(

I hope they don't come anywhere near this macabre thread.

[Farfrompuken]

Another tragic event in such a short timescale. More thoughts go out to even more family, friends and loved ones.

I found myself thinking 'I hope they weren't any mates of mine', then soon held that in check; no matter who it is RAF, USAF, USN etc, it's a bloody awful event.

My wife rang base to make sure I wasn't involved. Some snotty LAC fobbed her off in a rude and insensitive manner. Thank god for text messaging. Hope the involved have had the support they need and deserve.

Rest in peace.

Here's hoping for more happy times.

[Steve Davies]

The Det commander on a BBC interview said it the jet was #2 of a two-ship, and was 'doing everything correctly', including flying the right airspeed/altitude in the correct corridor.

RIP the two crew.

[Jackonicko]

SASless,

Thanks for the courteous reply, which made me think it through more clearly. I suppose that just because nothing has materialised air threat wise yet (beyond the small number of missiles to which you refer) it doesn't mean that they can't and that my assumption of a slightly more relaxed alert state being possible was erroneous. I wonder if in fact the threat state was even higher than usual as a direct result of the grenades going off. Could the two events even be directly linked, I wonder?

[fireflybob]

Very sorry to hear this tragic news.

Our prayers are with and for the families, colleagues and friends of these courageous aircrew who have perished doing their duty.

[maxburner]

Once again a military aircrew thread has been used to throw uninformed opinion around as though it were fact. Theres also some unpleasant xenophobia in evidence.

An investigation is underway into this unfortunate incident and no doubt the cause will become clear. Its pointless to speculate on the cause because it could any one or more from a long list of possible causes. It could be equipment failure, a failure of procedures or even a human failing in someone young, inexperienced and under extreme pressure - how many contributors to this thread have been there?

Blue on blue is feature of military actions. I suspect it always has been. Remember the RAF F4 crew who shot down a Jaguar while on exercise? That incident occurred in peacetime, and others have listed incidents from the Falklands and other conflicts. So, its not just American bloodlust.

I too was initially angry and sad in about equal proportions. I'm now glad I'm sitting this one out, but still full of admiration for those young people risking everything for their country. My heartfelt condolences go to all involved in this tragic incident.

[Lukeafb1]

As an Anglo American, who has served in the R.A.F., I’m appalled at the uninformed, bigoted and generally stupid comments of some contributors to this thread. Although, we all know that some contributors can be relied on to come out of the woodwork and talk out of their ars*s.

Even senior commanders in theatre are unsure of the facts of the particular incidents in question, so how do these armchair buffoons see themselves as the sole guardians of the facts? A little restraint might be in order until the real facts are known and even then they should show some restraint. However, I doubt that facts are of any real interest to some contributors, so long as they can have their rant.

Sincere condolences to all the families of those killed in any of the incidents.

[Bubbette]

My condolescences to the family and friends of all involved. I hope they will be able to figure out the cause, and learn from it.

[x-drive clutch]

Thoughts go to the families and friends of the crew. You'll be missed by many.

Best wishes to the rest of you in theatre. It must be tough, wish we could help out instead of going to Tain each day!

[Digitalis]

The families, friends and colleagues of both the downed crew and the Patriot battery are in my thoughts. I hope they can bring themselves to ignore the hurtful and abhorrent arguments of some of the thoughtless individuals who have posted here, and that they are allowed to repair their lives in peace.

[OFBSLF]

For all of you active duty folks from both sides of the pond, you should know that many of us civilians are thinking about you and your comrades. This was just one tragic event in this war. There will, unfortunately, be many more before it is over. That seems to be the nature of war.

[ORAC]

The Times - 25 March - US colonel says sorry for deaths of air crew.
From Stewart Payne at the RAF Tornado base in Ali al-Salem, northern Kuwait.

THE US colonel in charge of the Patriot battery that mistook an RAF Tornado jet for an incoming Iraqi missile apologised yesterday and gave assurances that it could not happen again.

He did so as it emerged that the lead Tornado in a formation returning from a bombing raid witnessed the Patriot launch and took immediate evasive action. Wing Commander Derek Watson radioed a warning and released chaff and flares to distract the missile, which he presumed was Iraqi. He saw a fireball as it sped over his aircraft. He came into land at the Ali al-Salem air base unaware that the Patriot had hit the second Tornado in his formation........

The missile had locked on to the second Tornado after the Patriot battery radar indicated that the jet was an Iraqi missile. The US lieutenant at the Patriot battery on the Kuwait/Iraq border was faced with a split-second decision. She pressed the button to launch the surface-to-air missile which exploded into the Tornado as it prepared to land. The wreckage has been located in the desert in northwest Kuwait and the bodies of the two aircrew have been recovered. The area has now been quarantined pending an inquiry. The air crew have not been named.

Colonel Tim Glaeser, in charge of the Patriot batteries that defend Kuwait, made a personal visit to the Tornado base at Ali al-Salem yesterday to apologise to the RAF detachment commander, Group Captain Simon Dobb, and to pass his condolences to the families of the dead crew. Group Captain Dobb said........that their meeting was civil and added that the colonel had been instructed to visit the detachment on the orders of his general........

Essentially, a software “glitch” allowed the Patriot radar to read the Tornado as a missile, despite the jet emitting its own individual signature. The US lieutenant only realised the mistake when she had no corroboration of an incoming missile from other monitoring locations.

As for the RAF, it did not realise the Tornado had not returned because another jet from a different base, which had jettisoned its fuel tanks when it came under Iraqi attack, had put down at Ali al-Salem at the same time. The correct number of aircraft appeared to have returned and it was the ground crew who reported that their jet had not returned to its hangar....

[Bigpants]

I thought carefully about making any comment on this issue because it would be very easy to make an emotive or unfair statement before an enquiry had been completed.

I choose to do so because I am myself an ex Tornado pilot, I had worked with some of the people concerned and unusually I have also served as an operator of a SAM unit albeit an old one back in the 1980's.

From my own experience I know that the Tornado world is very careful about following procedures when entering or leaving a Missile Engagement Zone MEZ. I would be confident that the Tornado package was flying in accordance with those rules.

From my time as an operator of a SAM unit it was not unusual to see the odd friendly unintentionally enter a MEZ for a variety of reasons. That does absolve the operator from engaging without using common sense!

Maintaining good Situational Awareness SA is a key element in the training of anyone involved in an armed conflict. A software glitch that suddenly identifies one of an otherwise friendly package as hostile should have provoked some thought, not a finger on the firing button.

War or no war, I would like to believe that an un-biased investigation will take place and, if the evidence suggests it then the Lt involved will face disciplinary action. My fear is that this will be swept under the carpet because the Pentagon and Downing Street will view a Court Martial as being bad for morale.
Regards Matt Wood
Ex 11 Sqn (Air Defense)
Ex 85 Sqn (Bloodhound Surface to Air Missile)
Ex 31 Sqn (Tornado GR1)

[mutleyfour]

Anybody have an idea of the seperation of the two said Tornado's?

[Out Of Trim]

I understand an F-16 was locked onto and indeed fired a weapon (Type?) at a patriot battery. Apparently nobody was hurt.

So was it another software glitch?

I sure hope they manage to stop this tragic type of event happening again!

My sincere condolences to the families of the RAF Tornado crew concerned.

[dopeonarope]

My heart goes out to the families of the lost crew; Rest in Peace. I hope there is a speedy end to this conflict and few souls are lost. Take care all those out there in harms way.

[Pontious]

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here and my intention is not to offend but I feel that I must throw this question over to our American cousins.
Do you not agree that the system is failing the people that it is there to protect when there appears to be a lack of accountability, based upon the incidents occuring in the current conflict (and GW1) particularly with the track records of the A-10's, the AWACS controllers in the Blackhawk incident,the most recent Patriot incident with the F-16 and not forgetting the unfortunate Canadian troops in Afghanistan? Would you agree that if the system keeps failing then it needs changing plus with such a high number of Blue on Blue's increasing almost daily it needs changing soon?
For the "Yank knockers" it is oh so easy to cast aspersions from your armchairs but spare a thought for the pilot's,navs and ground radar operators who are faced with the life saving/life taking dilemmas where the actions or inactions could save or cost the lives of a few or a few thousand.
My only crticism of anything remotely American is their coverage of the war.I've just returned from a month long Det to the States and believe me when I say that one could be fooled into thinking that there are two wars in progress at the minute.

[Red Line Entry]

(The crew's names have now been formally released by MOD.)

I had the privilege of serving with Kev Main and he was one of the most friendly and cheerful blokes you could ever wish to meet. He was an extremely professional aviator in every respect with a true love of his craft. He is going to be very much missed by everyone that knew him.

Goodbye Kev. Happy landings wherever they may be.

[Beakor]

I can't put it any better than Red Line Entry. Kev, it was a pleasure to work with you, you'll be missed. Our thoughts are with the rest of the family. Take care of yourselves.

Beaker (& Di)

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Inquest now sitting

from the Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006500430,00.html

By JAMIE PYATT
October 31, 2006

A BLOWN fuse may have caused the “friendly fire” deaths of two RAF fliers in a Tornado jet, an inquest heard yesterday.


Pilot Kevin Main, 35, and navigator David Williams, 37, died after their Tornado GR4 was shot down by a US Patriot missile days into the Iraq war.

They were in a four-plane sortie returning from a bombing raid in Baghdad on March 22, 2003, when they were struck over the Coalition’s Ali-Al Salem airbase in Kuwait. The Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system which “interrogated” all aircraft nearing the base mistook their Tornado for an enemy plane.

Wing Commander Stephen Cockram, who headed the UK deaths probe, said a fuse may have blown in the Tornado’s IFF, making it unrecognisable to the Patriot system.

But Squadron Leader Russell Parker, an engineer, said the Tornado’s IFF was tested before the mission and the chance of a fault was “one in 100,000”.

Andrew Walker, Oxfordshire’s Assistant Deputy Coroner, said the reason may remain a mystery.

He said the Tornado’s IFF may have failed and “when interrogated, no appropriate response was given”. If it was working, something could have interfered with the Patriot battery’s interrogation system, causing it to fail to recognise the jet.

Flt Lt Main, from Burntwood, Staffs, and Flt Lt Williams, of Crickhowell, North Wales, were flying partners based at RAF Marham, Norfolk.

The inquest continues today.

[tucumseh]

From the BOI report:


Procedures were in place to deal with a situation where an aircraft’s IFF had failed, but the crew would have needed to know that the IFF was inoperative to employ them.

The Board considered that the instructions available to aircrew regarding aircraft operating without IFF were misleading and that this was a contributory factor.


(And it was recommended that…..)

The Tornado IFF installation be modified to ensure that the cockpit warning is triggered in all failure modes.

(And….)

The recommendations are currently being implemented.



Does anyone know which failure modes were not notified? And, if it is possible to implement the wider integration of the cockpit warning, why was it not done in the first place?

[glum]

Yes. Power failure.

Don't know why it wasn't thought of, the types I've worked had a warning light that power has failed (it lights if the system is unable to respond for whatever reason).

[tucumseh]

Thanks Glum.

I see the inquest continues. Let us hope the coroner has been briefed to take further evidence from MoD, and ask, for example;

Why available safety features were seemingly not integrated into the aircraft in the first place.

Was it a contractual requirement to integrate these features? If so, why were they not? If it wasn’t, why not?

If there was an omission, was it picked up during MAR? Or does the MoD not consider safety features, which could prevent friendly fire, an airworthiness issue?

Is there is a history of IFF systems not being integrated properly in other aircraft; and if so, why was corrective action not taken when MoD was warned as to the risk?


However, given the line taken so far (serviceability of the IFF as fitted) it would seem the awkward questions won’t be asked. Hope I’m wrong.

[Been There...]

I cannot answer the question re: IFF and FJ aircraft, but in the Mil Transport project I am involved in at the moment, the IFF (I will cover SIFF later) is not classed as a single system which would, in the event of failure, cause a catastrophic event.

During the certification of this platform, only 'realistic training scenarios' will be considered and the fact that someone is deliberately trying to harm or destroy the aircraft is not considered in the certification of IFF - this was proposed at the contract stage and agreed by the customers. Survivability in wartime/conflict is covered in the survivability certification/qualification process so it is being address but not in the sense of IFF.

However, SIFF/TCAS does cause some problems because in the event of an undetected erroneous pull-up you may be put in the situation where a mid-air occurs and this could be hazardous or catastrophic and as such the design levels for SIFF/TCAS have to be greater than normal IFF/Mode IV.

HTH and please don't shoot the messenger...:=

[tucumseh]

“the IFF is not classed as a single system which would, in the event of failure, cause a catastrophic event”.


I know the problem is always interpretation, but I’d call leaving the a/c vulnerable to friendly fire potentially catastrophic. Especially when it’s predictable, predicted and ignored. And it then happens.

This in no way detracts from the simple fact that the IFF is designed, for good reason, with these safety features. We spend good money buying them, but apparently don’t mandate their integration or use. All this is long before the MAR assessment – its a simple project management / requirements issue. It’s a **** up.

[ORAC]

Absence of an IFF response is not, in itself, an indication an aircraft is hostile, there are many reasons why IFF may not be picked up. It should not be considered, therefore, a system whose failure would cause a catastrphic event.

There would seem undue emphasis upon the mere possibility of an IFF failure. IIRC the subsequent US investigation went into much greater depth showing how the use of the Patriot over a wide front meant units were not networked as designed and many other operational aspects were outside the system design and expected tactical scenarios. And if the scenario wasn't envisaged during the design phase all the failure modes cannot be identified.

But that's war.

[tucumseh]

ORAC


Fully agree, and the BOI report and, as you say, the US’ own findings, were critical of US procedures.

My point remains that the BOI made 12 recommendations, of which 5 were published in the abbreviated version placed on the MoD website. (So what were the other 7 and why were they withheld?). Yet, it was left to C-in-C RAF Strike Command, not a board member, to make 3 further recommendations; one being that IFF failure indications be integrated into the cockpit, another that positive end-to-end testing of the IFF takes place prior to flight. Forgive me, but as an engineer these are complete no-brainers and practiced for years by other projects. One wonders how long SC were aware of the general problem and what measures they took.

Now, that makes me also wonder at the scope of the BOI (and hence the undue emphasis you talk of) when they omit to address something so obvious. Something which has seen certain project offices and Boscombe in conflict years before this incident. As usual, the layman reader is given the impression “We’ve discovered a problem, and we are going to fix it – look how good we are” when, in fact, it is clear a deliberate decision was made not to integrate such warnings. (I talk in general terms, as I know nothing about the GR4A itself).

The whole procurement and airworthiness system is flawed if we procure warfighting equipment, yet deliver it to the User unfit for purpose.

[Been There...]

The whole procurement and airworthiness system is flawed if we procure warfighting equipment, yet deliver it to the User unfit for purpose.
I agree and those at Boscombe (well the ones I know anyway), try to bring as much of the Fit for Purpose into the safety case. However, it boils down to the amount of money which the IPT has and whether they can afford the F4P bits as well as the safety/airworthiness.

I know of a couple of examples which begger belief regarding certification and qualification and I am sure there are others out there. The bottom line is, there isn't enough money out there and people need to be honest up the chain to stop equipment/platforms arriving which is safe but c*ck all use to anyone!

Again, don't shoot the messenger!

[Safeware]

Been There,

During the certification of this platform, only 'realistic training scenarios' will be considered and the fact that someone is deliberately trying to harm or destroy the aircraft is not considered in the certification of IFF - this was proposed at the contract stage and agreed by the customers. Survivability in wartime/conflict is covered in the survivability certification/qualification process so it is being address but not in the sense of IFF.

Is this not contradictory? 'not considered in the certification of IFF' vs 'covered in the survivability certification/qualification'

Whatever, the requirement of JSP 553 is that the RTS covers the whole release, from peacetime to wartime, and in its limitations etc, that it reflects the safety case. So, where an issue may be seen as FFP for training, the RTSA shouldn't duck the issue if there is a safety limitation recommended for when the bad guys are out there.

sw

[tucumseh]

Safeware

I couldn’t agree more.

DPA’s policy on the integration of IFF failure warnings is crystal clear. It is not necessary, even if clearly stated in the requirement. Just for the record, I disagree with CDP’s ruling. So do Boscombe. Front Line aren’t too keen either.

I wonder if GARP changes things? Either way, the RSTA / User better have a big pot of EP to bring the MAR build standard up to something that’s fit for purpose. And modify the simulators, which isn't mentioned anywhere.

I see the coroner’s narrative judgement criticised the US, but any criticism of the above policy went unreported. (And why do these inquests always seem to take place in Oxford?).

[Wrathmonk]

Tuc

Because the bodies were repatriated into Brize and hence it is in the Oxford coroners jurisdiction. Sadly, the numbers in recent years have meant inquests are taking (far too much) time to be heard.

W

[Been There...]

Whatever, the requirement of JSP 553 is that the RTS covers the whole release, from peacetime to wartime, and in its limitations etc, that it reflects the safety case. So, where an issue may be seen as FFP for training, the RTSA shouldn't duck the issue if there is a safety limitation recommended for when the bad guys are out there.

I agree that the RTS is for peacetime and wartime but can you accept the same risks in peacetime as you do in wartime without the evidence to prove it? Of course not, you are willing to accept a greater risk in wartime to get the job done that you would do for the same task in peacetime.

Therein lies the problem. Proving that something is safe in peacetime when someone is not trying to shoot the aircraft down is very different to when the aircraft is in wartime and the aircraft is deliberately being targetted because the implications of a system failure are magnified. I do not have any experience outside of the platform I am working on, so don't know how other platforms work, but on the platform I am working on the latter is not considered in the IFF safety case.

Part of this reason, I think, is because it is not considered possible to have a single failure which would lead to the loss of an aircraft (the Tornado wasn't a single failure, there was a chain of events) and therefore the IFF system does not have to be a DAL A (1:10e-6) system, ie single failure causes a catastrophic event. It might be possible to build a DAL A system but it would cost you a lot of money for something that is somewhat over designed. Notwithstanding all of the above, there is a warning system in place on this platform to say if the IFF has failed but it is a DAL C (1:10e-4) system.

Normally the IPT want the safest system out there and don't want to take the risk whereas the operators would rather have something which is slightly more risky but does the job. Unfortunately it is the IPT/RTSA which makes the decision and it's the IPT which holds the purse strings.

The survivability certification/qualification issues I mentioned earlier cover things like DASS, armour protection and system design and consider where, when and how the aircraft is being targetted and so it isn't quite a contradiction, just that deliberately being targetted isn't considered in IFF.

[tucumseh]

Wrathmonk (and others)

Thank you. I understand.

[tucumseh]

Been There

I know what you say is true, but the time factor is being ignored. The scenario you describe may (just about) be ok for a UOR, but to my certain and personal knowledge the issue of certain equipment (not aircraft) project offices refusing to properly integrate IFF failure warnings was raised in 1998 (and probably long before, because the Boscombe staff who raised it then knew what to look for). Director Helicopter Support termed their actions “backsliding”, but later (well before GW2) more senior staffs formally condoned it. I have this under FOI. They made their decision – I think it was wrong.

To me it’s simple. If you specify and then buy an IFF with these safety features, you use them. It is a simple exercise to integrate them, especially when “only” visual cues are required. (Audio is still simple, but needs more money). So simple, it’s probably more expensive and more hassle not to do it, given Boscombe will almost certainly snag it.

[Been There...]

Ok, I agree regarding not putting a warning system in place, the one we are working on has a warning system and there are 2 IFF boxes too.

Hopefully things can be sorted, and quickly.

[GlosMikeP]

.....To me it’s simple. If you specify and then buy an IFF with these safety features, you use them. It is a simple exercise to integrate them, especially when “only” visual cues are required. (Audio is still simple, but needs more money). So simple, it’s probably more expensive and more hassle not to do it, given Boscombe will almost certainly snag it.
Absolutely right.

If it had fallen on my desk while I was at Boscombe - and many others there I knew at the time - I'd have waxed lyrical about it and complained until it got done properly or I was told to shut up...and even then.... As Tuc said, the same response would come back now, I'm sure.

I was told to shut up at least once under threat of being sacked (and for a RAF officer, that's no laughing matter), but grumbled on until the job was done and everyone the safer for it, including the twit WgCdr who told me to shut up.

'Never give in, never, never, never, save to convictions of honour or good sense' a great man once said. Lots of the guys at Boscombe uphold this - and often get precious little thanks for it from operators, unless it happens to suit their own personal preferences - so if something looks like it should be done, it's better done than not, because some awkward :mad: there will snag it whether it's popular or not.

[tucumseh]

Thank you Mike…


-re Boscombe staff

“I'd have waxed lyrical about it” – They did.

“complained until it got done properly or I was told to shut up” - They did, and were.

“...and even then....” – They continued. Not a great surprise, as they knew they’d be flying the a/c in a conflict sooner or later.

“I was told to shut up at least once under threat of being sacked” – Snap! Air Vice Marshall. Idiot. Ignored him.

[GlosMikeP]

“I was told to shut up at least once under threat of being sacked” – Snap! Air Vice Marshall. Idiot. Ignored him.

Me too, but he, the Wg Cdr, got promoted Gp Capt and I left the Service. And he was an idiot too.

[peppermint_jam]

GlosMikeP and tucumseh, it frightens me that you have had to deal with such people in the course of your job and you have my upmost respect for refusing to accept the orders of the bumbling fools who think they know best.

I currently serve on a GR4 Sqn, and I suspect that two brave aviators concerned (rip), would be positivly turning in their graves if they had heard about some of the goings on you mention in your posts.

At the time concerned, the system would have been Mk 12 Iff, with Mode 4 capability. As has been quoted in the national news papers, the IFF would have been interrogated either on the final part of the see off, or possibly even at the end of the runway before take off.

As the good Sqn Ldr stated, the chances of a failure in flight are 1 in 100,000. I know how this system works and I would agree with this figure. I am not going to try and lay blame or point fingers, I just have a good working knowledge of this IFF system and the scenario that the papers have published, in my humble opinion seems very unlikely.

[tucumseh]

P Jam

Thank you

What you say aligns with the (abbreviated) BOI report, here;


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

[GlosMikeP]

As the good Sqn Ldr stated, the chances of a failure in flight are 1 in 100,000. I know how this system works and I would agree with this figure. I am not going to try and lay blame or point fingers, I just have a good working knowledge of this IFF system and the scenario that the papers have published, in my humble opinion seems very unlikely.

I think I'd have to defer to your experience on this but would caution taking numbers like 1:100,000 at face value for any engineered system, especially if it is integrated with others. I haven't read the report Tuc has referenced yet so my comments below might be rot in this case but past experience tells me caution is always a good model.

It's always as well to ask whoever quotes numbers 'what does that number mean' and 'how is it calculated'. For example:

Is it a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) or Mean Time Between Removal (MTBR).
How were the systems tested to get the figures
in a safe, stable, warm and dry lab or in flight?
stand-alone or integrated?
production model or pre-production?
present model or by inference (and watch out for errors of logic, especially with integrated systems)?
Can they prove the number of hours the systems were tested are statistically satisfactory for the numbers quoted?
Were the figures read across from other factory system tests or conducted in situ on present installations (read across can be perfectly valid, but you have to watch manufacturers like a hawk on this as it's an opportunity for cost-cutting)?
and more....Beware someone isn't playing fast and loose with your life - or making errors of judgement out of sheer innocent ignorance - for the sake of a few quid. I really don't see why if we can afford a £20+m aircraft we can't afford a few £k to integrate a system properly.

[Safeware]

PJ,

Thanks for your support for the backroom boys and girls. As ever, politics and ambition often get in the way of sound engineering judgement based on objective evidence.

For the guys at QQ(and I include JTEG within that), they often get the ****ty end of the stick even after trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. If capability X is to be delivered at time Y and industry are late delivering, it is oft the case that the folk at Boscombe will still have to deliver by Y, but with less time to investigate and make recommendations. So, where this leads to restrictive limitations or CLEs, they can often be given the 'blame' for the shortfall or for being 'picky'. Rest assured, these people work dammed hard to deliver the best, most pragmatic advice possible based on the available evidence.

sw

[GlosMikeP]

I'll second that. Happened all the time I was there and we continued to bale them out. And why? Because it's the Servicemen that are the only real losers if they don't. Fortunately many of the guys in QQ are ex-military.

And no, I'm not QQ.

[tucumseh]

From Defence News

The final Puma helicopter to be fitted with an improved and secure means of identifying ‘friendly’ aircraft has returned to service.

Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF) has been fitted to 33 aircraft, reducing the risk of friendly fire incidents.

Does this admission that IFF can reduce friendly fire risk mean the March 2003 Tornado / Patriot shootdown Board of Inquiry and/or Inquest will be reopened?

You may recall:

1. Other examples of IFF warnings not being integrated.
2. Specific recommendations to 2* to have Tornado IFF integration verified.
3. 2* ruling that failure to integrate such warnings was NOT a safety / airworthiness issue, leading to;
4. Unsafe aircraft being accepted off-contract.

The BOI report recommended that IFF failure warnings be integrated. In other words, in addition to stuffing the box in the aircraft, we’d rather like it to actually work. It sidestepped saying WHY.