Blue on Blue.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under powered. Not a nice word to use, I agree. And unfair of me to comment because I have no CAS experience? Well, a coroner with no military experience is looking at the evidence now. I do not like the way the media circus is turning this whole thing into a vindictive event. I don't agree with that at all. Having said all that, I stand by my own conclusion. Their actions appear reckless to me. I would be very disappointed if that was a video of an RAF pilot(s) going about his business. I remember how proud I was of a Harrier mate of mine who brought back his bombs in the Kosovo war because he could not make out his target. I am not saying the guys should not be forgiven, but trying to cover up the existence of this video does nobody any favours, and a military that lacks discipline turns into something else.
If the MoD had been wiser it might have prevented the media circus happening at all. But when has the MoD displayed much in the way of morality in recent times?
If the MoD had been wiser it might have prevented the media circus happening at all. But when has the MoD displayed much in the way of morality in recent times?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Somerset
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse,
See my post #96.
Further to point about RAF a/c having strafe capability:
Hawks are trainers and unlikely to be deployed in active warzone
Jags are being retired
Tornado F3's are air defence and unlikely to be deployed in ground support role
..which leaves only the Tornado GR4.
Why aren't they deployed as UK CAS assets?
See my post #96.
Further to point about RAF a/c having strafe capability:
Hawks are trainers and unlikely to be deployed in active warzone
Jags are being retired
Tornado F3's are air defence and unlikely to be deployed in ground support role
..which leaves only the Tornado GR4.
Why aren't they deployed as UK CAS assets?
Battler
They are, as openly reported on the RAF Website. Why they are in one particular theatre rather than the other (or indeed both at the same time) should not be a topic for further discussion on this forum IMHO.
W
They are, as openly reported on the RAF Website. Why they are in one particular theatre rather than the other (or indeed both at the same time) should not be a topic for further discussion on this forum IMHO.
W
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have seen pics of Harrier with aden packs on them when were they deleated?
typhoon will have cannon despite the best efforts of the Mod and i'm sure the swing role ones could usse them.
Tonka in cas that would be interesting!!
mind you hawk is used across the world as a light attack aircraft and with an extra 10 becoming available couldn't they be deployed to give UK forces some additional suport
typhoon will have cannon despite the best efforts of the Mod and i'm sure the swing role ones could usse them.
Tonka in cas that would be interesting!!
mind you hawk is used across the world as a light attack aircraft and with an extra 10 becoming available couldn't they be deployed to give UK forces some additional suport
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise Words
Nige,
I agree that, if the MoD denied the existence of the vid (I don't have the facts on this), that would be bad. I would also like a CAS expert to be advising the coroner, if there is not one there already, and I agree that culturally the RAF is prouder of how many bombs it brings back than how many it delivers.
Having said that, the A-10 mates, especially the SANDYs, that I have met are some of the bravest, most professional souls I have ever met.
I hope that the identifiaction of the pilots is not detrimental to them in a disproportionate way. I fear that it might be, and I'm not sure that it was a good idea for the papers to publish his identity. Surely an anonymous witness statement would have been sufficient; I don't know. The problem is that Joe Public won't have a deep enough understanding of events such as these to see the situation in its true light.
I agree that, if the MoD denied the existence of the vid (I don't have the facts on this), that would be bad. I would also like a CAS expert to be advising the coroner, if there is not one there already, and I agree that culturally the RAF is prouder of how many bombs it brings back than how many it delivers.
Having said that, the A-10 mates, especially the SANDYs, that I have met are some of the bravest, most professional souls I have ever met.
I hope that the identifiaction of the pilots is not detrimental to them in a disproportionate way. I fear that it might be, and I'm not sure that it was a good idea for the papers to publish his identity. Surely an anonymous witness statement would have been sufficient; I don't know. The problem is that Joe Public won't have a deep enough understanding of events such as these to see the situation in its true light.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely another aspect of this is the earlier press reports of the RAF in Afg being 'utterly utterly useless' as described by some pongo. Maybe if he looked at this vid he would be grateful for the adherence to ROEs etc.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory,
Never flown CAS in my life.
This doesn't stop me from recognising classic crm errors such as confirmation bias, risky shift and plain old press-on-it-is.
The simple fact is there was serious concerns on the part of one of the pilots that were never satisfactorally resolved; a similar pattern to many accidents.
pb
The only opinions on here worth reading have been from those who have actually FLOWN CAS or were there on the ground. Those opinions seem to much less hysterical and more professional.
This doesn't stop me from recognising classic crm errors such as confirmation bias, risky shift and plain old press-on-it-is.
The simple fact is there was serious concerns on the part of one of the pilots that were never satisfactorally resolved; a similar pattern to many accidents.
pb
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the nose
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major General Larry Lafrenz, the commanding general of the Idaho National Guard, said in a statement: "The entire Idaho National Guard family extends our deepest sympathies to the family of Lance Corporal Hull and the coalition service member who was injured during this unfortunate accident.
"Military pilots are among the most skilled and highly trained, and take every precaution to avoid tragedies like this.
"However, in the uncertainty of a wartime environment, accidents can and do happen. "While nothing we can do will alleviate the grief of the Hull family, we can only continue to promise all concerned that our personnel will continue to receive the very best training that the Armed Forces have to offer, in an effort to minimise the potential for similar occurrences in the future."
"Military pilots are among the most skilled and highly trained, and take every precaution to avoid tragedies like this.
"However, in the uncertainty of a wartime environment, accidents can and do happen. "While nothing we can do will alleviate the grief of the Hull family, we can only continue to promise all concerned that our personnel will continue to receive the very best training that the Armed Forces have to offer, in an effort to minimise the potential for similar occurrences in the future."
our personnel will continue to receive the very best training that the Armed Forces have to offer - more to the point would be to improve that training. Producing bullshot whitewash inquiries that totally exonerate the pilots while saying "full steam ahead" is simply going to create more and more and yet more unnecessary tragedies.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press now listing a catalogue of errors relating to:
What am I missing here?
- POPOV asking MANILA HOTEL to "confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground". (The entire exchange between POPOV and MANILA HOTEL relates to "multiple vehicles in revets" which POPOV has spotted "800m to the north of (your) 'Arty' rounds" observed impacting earlier. POPOV describes the revetted vehicles as "flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles, can't quite make out the type, look like maybe ZIL157s", which MANILA HOTEL confirms "matches our intel up there" and are indeed the targets of the 'Arty' rounds). During the exchange MANILA HOTEL confirms "You are well clear of friendlies" - POPOV makes no reference whatsoever to MANILA HOTEL of a "four ship" of vehicles.
- POPOV fails to inform MANILA HOTEL/MANILA34 of the grid reference or "group box" of the "four ship", nor a description of the vehicles, number of vehicles, direction of travel, nor "orange panels" or "orange rockets" on the UK patrol, which is "further west" of their position, "right on the river".
- Both crews convince themselves that the "orange panels" are in fact "orange rockets", prior to using "goggles" or obtaining a positive I-D or confirmation from the FAC.
- Without the required authorisation from the FAC, the attack commences. After the first strafe, POPOV36 questions his wingman further saying "That's what you think they are, right?" to which POPOV35 replies "It looks like it to me and I got my goggles on them now". POPOV36 continues "It looks like he's hauling ass. (Ha, ha, ha). Is that what you think they are?" to which the response is "They don't look friendly". The second attack then follows.
- Immediately after the second attack, LIGHTENING34 advises POPOV of "friendly armour in the area", followed by a description, to which the immediate response is "Ahh ****". LIGHTENING34 then goes on to instruct POPOV to abort the mission.
What am I missing here?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ROE
Just for clarification, how many of us categorically know what the ROE were at the time? I dare say that they were classified, and still are. What type of CAS was it? Was it KI? What was the devolved authority, what was the hostile act/hostile intent definition?
Are we applying a generic set of assumptions to a specific event?
I agree with Capt Pit Bull about confirmation bias etc, but this is Human Factors, and it can't be surgically removed because its how brains work. For anyone who's been there, its a factor, and it can't be rationalised at 1g with a cup of coffee.
We weren't there, so we shouldn't judge.
Are we applying a generic set of assumptions to a specific event?
I agree with Capt Pit Bull about confirmation bias etc, but this is Human Factors, and it can't be surgically removed because its how brains work. For anyone who's been there, its a factor, and it can't be rationalised at 1g with a cup of coffee.
We weren't there, so we shouldn't judge.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what happened, no matter what the findings, to release his name and family's along with their history is just disgusting. Everyone, take a second to stand in his shoes...he probably has nightmares about it already, waking up in cold sweat as most as us would, I'm sure. Now he's got a bunch of reporter vultures on his doorstep.
This guy flies 737's in everyday life, with any sense they'll ground him until this blows over as it'll surely affect his ability to safely carry out his duty as a pilot or captain in these conditions. No matter what happened, the way the press are acting on this is disgusting. Yes, we want news...no we don't want peoples life stories. Who knows what the guy did in his other 28 combat missions in Iraqi Freedom, maybe he is a hero of sorts from them? Who are we to judge.....
This guy flies 737's in everyday life, with any sense they'll ground him until this blows over as it'll surely affect his ability to safely carry out his duty as a pilot or captain in these conditions. No matter what happened, the way the press are acting on this is disgusting. Yes, we want news...no we don't want peoples life stories. Who knows what the guy did in his other 28 combat missions in Iraqi Freedom, maybe he is a hero of sorts from them? Who are we to judge.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under powered thank you for your considered reply. I was contacted by a journo the other day who wanted me to help him find the names of the pilots. I refused. There has been a chase on amongst the media to discover the identity of the pilots. Sadly, the Sun in some ways bravely shows a classified video to the world, but then shows us the under belly of the British media in its actions afterwards. I would far rather this video was shown in weapons training schools as an example of how not to go about your business.
Just hope everyone keeps the feelings of Matty Hull's widow close to heart over the next few days and weeks.
Edited to add that I also agree with the above comments about the well being of the pilots involved.
Hope you agree that cover-ups ain't the way ahead. When they are exposed for what they are, all hell breaks loose.
Just hope everyone keeps the feelings of Matty Hull's widow close to heart over the next few days and weeks.
Edited to add that I also agree with the above comments about the well being of the pilots involved.
Hope you agree that cover-ups ain't the way ahead. When they are exposed for what they are, all hell breaks loose.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige
Couldn't agree more. Damn shame that it happened. For all concerned. Can't help but think that the respective Minisitries/Departments, by being utterly truthful in the first place, could have shown more respect for the bereaved, and better explained why this kind of stuff happens.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'We weren't there so we shouldn't judge.'
Come on, UnderPowered, that won't wash. Nobody should be held to account for actions in war except by people who were also there at the time?
Judging after the event at 1g with cup of coffee etc isn't easy and must be done by those suitably qualified, but sometimes it must be done nonetheless. This is a case in point.
I still struggle square the U.S. inquiry findings - that they followed correct procedures for an attack - with the transcript.
And if they did follow 'correct procedures' what does that say about U.S. Air Force's SOPs?
Come on, UnderPowered, that won't wash. Nobody should be held to account for actions in war except by people who were also there at the time?
Judging after the event at 1g with cup of coffee etc isn't easy and must be done by those suitably qualified, but sometimes it must be done nonetheless. This is a case in point.
I still struggle square the U.S. inquiry findings - that they followed correct procedures for an attack - with the transcript.
And if they did follow 'correct procedures' what does that say about U.S. Air Force's SOPs?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UnderPowered
The ROE as you state are classified, however, the UK BoI points to what they were on the day by concluding that "the cause of the incident was that the A10 had engaged the United Kingdom patrol believing it to be hostile, without the required authorisation from the United States of America Liaison team".
("Contributory factors to the incident included - ROE for CAS [Type3]". See my previous post: #73)
PS As for Journo's, I recall only too well what happened to a colleague in Switzerland whose name made it into the public domain following a tragic event, therefore I hope those Journo's responsible this time rot in hell.
The ROE as you state are classified, however, the UK BoI points to what they were on the day by concluding that "the cause of the incident was that the A10 had engaged the United Kingdom patrol believing it to be hostile, without the required authorisation from the United States of America Liaison team".
("Contributory factors to the incident included - ROE for CAS [Type3]". See my previous post: #73)
PS As for Journo's, I recall only too well what happened to a colleague in Switzerland whose name made it into the public domain following a tragic event, therefore I hope those Journo's responsible this time rot in hell.
<UnderPowered wrote at #138: I don't like the word "RECKLESS" in a similar way that we don't like the accusation that the two Mull of Kintyre Chinook pilots were "NEGLIGENT".
I've done thousands of hours of CAS >
And I haven't, but instead of knowing that you are right and others like me are wrong about this, shouldn't you just sit on your hands and think, you know like the good Lt Col and Maj should have done?
I don't recall MAFLs definition 0f RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT, but my Collins gives "heedless" and "having or showing no regard for danger or consequences" for the first, and "habitually neglecting duties, responsibilities, etc" and "lacking attention, care, concern" for the second. Both cases you cite were the subject of formal assessment by their parent services. In the case of the USAF, with an abundance of evidence and the availability of all those involved (with the exception of Matty Hull), there was found to be no blame to attach to the pilots (or anyone else?). In the case of the RAF with no supporting evidence and no crew or pax survivors, the final verdict was of Gross Negligence. Was that because both these verdicts were sound or because they were both flying in the face of reason? A pity for their sake that the Mull guys were not in the ANG!
I've done thousands of hours of CAS >
And I haven't, but instead of knowing that you are right and others like me are wrong about this, shouldn't you just sit on your hands and think, you know like the good Lt Col and Maj should have done?
I don't recall MAFLs definition 0f RECKLESS or NEGLIGENT, but my Collins gives "heedless" and "having or showing no regard for danger or consequences" for the first, and "habitually neglecting duties, responsibilities, etc" and "lacking attention, care, concern" for the second. Both cases you cite were the subject of formal assessment by their parent services. In the case of the USAF, with an abundance of evidence and the availability of all those involved (with the exception of Matty Hull), there was found to be no blame to attach to the pilots (or anyone else?). In the case of the RAF with no supporting evidence and no crew or pax survivors, the final verdict was of Gross Negligence. Was that because both these verdicts were sound or because they were both flying in the face of reason? A pity for their sake that the Mull guys were not in the ANG!