Gulf Tornado/Patriot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the [old] types that I worked on, the system would operate with two antennas, normally upper and lower, for complete coverage. The feeds then went to an external switching unit, then to the RX. It is quite possilble, on the latest systems, that the feeds go directly to the RX, and are switched internaly.
DV
DV
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Not Ardua enough
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I comment rarely but...I'm frankly shocked at the detail in this thread....SIFF is a crypto system and totally unsuitable for discussion in any form on a public forum.
Thank the lord ARINC is here as I was just about to publish all the keys possible, both in hex and binary for the 'old school'. Trying to get my Mac to talk to the Crazy 10 KEYMAT was a bit of a pain too...
SIFF is a crypto system and totally unsuitable for discussion in any form on a public forum.
Patriot and F-16 ?
I recollect reading in the UK press, within days of this distressing case, that a returning F-16 was lit up by a Patriot radar. Rather than waiting around trying to conduct a meaningful radio discussion about his pear-shaped and unenviable position, the pilot shot off an ARM. Never heard any more on that story, it all went very quiet. LFH
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that did happen. It would have been early 2003, obviously, but I think I recall it being reperted as an accidental firing. No one was hurt in the incident so that was why the Americans were able to keep quiet about it and let another embarrasing story die.
The batteries had a nasty habbit of locking people up. Perhaps that was an object lesson to them not to keep doing it in a war zone to aircraft tooled up to deal with SAMs. There were many times I would have loved to have been able to do that.
The batteries had a nasty habbit of locking people up. Perhaps that was an object lesson to them not to keep doing it in a war zone to aircraft tooled up to deal with SAMs. There were many times I would have loved to have been able to do that.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The Chemistry Lab
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
on another forum theres a comment that the Patriots were sited too close together and the resultant error due to multiple cross-illumination marked the F-16 as a hostile
I've no idea of the veracity of this
I've no idea of the veracity of this
Well, the GR4 couldn't have fired an ALARM at the Patriot as it could only do PET shots. The F3 was modded to do targets of opportunity but a VSO stopped it being deployed - oddly enough he now has a senior job with the GR4's Design Authority 
LJ
You're wrong. GR4 could and can do reactive shots. There may have been an ROE restriction in TELIC 1 that prevented them, but more generally it is possible.
No ARM is faster than the SAM coming up at you so largely irrelevant to the conversation anyway.
You're wrong. GR4 could and can do reactive shots. There may have been an ROE restriction in TELIC 1 that prevented them, but more generally it is possible.
No ARM is faster than the SAM coming up at you so largely irrelevant to the conversation anyway.
30mil
If you mean sitting there programming it back in 2003 - then I agree. But it isn't exactly targets of opportunity like the HARM Targeting System (HTS) is it?
Don't know what it can do now, but certainly in 2003 it was effectively PET from being programmed on the ground or slightly more reactive if programmed in the air - it was also the same when an exercise was run by STC EW in 2006ish with Nimrod R1, E-3D and GR4.
So maybe I didn't make myself clear, GR4 did not have anything like HTS in 2003 and F3 did but was not allowed to play. I don't believe a reason was ever publically acknowledged but there was some stuff in the press about "EF-3" - the guy who made the decision was an ex-GR sqn cdr and possibly there was an amount of protectionism?
Anyway, immaterial unless you consider that the GR4 (ZG710) shot down was on an ALARM mission, I believe? And also that the F3 had SIFF fitted by then so there is a chance the Blue on Blue may not have happened if flying the mission on the ATO vice ZG710?
Just a thought? And yes, I know that is the benefit of hindsight.
LJ
If you mean sitting there programming it back in 2003 - then I agree. But it isn't exactly targets of opportunity like the HARM Targeting System (HTS) is it?
Don't know what it can do now, but certainly in 2003 it was effectively PET from being programmed on the ground or slightly more reactive if programmed in the air - it was also the same when an exercise was run by STC EW in 2006ish with Nimrod R1, E-3D and GR4.
So maybe I didn't make myself clear, GR4 did not have anything like HTS in 2003 and F3 did but was not allowed to play. I don't believe a reason was ever publically acknowledged but there was some stuff in the press about "EF-3" - the guy who made the decision was an ex-GR sqn cdr and possibly there was an amount of protectionism?
Anyway, immaterial unless you consider that the GR4 (ZG710) shot down was on an ALARM mission, I believe? And also that the F3 had SIFF fitted by then so there is a chance the Blue on Blue may not have happened if flying the mission on the ATO vice ZG710?
Just a thought? And yes, I know that is the benefit of hindsight.
LJ
Sorry, you have lost me entirely now guys. Tornado gets taken out by Patriot because it is not squawking. Almost certainly that is because of an IFF failure. Even so, a failure warning could have alerted the crew and enabled them to declare as such. They do not because almost certainly they did not receive such a warning, as the fit is not fully integrated and does not allow of that. Nor is it compliant with the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations.
If I have all that right, and I will most certainly find out if I haven't, why are we talking about ALARM, PET, SAM, HTS, etc, instead of the AM that allowed this scenario to happen?
If I have all that right, and I will most certainly find out if I haven't, why are we talking about ALARM, PET, SAM, HTS, etc, instead of the AM that allowed this scenario to happen?
Chug
It started with a discussion about an F16 with HTS firing a HARM at another Patriot battery that locked it up after this tragic event. Then we have been discussing the belief that ZG710 was on an ALARM mission and the F3 had been modded to do this better than the GR4 but denied a chance to play - the F3 was fitted with the better integrated SIFF. So the last post was the supposition that, with hindsight, the GR4 blue on blue should never have happened in the first place.
Do keep up 007!
It started with a discussion about an F16 with HTS firing a HARM at another Patriot battery that locked it up after this tragic event. Then we have been discussing the belief that ZG710 was on an ALARM mission and the F3 had been modded to do this better than the GR4 but denied a chance to play - the F3 was fitted with the better integrated SIFF. So the last post was the supposition that, with hindsight, the GR4 blue on blue should never have happened in the first place.
Do keep up 007!
I'm sorry Q, I know how you love to play with your Hi-tech toys, but it all seems to boil down to:
Well, duh! I think we all rather knew that, didn't we? It should never have happened, but it did. Another Airworthiness Related RAF Fatal Air Accident, two more victims of a dysfunctional system, with many more lives ruined, all for the want of both an Independent MAA and an MAAIB. How many more do we need to add to the list before that happens?
the GR4 blue on blue should never have happened in the first place.
the F3 was fitted with the better integrated SIFF
1998 - As a result of Boscombe Down trials, MoD(PE) DGAS2 (2 Star) advised to have all aircraft IFFs, but especially Tornado, checked for correct warning failure integration. Refused. Concerned staffs told to wind it in as the IFF man is a friend of DGAS2.
1999-ish - SIFF IPT formed (for a project other IPTs would allocate a single junior PM to).
2002 - DPA XD5 (2 Star) advised, as above. Laughs in face of concerned staffs, saying SIFF is on top of integration. Concern doubles - same people involved. Walks away when asked if retrospective action will be taken to correct past failures. Concerned staffs disciplined for being too robust with 2 Star.
March 2003 - ZG710. BoI Reviewing Officer recommends IFF failure warnings should be integrated.
If MoD wishes to refute what the RO said, they can. But the facts, above, are fully recorded. Until MoD stop compartmentalising these events, the problems will continue. This was a classic example. The failure was spotted on one aircraft. (Well done Boscombe). As IFF was "managed" by a single office, not by each aircraft office, it was reasonable to assume that if they refused to make one aircraft functionally safe, this ethos probably applied to others. This assumption proved correct, recommendations were made - at which point the compartmentalisation and protectionism kicked in. Wind your bloody neck in, you've made your aircraft safe (despite orders not to), so walk away. I know few agree with me, but in my opinion that's a sacking offence, even before the court case.
Thank you for insight there, Tuc. This thread really has got to grips with a very interesting issue, one that we all seem to have known a little about and now have the benefit of corporate experience. When do we publish our findings?
As we've strayed fleetingly into F3, I would add that it wasn't just the IFF 'boxes' that made it such a good "E" platform. It benefitted from its other sensors, including the fact that the forward IFF antennas were moved on the original ADV from the fin top to the wing nibs. The accuracy was remarkable. What a strange decission to do all that work to prove the EF3 concept and then not deploy it. Same happened with AMRAAM IIRC.
As we've strayed fleetingly into F3, I would add that it wasn't just the IFF 'boxes' that made it such a good "E" platform. It benefitted from its other sensors, including the fact that the forward IFF antennas were moved on the original ADV from the fin top to the wing nibs. The accuracy was remarkable. What a strange decission to do all that work to prove the EF3 concept and then not deploy it. Same happened with AMRAAM IIRC.