Gulf Tornado/Patriot
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gulf Tornado/Patriot
Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the BOI report into the loss of Tornado ZG710? It no longer appears to be available on the MOD web site.
DV
DV
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/.../maaszg710.pdf
A quick google search of frame and BOI brings it up if the link does not work.
Regards
A quick google search of frame and BOI brings it up if the link does not work.
Regards
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK sometimes
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you can still get it on line, your FS man should be able to access for you. The report in its entirety is Restricted (I think) so can't be sent over civ e mail.
RIP Kev
RIP Kev
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFF
Can anyone answer the following qusetions (1) At the time, did ZG710 have a IFF Mode 4 integrated failure warning feature? (2) If it did, was it audio or visual? (3) What pre engine start IFF checks were carried out by ground crew? (4) When did ZG710 have its last Major?
DV
DV
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pinkfin; Just submit your request via the DE&S website, stating your requirement. You need to be very specific, because they will try an find excuses for not answering the question, if it covers a sensitive issue. Having said that, their final fall back, these days, seems to be "Can not find the document in the time available"
Good luck
DV
Good luck
DV
Having said that, their final fall back, these days, seems to be "Can not find the document in the time available"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc;
And of course they tried it on with the NART (Nimrod) report. Currently they are trying it on with the minutes of a meeting which took place after the NART report was released. The meeting addressed the issues raised by NART, and what action should be taken. We have an insight of the minutes from H-C, when he states that NART was dismissed at that meeting as "does tend to reflect crewroom gossip/whinges rather than factual data". Having read NART, from back to front, I know it contains hard hitting facts. Its little wonder MoD can no longer locate the minutes.
So, if anyone can answer some of the questions that I have raised regarding ZG710, it would be appreciated. I am sure that the MoD have already "lost" the BoI report, along with the TART (Tornado) report of 1996.
It seems to me that a great deal of information from the "Golden period of Airwothiness" (H-C's words, not mine), under Alcock and Terry, can no longer be found.
DV
And of course they tried it on with the NART (Nimrod) report. Currently they are trying it on with the minutes of a meeting which took place after the NART report was released. The meeting addressed the issues raised by NART, and what action should be taken. We have an insight of the minutes from H-C, when he states that NART was dismissed at that meeting as "does tend to reflect crewroom gossip/whinges rather than factual data". Having read NART, from back to front, I know it contains hard hitting facts. Its little wonder MoD can no longer locate the minutes.
So, if anyone can answer some of the questions that I have raised regarding ZG710, it would be appreciated. I am sure that the MoD have already "lost" the BoI report, along with the TART (Tornado) report of 1996.
It seems to me that a great deal of information from the "Golden period of Airwothiness" (H-C's words, not mine), under Alcock and Terry, can no longer be found.
DV
The true facts of why the Patriot engaged the Tornado will never be elicited due to the US/UK "special relationship"...
As I understood it at the time, there was an almighty c**k-up within the Patriot software. This came out at a US briefing provided to a TLP course at Florennes (at which I was present) in June 1991. I was the UK SAM specialist on that course. The briefing was given to that particular TLP course because most of the aircrew had flown in GW1.
You have to understand that Patriot is a good system - when under total control of the (highly trained) operator - but it can be switched to fully computer controlled automatic mode. This relies on the pre-determined ROE (attack heading/airspeed/altitude etc. of a MEZ (Missile Engagement Zone) being correctly entered into the fire control computer. The US algorithms used by both US & US supplied Israeli systems during GW1 were flawed (mis-programmed if you will). There was utter panic by the US in June 1991 to supply new software to all US supplied Patriots worldwide!
In simple terms, what this meant was that an A/C entering the MEZ (threat area) could be complying & flying under 300knts - but Patriot recognised it as flying 330knts & launched automatically.....
IMHO the lesson to be learned was to do away with "automatic" systems & revert to the common sense & good training of the operator - but I doubt that lesson has been learnt by the USA.
As I understood it at the time, there was an almighty c**k-up within the Patriot software. This came out at a US briefing provided to a TLP course at Florennes (at which I was present) in June 1991. I was the UK SAM specialist on that course. The briefing was given to that particular TLP course because most of the aircrew had flown in GW1.
You have to understand that Patriot is a good system - when under total control of the (highly trained) operator - but it can be switched to fully computer controlled automatic mode. This relies on the pre-determined ROE (attack heading/airspeed/altitude etc. of a MEZ (Missile Engagement Zone) being correctly entered into the fire control computer. The US algorithms used by both US & US supplied Israeli systems during GW1 were flawed (mis-programmed if you will). There was utter panic by the US in June 1991 to supply new software to all US supplied Patriots worldwide!
In simple terms, what this meant was that an A/C entering the MEZ (threat area) could be complying & flying under 300knts - but Patriot recognised it as flying 330knts & launched automatically.....
IMHO the lesson to be learned was to do away with "automatic" systems & revert to the common sense & good training of the operator - but I doubt that lesson has been learnt by the USA.
there was an almighty c**k-up within the Patriot software. This came out at a US briefing ... in June 1991
Sam - it wasn't as simple as you say. My understanding was that the ac fulfilled multiple "threat criteria". Tragically, this led to the automatic engagement.
RiP Kev & Dave.
RiP Kev & Dave.
Yes, ignore the SAM fantasist posts. He has cluttered up previous threads recounting how the Dutch were called at TLP post-shootdown 12 years before it happened. He is a bit weird but one day he will take his fantasies elsewhere.
RiP fellas.
RiP fellas.
Mode 4 IFF has both a warning light and aural warning - both user selectable to off 
PAC software was the main feature of the BOI and a 'shell shocked' SAM Bty that had been recently subjected to a rocket bombardment. Also the fact that none of the C2 assets warned the poor Tornado that their Mode 4 was not working.
Very sad events, indeed
LJ
PAC software was the main feature of the BOI and a 'shell shocked' SAM Bty that had been recently subjected to a rocket bombardment. Also the fact that none of the C2 assets warned the poor Tornado that their Mode 4 was not working.
Very sad events, indeed
LJ
Mode 4 IFF has both a warning light and aural warning - both user selectable to off 
PAC software was the main feature of the BOI and a 'shell shocked' SAM Bty that had been recently subjected to a rocket bombardment. Also the fact that none of the C2 assets warned the poor Tornado that their Mode 4 was not working.
Very sad events, indeed
LJ
PAC software was the main feature of the BOI and a 'shell shocked' SAM Bty that had been recently subjected to a rocket bombardment. Also the fact that none of the C2 assets warned the poor Tornado that their Mode 4 was not working.
Very sad events, indeed
LJ
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 14th Dec 2011 at 22:17.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Secret base, SW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode 4 IFF has both a warning light and aural warning - both user selectable to off
Yup, Mk XII had a green "reply light" and a "buzz" on the CCS every time your Mode 4 was interrogated. The trouble being that on TELIC, there were so many Mode 4 interrogators out there it buzzed and flashed an awful lot!
LJ
LJ
Depends what the fault is. Generally the warning shows a "failure mode", but not failure to respond. However, there are supposedly some failures that may not trigger a warning. I think I recall the BoI suggesting that a power supply fault MAY have caused this to be the case with ZG710. I should add that my use of Mode 4 was F-15 and Tornado F3, rather than the GR4 so may be differences.
I don't want to get into any speculation about this personally, but the lack of 'respond' was always enough to make me nervous in these situations.
Courtney
I don't want to get into any speculation about this personally, but the lack of 'respond' was always enough to make me nervous in these situations.
Courtney
I would add that the UK BoI's report allowed the US inquiry to report that WE had said there was an IFF fault (unknown to the crew) so the shoot-down wasn't their fault. I think we published the RAF report months before the US one.
Sorry if I'm covering old ground here.
Courtney Out!
Sorry if I'm covering old ground here.
Courtney Out!