Well done to UK senior officers!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's not going to happen. This is only going to end when Saddam's gone. Any other option flies in the face of the repeated direct comments of Bush, Blair and all their subordinates.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've skipped through this thread and haven't taken in the full gist of it, however I want to back up KBF1. On the clip of the Americans whooping, they displayed themselves as totally unprofessional. Even during this conflict the Americans have had a few blue on blue already, just imagine the whooping and wopping going on as an anti tank missile strikes home only to find it was one of their own.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solo:
I think at the moment the UN lacks the credibility that the Red Crescent would bring in Arab eyes, as some see it as a US led talking shop. The humanitarian operation can never be risk free, but there are some questions to which there are no effective answers at this stage:
1. If the UN undertakes humanitarian support before the FMA is secure then who has responsibility for securing it when they have no madate for war-fighting operations? (ergo Bosnia 1993-95)
2. What happens if the UN troops have an agenda that frsutrates the effective prosecution of warfighting aims?
3. If we end up in OBUA, then how will the UN react to extra-ordinary operations when they would have entirely different RoE? and what impact might this have on the coalition forces who would have to defnd them given that the UN will not deploy heavy arty/arm support?
The CSS element will have to evolve in an OBUA envirnment from GSLogSupp to CSLogOp combined with effective and real-time G2 just to support the echelons. If they also had to support de facto UN soldiers operating independantly from the C3I environment then it becomes a nightmare. Also, if the Americans can't keep out Islamic militants from their own forces, how do we ensure the security of coalition forces when there is an unknown and un-controlable (relatively) body of men who may see the US/UK as the enemy operating under the UN banner.
At this stage it would confuse the issue too much. I advocate getting the key objectives won and secured before getting the quasi-governmental UNHCR and Red Crescent in first before the transition to peacekeeping begins. Then let the Arabs reconstruct their own region.
I think at the moment the UN lacks the credibility that the Red Crescent would bring in Arab eyes, as some see it as a US led talking shop. The humanitarian operation can never be risk free, but there are some questions to which there are no effective answers at this stage:
1. If the UN undertakes humanitarian support before the FMA is secure then who has responsibility for securing it when they have no madate for war-fighting operations? (ergo Bosnia 1993-95)
2. What happens if the UN troops have an agenda that frsutrates the effective prosecution of warfighting aims?
3. If we end up in OBUA, then how will the UN react to extra-ordinary operations when they would have entirely different RoE? and what impact might this have on the coalition forces who would have to defnd them given that the UN will not deploy heavy arty/arm support?
The CSS element will have to evolve in an OBUA envirnment from GSLogSupp to CSLogOp combined with effective and real-time G2 just to support the echelons. If they also had to support de facto UN soldiers operating independantly from the C3I environment then it becomes a nightmare. Also, if the Americans can't keep out Islamic militants from their own forces, how do we ensure the security of coalition forces when there is an unknown and un-controlable (relatively) body of men who may see the US/UK as the enemy operating under the UN banner.
At this stage it would confuse the issue too much. I advocate getting the key objectives won and secured before getting the quasi-governmental UNHCR and Red Crescent in first before the transition to peacekeeping begins. Then let the Arabs reconstruct their own region.
I believe the fratricide isn't limited to just us. I believe I read about a Challenger firing on another Challenger. I hope its just a bad press report.
Now that I have cooled down.....thank goodness the computer lost my post I intended to send. Not withstanding that....West Coast has made the first notice of a Royal Blue on Blue incident. Two lives lost.....Brits killing Brits.....now twist that one onto us chaps.
Where is the outrage over the Iraqi's executing prisoners....and then broadcasting a video tape of the bodies? As long as they shoot Yanks it will be okay will it? What of the two British squaddies reported to have been murdered as well?
You chaps that think so poorly of the Yanks might just want to go back through this thread and read the posts......I read every single one of them.....and the arrogance....and smug attitudes portrayed are shameful. Hang on sports fans....your turn is coming!
If these issues were not so important....I would make some snide comments about Seakings and Challengers....but as I have said in other threads.....such comments are not in any way proper. They demean brave men who died fighting a hostile armed enemy and they serve no purpose what so ever beyond exposing the poster's ignorance and prejudice.
I would suggest some of you need to re-think your trite comments and maybe learn something from those that try to conduct a geniune transfer of ideas.
Where is the outrage over the Iraqi's executing prisoners....and then broadcasting a video tape of the bodies? As long as they shoot Yanks it will be okay will it? What of the two British squaddies reported to have been murdered as well?
You chaps that think so poorly of the Yanks might just want to go back through this thread and read the posts......I read every single one of them.....and the arrogance....and smug attitudes portrayed are shameful. Hang on sports fans....your turn is coming!
If these issues were not so important....I would make some snide comments about Seakings and Challengers....but as I have said in other threads.....such comments are not in any way proper. They demean brave men who died fighting a hostile armed enemy and they serve no purpose what so ever beyond exposing the poster's ignorance and prejudice.
I would suggest some of you need to re-think your trite comments and maybe learn something from those that try to conduct a geniune transfer of ideas.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless:
I think the key issue is that the Challenger crew, and the Sqn Commander and CO of the Regiment will be subject to a BOI on their return to the UK. If the BOI finds that ther has been culpable negligence on the part of anyone involved in the incident then they will most certainly face a Court Martial, and quite rightly so. Where the cause of anger eminates in the British forces is the perception of the way in which the Americans are not subject to the same rigours (note I say perception, there are probably cases that can be quoted where this is not the case).
Take the last GW when the A10 attacked the Warriors from the Cheshire Regt. The UK wanted to see a BOI set up and the pilots to be questioned. Tapes of the conversation between the pilots and "magic" had highlighted a few concerns about the id process and how stringently the pilots had applied the RoE in force at the time, all valid concerns I would argue. The pilots were sent straight back to the US and were effectively "lost" in the system for a while. There were a number of diplomatic efforts made to have the pilots identified and made to answer for their actions before some sort of competent tribunal (be it a BoI or Court Martial, or Civil tribunal/trial). The USAF claimed that it did not know the whereabouts of the pilots at that precise time (they were back in the US though the USAF claimed they were in Kuwait, whereabouts unknown for operational reasons). The pilots never faced any sort of formal, competent inquiry of any sort, and in one case was promoted soon after the end of the GW.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of the actions of the pilots at the time, including the circumstances, and all of the surrounding factors in mitigation. I accept that to a degree. The cause of the issue with the army is not so much what happened and why, but that nobody was ever made to account for what happened and the way in which the process was handled.
The net result is a real sense (perception if you will) of "them and us" within the British army, that the Americans get away with quite literally murder, while we are made to account for our actions. To a degree I share the view that US servicemen are protected from the consequences of their actions in a way that a British serviceman would never be, I cannot help thinking that this is wrong.
The view in this forum is not representative of the views of the British Army. This forum is dominated by RAF aircrew, not soldiers, and it is fair to say that the cultures between the 2 services are very, very different, and I am not just talking about the AAC. What you will not get from this forum is the feeling of mistrust that lies under the surface with a lot of soldiers in the British Army towards their American counterparts. I am going to make the point now that this is not American bashing, this feeling really does exist and it eminates mainly from the political handling of incidents after the event, not so much from the fact that they happen.
You could make comments about the Sea Kings which crashed. 1 American life was lost, so it would not be a surprise to me if there was some sort of feeling about that (I have already had the flung in my face in conversation with a USN officer). The difference to remember there is that the 2 helicopters collided, they were not shot down by the Ark Royal's defences. In the same way I would not be critical of the fact that 8 Royal Marines died when the CH46 crashed because it was an accident of no-one's making. It could equally have happened on a training exercise.
I think that the US contributers to this forum should recognise that there will be criticism of US actions by some of us here, just as I accept that there may well be criticism of the actions of the British Forces when they do something wrong. It should also be recognised that criticism is not akin to "American Bashing".
I want to say a word on the accusation of smugness and arrogance. I had words put in my mouth, and intentions attached to them that were not mine when I wrote what i did. When I challenged one contributers comments by quoting verbaitm what I had written I was accused of being smug and arrogant. When I paraphrased Aquinas I was accused of being arrogant for quoting myself and paraphrasing Aquinas. I was accused of being arrogant for daring to consider that Aquinas had written about such matters centuries before. I was damned for supporting my view with reference, I was damned for trying to support it without. I was not alone in this, others were condemned in the same manner. It will be interesting to see what comments come out of this, as i am certain that others will read more into this post than was ever intended.
I think the key issue is that the Challenger crew, and the Sqn Commander and CO of the Regiment will be subject to a BOI on their return to the UK. If the BOI finds that ther has been culpable negligence on the part of anyone involved in the incident then they will most certainly face a Court Martial, and quite rightly so. Where the cause of anger eminates in the British forces is the perception of the way in which the Americans are not subject to the same rigours (note I say perception, there are probably cases that can be quoted where this is not the case).
Take the last GW when the A10 attacked the Warriors from the Cheshire Regt. The UK wanted to see a BOI set up and the pilots to be questioned. Tapes of the conversation between the pilots and "magic" had highlighted a few concerns about the id process and how stringently the pilots had applied the RoE in force at the time, all valid concerns I would argue. The pilots were sent straight back to the US and were effectively "lost" in the system for a while. There were a number of diplomatic efforts made to have the pilots identified and made to answer for their actions before some sort of competent tribunal (be it a BoI or Court Martial, or Civil tribunal/trial). The USAF claimed that it did not know the whereabouts of the pilots at that precise time (they were back in the US though the USAF claimed they were in Kuwait, whereabouts unknown for operational reasons). The pilots never faced any sort of formal, competent inquiry of any sort, and in one case was promoted soon after the end of the GW.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of the actions of the pilots at the time, including the circumstances, and all of the surrounding factors in mitigation. I accept that to a degree. The cause of the issue with the army is not so much what happened and why, but that nobody was ever made to account for what happened and the way in which the process was handled.
The net result is a real sense (perception if you will) of "them and us" within the British army, that the Americans get away with quite literally murder, while we are made to account for our actions. To a degree I share the view that US servicemen are protected from the consequences of their actions in a way that a British serviceman would never be, I cannot help thinking that this is wrong.
The view in this forum is not representative of the views of the British Army. This forum is dominated by RAF aircrew, not soldiers, and it is fair to say that the cultures between the 2 services are very, very different, and I am not just talking about the AAC. What you will not get from this forum is the feeling of mistrust that lies under the surface with a lot of soldiers in the British Army towards their American counterparts. I am going to make the point now that this is not American bashing, this feeling really does exist and it eminates mainly from the political handling of incidents after the event, not so much from the fact that they happen.
You could make comments about the Sea Kings which crashed. 1 American life was lost, so it would not be a surprise to me if there was some sort of feeling about that (I have already had the flung in my face in conversation with a USN officer). The difference to remember there is that the 2 helicopters collided, they were not shot down by the Ark Royal's defences. In the same way I would not be critical of the fact that 8 Royal Marines died when the CH46 crashed because it was an accident of no-one's making. It could equally have happened on a training exercise.
I think that the US contributers to this forum should recognise that there will be criticism of US actions by some of us here, just as I accept that there may well be criticism of the actions of the British Forces when they do something wrong. It should also be recognised that criticism is not akin to "American Bashing".
I want to say a word on the accusation of smugness and arrogance. I had words put in my mouth, and intentions attached to them that were not mine when I wrote what i did. When I challenged one contributers comments by quoting verbaitm what I had written I was accused of being smug and arrogant. When I paraphrased Aquinas I was accused of being arrogant for quoting myself and paraphrasing Aquinas. I was accused of being arrogant for daring to consider that Aquinas had written about such matters centuries before. I was damned for supporting my view with reference, I was damned for trying to support it without. I was not alone in this, others were condemned in the same manner. It will be interesting to see what comments come out of this, as i am certain that others will read more into this post than was ever intended.
Last edited by kbf1; 29th Mar 2003 at 18:53.
KBF....the key issue is.....even the Brits have Blue on Blue events. When you do....you Teabags (derisive term attached to Yank Bashers...not our kindly cousins) remain silent about the lack of professionalism...the cowboy shoot first and ask questions later kinds of comments you make when an American unit is involved. That is the point. When it is the Home Team that drops a clanger...then it is no big deal in the thread....quite unlike when an American unit hits the wrong target.
Read the posts.....and compare it to the current lack of discussion of the Challenger event. That is the point......it is plain to see even to we under-educated....un-sophisticated.....cowboy shoot'em up hip shooters. That is the point!
In the words of the Red-Green Show...."Remember....we are all in this together!" If you had ever been involved in combat you would understand the confusion that goes on and no amount of modern technology is going to eliminate killing our own guys....no matter how hard we try. War is a nasty, dirty, messy business....in which people die.
Read the posts.....and compare it to the current lack of discussion of the Challenger event. That is the point......it is plain to see even to we under-educated....un-sophisticated.....cowboy shoot'em up hip shooters. That is the point!
In the words of the Red-Green Show...."Remember....we are all in this together!" If you had ever been involved in combat you would understand the confusion that goes on and no amount of modern technology is going to eliminate killing our own guys....no matter how hard we try. War is a nasty, dirty, messy business....in which people die.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbf1, your unedited comment below with the damning accusation about deliberate intentions of the US pilots to kill our servicemen will be taken as bashing!
you are being contradictory when you mention:
Now, you are either calling the pilots murderers or you aren't. From what I can see you called them murderers and in this instance that appears to me to be American bashing. The fleeting comment that these feelings eminates from political handling do not justify the emphatic language you used. The impression I percieve from your posts is that you have a problem when having to deal with your US counterparts and you have not come to terms with the unintentional blue on blue incident that you keep referring to from GW1.
The net result is a real sense (perception if you will) of "them and us" within the British army, that the Americans get away with quite literally murder, while we are made to account for our actions.
I am going to make the point now that this is not American bashing, this feeling really does exist and it eminates mainly from the political handling of incidents after the event, not so much from the fact that they happen.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is war and bad things happen in war. I do not for one minute think that anyone is deliberately out to commit a blue on blue. They will have to live with their actions and that is probably punishment enough given that the incidents happen under the fog of war.
If kbf1 wants "culprits" held accountable, shouldn't they also be accountable for civilian collateral deaths when the laser was 20 ft off the DMPI? Of course not.
I watched the ceremony today of the first 10 bodies of British Servicemen being returned to RAF Brize Norton. Very moving it was and especially as none of them was killed by enemy action (8 accidental and 2 blue on blue). During the commentary on Sky News, the retired Colonel ex-tanky from GW1 offered a staggering statistic. He stated that the typical blue on blue casualty rate throughout all conflicts in the 20th century was around 25% and had been as high as 40%. He offered no evidence for the statement, so I repeat it only for what its worth which is to say that blue on blue happens; it is rarely intentional (fragging Vietnam-style being the only exception I can think of).
We are all on the same side and trying to kill the enemy, not each other and not the civilians. That is a tough job so let them get on with it without the 20/20 hindsight comments.
If kbf1 wants "culprits" held accountable, shouldn't they also be accountable for civilian collateral deaths when the laser was 20 ft off the DMPI? Of course not.
I watched the ceremony today of the first 10 bodies of British Servicemen being returned to RAF Brize Norton. Very moving it was and especially as none of them was killed by enemy action (8 accidental and 2 blue on blue). During the commentary on Sky News, the retired Colonel ex-tanky from GW1 offered a staggering statistic. He stated that the typical blue on blue casualty rate throughout all conflicts in the 20th century was around 25% and had been as high as 40%. He offered no evidence for the statement, so I repeat it only for what its worth which is to say that blue on blue happens; it is rarely intentional (fragging Vietnam-style being the only exception I can think of).
We are all on the same side and trying to kill the enemy, not each other and not the civilians. That is a tough job so let them get on with it without the 20/20 hindsight comments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good point Ali
However, now is the time to spend as much money on developing good IFF kit/procedures, as we spend on developing "Smart" missiles and bombs.
It costs £2,000,000 + to train an FJ Pilot/Navigator.It costs (estimated) It costs £10,000+ to train an Infantry soldier. Add the cost of his aircraft,or IFV or specialist equipment destroyed in a BonB and there's a major part of the development costs of suitable IFF systems right there.
The frustrating thing, is that with no Iraqi manned air threat, there are simple solutions that could be used.
Does anyone have any idea of the cost of building a simple IFF encrypted system?
However, now is the time to spend as much money on developing good IFF kit/procedures, as we spend on developing "Smart" missiles and bombs.
It costs £2,000,000 + to train an FJ Pilot/Navigator.It costs (estimated) It costs £10,000+ to train an Infantry soldier. Add the cost of his aircraft,or IFV or specialist equipment destroyed in a BonB and there's a major part of the development costs of suitable IFF systems right there.
The frustrating thing, is that with no Iraqi manned air threat, there are simple solutions that could be used.
Does anyone have any idea of the cost of building a simple IFF encrypted system?
My girlfriend
I can't help it.
I can't help it.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hiding from the ugly folk
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But does the system really need to be encrypted for a scenario and theatre such as this.
Just a regular frequency change, if it does fall into the wrong hands for a couple of hours, so they get to live to fight until tomorrow.
Even cheaper, and can be in place almost immediatley
Just a regular frequency change, if it does fall into the wrong hands for a couple of hours, so they get to live to fight until tomorrow.
Even cheaper, and can be in place almost immediatley
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The kit's there, it's spending the money.
You fit aircraft with L16/MIDS/SADL terminals. These integrate with U.S. army units reporting friendly forces via EPLRS.
Of course the RAF has only fitted L16 to the F3; and the army isn't EPLRS equipped. Cheaper to lose the odd aircraft or APC.
You fit aircraft with L16/MIDS/SADL terminals. These integrate with U.S. army units reporting friendly forces via EPLRS.
Of course the RAF has only fitted L16 to the F3; and the army isn't EPLRS equipped. Cheaper to lose the odd aircraft or APC.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Septic speak - "It's Hammer time"
Pommy speak - "I say chaps. We seem to be in a spot of bother...what, what. The blighters have put on a bit of a show, don't you know. Now chaps, follow me, over the top, think of queen and country and keep a stiff upper lip. Toodle pip"
Same message, different words.
Pommy speak - "I say chaps. We seem to be in a spot of bother...what, what. The blighters have put on a bit of a show, don't you know. Now chaps, follow me, over the top, think of queen and country and keep a stiff upper lip. Toodle pip"
Same message, different words.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scud
Griffinblack may be out of date with the wordage but having worked with the americans in a civil aviation enviroment I have come to the conclusion that what you say and what the other side thinks you mean can be two very different things.
This is not a dig at anyone just a fact of life when dealing with another people from another culture , the biggest problem with the USA/UK interface is that the words are the same but the meaning can be so different.
This was a real flight safety issue that could have turned into a brit/yank bashing bun fight ( had it been left to SOME of the ex RAF in the company ) but fortunatly wiser council prevaled with an attitude of trying to understand the other sides way of doing things rather that just slagging them off and taking the pi$$.
I found my time working with the Americans enjoyable and I admire the "can do " attitue that they have , when this is tempered with a little of the british reserve it makes for a very effective team.
This is not a dig at anyone just a fact of life when dealing with another people from another culture , the biggest problem with the USA/UK interface is that the words are the same but the meaning can be so different.
This was a real flight safety issue that could have turned into a brit/yank bashing bun fight ( had it been left to SOME of the ex RAF in the company ) but fortunatly wiser council prevaled with an attitude of trying to understand the other sides way of doing things rather that just slagging them off and taking the pi$$.
I found my time working with the Americans enjoyable and I admire the "can do " attitue that they have , when this is tempered with a little of the british reserve it makes for a very effective team.
That was exactly I took from Griffin....from many years of working and living in the UK or working for a British company while overseas....I saw repeatedly the difference in language when discribing the same event. I distinctly recall returning to Sumburgh one very ugly afternoon.....having hovered down the shoreline looking for the airport or some green flat place to land. Over tea, I described the weather in about 175 words.....my dear friend from Hull....merely described it as being "a bit dodgy!" Same weather...same problems....same artery clearing stress.....and so very understated by the one.
We are one people separated by a common language.
We are one people separated by a common language.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless:
As yet there hasn't been a b-on-b where the British have engaged US forces. If we had and contributers in the US voiced anger at the British I could understand it.
Also, I wonder if Gen Sir Mike Rose or Sir Mike Jackson might agree with the assertion that only a soldier who has seen "combat" could understand these issues. Soldiers do find themselves in situations and circumstances where they are under duress, stress (both physical and intellectual/emotional), in danger, and under fire while not engaged in "combat". This was certainly the case in Bosnia where the UK/UN had not declared war and were not engaged in warfighting operations, yet we had been sent on an "operational deployment" where this was the norm. I and others had to act in the circumstances I describe while not actually at war, and therefore not engaged in "combat". Also, it is worth noting that not every Para/Guardsman/Inf et al has been under fire, but many AAC/RLC/RE/REME et al have.
Danny:
"getting away with murder" is a term my mother used when I was a child, usually when I did something that would otherwise earn a rebuke that I didn't get. She wasn't implying that I had actually killed someone with "malice aforethought" as defined in law. I have heard you use the term, and I am confident that you were not implying that somone close to you had unlawfully taken the life of another, or I am sure you would have called the police. You are putting intentions in my words that are clearly not there. You understand the context of that statement and are playing semantic differences.
I agree that the issue in GW1 was unintentional. My issue there is what happened subsequently. I don't have an "problem" with the US in the sense that you are implying, but I have experienced "problems" of the practical sense in operating alongside them for many reasons, as have a number of British servicemen. These problems and issues aren't personal, but stem from 2 institutions that are not the same attempting to be compatable.
Ali: International law is already poised to do this in the form of the International War Crimes Tribunal. America has opted out of this framework by not ratifying the treaty that brings it into force when enough signature nations have been gained. Britian has signed up to it (foolishly in my view), and is applying the principles already. For some time now each commander in the British Army from Pl/Tp level up has to keep a diary of their actions and account in it for their decisions. In the event of an accusation of a war crime through causing colateral damage (which incidentally can now be applied to environmental damage as well as civilian deaths) this diary would be crucial in providing evidence that the act was justified. Without going into specifics, a smart bomb which goes off target could lead to a charge if the Tribunal feels there is a case to answer and the country in question falls under its jurisdiction.
Solotk:
I don't know where you got the figures for inf training from, but the combined costs of CMSR1 and 2 will be higher by a magnitude of at least 10. The salary and on-costs of employment for the recruit alone are higher than £10k.
While I do not disagree with your comments about IFF, there are some real issues to be ironed out before it can be effectively introduced. A discussion on this topic on another site led to this response which i copy for background as it highlights what those problems consist of:
ORAC: L16 is integrated into the FIST programme, however given the delays in rolling out the kit because of technical issues, the US are likely to have moved beyond L16 as the entry level C3I platform. The army may take the view to looking beyond L16 and the gains that can be made from employing it and developing their own system on a higher spec (multi-channel L32 possibly) platform that can accommodate whatever the US are using. Either way, there are no easy answers to inter-operability, and this is a long standing problem for 2 armies with entirely different SOPS. I am not convinced that being on the same comms platform will provide the answers we are looking for.
As yet there hasn't been a b-on-b where the British have engaged US forces. If we had and contributers in the US voiced anger at the British I could understand it.
Also, I wonder if Gen Sir Mike Rose or Sir Mike Jackson might agree with the assertion that only a soldier who has seen "combat" could understand these issues. Soldiers do find themselves in situations and circumstances where they are under duress, stress (both physical and intellectual/emotional), in danger, and under fire while not engaged in "combat". This was certainly the case in Bosnia where the UK/UN had not declared war and were not engaged in warfighting operations, yet we had been sent on an "operational deployment" where this was the norm. I and others had to act in the circumstances I describe while not actually at war, and therefore not engaged in "combat". Also, it is worth noting that not every Para/Guardsman/Inf et al has been under fire, but many AAC/RLC/RE/REME et al have.
Danny:
"getting away with murder" is a term my mother used when I was a child, usually when I did something that would otherwise earn a rebuke that I didn't get. She wasn't implying that I had actually killed someone with "malice aforethought" as defined in law. I have heard you use the term, and I am confident that you were not implying that somone close to you had unlawfully taken the life of another, or I am sure you would have called the police. You are putting intentions in my words that are clearly not there. You understand the context of that statement and are playing semantic differences.
I agree that the issue in GW1 was unintentional. My issue there is what happened subsequently. I don't have an "problem" with the US in the sense that you are implying, but I have experienced "problems" of the practical sense in operating alongside them for many reasons, as have a number of British servicemen. These problems and issues aren't personal, but stem from 2 institutions that are not the same attempting to be compatable.
If kbf1 wants "culprits" held accountable, shouldn't they also be accountable for civilian collateral deaths when the laser was 20 ft off the DMPI?
Solotk:
I don't know where you got the figures for inf training from, but the combined costs of CMSR1 and 2 will be higher by a magnitude of at least 10. The salary and on-costs of employment for the recruit alone are higher than £10k.
While I do not disagree with your comments about IFF, there are some real issues to be ironed out before it can be effectively introduced. A discussion on this topic on another site led to this response which i copy for background as it highlights what those problems consist of:
It is easy to shout cries of yes . . .we must have IFF and of course in an ideal world we should. However like most things, the matter is quite complicated and there are many technical challenges that need to be overcome first.
To give you a flavour:
- IFF must be totally secure for allies and own forces, and at a very high classification. How do we change crypto over so quickly, easily and securely so that we do not adminstratively overburden ourselves ?
- Compromise of crypto and/or captured equipment ? How do we physically change crypto easily and how do we prevent the enemy ‘learning’ our IFF signal or using IFF equipment from captured equipment to spoof us ?
- IFF needs to be able to work in all weathers and line of sight. How do we cater for an infantryman with fleeting glimpses on an enemy through vegetation, and/or fog and rain ?
- What happens if the enemy employs jammers against our IFF wideband, or only when we ‘interogate’ them ?
- How do we stop the enemy learning our positions from our IFF emmisions ?
- IFF Equipment in AFVs and on all infantry weapons must be guarenteed to operate effectively 100% of the time . Can we achieve this – aircraft perhaps but on the ground with the grit of war? What happens if the IFF equipment breaks down or there is a loss power though damage or loss of battery power ? Remember wrong or no response from our IFF eqpt means that we are enemy, and our IFF eqpt could be being interogated without the host even knowing !.
- Training. Do we want the lives of our soldiers to be ruled by accurate identification by the human eye, or to rest with equipment that we are never quite sure is working 100% of the time, or the IFF might be compromised, or there might be loss of power, out of date crypto or etc etc.
Work is going on to address the points above, but I hope I have shown that there are many technical and training hurdles still to be overcome before we adopt a system that may cause more harm than good. Easy to say . . . we must have IFF . . . . but very hard (and costly) to achieve. No other coutries have achieved it yet. Food for thought.
To give you a flavour:
- IFF must be totally secure for allies and own forces, and at a very high classification. How do we change crypto over so quickly, easily and securely so that we do not adminstratively overburden ourselves ?
- Compromise of crypto and/or captured equipment ? How do we physically change crypto easily and how do we prevent the enemy ‘learning’ our IFF signal or using IFF equipment from captured equipment to spoof us ?
- IFF needs to be able to work in all weathers and line of sight. How do we cater for an infantryman with fleeting glimpses on an enemy through vegetation, and/or fog and rain ?
- What happens if the enemy employs jammers against our IFF wideband, or only when we ‘interogate’ them ?
- How do we stop the enemy learning our positions from our IFF emmisions ?
- IFF Equipment in AFVs and on all infantry weapons must be guarenteed to operate effectively 100% of the time . Can we achieve this – aircraft perhaps but on the ground with the grit of war? What happens if the IFF equipment breaks down or there is a loss power though damage or loss of battery power ? Remember wrong or no response from our IFF eqpt means that we are enemy, and our IFF eqpt could be being interogated without the host even knowing !.
- Training. Do we want the lives of our soldiers to be ruled by accurate identification by the human eye, or to rest with equipment that we are never quite sure is working 100% of the time, or the IFF might be compromised, or there might be loss of power, out of date crypto or etc etc.
Work is going on to address the points above, but I hope I have shown that there are many technical and training hurdles still to be overcome before we adopt a system that may cause more harm than good. Easy to say . . . we must have IFF . . . . but very hard (and costly) to achieve. No other coutries have achieved it yet. Food for thought.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
kbf1,
That's the attitude that's ensured that, 12 years after GW1, we still have no kit whilst the U.S. forces do. The reason is always given that, if we wait, we'll get better equipment. The end result is that, instead, we get no equipment whilst the money is frittered away on programs that go nowhere.
L16/SADL/EPLRS is off the shelf and available, not blue sky. If you want future compatability buy JTRS radios and you can upgrade to L22, CDL or TCDL. But the answer is not to sit on our hands buying nothing and just throwing money at research.
Otherwise we'll be asking the same questions, again, during the next war.
That's the attitude that's ensured that, 12 years after GW1, we still have no kit whilst the U.S. forces do. The reason is always given that, if we wait, we'll get better equipment. The end result is that, instead, we get no equipment whilst the money is frittered away on programs that go nowhere.
L16/SADL/EPLRS is off the shelf and available, not blue sky. If you want future compatability buy JTRS radios and you can upgrade to L22, CDL or TCDL. But the answer is not to sit on our hands buying nothing and just throwing money at research.
Otherwise we'll be asking the same questions, again, during the next war.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC: I think you may have mis-understood me. I think we need to do something, and right now I don't care what because anything is better than doing nothing as is the case with Bowman.
What I meant with the comms platform comment is that even if we were using JTRS as a standard now, it would not solve the inter-operability issues which stem from the lack of "systems of systems" development between ourselves and the US/NATO. The complexity is getting harder and harder to manage and we are moving further away from the goal of operating together in a way that does not create confusion in the C3 process. There are also wider G2 issues, but those are easier to resolve.
What I meant with the comms platform comment is that even if we were using JTRS as a standard now, it would not solve the inter-operability issues which stem from the lack of "systems of systems" development between ourselves and the US/NATO. The complexity is getting harder and harder to manage and we are moving further away from the goal of operating together in a way that does not create confusion in the C3 process. There are also wider G2 issues, but those are easier to resolve.