US Navy Shooting down an Iran Airbus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Desertia
I too saw the documentary, and if anything I thought it underplayed the pressure the Vincennes' crew was under; and also, the fact that US military in a hot zone are naturally trigger happy anyway.
Yes it was an unfortunate set of circumstances, and yes there are lessons to be learned from the incident, but to award medals to any of the people responsible is crass in the extreme.
As for it being linked to 103, I've never heard that version of events, I always thought there were other factors at play, especially given Libya's involvement.
I would ask one thing though: I thought AWACS would be able to discern an F14 from an Airbus? And if so, how come there wasn't one up?
Also, to the person who said that the US vets what it sells to potential enemies, I would think the Falklands would have taught the US that the Exocet is a very good bit of anti-ship technology, and if the French can make money out of it they will sell it, even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia
Yes it was an unfortunate set of circumstances, and yes there are lessons to be learned from the incident, but to award medals to any of the people responsible is crass in the extreme.
As for it being linked to 103, I've never heard that version of events, I always thought there were other factors at play, especially given Libya's involvement.
I would ask one thing though: I thought AWACS would be able to discern an F14 from an Airbus? And if so, how come there wasn't one up?
Also, to the person who said that the US vets what it sells to potential enemies, I would think the Falklands would have taught the US that the Exocet is a very good bit of anti-ship technology, and if the French can make money out of it they will sell it, even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia
Best Regards
Tim
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told by someone in the RN that the Iranians had a couple of fighters - presumably F-14's though F-4's were mentioned - hiding alongside the airbus until the last minute - so may be interpreted as either using it as a mask while checking out, illuminating, targets- or as a deliberate decoy...
Presume F-14's if a radar signal was received, as it would be recognised from the threat library ( unless they've cobbled the Tomcat radar onto a Phantom ) but otherwise even Aegis may not be that wonderful at range with other large targets around...?
Either way I just feel sorry for the Vincennes guys ( not to mention the Airbus occupants ) - they wouldn't have been there at all if the Iranians weren't being twerps.
Presume F-14's if a radar signal was received, as it would be recognised from the threat library ( unless they've cobbled the Tomcat radar onto a Phantom ) but otherwise even Aegis may not be that wonderful at range with other large targets around...?
Either way I just feel sorry for the Vincennes guys ( not to mention the Airbus occupants ) - they wouldn't have been there at all if the Iranians weren't being twerps.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres how the RN handle it..
Initial detection-gather intel from EW,radar,opintel,visual in possible
Report track on AAWC or LAAWc net to task group..''new unknown track 1234...Squawking....etc"
Track continues to close-warnings reader mans 121.5/243 and issues warnings giving position of a/c from known landmark/vrp brg/dist
Track continues to close-no id as yet,no response from warnings,appears to be flying an attack profile and not squawking-Update track to suspect,report on AAWC LAAWC net,transmit on link 11/16-air threat upgraded to yellow/red.
Track continues to close-warning readers give warnings,roe dependant then stand to ciws/trackers...
The next phase involves an initial whoosh and a splash some time later.
The USN procedures differ not one iota from the RNs,the ops room guidelines on anti-air warfare are all laid out in a nato publication which (surprisingly) can be viewed online-its called ATP-1c.There are various other ones also but I dont think it good to post those here.No doubt all on google anyway though!
Initial detection-gather intel from EW,radar,opintel,visual in possible
Report track on AAWC or LAAWc net to task group..''new unknown track 1234...Squawking....etc"
Track continues to close-warnings reader mans 121.5/243 and issues warnings giving position of a/c from known landmark/vrp brg/dist
Track continues to close-no id as yet,no response from warnings,appears to be flying an attack profile and not squawking-Update track to suspect,report on AAWC LAAWC net,transmit on link 11/16-air threat upgraded to yellow/red.
Track continues to close-warning readers give warnings,roe dependant then stand to ciws/trackers...
The next phase involves an initial whoosh and a splash some time later.
The USN procedures differ not one iota from the RNs,the ops room guidelines on anti-air warfare are all laid out in a nato publication which (surprisingly) can be viewed online-its called ATP-1c.There are various other ones also but I dont think it good to post those here.No doubt all on google anyway though!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also saw this programme and I seem to recall that the crucial factor seemed to be that the Vicennes had inadvertantly strayed from international waters and was in Iranian territorial water when the Captain made his decision to fire.
There was undoubtedly a catalogue of minor errors that lead up to this decision. However, from a political stance the ship should never have been in the location it was in when it fired upon the Airbus. Whilst historically, friendly fire or misidentification of a military target is a well documented phenomena, it does seem that the Americans in particular, have a policy of shoot first, ask questions later.
The fact that there was no formal apology shows the contempt for which the American government holds for Iranians, civilian and military alike. This is not that surprising, given their foreign policy for the middle east region.
There was undoubtedly a catalogue of minor errors that lead up to this decision. However, from a political stance the ship should never have been in the location it was in when it fired upon the Airbus. Whilst historically, friendly fire or misidentification of a military target is a well documented phenomena, it does seem that the Americans in particular, have a policy of shoot first, ask questions later.
The fact that there was no formal apology shows the contempt for which the American government holds for Iranians, civilian and military alike. This is not that surprising, given their foreign policy for the middle east region.
Originally Posted by Desertia
even if it means working out how to fit it to an F14. It's a more level playing field than you would think.
Cheers,
Desertia
Cheers,
Desertia
A few years ago, I watched an F14 take off from Shiraz, underslung were two whopping great missiles. I assumed they were some sort of anti-shipping waepon, however, read somewhere the Iranians had modified Hawk SAM's as air-air missiles. Resourcful people!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by regor
I also saw this programme and I seem to recall that the crucial factor seemed to be that the Vicennes had inadvertantly strayed from international waters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaperTiger
That's certainly one point of view, though not universally shared. And I don't think 'straying' quite conveys the alacrity with which Vincennes went after the boghammers. Hoo-rah !
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the Airbus was shot down.
I also remember the yanks locking up our helo whilst it carried out a surface search,luckily the call on guard was picked up and answered by our ops room as the cab could not respond due to the imposed emcon criteria.
HAve seen many balls ups by over zealous American PWOs in my time...but also by ours as well.We are human afterall-no matter how gucci the radar is.
Paxing All Over The World
The documentary made some note that the Vincennes had gone where it should not. They had the retired senior commander of that area stating in plain laguage that the Captain had gone into Iranian waters without his consent. But they still gave the man a medal and still did not apologise.
Slightly off topic, from earlier in the thread. I said, "I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being."
And a reply was: "Perhaps further training is required?"
Well the Human Remains department did not think so. About two years later, I was talking to a maintenance engineer from the company that supplied the equipment - by that time at an another location. I asked about the installation and whether it was still in place? The engineer replied, "That install was such a complete mess that, eventually, we had to strip it out, reinstall and reprogramme it." I kinda doubt that anyone apologised for that either.
Slightly off topic, from earlier in the thread. I said, "I once saw someone sacked from a job because the company believed the technology - not the human being."
And a reply was: "Perhaps further training is required?"
Well the Human Remains department did not think so. About two years later, I was talking to a maintenance engineer from the company that supplied the equipment - by that time at an another location. I asked about the installation and whether it was still in place? The engineer replied, "That install was such a complete mess that, eventually, we had to strip it out, reinstall and reprogramme it." I kinda doubt that anyone apologised for that either.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Founder
It is a fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the Airbus was shot down.
Long thread on usenet at the time, and I recall the consensus being that 'scenario fulfilment' played a big part in this. That and the 'altitude decreasing/altitude increasing' call. Say both in a quick, stressed voice and they sound exactly the same
Last edited by PaperTiger; 27th Mar 2006 at 20:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaperTiger
That's not what I was questioning (read my post again), rather the characterisation of the incursion as inadvertant. Their blood was up and I doubt they cared whose waters they were in, having interpreted the ROE to suit what they were doing.
Long thread on usenet at the time, and I recall the consensus being that 'scenario fulfilment' played a big part in this. That and the 'altutide decreasing/altitude increasing' call. Say both in a quick, stressed voice and they sound exactly the same
Long thread on usenet at the time, and I recall the consensus being that 'scenario fulfilment' played a big part in this. That and the 'altutide decreasing/altitude increasing' call. Say both in a quick, stressed voice and they sound exactly the same
Kind Regards
Tim
