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
US Navy Shooting down an Iran Airbus
I saw a tv program on National Geographic yesterday about a US Navy warship that shoot down an Iranian Airbus in the persian gulf. The main reason for the shootdown was lack of contact between the aircraft and the warship. The navy ship wasn't even equipped with a radio that could communcate on the civilian frequencies...
One thing that baffled me was that they were broadcasting warnings to the airbus on a military frequency, how dumb can you get? Do they actually belive that all civilian aircrafts are monitoring military frequencies...?
3/10 warnings were transmitted on the civilian emergency frequency but they never told anyone which aircraft they were talking to, only the speed and heading which of course was GS...
This was in 1988, is it still like that or did the navy learn something from this experience?
One thing that baffled me was that they were broadcasting warnings to the airbus on a military frequency, how dumb can you get? Do they actually belive that all civilian aircrafts are monitoring military frequencies...?
3/10 warnings were transmitted on the civilian emergency frequency but they never told anyone which aircraft they were talking to, only the speed and heading which of course was GS...
This was in 1988, is it still like that or did the navy learn something from this experience?
Moderator
I think, first, that you should pay less attention to the detail of a TV documentary and read an authoritative report on the incident.
It was a whole lot more complex a situation than what you are relating in your post. Certainly there were mistakes made on the ship and lessons learned .. but it was not a cool, calm and laid back set of circumstances and there was mucho stress in the air ... a very good example of the man-machine interface and HF problems associated with high stress and high workload in the midst of carry over thoughts from a then-recent incident where a sister vessel had been significantly damaged by a inadequately defended air to surface attack.
Add to this the aircrew's presumably being a tad complacent and possibly not looking after their own SA as best they might have done.
Keep in mind that a TV doco brief does not necessarily seek to present a balanced view of the formal investigation but may, in fact, put an editorial spin on the whole thing.
It was a whole lot more complex a situation than what you are relating in your post. Certainly there were mistakes made on the ship and lessons learned .. but it was not a cool, calm and laid back set of circumstances and there was mucho stress in the air ... a very good example of the man-machine interface and HF problems associated with high stress and high workload in the midst of carry over thoughts from a then-recent incident where a sister vessel had been significantly damaged by a inadequately defended air to surface attack.
Add to this the aircrew's presumably being a tad complacent and possibly not looking after their own SA as best they might have done.
Keep in mind that a TV doco brief does not necessarily seek to present a balanced view of the formal investigation but may, in fact, put an editorial spin on the whole thing.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USS Vincennes - and Iran Air flight 655 - very sad loss.
The USN was in the Persian Gulf protecting Kuwaiti tankers from attacks. At the time of the missile strike on the Iran Air flight, the Vincennes was in a battle with several Iranian gunboats.
The USS Stark attack which killed 37 sailors was fresh in the commanders memories. The area was considered a war zone due to the deadly attacks on tankers and other traffic in the Gulf region.
Unfortunately for the Iran Air flights crew and passengers, the IFF aboard the Airbus A300 failed to respond to the ship's routine interrogations. The failure was documented by numerous radio and radar recordings on and off the Vincennes. The IFF system is designed to discern freindlies from possible threat aircraft.
In addition to the equipment failure aboard the doomed airliner, the Iran Air crew was apparently not monitoring the civilian emergency frequency when several calls went out with course and speed data. Guard frequency was also used in an attempt to ward off the fast approaching aircraft.
The airliner,off course about 4 miles west of the normal route by commercial air traffic was headed directly for the Vincennes. There were no AWACS aircraft aloft to assist with ID.
President Reagan stood behind the captains decision and while he was publicly 'saddened' by the loss, I don't believe there was ever a formal apology although I feel that there should have been despite the wartime posture of both countries.
Certainly not a happy story, but completely different situation than the Soviet attack that brought down a Korean Air flight.
The USN was in the Persian Gulf protecting Kuwaiti tankers from attacks. At the time of the missile strike on the Iran Air flight, the Vincennes was in a battle with several Iranian gunboats.
The USS Stark attack which killed 37 sailors was fresh in the commanders memories. The area was considered a war zone due to the deadly attacks on tankers and other traffic in the Gulf region.
Unfortunately for the Iran Air flights crew and passengers, the IFF aboard the Airbus A300 failed to respond to the ship's routine interrogations. The failure was documented by numerous radio and radar recordings on and off the Vincennes. The IFF system is designed to discern freindlies from possible threat aircraft.
In addition to the equipment failure aboard the doomed airliner, the Iran Air crew was apparently not monitoring the civilian emergency frequency when several calls went out with course and speed data. Guard frequency was also used in an attempt to ward off the fast approaching aircraft.
The airliner,off course about 4 miles west of the normal route by commercial air traffic was headed directly for the Vincennes. There were no AWACS aircraft aloft to assist with ID.
President Reagan stood behind the captains decision and while he was publicly 'saddened' by the loss, I don't believe there was ever a formal apology although I feel that there should have been despite the wartime posture of both countries.
Certainly not a happy story, but completely different situation than the Soviet attack that brought down a Korean Air flight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point...
But still it amases me that they don't have the equipment onboard to communicate with civilian aircraft. There has been several incidents where civilian aircraft have wandered into different types of airspace and were shoot down. JAL over russia is a good example...
I did read the official report, the short one, and one thing that the tv cameras catched but not the captain was the navigations officer saying out loud that they were entering iranian waters... they were'nt even in international waters when the shoot down took place...
Sure there might be a lot of things happening at the same time with a lot of confusion, I've been such as well but when you start to loose a grip over the situtation like that captain did he should done what every IFR student knows, relax, think it over, take a step backwards and get a grip on the situation... and most important, double check your information...
The Swedish airforce has a saying, trust is good, controll is better... no one doublechecked the information that the captain recieved. This is called negligence...
I've worked in the Swedish airforce and it's interesting that we've got better communications equipment than the US Navy...
But still it amases me that they don't have the equipment onboard to communicate with civilian aircraft. There has been several incidents where civilian aircraft have wandered into different types of airspace and were shoot down. JAL over russia is a good example...
I did read the official report, the short one, and one thing that the tv cameras catched but not the captain was the navigations officer saying out loud that they were entering iranian waters... they were'nt even in international waters when the shoot down took place...
Sure there might be a lot of things happening at the same time with a lot of confusion, I've been such as well but when you start to loose a grip over the situtation like that captain did he should done what every IFR student knows, relax, think it over, take a step backwards and get a grip on the situation... and most important, double check your information...
The Swedish airforce has a saying, trust is good, controll is better... no one doublechecked the information that the captain recieved. This is called negligence...
I've worked in the Swedish airforce and it's interesting that we've got better communications equipment than the US Navy...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Founder, ir's good to see you watched through that documentary and came out with such a commendably balanced view of events (!); and even if you are susceptible to believing a documentary contains all the facts it is as well to actually consider them all, and not just those that suit your particular preconcieved bias.
. Oh dear, do make up your mind! Maybe they didnt have a full civ VHF set, but can you explain a situation that the USN might have anticipated prior to this when one would have been necessary? Talking to airliners is hardly within the normal remit of the USN.
Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!
Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Why off route in a war zone? Not on guard in a war zone? Now thats dumb!
How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be? And how would that have clarified the situation?
No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers or MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so cheerfully slagging off.)
it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a 300-life critical decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember: a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one. It just happened to be incorrect.
I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...
The navy ship wasn't even equipped with a radio that could communcate on the civilian frequencies
3/10 warnings were transmitted on the civilian emergency frequency
Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!
Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Why off route in a war zone? Not on guard in a war zone? Now thats dumb!
How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be? And how would that have clarified the situation?
No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers or MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so cheerfully slagging off.)
it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a 300-life critical decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember: a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one. It just happened to be incorrect.
I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 20th Mar 2006 at 09:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying that this is the captains fault, of course he is in charge and has full responsibility BUT there must be a "system error" when procedures doesn't work...
As far as I know the civilian airbus was listening to the emergency frequency but since no identification was broadcasted like a transponder id, just a heading and a speed indication which in this case was 65 knots faster than the max airspeed of the aircraft that time...
There were a series of events which caused the shoot down, BUT again, why didn't anyone doublecheck the information. The radar control officer thought that he saw the aircraft descending when infact it was ascending, this was confirmed by the warships computer loggs... if someone would have double checked this info, those people onboard the aircraft would have survived the day and the captain would probably still be a captain today...
As far as I know the civilian airbus was listening to the emergency frequency but since no identification was broadcasted like a transponder id, just a heading and a speed indication which in this case was 65 knots faster than the max airspeed of the aircraft that time...
There were a series of events which caused the shoot down, BUT again, why didn't anyone doublecheck the information. The radar control officer thought that he saw the aircraft descending when infact it was ascending, this was confirmed by the warships computer loggs... if someone would have double checked this info, those people onboard the aircraft would have survived the day and the captain would probably still be a captain today...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Agaricus bisporus
Founder, ir's good to see you watched through that documentary and came out with such a commendably balanced view of events (!); and even if you are susceptible to believing a documentary contains all the facts it is as well to actually consider them all, and not just those that suit your particular preconcieved bias.
. Oh dear, do make up your mind! Maybe they didnt have a full civ VHF set, but can you explain a situation that the USN might have anticipated prior to this when one would have been necessary? Talking to airliners is hardly within the normal remit of the USN.
Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!
Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Now thats dumb!
How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be?
No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers and MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so confidently slagging off.
it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember, as a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one.
I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...
. Oh dear, do make up your mind! Maybe they didnt have a full civ VHF set, but can you explain a situation that the USN might have anticipated prior to this when one would have been necessary? Talking to airliners is hardly within the normal remit of the USN.
Calling on a mil freq is dumb, eh? Has it occurred to you why they shot at that threat? Do you suppose it was because they thought it was an airbus? They'd have let an F15 come right over them, I suppose...Now thats dumb!
Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. Rather why would they not think that all civ a/c monitor guard? All mil a/c do, and I bet the USN are taught that all civvies do to. Well, they do, don't they??? Why did the airbus not have his wx radar on, that would undoubtably have saved his life. Now thats dumb!
How could they tell the a/c who they were talkiing to, do you suppose they had his callsign? Wouldn't the USN, even in its dumbness, have guessed that an Iran Air c/s might not be military, or conversely that a civvy squawk might be?
No mate, your US bashing is way out of line. Those guys are highly trained Professionals doing a dangerous job utimately intended to save YOUR ass, so have as bit of compassion, and maybe a bit of gratitude too, (your airforce would probably be flying Dorniers and MiGs now not Saabs, if it wasn't for the likes of the "incompetent" people you're so confidently slagging off.
it seems utterly unnecessary to repeat it, but they had limited seconds to make a decision, the capt wasn't stooging around a hold in a Seneca, remember, as a decision not to endanger his ship was the correct one.
I hate to think what you'd be smugly calling the dead Skipper and his crew with your awesome powers of hindsight if it had been an F15 with a civvy squawk and had sunk the ship...
The warship did have a capability to transmit on the civilian emergency frequency, but that's it...
What my country would be flying? I'm not even going to comment that...
And when it comes to identification, just saying the squak code which they had would have identified the aircraft and the aircraft would have known that they were talking to them..., all civilian ATC's knows this...
What does the wx radar have to do with this?
- "Why do you suppose they thought a civ a/c would use a mil freq? That didn't appear in the film, you've just imagined it. " it did appear in the doc...
Last edited by Founder; 20th Mar 2006 at 09:29.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were a series of events which caused the shoot down, BUT again, why didn't anyone doublecheck the information.
The radar control officer thought that he saw the aircraft descending when infact it was ascending, this was confirmed by the warships computer loggs..
Oh,and WX radar is not something an enemy attacker radiates - another way to differientiate civ from military - had the Iran Air flight had the unit on (SOP ?), surely would have had a different outcome.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not going to get involved in the dispute here. Could somebody tell me though....why on earth the Captain and one of the officers of the Vincennes were commended with a medal???
On what grounds? Well, if it was indeed an F-14 I can see why they would be commended. I can also see why they were not charged with negligence and manslaughter. But a medal of high honour!!! For what?
They (in hindsight) screwed up. Yes, they had a very good excuse. Did they save the ship? From what? Blue ice?
On what grounds? Well, if it was indeed an F-14 I can see why they would be commended. I can also see why they were not charged with negligence and manslaughter. But a medal of high honour!!! For what?
They (in hindsight) screwed up. Yes, they had a very good excuse. Did they save the ship? From what? Blue ice?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
No time - the non-responsive Airbus was shot down literally within seconds of reaching the airspace above the warship.
Side scan radar was not availabe which would have given more accurate height data.
Oh,and WX radar is not something an enemy attacker radiates - another way to differientiate civ from military - had the Iran Air flight had the unit on (SOP ?), surely would have had a different outcome.
Side scan radar was not availabe which would have given more accurate height data.
Oh,and WX radar is not something an enemy attacker radiates - another way to differientiate civ from military - had the Iran Air flight had the unit on (SOP ?), surely would have had a different outcome.
The weather radar would have been picked up, you've got that right...
but the fact is that you don't shoot at something which you don't know what it is... The main rule of combat, don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have a lot of answers founder, especially for someone who wasn't there, and has watched a "documentary"of the incident. Ultimately, the crew of the Vincennes were incorrect. Did they know that at the time? How about you tell us all how much combat you've seen? How many times you been shot at? Thought so. Nice and easy to make your criticisms from you nice comfortable chair. They also have to live with their actions. Does that make it right? Of course not. As they say, "when you have walked a mile in their shoes"............The main rule of combat my friend is to be able to go home afterwards........
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USS Vincennes (CG 49) was decomissioned during a ceremony at Naval Base San Diego June 29, 2005, after 20 years of service to the U.S. Navy.
This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!
This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a link.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19920701.html
The Captain's name was Will Rogers, not JP Jones. (sorry about that)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19920701.html
The Captain's name was Will Rogers, not JP Jones. (sorry about that)
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posts such as the one by Agoricus bisporus make me realise why there will always be conflict in the world. However, while the 'military can do no wrong' brigade continue to vent their anger, it is important that more logical minds examine all of the facts so as to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Many lessons were learned from this incident and many have been acted upon. An example of this is the use of wx radar as an SOP, which was only introduced after this incident. However, as those of us who operate through this region know, some of the lessons have not been learned.
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by morning mungrel
You seem to have a lot of answers founder, especially for someone who wasn't there, and has watched a "documentary"of the incident. Ultimately, the crew of the Vincennes were incorrect. Did they know that at the time? How about you tell us all how much combat you've seen? How many times you been shot at? Thought so. Nice and easy to make your criticisms from you nice comfortable chair. They also have to live with their actions. Does that make it right? Of course not. As they say, "when you have walked a mile in their shoes"............The main rule of combat my friend is to be able to go home afterwards........
I see that you dont know the rules of combat established by the Geneva Convention. First rule of war, you do only combat enemy soldiers. He is only a soldier if he is identified as hostile and is capable of causing you harm.
The main reason for me posting this thread as I wrote in the first post, have they learned anything, are there civilian radios onboad US warships today?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Willie Everlearn
USS Vincennes (CG 49) was decomissioned during a ceremony at Naval Base San Diego June 29, 2005, after 20 years of service to the U.S. Navy.
This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!
This incident was covered on NIGHTLINE with Ted Koppel a few years back. In that television report, it was reported to the American audience that the Vincennes had entered Iranian territorial waters (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of several attacks against it by smaller craft. Maybe they were in a hot pursuit of one of the gun ships? I don't recall.
It also suggested the Commander and some officers on the bridge were concerned that they might come under attack if discovered by Iranian Military radar or overhead Iranian Military aircraft, if discovered within the 12 mile limit.
To say they (the USS Vincennes crew) were trigger happy, as a result, seems reasonable. In their haste to identify a 'target' off Bander Abbas (heading toward the Vincennes) must have caused heightened intest on the bridge and may have contributed to the result.
Being unable to IFF the contact rapidly approaching, left the Vincennes Captain with a very important and crucial decision.
Oddly enough, I believe the Captain's name was John Paul Jones. I also seem to recall he was admonished for his handling of the incident.
Today in the Gulf, U.S. military ships broadcast and challenge aircraft on 121.5. Through the region, have a look at your High Altitude charts and note the warnings regarding the straying into certain areas. You might get shot down. So, heads up!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Airclues
Posts such as the one by Agoricus bisporus make me realise why there will always be conflict in the world. However, while the 'military can do no wrong' brigade continue to vent their anger, it is important that more logical minds examine all of the facts so as to prevent this sort of thing happening again. Many lessons were learned from this incident and many have been acted upon. An example of this is the use of wx radar as an SOP, which was only introduced after this incident. However, as those of us who operate through this region know, some of the lessons have not been learned.
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues
As with any incident, there is a combination of errors which lead to the final outcome. On this day the holes in the swiss cheese were all lined up. The resolution of any single error could have prevented the tragedy.
The ship radar had incorrectly identified the A300 as an F-14 prior to departure due to their proximity on the taxiway. The ship crew did not think that there was an airline flight due to confusion between 'Z' and local time. The airliner crew had accepted a 'direct' clearance while still in Iranian airspace. The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed. The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF). The ship radar operator told the captain that the target aircraft was descending whereas subsequent radar traces prove otherwise.
Put all these errors together, combined with the tense situation at the time, and one can understand why the captain of the Vincennes made the decision that he did. I honestly believe that, if I had been in his shoes, with the information that he was given, I would probably have done the same.
However, the important thing is to admit the mistakes and learn from them. Many procedures have been changed as a result of this incident, but there are still gaps. In todays world of conflict it is only a matter of time before this type of incident happens again.
If you want to know why the captain was given a medal gonso, just read Agoricus bisporus' post again.
Airclues
Good post btw...
The Aquatone Article
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A300 shootdown
The following letter appeared in Flight International, 6 August 1988. Copied
without consent from the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
Volume 7: Issue 34
Friday 12 August 1988
"When I was a kid I was intrigued by an advertisement for a pair of
binoculars with which I would be able to see 'the craters of the moon' and
'France as if it was only a mile away'. I saved up and bought them, and
when they arrived they were, in fact, a rather nice pair of wide-angle
10*50s. I never saw France, but I certainly saw the craters on the moon.
The other day, from a vantage point on the South Downs, I thought I'd put
the old 10*50s to the test again. Visibility was okay, but there was a lot
of wind and fairly low cloud around. I looked in the general direction of
Gatwick Airport and after only a minute I saw the unmistakable profile of a
One-Eleven climbing out, smoking visibly. Then a slightly larger aircraft -
almost certainly a 737, a -200 I'd say, the engines were not big enough to
be a -300. These are some binoculars, I thought: even if France doesn't look
a mile away, at least Reigate Hill does.
Only a few minutes passed before a relatively huge shape climbed into the
air - an ex-BCal DC-10, the overall design of the livery clearly to be seen.
Not only was this a DC-10, and not a TriStar, but it was an ex-BCal '10. It
turned north soon after take-off, and flew away from home a while, and even
from this aspect it was definitely a '10. I watched it climb and turn,
disappearing into cloud and then reappearing again. Good sport this, I
thought, give me a clear day and I could follow a widebody all the way from,
er ... well ... Bandar Abbas?
Just a moment! What's going on? Am I really distiguishing between
near-identical wide-body aircraft from all aspects at almost *three times*
the slant range at which the captain of the USS Vincennes launched two
Standard missiles and destroyed an A300?
In disbelief I double-checked the scale of the map in the AA Book of the
Road. No doubt about it, these aircraft are well over 20 miles away, and
that '10 must have been 30 miles out when I lost sight of him. The Airbus
was only nine miles out, at 7500 feet on a clear day when the missiles were
fired. Okay, the A300 was motoring, but tell me which direction he was
coming from and with my 10*50s I reckon I'd have narrowed the field to a
757, 767 or an A300 before you could say 'F-14' - and certainly before he
got within nine miles.
I've never seen an RCA Aegis system advertised in Exchange and Mart but,
even if I do, I don't think I'll buy one.
[signed]
without consent from the Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
Volume 7: Issue 34
Friday 12 August 1988
"When I was a kid I was intrigued by an advertisement for a pair of
binoculars with which I would be able to see 'the craters of the moon' and
'France as if it was only a mile away'. I saved up and bought them, and
when they arrived they were, in fact, a rather nice pair of wide-angle
10*50s. I never saw France, but I certainly saw the craters on the moon.
The other day, from a vantage point on the South Downs, I thought I'd put
the old 10*50s to the test again. Visibility was okay, but there was a lot
of wind and fairly low cloud around. I looked in the general direction of
Gatwick Airport and after only a minute I saw the unmistakable profile of a
One-Eleven climbing out, smoking visibly. Then a slightly larger aircraft -
almost certainly a 737, a -200 I'd say, the engines were not big enough to
be a -300. These are some binoculars, I thought: even if France doesn't look
a mile away, at least Reigate Hill does.
Only a few minutes passed before a relatively huge shape climbed into the
air - an ex-BCal DC-10, the overall design of the livery clearly to be seen.
Not only was this a DC-10, and not a TriStar, but it was an ex-BCal '10. It
turned north soon after take-off, and flew away from home a while, and even
from this aspect it was definitely a '10. I watched it climb and turn,
disappearing into cloud and then reappearing again. Good sport this, I
thought, give me a clear day and I could follow a widebody all the way from,
er ... well ... Bandar Abbas?
Just a moment! What's going on? Am I really distiguishing between
near-identical wide-body aircraft from all aspects at almost *three times*
the slant range at which the captain of the USS Vincennes launched two
Standard missiles and destroyed an A300?
In disbelief I double-checked the scale of the map in the AA Book of the
Road. No doubt about it, these aircraft are well over 20 miles away, and
that '10 must have been 30 miles out when I lost sight of him. The Airbus
was only nine miles out, at 7500 feet on a clear day when the missiles were
fired. Okay, the A300 was motoring, but tell me which direction he was
coming from and with my 10*50s I reckon I'd have narrowed the field to a
757, 767 or an A300 before you could say 'F-14' - and certainly before he
got within nine miles.
I've never seen an RCA Aegis system advertised in Exchange and Mart but,
even if I do, I don't think I'll buy one.
[signed]
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ship did not recognise the A300 transponder code due to the incorrect identification of the F-14 prior to take-off (civilian airliners do not carry IFF).
Apologies, Cap Airclues, I did not mean to cloud the issue by referrring to the A300's transponder as an IFF per se, but it is an IFF compatible device - sans encryption.
The Iran Air's transponder did fail to reply to the Vincennes IFF interrogations.There are records on this.
The A300 crew were monitoring 121.5, but did not recognise themselves as the target as the warning only gave the groundspeed.
Please enlighten me to any data to the contrary if you have a spare moment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Age: 43
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vapilot2004
Actually all airliners carry an IFF responder - it's called a transponder and upon interrogation, will reply with it's squawk code. The difference between a military aircraft and a civilian airliner is that the military transponder response is encrypted and allows for secure ID of friendly craft.
Apologies, Cap Airclues, I did not mean to cloud the issue by referrring to the A300's transponder as an IFF per se, but it is an IFF compatible device - sans encryption.
The Iran Air's transponder did fail to reply to the Vincennes IFF interrogations.There are records on this.
While I don't have the report in front of me at the moment, I would bet a dollar to a donut that the Vincennes RIO would have certainly mentioned speed and bearing in his calls.
Please enlighten me to any data to the contrary if you have a spare moment.
Apologies, Cap Airclues, I did not mean to cloud the issue by referrring to the A300's transponder as an IFF per se, but it is an IFF compatible device - sans encryption.
The Iran Air's transponder did fail to reply to the Vincennes IFF interrogations.There are records on this.
While I don't have the report in front of me at the moment, I would bet a dollar to a donut that the Vincennes RIO would have certainly mentioned speed and bearing in his calls.
Please enlighten me to any data to the contrary if you have a spare moment.