Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Replicant on May 19, 2004, 10:35:37 AM
-
The Ministry of Defence, with help of the US Army, published the following report:
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/maaszg710.pdf
Unfortunately with not much left of the Tornado they had to speculate what might happened on the Tornado side of things.
Interesting reading nevertheless.
-
It was a damn shame but accidents do happen and people sometimes die when they do.
to the brave crew of ZG710.
-
dumbarse patriot battery slackers.. ADA the "Alcoholics Defending America"
"The Board concluded that airspace routing, airspace control measures and a breakdown in planning and communication were contributory factors in the accident"
I remember Maverick talk some smack during my :
ADA thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82787
heres a quote:
"I find this to be a bit unpleasant. Not that the plane was shot down, that is most definately a sad incident. What I find unpleasant is the second guessing from arm chair "generals" who weren't there, have no facts and little insight on what DID happen. Gents. there will be an investigation about it. Let those folks who have that responsibility, and even more important ACTUAL expertise, make the findings. Then you can debate your own silly opinions about it."
Maverick 3-25-2003
It may have taken a year but boy is vindication sweet..
:lol
:lol
:lol
"A arm chair general has been recorded"
DoctorYO
-
Yes, it was a tragedy; fratricide is one of the worst aspects of war.
Lots of causal factors listed in that report; I doubt blame can be laid on any one aspect.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
dumbarse patriot battery slackers.. ADA the "Alcoholics Defending America"
"The Board concluded that airspace routing, airspace control measures and a breakdown in planning and communication were contributory factors in the accident"
I remember Maverick talk some smack during my :
ADA thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82787
heres a quote:
"I find this to be a bit unpleasant. Not that the plane was shot down, that is most definately a sad incident. What I find unpleasant is the second guessing from arm chair "generals" who weren't there, have no facts and little insight on what DID happen. Gents. there will be an investigation about it. Let those folks who have that responsibility, and even more important ACTUAL expertise, make the findings. Then you can debate your own silly opinions about it."
Maverick 3-25-2003
It may have taken a year but boy is vindication sweet..
:lol
:lol
:lol
"A arm chair general has been recorded"
DoctorYO
I don't think anyone was vindicated in or by this report. Possibly unforeseeable circumstances added up to the death of one valiant crew. Nothing to gloat about here.
-
read my ada post; read the report.. (and read all two/three followups from me. )
Not gloating just vindicating there is a difference..
Ill edit the smillies if it makes you feel offended..
Note the above quote I took from the report is the most important factor imo the report details the IFF failure but as I displayed before IFF is not the only criteria to engage. The report backs what i said also.. You can read right..
Use your brain, not emotions to defend your squadmate (while honorable your actions, they are wrong..) I love to see how many Anti radiation missles were used against allied assets thru out the conflict.
In my opinion is none.. why?
They had no airforce. They had no scuds with anti radiation seekers attached to them.. How do you get a anti radiation signal when the enemy has no assets to deliver such a weapon. The Officer on duty should have radioed HQ... Oh wait read the report he couldn't... they had communication problems. It was like the perfect storm of soup sandwiches. How can you have delayed contact with you command elements, ever heard of a airdefense net. The whole concept relies on communication to be effective in early warning. Again fog of war, I dont think so just plain dumbarseness..
Note the Tornado was even on the correct vector.. What the battery couldn't read HQ's map overlays put 2 and 2 together and hold the engagement till confirmed hostility...
Oh wait their com-suite was still in transit, ever heard of private go to HQ and get me a freaking overlay of avenues of approach.. "right away sir"
Or how bout "HQ im missing my communication suite I need to set up new rules of engagement to prevent friendly engagement"
This is rudimentry Air Defense, dont blow up your own guys.. The lowly private even learns that at Ft. Blister...
I know your thinking its easy to say in hindsite but note the ADA posting date.
Yes im right.. I know it hurts but im right... (now thats gloating) not the initial posting...
enjoy..
DoctorYo
-
Causal Factors taken from the report:
1. The Patriot system identifies hostile missiles through their flight profile and other characteristics, including the lack of an IFF response. The criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many different Anti-Radiation Missiles available worldwide, and were therefore very broad.
Hostile missile identification criteria too broad. DESIGN FLAW
2.The Board concluded that the Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile Rules Of
Engagement were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being
classified as an Anti-Radiation Missile
ROE "not robust enough" ROE are a COMMAND FUNCTION
3.The crew were fully trained, but their training had
focused on recognising generic threats rather than on those that were specific to Iraq or on identifying false alarms. The Board concluded that both Patriot firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident.
"firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident" Doctrine and Training are a COMMAND FUNCTION
4.The Patriot crew were operating autonomously, with a primary role of
protecting ground troops from missile attack, but the Rules of Engagement allowed the Battery to fire in self-defence.
Clearance to operate autonomously is a COMMAND FUNCTION
5. The Board believed that autonomous operations without voice and
data connections to and from Battalion HQ might have contributed to the difficulty the Battery had in receiving the Mode 1 IFF codes.
COMMAND FUNCTION again.
6. The Board concluded that ZG710’s IFF had a fault, which was unknown to the aircrew, and that the lack of IFF at the time of the accident was a contributory factor.
EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION
7.The Board concluded that airspace routing, airspace control measures and a breakdown in planning and communication were contributory factors in the accident.
COMMAND FUNCTION
8.The Board considered that the instructions available to aircrew
regarding aircraft operating without IFF were misleading and that this was a contributory factor.
COMMAND FUNCTION
So to review: One Design Flaw, 6 instances of a failure of the Command Structure to properly design procedures/instruct the troops (both Missileers and Pilots) and one Equipment Malfunction.
Yet you rejoice that your comment about
dumbarse patriot battery slackers.. ADA the "Alcoholics Defending America"
is vindicated?
I'm not defending Mav here; he clearly doesn't need it.
But it sure is easy to second guess the guys that are in the hot seat from the comfort of YOUR armchair, isn't it?
-
6 command functions thats a polite teminology for "User error" (skuzzy and computer savy will appreciate...)
Other wise known as incompetence...
command? whose command.. Tankers and infantry dont tell ADA how to do there job.. (nor vice versa even though ADA out marksmaned the infantry 7 out of 8 quarters.) Coffee makers in the TOC dont either. you telling me you think some other smoe tells ada how to engage something. ADA has command over their own missles.. oh wait tankers need to ask ada or MI to engage with their 120mm..
They dont go hey general you got a battle going on do we have permission to fire.. its far too chaotic in a TOC to do that.. no its more like you have criteria.. if that criteria is met you engage.. here they didn't have the necessary communication (cluster mistake #1) with the RAF liason in the TOC period.... yes your not bright on these matters..
the target met the critera of a friendly by its speed vector alt.. etc.. where was the person pushing the button interpreting that.. it didn't happen ..
These yahoo's (no pun intended) engaged first asked questions later plain and simple.. (sounds like the current sop watch the news on all branches of the military)
you have a ada element in that command tent.. you should have a foreign command element in your toc also... .. and that element does everything in their power to ensure this doesn't happen. Now the only problem is they had no communication that is direct communication; and the delay to relay it to the other battery put them in a time crunch..
Their mission was to protect against ballistic missles for their ground element.. A self defence action on the battery is a secondary mission.. With no bangs or explosions they engaged. Trusting the system.. a system that has some well documented flaws.. in less than one minute they engaged.. with no real anti radiation missles in theater that were hostile..
2 people died to dumbarses... not even americans.. even worse..
we had air superiority at this time frame of engagement.. what was it a manpad HARM... UFO etc..
your really clueless on this matter. what experience do you have with the ADA..
any? lets hear it? any? yes you are a smoe..
Bottom line (your feeble attack is parried.)
Toad you may know other military operations (doesn't seem like it but then again OJ was inocent) but you are so freaking wrong and im calling you on it..
Talk out your rear like you know all if you want.. I'm not fooled; because im about to really break it down for you very soon and you will look like a baboon when im done.. you want that i can see...
And dont worry im not as high up as voss on this cloak and dagger stuff. But on this topic of ADA i know what im talking about..
You your either fibbing to be cool.. (voss) or just plain brain dead on these matters..
Enjoy..
DoctorYO
PS take your bottom feeder arse back to bishland.. I notice now that rooks have numbers your squad changes to the side with numbers.. Honorable indeed..
-
Baloney.
"User error?" That the Patriot programming was wrong from the design phase?
"no its more like you have criteria.. if that criteria is met you engage.. "
Criteria like ROE?
ROE that the report said "Board concluded that the Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile Rules Of Engagement were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being classified as an Anti-Radiation Missile"?
Or are you trying to suggest that an indvidual Patriot crew sets it's own ROE?
you have a ada element in that command tent.. you should have a foreign command element in your toc also... .. and that element does everything in their power to ensure this doesn't happen. Now the only problem is they had no communication that is direct communication; and the delay to relay it to the other battery put them in a time crunch..
And you're suggesting the individual ADA crew determines the direct communication...... contrary to what the Board found, of course.
You've also determined that the two findings that relate to the pilot's command structure as the actual Patriot crew's fault?
You didn't read the whole report did you?
Ludicrous. General. Pretty clear who's bellybutton is emitting.
-
meh-thinks this is gonna be good...
-
Not much more to say. The findings of the British Ministry of Defence are pretty clear. Well, if you read them they are.
There's 8 causal factors listed. I don't see a single one that points to a failure by the actual Patriot crew.
Pretty much ends the discussion from my point of view.
Unless it's yet another vast right wing / CIA / FBI conspiracy that the Brits are in on to the neck.
Maybe BOOSH fired the missile! That's it! It was BOOOOSH!!
:rolleyesthingie:
-
Maybe the Brigadier will take each causal factor and show how it was a direct result of action by the individual Patriot crew.
I'll look forward to reading that.
-
"I'm not fooled; because im about to really break it down for you very soon and you will look like a baboon when im done.. "
This is what grabbed my attention.
You guys just had to go and do this during the playoff game.
-
I got quite a laugh from your descriptions here’s the break down, go lie to someone else I don’t buy your response..
1. The Patriot system identifies hostile missiles through their flight profile and other characteristics, including the lack of an IFF response. The criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many different Anti-Radiation Missiles available worldwide, and were therefore very broad.
Hostile missile identification criteria too broad. DESIGN FLAW
Quite the contrary, if the team didn't load this that’s a deficiency on their part.. Need to see the American AAR to see if it was at the company/battery level vs. the Battalion level.. Buts its user error...laziness slip thru the cracks act of god or BOOSH**... Its also not a flaw but a strength of the system to fine tune to the Theater its in.. Also take a long look at the “including the lack of IFF response” Note IFF is only part of the issue.. IMO I’d say IFF makes up a good 40% with 60% other criteria.. Who knows how they are training crewmembers now, but IFF when I was trained note trained (where’s your training?) was not the primary factor to engage.. It’s been a tool to assist not decide. You cease to understand that.. But then again for a baboon you were doing all right. Your wrong but you made a good common sense effort..
2.The Board concluded that the Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile Rules Of
Engagement were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being
Classified as an Anti-Radiation Missile
ROE "not robust enough" ROE are a COMMAND FUNCTION
Who knows what we told the Brits to cover our arse. But I see failure in not seeing the 1st aircraft of the pair.. That’s sophisticated radar it should have seen the other plane. For one if they trust the computer so much why do they have a human element at all? I'll tell you why to prevent exactly what happened that early morning. For a Non robot human to interpret the data and if necessary override its decision to prevent FF. I also see failure in using standard out of the book protocol(ROE) to defend against Harms. Your in a combat zone where you have air superiority, no attacks of this nature have been reported and there are no ground based harms that go 18,000 ft and then attack whatever is radiating... those 3 factors the computer cant think it out for you.. But a human can instantly recognize something is not right here.. Again the American AAR is needed especially for the airspeed alt and vector data.. To formally conclude user error.. (IMO its user error) But still you had that human element and he didn't put 2 and 2 together.. and engaged a AR missile without IMO the Necessary ROE for the theater.. In self-defense yes the Individual unit will decide its ROE from the lowly manpad to patriots. Self-defense is a universal right in air defense and the military in general. Hence the human pushing the little red button... not the computer doing it for him.. If 2 + 2 = 5 you have a problem.
3.The crew were fully trained, but their training had
focused on recognizing generic threats rather than on those that were specific to Iraq or on identifying false alarms. The Board concluded that both Patriot firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident.
"firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident" Doctrine and Training are a COMMAND FUNCTION
Again you are wrong… Whose command are you talking about; ADA commands itself under the umbrella of a liaison to the commander of the battle, or a TOC. Those are ADA officers calling the shots with their own troops not some other element unless you have been imbedded with a line unit and patriots don’t do that manpads do... He still has to go thru the liaison that then gives orders to the battery in question.. In regards of training that’s on a battalion / battery level… Not HQ of the Theater..
4.The Patriot crew were operating autonomously, with a primary role of
protecting ground troops from missile attack, but the Rules of Engagement allowed the Battery to fire in self-defense.
Clearance to operate autonomously is a COMMAND FUNCTION
Autonomously means not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: an autonomous
For reference use http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=autonomously
Are you an utter idiot? Autonomously means independent, not in command. How is that a command function.. Brush up on your English skills, you’re using this word as its opposite of what it means.. Eagler will have some competition this year for Doc’s simian of the year award... My baboon comment was apparently accurate..
In regards to the FF engagement by the battery being autonomous it should have delayed its response until confirmed hostility.. Not a blip… Using what happened, as an example be glad our Norad and Russian counterparts don’t use ADA’s systems/ROE to manage their nuclear arsenals. And quite honestly the person who pushed the red button and killed those 2 men should have been reprimanded for either not reporting his lack of communication situation and not having a plan in place to prevent this tragedy due to the lackluster comm. relay they had in place.
5. The Board believed that autonomous operations without voice and
data connections to and from Battalion HQ might have contributed to the difficulty the Battery had in receiving the Mode 1 IFF codes.
COMMAND FUNCTION again.
Again you’re wrong again.. Crypto is loaded before the mission not during it.. Especially if you have no data comms to pull it.. (Old fashioned way “early nineties” was small crypto devices, I'm sure they still work in a situation like this..) If there was a problem with their ability to utilize IFF mode 1 why was it not reported to HQ that they were in a substandard situation and a alternative ROE was needed to be SOP for the remainder of the mission due to the lack of the battery’s ability to positively identify threat..
And again… for the broken record impaired.. IFF is not the sole identifier of threat.. And what happened is exactly the reason why those rules / ROE are in place…
6. The Board concluded that ZG710’s IFF had a fault, which was unknown to the aircrew, and that the lack of IFF at the time of the accident was a contributory factor.
EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION
I have to agree with you there.. Report says malfunction no rebuttal here… your 1 for 6 so far…16.6% (that’s good for a monkey)
7.The Board concluded that airspace routing, airspace control measures and a breakdown in planning and communication were contributory factors in the accident.
COMMAND FUNCTION
Well this is the big one.. This right here is what I have been harping on the last couple of posts… “Sir, comms are down we cant get the data for the bigboard..” Send private Toad to go to hq and copy some acetate overlays for the avenues of approach and speed and vectors. (Oldschool but then again I’ve never had a piece of acetate crash due to a software glitch..) If they did do what I described they didn’t use them..
That’s a battery command by the way.. Or in your thinking a command function if you consider the battery officer an HQ command level officer.. heh… Most likely a butter maybe a captain, but do to shortages of troops I’m saying a butter imo.. Next…
8.The Board considered that the instructions available to aircrew
regarding aircraft operating without IFF were misleading and that this was a contributory factor.
COMMAND FUNCTION
This is the Brits fault IMO, Their liaison didn’t brief them in the manner he should have or did and was not comprehended..
Well all in all not bad for someone without a clue…
2 out of 8 25% is good.. Especially considering your cognitive abilities of the simian impaired.
Before you attempt a rebuttal again I ask you. What experience do you have working with ADA you ducked the question in your posting. Then you machine-gunned 3 posts in rapid succession for what? Intimidation.
One more time.. WHAT EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE WITH THE ADA… ?
I have about 4 years, 2 live fires (qualified 8 out of 8) with direct hits, tour in Korea and others. And was top team at my job for 8 quarters in a row… If you understand what that is its quite a accomplishment..
They don’t give out the toys I got to play with to the duds of the unit its just too expensive..
If you have no experience than really whatever opinion you have of the matter is moot. This tactic I’m using worked really well against Eagler and the other warmongers when they were thumping their chest for war. I told them to post their re-up papers… as I suspected no one did (I don’t blame them for not wanting to be cannon fodder but then again they were yapping like big men / tough guys…) Kind of like you yapping about knowing what the hell ADA is and what their tactics are..
Any more.. Have some worked mess hall bacon on me.. Super Troop cherry...
DoctorYO
PS: you should change you name to “autonomous babewynus-simia bufo vulgaris”
** I enjoyed the Bush propaganda discredit tactics .. very brilliant..
-
Before we even bother just clear this up:
You feel vindicated in your original assessment that this particular individual Patriot crew was comprised of
dumbarse patriot battery slackers.. ADA the "Alcoholics Defending America"
?
Just want to be sure before I even bother to answer.
-
For starters yes... Thaads (rear gear boys and (gasp) girls) have always been slackers in my opinion.
Where FAADS are hard chargers (imbedded with infantry tanks whatever;Combat Arms)
In regards to Alcholics Defending America thats a inside joke for Duck Hunters.. you would know this if you had anything to do with Air Defense thats why I put it out.. I see it worked better than live bait for sniffing your lies out...
I note your digging hard you may hit china in a week if you keep this pace..
Whats your experience with the ADA....?
rebuttal?
Before we even bother just clear this up:
more yap .. wtf.. and what is this "WE.. " There is no we only you....
I noticed you sidestepped again.. answer.... answer quickly bufo vulgaris.... or you going to machine gun post again..
Dont feel bad warmongers clammed up too... My sledge hammer technique has that effect..
DoctorYO
PS: btw have a :rofl
Oh and I do feel vindicated becuase your goon maverick talked smack and this document he was proven wrong a year after the fact. There is no vindication personally between the patriot crew and myself..
-
Good, just wanted to be sure that gate was closed.
I never was in an ADA unit. I was in a flying unit. My experience with ADA is in knowing how to avoid getting shot down by them. Falls into three main areas. Communications, Electronic ID (IFF) and ID Maneuvers. I also know how this stuff is coordinated between Command entities. Clear enough?
Let's do the easy stuff first.
The Board concluded that ZG710’s IFF had a fault, which was unknown to the aircrew, and that the lack of IFF at the time of the accident was a contributory factor.
We agree, Equipment Malfunction.
8.The Board considered that the instructions available to aircrew
regarding aircraft operating without IFF were misleading and that this was a contributory factor.
We agree, Command Function.
This one we disagree on and here's the whole quote:
7.ZG710 followed the published speed and height procedures for a return to Ali Al Salem. If the position of the Patriot batteries and the likely “arcs” of their missiles had been taken into account in writing the procedures, ZG710 might have taken a different route.
In addition, procedures were in place to deal with a situation where an aircraft’s IFF had failed, but the crew would have needed to know that the IFF was inoperative to employ them.
The Board concluded that airspace routing, airspace control measures and a breakdown in planning and communication were contributory factors in the accident.
You place this on the Patriot crew. This is an area I do have experience in. The published speed and height procedures are usually coordinated between the higher command units. They are handed out to the flight crews in the mission brief. It is indeed a "Command Function". Who planned the route for the crews without knowing the battery locations? It's also a "Mechanical Failure" problem. The crew didn't know the IFF was out.
No way this one goes on the Patriot crew.
The criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were based on the many different Anti-Radiation Missiles available worldwide, and were therefore very broad. ZG710’s flight profile met these criteria as it commenced its descent into Ali Al Salem. The Board considered that the criteria should have been much tauter, based on the known threat from Iraq, and concluded that the generic Anti-Radiation Missile classification criteria programmed into the Patriot computer were a contributory factor in the accident.
To place this on the crew, you need to show that there were other programming criteria available to the crew and that this crew chose to load the criteria used in violation of any instruction from their superiors. In other words, if their superiors directed loading of this criteria, the crew isn't responsible. If the superiors gave no direction, it has to be considered as a "crew option", which is tied to the training issue.
So far, neither the MOD report nor your posts have shown that at all.
The Board concluded that the Patriot Anti-Radiation Missile Rules Of Engagement were not robust enough to prevent a friendly aircraft being classified as an Anti-Radiation Missile and then engaged in self-defence, and were thus contributory factors in the accident.
So you're going with the old "conspiracy theory" here? "Who knows what we told the Brits"? And you admit you don't have enough data? "Again the American AAR is needed especially for the airspeed alt and vector data". Well, tough to put it on the crew then, tinfoil hat and all. Sorry, not buying. I am familiar with ROE, thanks. Every unit has them.
The crew were fully trained, but their training had
focused on recognising generic threats rather than on those that were specific to Iraq or on identifying false alarms. The Board concluded that both Patriot firing doctrine and training were contributory factors in the accident.
Who writes firing doctrine and who writes the training syllabus? It sure isn't the individual Patriot crew. It's a "higher command" function. I don't know who does it in ADA, but in a AF flying unit, it's the Wing Training Branch that designs training to comply with doctrine put out by HHQ.
MOD said they were qualified but the basic doctrine and training were faulty. No way you hang that on the Patriot crew itself. They don't write doctrine and the don't write the training syllabus. The blame has to go upstream a ways.
The Patriot crew were operating autonomously, with a primary role of protecting ground troops from missile attack, but the Rules of Engagement allowed the Battery to fire in self-defence. Because its communications suite was still in transit from the US, contact with the Battalion HQ and other units was through a radio relay with a nearby Battery, which was equipped with voice and data links to and from the Battalion HQ. The lack of communications equipment meant that the Patriot crew did not have access to the widest possible “picture” of the airspace around them to build situational awareness. The Board considered it likely that a better understanding of the wider operational picture would have helped the Patriot crew, who would then have been more likely to identify ZG710 as a friendly track, albeit one without a working IFF. The Board concluded that the autonomous operation of the Patriot battery was a contributory factor.
Of course they were operating autonomously. That's the point the Board made. Their communications suite was still in transit from the US and their voice/data links were through radio thru another battery which had contact with Battalion HQ.
You can't blame the lack of the comm suite on the crew, which is what denied them the direct links to Battalion HQ and denied them the "big picture" SA. And that's what the board said. It's a "Command Function" to go ahead and employ the battery in this manner, without the comm suite and using radio relay.
Investigation showed that the Patriot Battery’s IFF interrogator for Mode 4 was working throughout the engagement period, but that Mode 1 codes were not loaded. The Board believed that autonomous operations without voice and data connections to and from Battalion HQ might have contributed to the difficulty the Battery had in receiving the Mode 1 IFF codes. The Board concluded that the lack of IFF Mode 1 codes increased the probability of the
accident, and was therefore a contributory factor.
The Board says they weren't getting the data from Battalion HQ because they didn't have their comm suite. Can't hang that on the crew either. It's not their fault their comm suite was in transit and unavailable. And "new ROE and new SOP" are once again implemented at a higher level than the individual crew.
Bout sums it up. There really isn't anything in the MOD report that they put on the crew. You can keep trying to, but it simply conflicts with what they did say. Well, you have the conspiracy theory thing, I guess. And you admit you need the ADA after-action report to really determine anything. Which we don't have, of course.
So, I see no vindication for you, sorry.
As to the insults and such, enjoy. I really try to avoid the easy, childish name calling and try to realize it for what it is.
If it makes you feel all manly and strong, that's all that counts. Go for it.
-
I highly doubt the crew failed to know it's IFF system was inoperative. If they didn't know I'd say the British need to take a look at their IFF systems fault indication functions.
I'm not to up on the ground based ADA stuff but don't they have alternate IFF methods? I mean hell there is only how many modes of IFF? Also if they have other options why were they only interrogating mode 1 in the first place? I deal with IFF systems on a daily basis and if this was their only interrogation then there is some issues here. Mode 1 is a very basic interrogation. There are other ways to get a friendly reply other than Mode 1.