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=autonomouslyAre 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..
