Joy at direct hit turns to horror

[jose]

The Sun Online - News: Joy at direct hit turns to horror

THE Sun today publishes the full, disturbing truth about how the US pilot of an A-10 tankbuster jet broke all the rules to shoot up a British convoy in the Iraq war.

Two questions, do you think someone should be held responsable for this error that killed a british soldier, if so who?
The cockpit video was not released for ¨security¨reasons but was leaked by the Sun newspaper
The Sun Online - Video: Exclusives, interviews and shoots from The Sun online video

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: jose Two questions, do you think someone should be held responsable for this error that killed a british soldier, if so who? The cockpit video was not released for ¨security¨reasons but was leaked by the Sun newspaper

This kind of incident should be blamed directly on the pilots involved. The shooter was simply too anxious to get a quick easy kill to confirm his target. He should be held responsible, although I know that won't happen. A similar incident happened in 1995 when F-15's shot down two friendly Blackhawk choppers, killing 26 people. No one was punished for that incident either.

The U.S. claimed "security reasons" for not releasing the video, but it's clear that the real reason for it being withheld was it's embarrassing nature and the way it shows the culpability of the pilots involved. Just a routine cover-up, it happens all the time.

[Boetie]

Friendly fire has always been a problem in the military. It's a problem within law enforcement as well.

The military for years have been trying to figure out a way to curb the problem. The reason it's a hard problem to tackle is because war is a forever ongoing changing dynamics. Communications, getting somewhere someplace in a timely manner, intel, this list goes on and on and shit like friendly fire happens.

[GHook93]

I would say we hold Iran responsible. J/K

If the pilot broke procedure, then definitely hold the pilot accountable. If the pilot acted on orders, then hold his commander responsible.


Quick Question Jose:
Isn't the Sun a tabloid newspaper? Just checking.

[G. Adams]

I'm glad the video went public, but that is all the punishment these airmen need. I think it would be good of them to send letters of apology to the family also. It wasn't malicious, it was a horrendous mistake. They don't need jail time, though perhaps further training.

The American military should look into finding ways to prevent it happening again, as the US does have a bad rep with other militaries for friendly fire. I'm sure, or hope anyway, that this has already happened.

I agree with Z though, that the US wanted this hidden for reasons of embarrasment, rather than security reasons.

[Autolykos]

Terrible, absolutely terrible.

I think this incident has a lot to say about the level of bloodlust that American soldiers carry.

- Rob

[G. Adams]

Quote by: GHook93 Quick Question Jose: Isn't the Sun a tabloid newspaper? Just checking.

Quick Answer: Yes

[Fonceai]

One, the Sun is a tabloid.

Two, the Sun is wrong.

They state that one of the errors is that the artillery strikes never landed, that's false.

The strikes do land, and you can see them land. I rewound the played multiple times to be sure I wasn't looking at glare from the sun.

Also, they are sure to ask Manila Hotel if there are friendlies in the area because they see the orange panels, and MH clears them to fire as they say there are no friendlies.

They ask to verify again and MH affirms their targets.

Don't believe what The Sun tells you.

These guys did screw up, but think about their situation...

They rely on the ground intelligence, not their eyes.

When a pilot calls in vehicles, as they did, the ground control's job is to sit and have someone talk to the British command to verify that they have no vehicles in the area. That's the whole reason they clear with ground control in the first place.

MH heard them talk about seeing orange panels and still cleared them and affirmed them to acquire targets.

You know how targets are "acquired"?

Someone in ground control looks at a radar screen a designates a signature as an enemy or friendly. That radar screen modification is fed to the aircraft through telemetry and that is what the pilot sees.

The pilots don't magically aim bombs using approximations of velocity and range. They look at the ground control designated radar targeting and use the guidance systems to aim the bomb at the target.

Don't think for one second that the pilots are to blame for this.

Someone on the ground screwed up.

[Autolykos]

LOL.

Orange panels are supposed to be markers of friendly forces, yes?

If the pilots could clearly see the orange panels, they should have erred on the side of caution, IMHO.

Both the pilots and someone on the ground screwed up.

- Rob

[the last man]

the killer has to say ;sorry man I killed you by mistake

[Fonceai]

@Autolykos

I've seen this sort of thing happen before.

You can't blame the pilots.

They asked for clarification and were given an answer.

They actually doubted the ground control response and it was repeated back to them.

They were told to affirm targets; they weren't bloodthirsty and lying in order to fire.

What you need to understand is that a pilot is absolutely dependent on the ground control.

Otherwise, why have one at all?

The instant ground control said that there were no friendlies, anything that happened after is the responsibility of ground control.

The job of pilots is to put bombs on targets.

The job of ground control is to tell those pilots what the targets are.

@lastman

They regretted it right there in the video... they knew they killed friendlies after it happened.

[Autolykos]

If the pilots could see the orange panels, then they were not absolutely dependent on ground control.

- Rob

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't think its fair to say "bloodlust" of "American soldiers".

All soldiers are trying to do their job, and live.

Granted, the pilot screwed the pooch, and people lost their lives, but this is the danger of war, and is a signal of why war is hell. No country shows propaganda films for their cause using friendly fire scenes when trying to recruit soldiers, but it still happens in all wars, in all nations, by all soldiers.

His bloodlust was probably actually "trying to stay alive" and get something worth getting before he got taken out by the enemy.

I just can't be that biased in my sentiment here, and I in no way think this is unique to American soldiers.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Autolykos If the pilots could see the orange panels, then they were not absolutely dependent on ground control.

That makes no sense.

They aren't going to fly blind. And ground control doesn't see colors on the radar targets.

The pilots saw orange and asked ground control to verify.

Notice that they deferred to the word of ground control.

If they could see orange clearly and think it was rocket launchers, why couldn't they see the Union Jack that was also supposed to be displayed on the roofs of the vehicles?

Because the U.J.'s might not have been there.

Regardless, ground control gave a thumbs up. That's where your concern should stop.

No offense, but I can understand why you think it's all on the pilots. But I served with a squadron that provided comm for the ground control to various other locations, and I've been in the boxes they use to designate radar traffic. I know the entire circuit flow from radar to plane.

Trust me on this... the pilots are not the bosses in the air... the boss of the pilots is the officer in the box.

[Autolykos]

I am not blaming only the pilots, in light of the information you provided. Rather, I am blaming both the pilots and "someone on the ground".

- Rob

[Fonceai]

I understand.

But you really can't blame the pilots at all.

They did everything by the book that they were required to do. Don't blame them for following procedure and pulling the trigger. That kind of finger-pointing stems from misinformation.

As I wrote before, I don't mean to tell you, "You're wrong and I know why and this is the way it is"... but I kinda am.

If you want to read the other side of the issue, check out Military.com.

[jose]

i hold responsible the controller, call sign ¨Manila hotel¨, also the pilot popov 35 for not getting a positive ID before engaging, a few weeks ago i watched a video of Royal Marines who called OFF an air strike because a farmer happened to walk past the target
the attitude ¨kill them all ,and let god sort them out¨ comes to mind

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Fonceai But you really can't blame the pilots at all.

The ultimate responsibility to fire ALWAYS rests with the pilot in comand. He saw orange panels, he let himself be talked into shooting anyway.

[Fonceai]

Talked into?

He was ordered to affirm targets... which meant they had already been designated and assigned.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Fonceai Talked into? He was ordered to affirm targets... which meant they had already been designated and assigned.

He was ADVISED as to what the ground control believed, and that was partially based on what he told them about what he observed. The final decision to fire was his, and his alone, are you really disputing that??