"fudog50" wrote in message
...
Of course, even though smartass remarks were not desired, you had to
add one,,,thanks buddy

I asked a simple question, thank for the compliment on the top post,
pal!

If you had not noticed, per the lead post in this thread, the investigation
has been completed--the malfunctioning IFF was found to be the proximate
cause of the incident. Your question, following up that whole "Gawd..."
introduction (starting a post (especially a top post) with an expression of
disdainful, eyes-rolling disbelief, is probably not the most tactful way of
introducing your message) has been answered by others--now how does that
affect the *fact* that the Brits themselves concluded that the IFF was to
blame?


(and you have no idea what/who I am and so are you!)

Not quite sure what that garbled blurb means, but one thing you mumbled does
pop out as true--I don't have much of an idea who/what you are, which is
understandable given your anonymous moniker. Now why would a guy be afraid
to use his real name...

Brooks


On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:28:46 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"fudog50" wrote in message
.. .
Gawd,
20 years ago (1984), onboard the Connie, as a young E-4 I
stood 4 hour watches "shooting" using the then brand new APM-424 "star
wars" test set on every A/C that was scheduled to launch. If the Mode
4 didn't work, they didn't launch,,,,period. Moreover, in the
following 20 years, addtional improvements to the APM-424 "star wars"
transponder test set and upgrades to the APX-72 and Kit-1C's have
resulted in a successful method of determining reliabilty and accuracy
of IFF systems onboard US Navy A/C prior to launch.
I have worked at det sites with the RAF, they are incredible,
top notch. However,in my opinion and experience they are willing to
accept a little more risk than we normally do. The question is: Was
there an adequate, reliable and accurate check of the Tornadoe's IFF
system before it left the deck?
Yes or No answers with explantions are all that are required
before moving forward and/or speculating further.

Nice top post, guy. Leaving no idea whatsoever as to what/who you were
responding to. The fact is that the IFF was not operating properly when
the
aircraft was engaged, and that was a major contributing factor to the
frat
incident--it would actually be the proximate cause of the incident, as
had
it been working properly the less-than-optimal Patriot ROE would not be
in
question in regards to this action.

Brooks


On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:37:23 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Drewe Manton" wrote in message
. 4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in news:FbidnTOlj-
:

Does crow taste better roasted, or fried?


Did you miss the bit about Patriot rules of engagement being
"insufficently robust"? Seems to me that calling for meals of crow
is
in
bad taste all around here. . . . it was a tragedy, it was war, the
two
go
hand in hand.

The Patriot had its share of troubles, no doubt. But immediately after
it
was announced that the Tornado had gone down, some folks took a "it's
the
Patriot, stupid" stance as to assigning the guilt in this case,
despite
an
early mention of the suspicion that all may have not been right
regarding
the aircraft's IFF. Now the chickens have come home to roost. And
since
you
are so keyed up in still trying to point the fickle finger of fate at
the
Patriot in this case, did you miss the part that said: "The
investigation
board determined that the Patriot crew fired in perceived self-defense
in
accordance with existing procedures and Rules of Engagement"? Yeah, it
was a
tragedy--the ROE doubtless contributed to it, too. But those ROE would
never
have been invoked had the aircraft had a functional IFF transmitting
the
proper code. Curiousity compels me to ask--were you one of the guys
claiming
it was just another case of trigger-happy Patriot engagement after it
went
down?

Brooks


--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"