Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century?

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:44:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:49:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in
message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb

wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the
shapes
of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger
around
Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and
twasn't
the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of the
toys
and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater percentage
of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you
enlighten
us

So on that logic then you are saying that you were providing the
majority of the allied targets. So why weren't the Brit's, Canadians
etc. killing large numbers of American participants?

Uhmmm...how many Canadians did you see on the ground (or in the air) during
this last Gulf event? Or for that matter during the first one? How many RAF
sorties were dedicated to CAS during ODS, and how many CAS sorties did they
fly for US forces during this latest fight? YOUR logic appears to be the
flawed item here. Again, why do you on the one hand claim that you have no
beef with the US, yet on the other hand come out with this kind of nonsense
(and a few messages late, too)?


as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine
that
such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding
traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo
(and
in
the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?

Excuses? We don' need no stinkin' 'scuses... Like I said, **** happens.

Sorry but **** doesn't just happen, it is normally caused by a string
of events ( try going on an accident investigation course). One should
never just accept it but try to stop it ever happening again.

LOL! Now where did I say that we should stop trying to prevent fratricide
incidents? H'mmm? FYI, there is a big difference between realizing that
fratricide incidents will occur during major combat operations (and
sometimes even during training events), and adopting a the-hell-with-it
attitude. Excuses are not worth much; you go back and figure out what went
wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. That is the
correct approach. Your approach, where you just wring your hands and whine
about US incidents while desperately trying to ignore those incidents
attributed to your own forces is rather meaningless.


From


http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...993575&sub=Sec
u
rity%20and%20Defence :

""History shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of warfare,"
admits the National Audit Office, Britain's public spending watchdog,
in
a
2002 report on the MoD's attempts to improve combat identification."

Treated like "toys" huh? From that statement one can assume you have
little
first-hand experience with a profession at arms.


I have been on the close recieving end of some of your modern "toys"
twice in the last decade and a half, have you?

Where and when? In my case was lucky enough to never experience the
intentional efforts of someone trying to kill me--the closest I have come
was having to skidaddle out of a range area when M110 8" guns started
shooting over our head into the nearby impact area, and having to go from
chest-defilade in the commander's hatch of a M113A1 to vision block use
lickity-split when the ignoramus gunner in the M60A3 tooling along on my
right decided it was a good time to enage the pop-up Hind target on my left
during a LFX phase at NTC (the observer controller caught that one and
"killed" the tank with a MILES "God Gun" so he could tear the TC a new
rear-opening). Been around TOW's that did the boost-without-sustainer dance
across the desert floor, and a bit too close for comfort during a couple of
explosives detonations. Was on the training range when another M60A3
sprinkled a CAV Troops M113 with some long range MG fire and was lasing in
preparation for pumping a training APDS round into it when the radio calls
got the TC's attention and a rather nasty situation was narrowly avoided.
Performed range clearance ops with EOD once, but that was not particularly
dangerous as long as you avoided the odd 40mm AGL "silver easter egg" we
came across. saw a lot of friendlies get waxed during corps WFX in
Germany--luckily they were reall just electrons scurrying around in the
simulation database (though the officer responsible, a good friend and at
the time working for me, took it pretty hard, putting "paid" to any idea you
may have that we don't really care about frat incidents).


You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

Not really. You are rather clueless regarding modern weapons, eh?

I've targeted them, fired them and nearly been killed by them, hence I
think the reverse may be more the case.

Odd then that you have this one-sided view of fratricide as being a purely
US inspired event.



As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

Gee, and not a single Yank around to take responsibility for the act
(unless
you were planning on blaming the one who was killed...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Actually, from the beginning you have taken a rather singleminded
approach
to pointing out the US related incidents. When it was merely pointed out
to
you that fratricide events have been common to both our respective
forces,
you wanted to start tossing out more allegations of US responsibility.
Hate
to tell you this, but fratricide is a factor of war; we try to control it
as
best we can, but it *will* continue to rear its ugly little head...even
within HM forces.

Please re-read the start of my contribution and you will see than I
just added to an American's request that A-10's recieve better ID
training.

Ever flown at low altitude and tried to pick out and identify *known*
targets? Having only done so from the comparitively slow platforms like the
UH-1 and CH-47, I can tell you that it is not all that easy to do. That you
apparently think it should be is telling. Now, oddly you find the A-10
community so needful of this additional training that you not only had to
chime in with what you note above, but when it was pointed out that
fratricide events were all too common to your own forces as well (not
instead of) as our own, you had to start lunging out with more "its the US
that does it" crap. Nobody has denied the US forces have indeed accounted
for our share of frat incidents, but if vehicle ID is your beef, then I
suggest that starting with your own freakin' Challenger crews might be a
better place to *start* that additional training, it being a bit easier to
make a good ID from a tank sitting still than it is from an A-10 flying
overhead (even at its less-than-stellar speed).


To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed
the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Regarding Operation Tractable (Falaise Gap):

"Bomber Command carried out this operation without American
involvement,
but
a large number of bombers, many ironically from 6 Group of the Royal
Canadian Air Force, bombed short."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

We sure did, a bit earlier; we also hammered our own 30th Inf Division
not
once, but twice during the COBRA effort. Malmedy got bombed not once but
twice by both B-24's and B-26's. And as we see from the above, so did
you.
See what I mean about "**** happens" being applicable to everyone, not
just
we 'mercans?

Brooks


"
Those short bombs caused casualties. Like I said, **** happens, even
when
you Brits are the ones doing the dealing. George Washington noted a
Brit-on-Brit fratricide incident that occured during the French and
Indian
War, when the detachment he was commanding came within sight of
another
British element and both sides opened fire on each other. Maybe you
think
Washington bears the sole burden for that event, too?


I think that maybe that you are still living in those far off days.
"**** happens" won't cut it any more in this day and age, if you
really believe that then please stay away from any thing more lethal
than a pocket knife.

"**** happens" is quite adequate in conveying the fact that fratricide
events ARE a part of combat, despite the shrill whining of you and the
general media. Even your OWN forces recognize that (see that quote from your
own MoD). That does not imply that we do not, or should not, try to minimize
them.

Brooks



Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Paul F Austin" wrote...

You should read a bit about F-35. That's precisely how DAS will work. The
HMS will project the DAS camera images depending on where the pilot is
looking. The description in AvWeek said that even if aircraft structure was
"in the way", the pilot would be given the view along the sight line he was
looking at. If a wing is in the way, he'll have "X-ray vision". And since
the DAS cameras are IR there's that extra advantage.

I didn't read all that capability (e.g., "X-ray vision") into the stuff I have
read about DAS, but it sounds plausible in concept. However, for a UAV there
will be a cost/weight bogey to overcome, plus the data bandwidth and reliability
to transmit all that video real-time to the operator.


Another problem would be to get the operator used to visualizing the world in
IR. All his threat training would have to be based on IR imagery to be
useful
with his IR sensor suite. Target ID becomes a significant problem again in
terms of blue-on-blue potential.

That's true but it's currently true for NVG flight. CAS doesn't stop at
sundown. There's a whole lot of work being done on Blue-Force Tracking which
was used in rudimentary fashion in Iraq-II.

Yep... and the time when the expected transponder or other tracking device
isn't working is the time blue-on-blue will be most likely. That is when the
hard decisions have to be made real time, sometimes in a few seconds or less.
Even assuming comparable sensor suites, the pilot over the battlefield will have
a distinct advantage over the remote UAV operator.

I'm not trying to say CAS with UCAVs is impossible; I just cannot accept the
contention that blue-on-blue will somehow be reduced or eliminated because of
their use.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:44:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:49:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in
message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb

wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about the
shapes
of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger
around
Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and
twasn't
the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of the
toys
and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater percentage
of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you
enlighten
us

So on that logic then you are saying that you were providing the
majority of the allied targets. So why weren't the Brit's, Canadians
etc. killing large numbers of American participants?

Uhmmm...how many Canadians did you see on the ground (or in the air) during
this last Gulf event? Or for that matter during the first one? How many RAF
sorties were dedicated to CAS during ODS, and how many CAS sorties did they
fly for US forces during this latest fight? YOUR logic appears to be the
flawed item here. Again, why do you on the one hand claim that you have no
beef with the US, yet on the other hand come out with this kind of nonsense
(and a few messages late, too)?

You've remembered this topic is about CAS have you? Hence Brit tank on
tank hardy qualifies. By the way you missed the Brit milan hit on a
Brit Marine craft on the waterway which killed one and in juried
others (investigation just published, look it up)
I'm not saying that we don't have our own problems but how many US
troops were killed by their allies in both GWI & II?.

as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine
that
such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding
traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo
(and
in
the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?

Excuses? We don' need no stinkin' 'scuses... Like I said, **** happens.

Sorry but **** doesn't just happen, it is normally caused by a string
of events ( try going on an accident investigation course). One should
never just accept it but try to stop it ever happening again.

LOL! Now where did I say that we should stop trying to prevent fratricide
incidents? H'mmm? FYI, there is a big difference between realizing that
fratricide incidents will occur during major combat operations (and
sometimes even during training events), and adopting a the-hell-with-it
attitude. Excuses are not worth much; you go back and figure out what went
wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. That is the
correct approach. Your approach, where you just wring your hands and whine
about US incidents while desperately trying to ignore those incidents
attributed to your own forces is rather meaningless.

I'm not whining just asking that after killing our men in GWI, it
didn't stop the A-10s from doing it again in II. Where's your "Excuses
are not worth much; you go back and figure out what went
wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again in the future".

From


http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...993575&sub=Sec
u
rity%20and%20Defence :

""History shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of warfare,"
admits the National Audit Office, Britain's public spending watchdog,
in
a
2002 report on the MoD's attempts to improve combat identification."

Treated like "toys" huh? From that statement one can assume you have
little
first-hand experience with a profession at arms.


I have been on the close recieving end of some of your modern "toys"
twice in the last decade and a half, have you?

Where and when? In my case was lucky enough to never experience the
intentional efforts of someone trying to kill me--the closest I have come
was having to skidaddle out of a range area when M110 8" guns started
shooting over our head into the nearby impact area, and having to go from
chest-defilade in the commander's hatch of a M113A1 to vision block use
lickity-split when the ignoramus gunner in the M60A3 tooling along on my
right decided it was a good time to enage the pop-up Hind target on my left
during a LFX phase at NTC (the observer controller caught that one and
"killed" the tank with a MILES "God Gun" so he could tear the TC a new
rear-opening). Been around TOW's that did the boost-without-sustainer dance
across the desert floor, and a bit too close for comfort during a couple of
explosives detonations. Was on the training range when another M60A3
sprinkled a CAV Troops M113 with some long range MG fire and was lasing in
preparation for pumping a training APDS round into it when the radio calls
got the TC's attention and a rather nasty situation was narrowly avoided.
Performed range clearance ops with EOD once, but that was not particularly
dangerous as long as you avoided the odd 40mm AGL "silver easter egg" we
came across. saw a lot of friendlies get waxed during corps WFX in
Germany--luckily they were reall just electrons scurrying around in the
simulation database (though the officer responsible, a good friend and at
the time working for me, took it pretty hard, putting "paid" to any idea you
may have that we don't really care about frat incidents).

Jesus, you never got off the range? And you want to discuss this
seriously?

You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

Not really. You are rather clueless regarding modern weapons, eh?

I've targeted them, fired them and nearly been killed by them, hence I
think the reverse may be more the case.

Odd then that you have this one-sided view of fratricide as being a purely
US inspired event.

Never said it was purely an American problem but which country kills
more of it's allies than any other (and of course it's own).



As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

Gee, and not a single Yank around to take responsibility for the act
(unless
you were planning on blaming the one who was killed...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Actually, from the beginning you have taken a rather singleminded
approach
to pointing out the US related incidents. When it was merely pointed out
to
you that fratricide events have been common to both our respective
forces,
you wanted to start tossing out more allegations of US responsibility.
Hate
to tell you this, but fratricide is a factor of war; we try to control it
as
best we can, but it *will* continue to rear its ugly little head...even
within HM forces.

Please re-read the start of my contribution and you will see than I
just added to an American's request that A-10's recieve better ID
training.

Ever flown at low altitude and tried to pick out and identify *known*
targets? Having only done so from the comparitively slow platforms like the
UH-1 and CH-47, I can tell you that it is not all that easy to do. That you
apparently think it should be is telling. Now, oddly you find the A-10
community so needful of this additional training that you not only had to
chime in with what you note above, but when it was pointed out that
fratricide events were all too common to your own forces as well (not
instead of) as our own, you had to start lunging out with more "its the US
that does it" crap. Nobody has denied the US forces have indeed accounted
for our share of frat incidents, but if vehicle ID is your beef, then I
suggest that starting with your own freakin' Challenger crews might be a
better place to *start* that additional training, it being a bit easier to
make a good ID from a tank sitting still than it is from an A-10 flying
overhead (even at its less-than-stellar speed).

You've got it wrong, I actually love the Hog and it's saved my ass on
a couple of occasions but if something is broke it needs fixing. I'd
love to see the A-10 up-dated with better communications, better
sensors, better self-defense and more appropriate weaponry (kinda
looks like a FAC with teeth).
We don't need a mach I JSF (F-35A style or even a 35C with a gun) for
CAS but a nice slow bomb truck that can protect its self. Above 5,000
at night the A-10 is almost inaudible and with the right sensors plus
NGs could act like a mini Spooky. During the day above 12,00 it's safe
from nearly everything but SAMs so flying slow with even a simple pair
of binoculars would be better than Mk one eyeball (AWACS, RAW and fit
a couple of AN/ALE-37A to protect his back).
As for UCAV's, when you are trying to get close in support it's a bit
like the difference of talking to the guy behind the counter as
opposed to talking to a guy in a call centre. Or put it another way,
between talking to a Marine pilot as opposed to USAF (no flame
intended but if you've been there you know what I mean).


To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed
the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Regarding Operation Tractable (Falaise Gap):

"Bomber Command carried out this operation without American
involvement,
but
a large number of bombers, many ironically from 6 Group of the Royal
Canadian Air Force, bombed short."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

We sure did, a bit earlier; we also hammered our own 30th Inf Division
not
once, but twice during the COBRA effort. Malmedy got bombed not once but
twice by both B-24's and B-26's. And as we see from the above, so did
you.
See what I mean about "**** happens" being applicable to everyone, not
just
we 'mercans?

Brooks


"
Those short bombs caused casualties. Like I said, **** happens, even
when
you Brits are the ones doing the dealing. George Washington noted a
Brit-on-Brit fratricide incident that occured during the French and
Indian
War, when the detachment he was commanding came within sight of
another
British element and both sides opened fire on each other. Maybe you
think
Washington bears the sole burden for that event, too?


I think that maybe that you are still living in those far off days.
"**** happens" won't cut it any more in this day and age, if you
really believe that then please stay away from any thing more lethal
than a pocket knife.

"**** happens" is quite adequate in conveying the fact that fratricide
events ARE a part of combat, despite the shrill whining of you and the
general media. Even your OWN forces recognize that (see that quote from your
own MoD). That does not imply that we do not, or should not, try to minimize
them.

Brooks



Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:44:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:15:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:49:55 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in
message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 01:11:01 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Pat Carpenter" wrote in
message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 20:26:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb

wrote:

John R Weiss wrote:
If anything, remote-controlled CAS platforms will
increase
blue-on-blue, and
they will likely be MORE vulnerable to defenses.

So when will we see a program to train A-10 pilots about
the
shapes
of
armored vehicles operated by the United States military?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/02/spr...friendly.fire/

-HJC
Please include UK Warrior vehicles in that training.

Before you get too smug, recall who clanged that Challenger
around
Basra
during the latest visit to the area...twasn't the Yanks, and
twasn't
the
Iraqis.

Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Agreed we did but the A-10's mangaged it in both GFI and GFII.

Well, heck, when it is your side that is providing the bulk of
the
toys
and
the men to operate them, you can expect that the greater
percentage
of
untoward incidents will also be in their pocket. Now, can you
enlighten
us

So on that logic then you are saying that you were providing the
majority of the allied targets. So why weren't the Brit's, Canadians
etc. killing large numbers of American participants?

Uhmmm...how many Canadians did you see on the ground (or in the air)
during
this last Gulf event? Or for that matter during the first one? How many
RAF
sorties were dedicated to CAS during ODS, and how many CAS sorties did
they
fly for US forces during this latest fight? YOUR logic appears to be the
flawed item here. Again, why do you on the one hand claim that you have
no
beef with the US, yet on the other hand come out with this kind of
nonsense
(and a few messages late, too)?

You've remembered this topic is about CAS have you? Hence Brit tank on
tank hardy qualifies. By the way you missed the Brit milan hit on a
Brit Marine craft on the waterway which killed one and in juried
others (investigation just published, look it up)
I'm not saying that we don't have our own problems but how many US
troops were killed by their allies in both GWI & II?.

Meaningless for ODS, where I don't recall the RAF flying any CAS for the US
forces. Apparently during the latest operation, based upon what I have read
in your own government's report, the RAF forces were likely providing some
CAS support to US forces, but not sure how much (apparently about 10% of
overall sorties were flown by RAF assets, but the report noted that one of
the real advantages of the RAF assets being "pooled" with US air assets was
that the UK forces gained acces to, among other platforms, the *A-10*). RAF
assets apparently were more heavily involved in the BAI and strategic strike
roles, and had some problems on the CAS end (poor communications with ground
units and targeting pods that were reportedly not optimal for the job of
providing CAS for troops-in-contact). See:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...ce/57/5708.htm

So in the end, the question would be, "How often did RAF (or RAAF for that
matter) assets provide TIC CAS for US forces?"


as to just how a RN *AEW* helo (of all things--one would imagine
that
such
aircraft are generally better informed about their surrounding
traffic
conditions than most) managed to collide with *another* AEW helo
(and
in
the
process killed a USN officer on exchange duty)?

As I said earlier, in war "**** happens". Even in the UK
forces...

Brooks

Pat Carpenter

Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied
aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.

What no excuse for the Patriot then?

Excuses? We don' need no stinkin' 'scuses... Like I said, ****
happens.

Sorry but **** doesn't just happen, it is normally caused by a string
of events ( try going on an accident investigation course). One should
never just accept it but try to stop it ever happening again.

LOL! Now where did I say that we should stop trying to prevent fratricide
incidents? H'mmm? FYI, there is a big difference between realizing that
fratricide incidents will occur during major combat operations (and
sometimes even during training events), and adopting a the-hell-with-it
attitude. Excuses are not worth much; you go back and figure out what
went
wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again in the future. That is
the
correct approach. Your approach, where you just wring your hands and
whine
about US incidents while desperately trying to ignore those incidents
attributed to your own forces is rather meaningless.

I'm not whining just asking that after killing our men in GWI, it
didn't stop the A-10s from doing it again in II. Where's your "Excuses
are not worth much; you go back and figure out what went
wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again in the future".

YOUR government's report singled out the A-10 as being one of those systems
that they considered a "gain" in terms of its use in support of UK forces.
And no, excuses are not worth much--it happened. That is a terrible shame to
be sure, but when you are providing TIC CAS that kind of thing will
sometimes occur. The guys do the best they can under extremely difficult
circumstances, and they try to learn from their mistakes. Again, "History
shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of warfare," admits the
National Audit Office, Britain's public spending watchdog..."


From



http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...9993575&sub=Se
c
u
rity%20and%20Defence :

""History shows that fratricide is an unavoidable feature of
warfare,"
admits the National Audit Office, Britain's public spending
watchdog,
in
a
2002 report on the MoD's attempts to improve combat identification.
"

Treated like "toys" huh? From that statement one can assume you
have
little
first-hand experience with a profession at arms.


I have been on the close recieving end of some of your modern "toys"
twice in the last decade and a half, have you?

Where and when? In my case was lucky enough to never experience the
intentional efforts of someone trying to kill me--the closest I have come
was having to skidaddle out of a range area when M110 8" guns started
shooting over our head into the nearby impact area, and having to go from
chest-defilade in the commander's hatch of a M113A1 to vision block use
lickity-split when the ignoramus gunner in the M60A3 tooling along on my
right decided it was a good time to enage the pop-up Hind target on my
left
during a LFX phase at NTC (the observer controller caught that one and
"killed" the tank with a MILES "God Gun" so he could tear the TC a new
rear-opening). Been around TOW's that did the boost-without-sustainer
dance
across the desert floor, and a bit too close for comfort during a couple
of
explosives detonations. Was on the training range when another M60A3
sprinkled a CAV Troops M113 with some long range MG fire and was lasing
in
preparation for pumping a training APDS round into it when the radio
calls
got the TC's attention and a rather nasty situation was narrowly avoided.
Performed range clearance ops with EOD once, but that was not
particularly
dangerous as long as you avoided the odd 40mm AGL "silver easter egg" we
came across. saw a lot of friendlies get waxed during corps WFX in
Germany--luckily they were reall just electrons scurrying around in the
simulation database (though the officer responsible, a good friend and at
the time working for me, took it pretty hard, putting "paid" to any idea
you
may have that we don't really care about frat incidents).

Jesus, you never got off the range? And you want to discuss this
seriously?

Yep. FYI, by the time the first Gulf fracas broke out I was commanding a
bridge company, which while not exactly a high demand item during that romp
through the desert, was indeed on the deployment list, but the whole thing
was over before we even got mobilized. I got out a few months before the
whole 9-11 thing went down, never figuring I'd miss what has transpired
since (though I note my last unit has yet to deploy anywhere). Tell me, does
getting hammered in a M113 by an M60A3 at point-blank range with .50 cal
fire at NTC leave you "less dead" than having it happen somewhere else? I
know of units that lost more folks during NTC rotations than they lost
during ODS (my first active duty unit, the old 19th EN BN (CBT) being one of
them); the average when I was doing my NTC rotations was generally about one
fatality per brigade(-) rotation, and my brigade had the dubious honor of
having the worst AC safety record in FORSCOM at the time (bad convergence of
"**** happens" karma, as the fatalities were generally unrelated in terms of
cause)--we even crippled a visiting UK-type who, despite warnings not to
sleep on the ground around vehicles, did so and had a M113 park on top of
his legs.


You called them toys, and when you start calling them toys you start
treating them like toys.

Not really. You are rather clueless regarding modern weapons, eh?

I've targeted them, fired them and nearly been killed by them, hence I
think the reverse may be more the case.

Odd then that you have this one-sided view of fratricide as being a
purely
US inspired event.

Never said it was purely an American problem but which country kills
more of it's allies than any other (and of course it's own).

Which country was providing 90% of the air effort (and likely even more of
the CAS effort)? based upon that, if all else is even, we should have nine
friendly fire CAS incidents for every one caused by the allied forces in
mix. I don't believe there were nine Blue-on-Blue CAS incidents reported
during this latest effort, so why should we expect to see even one from the
RAF?




As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and
were
relying on shipboard radar control.

Gee, and not a single Yank around to take responsibility for the
act
(unless
you were planning on blaming the one who was killed...?

I don't remember blaming any Americans in that case, correct me if
I'm
wrong.

Actually, from the beginning you have taken a rather singleminded
approach
to pointing out the US related incidents. When it was merely pointed
out
to
you that fratricide events have been common to both our respective
forces,
you wanted to start tossing out more allegations of US responsibility.
Hate
to tell you this, but fratricide is a factor of war; we try to control
it
as
best we can, but it *will* continue to rear its ugly little
head...even
within HM forces.

Please re-read the start of my contribution and you will see than I
just added to an American's request that A-10's recieve better ID
training.

Ever flown at low altitude and tried to pick out and identify *known*
targets? Having only done so from the comparitively slow platforms like
the
UH-1 and CH-47, I can tell you that it is not all that easy to do. That
you
apparently think it should be is telling. Now, oddly you find the A-10
community so needful of this additional training that you not only had to
chime in with what you note above, but when it was pointed out that
fratricide events were all too common to your own forces as well (not
instead of) as our own, you had to start lunging out with more "its the
US
that does it" crap. Nobody has denied the US forces have indeed accounted
for our share of frat incidents, but if vehicle ID is your beef, then I
suggest that starting with your own freakin' Challenger crews might be a
better place to *start* that additional training, it being a bit easier
to
make a good ID from a tank sitting still than it is from an A-10 flying
overhead (even at its less-than-stellar speed).

You've got it wrong, I actually love the Hog and it's saved my ass on
a couple of occasions but if something is broke it needs fixing. I'd
love to see the A-10 up-dated with better communications, better
sensors, better self-defense and more appropriate weaponry (kinda
looks like a FAC with teeth).

You'll be happy to know that the USAF is indeed planning on updating the
A-10's it will retain in service--new engines, new targeting pods, etc.

We don't need a mach I JSF (F-35A style or even a 35C with a gun) for
CAS but a nice slow bomb truck that can protect its self. Above 5,000
at night the A-10 is almost inaudible and with the right sensors plus
NGs could act like a mini Spooky. During the day above 12,00 it's safe
from nearly everything but SAMs so flying slow with even a simple pair
of binoculars would be better than Mk one eyeball (AWACS, RAW and fit
a couple of AN/ALE-37A to protect his back).

I like the A-10; used to watch them doing gunnery quite often at one of the
posts I worked at. And i still see a need for them in the modern battle
environment. But I also see where that F-35 is becoming a much more capable
CAS platform than I would have ever thought even a couple of years back. The
use of JDAM, especially when it comes available in the small-diameter-bomb
(SDB) form, is changing how CAS can be delivered (note the significant use
of B-52 and B-1B delivered CAS during Afghani operations); but even that is
subject to fratricide, as we saw when the B-52 dropped a 2000 pound JDAM on
the coordinates given to it by the SF team on the ground--unfortunately, the
coords were for his own position and not those of the target he wanted to
hit.

Brooks

As for UCAV's, when you are trying to get close in support it's a bit
like the difference of talking to the guy behind the counter as
opposed to talking to a guy in a call centre. Or put it another way,
between talking to a Marine pilot as opposed to USAF (no flame
intended but if you've been there you know what I mean).


To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed
the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Regarding Operation Tractable (Falaise Gap):

"Bomber Command carried out this operation without American
involvement,
but
a large number of bombers, many ironically from 6 Group of the
Royal
Canadian Air Force, bombed short."


"The American air force bombed the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division as
they were in a staging area ready to attack the enemy"

We sure did, a bit earlier; we also hammered our own 30th Inf Division
not
once, but twice during the COBRA effort. Malmedy got bombed not once
but
twice by both B-24's and B-26's. And as we see from the above, so did
you.
See what I mean about "**** happens" being applicable to everyone, not
just
we 'mercans?

Brooks


"
Those short bombs caused casualties. Like I said, **** happens,
even
when
you Brits are the ones doing the dealing. George Washington noted a
Brit-on-Brit fratricide incident that occured during the French and
Indian
War, when the detachment he was commanding came within sight of
another
British element and both sides opened fire on each other. Maybe you
think
Washington bears the sole burden for that event, too?


I think that maybe that you are still living in those far off days.
"**** happens" won't cut it any more in this day and age, if you
really believe that then please stay away from any thing more lethal
than a pocket knife.

"**** happens" is quite adequate in conveying the fact that fratricide
events ARE a part of combat, despite the shrill whining of you and the
general media. Even your OWN forces recognize that (see that quote from
your
own MoD). That does not imply that we do not, or should not, try to
minimize
them.

Brooks



Brooks


Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

Pat Carpenter

"Thomas Schoene" wrote
Paul F Austin wrote:

When I first looked at F-35, it seemed a looong step backward in
terms of situational awareness, with virtually no rear-quadrant
visibility. DAS promises to fix that. If it works for F-35 then it
should work for UCAVs.

The bandwidth issue is still a real concern. That's a lot of data to
transmit via long-range RF signal, and there's already lots of competition
for the spectrum. What's possible to do by wire or fiber inside the
aircraft may not be practical via radio to a remote operator.

TCDL provides 200Kbps downlink/10Mbps uplink service. That's adequate for
this kind of situatuational awareness. More downlink would allow more raw
data but in this case, the fusion of the six DAS thermal cameras occurs
on-board and only the FOV in the direction the user's HMS is pointed at need
be downlinked. CDL provides uplink services at various rates from T1 up to
256Mbps but that's overkill. CDL also lacks the total system capacity that
would be required. Today. The USAF is busy expanding the satellite comm
network capacity in anticipation of increased traffic.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:55:23 +0000 (UTC), Pat Carpenter wrote:


Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.
As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Pat Carpenter

You obviously have no knowledge of military system, tactics, logistics, or any
thing else. You are rude and insufferable.

PLONK

Al Minyard

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:43:35 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:55:23 +0000 (UTC), Pat Carpenter wrote:


Probably the same way as the Patriot shot down two allied aircraft
before a brave F16 pilot smoked the *******. Trouble is too many
systems are treated like toys and not lethal weapons.
As to the RN choppers, they both had their radomes stowed and were
relying on shipboard radar control.

To quote from a WWII saying :-
"When the Luftwaffe bombed the Allies ducked, when the RAF bombed the
Germans ducked but when the Americans bombed every f**ker ducked"

Pat Carpenter

You obviously have no knowledge of military system, tactics, logistics, or any
thing else. You are rude and insufferable.

Rude and insufferable, it what way?

As for no knowledge, I get mine in the field on a day to day basis (be
back there soon). You sound like an armchair warrior with lots of
books, a long past life and a life time google pass.

Do your additions to this group ever extend beyond a two line entry
and some red-neck bigoted comment? (hint I just checked and they
don't)

PLONK

Al Minyard

Plonker (look it up)

Blue Skies
Pat Carpenter

ps nobody in the UK has used "keep your pecker up" in the last 30
years!

"John R Weiss" wrote:


I'm not trying to say CAS with UCAVs is impossible; I just cannot accept the
contention that blue-on-blue will somehow be reduced or eliminated because of
their use.

While this is certainly not my field it would seem to me that it
'would' indeed help to mitigate B on B because of the old "OH MY
GOD!, if that 'target' actually _is_ enemy then I've got about 2
seconds to live!...do I shoot or not?!?. Whereas if the operator
is quite safely installed in an airconditioned trailer miles away
then he might be thinking "Jesus!, if that target really is enemy
then our multi-dollar UAV has only 2 seconds to live".

Big difference I'd think (but then, whadda I know?)
--

-Gord.

Pat Carpenter wrote:


ps nobody in the UK has used "keep your pecker up" in the last 30
years!

Must play havoc with your birthrate eh?.
--

-Gord.