It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Rogue pilots' friendly fire

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I haven't seen this reported here but I found it interesting.

Rogue Pilots?

It's another friendly fire story but the phrase that intrigued me was 'Rogue Pilots' The Times article that I originally saw mentioned it on more than one occasion and seemed to suggest that the ground staff couldn't contact the pilots of these aircraft because they were 'rogue pilots'.

So does anyone know what a rogue pilot is? Is this simply military terminology for an aircraft which is out of contact?

Our soldiers died in this attack so I would hope that we could get some answers on this although I don't hold out much hope from the official channels.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Harsh word to call them rogues. If they were rogues, they would have inflicted more than just 1 dead, especially from an A-10. This is an accident.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Rogue pilots symbolizes to me treason on your own coalition, so I hope that is not what has happened.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Revelmonk]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
OK, i'm not sure the link conveys the point which is that 'Rogue Pilots' is what they were called on the official channels. To clarify, that was the name given over the radio by the forward aircraft controllers.

[edit on 2-2-2007 by Chris McGee]



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
In the Army if something is coined as being "Rogue" it means something that has gone off mission or not following orders.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Well this is something new. Could it have been Iraqi forces? Mercenaries? IAF? Who else would not be on the same wavelength as our own troops?
I hope they get to the bottom of this.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Yeah that is scary, what if pilots go 'off the radar' they are packing some serious heat. I know very occasionally ground troops get carried away so to speak, but pilots??



I would like to think hitting one of these is a tragic accident (I know it prob wasn't white with UN on the side), if there was ANY reason for 'rouge pilots' to hit a (friendly) tank that would mean serious fundamental questions. It has to be an accident.

Also, on a slightly different tangent, I herd once that the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems of the US and UK forces were incompatible?!? Don’t know if this is still the case.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
Also, on a slightly different tangent, I herd once that the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems of the US and UK forces were incompatible?!? Don’t know if this is still the case.


Well I would hope not, since the US and UK tend to work together, it would make since to me to make an IFF that was compatible between the two sets of armed forces.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Now_Then
Also, on a slightly different tangent, I herd once that the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems of the US and UK forces were incompatible?!? Don’t know if this is still the case.


Well I would hope not, since the US and UK tend to work together, it would make since to me to make an IFF that was compatible between the two sets of armed forces.

Okay, it may be that I heard UK ground forces dont emit IFF so in this case tanks - been looking around quickly wiki says this about IFF I know IFF and friendly fire was an issue in Gulf war 1

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Now_Then]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
In this particular case the US pilot commited fratricide! I was in Iraq when this happened and there was an outcry.

The amount of training a pilot needs before he is let loose on a battlefield is immense, flying the vehicle is just a small part of it. One of the sections in pilot training is vehicle identification, pilots are trained to be able to identify NATO and Enemy vehicles by electronic or manual means. A fully trained pilot should be identify every vehicle he is likely to encounter purly from a sillouette. The US pilot knew what he was doing.

As far as identification goes ground units have infrared tags put on the vehilces that identify them as coalition forces. These tags are only visible using night vision and they glow very bright. Otherwise during day time no competant pilot would mistake a NATO vehicle for an enemy one, especially one so widly used as the Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle.

If the pilot was following protocol he would have had to tell his air command (AWACS) that he had spotted potential hostiles AWACS would have advised him him if freindly's are in the area. The Army has a system that sends a signal from each vehicle to a communications satellite. The satellite beams each unit's location back down to a central computer, which plots friendly vehicles on a screen in blue. Enemy vehicles spotted by field units can be plotted on the screen in red. The whole image is constantly updated and sent back out to individual units for troops in the field to see. The pilot should have had waited for authorization to fire, he didn't and commited fraticide!

I hope he is rotting in a military prison somewhere.


Many other similar incidents have happened in Iraq, it is this reason that British and American troops have been largly seperated because incidents like the one above affects the morale of british troops in an extremely detrimental way, if the two forces were together in Baghdad and blue on blue continued to happen we would have probably witnessed US vs. UK firefights on the streets of Baghdad.

example of incidents of Blue on Blue in Iraq in 2003:

March 22: A British Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado jet is accidentally shot down by a US Patriot missile. The Tornado's two crew are killed.

March 22: A US soldier at a camp in Kuwait lobs grenades into the tents of fellow soldiers, killing two and wounding 11 others.

March 27: 37 US Marines are injured when US troops mistakenly fire at each other near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

March 28: A British soldier is killed and four others are injured in the region of Basra when a US A-10 ground attack aircraft fires on them.

April 2: An F-18 US fighter jet is downed, probably by a US Patriot missile. The pilot is reported missing.

April 3: A US serviceman mistaken for an Iraqi soldier is shot dead by his own troops in central Iraq.

April 6: 18 Kurdish fighters are killed and 45 wounded near Arbil in northern Iraq when US aircraft mistakenly bomb a joint US-Kurdish convoy.





[edit on 3/2/07 by Jimmy1880]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
politics.guardian.co.uk...

The pilots account of his "mistake" is a pack of lies!


The USAF doesn't give incompetent people the A-10 Thunderbolt, it is an awsome weapon that makes tanks almost redundant.

Just the same way that drivers licenses aren't issued to the blind!



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Hi There,

Fratricide, rather than 'friendly-fire', is the better term to use, and although throughout history it has occurred quite often, in the Gulf war theatres it is a peculiarly American trait. No British forces have ever committed fratricide upon their American counterparts.

Personally, I feel it should be policy that if one is fired upon, regardless of whom is doing the firing, defensive fire should be returned immediately. No screaming into radios for orders to be issued to stop the attack...just bring the incompetents down; this may now be the case?

Fratricide upon British forces by our so-called American allies was so bad during the first Gulf war, that it is now viewed with satire and humour...as in..:


In addition to the above, due to the number of UK personnel having been killed by US forces, in Britain the term 'friendly fire' is used in a semi-ironic way to imply perceived US Military incompetence [4] [5] [6], and is a frequent source of satirical humour. Examples of the latter include the third (2005) series of Monkey Dust, in which a British military vehicle in Afghanistan is targeted by an American pilot, despite a large Union Flag on its roof (the sole surviving soldier then runs through a series of British stereotypes, such as pouring a cup of tea and donning a bowler hat, but is bombed again, anyway), while in the 19 October 2006 edition of Mock the Week, host Dara Ó Briain noted that British soldiers in Iraq were being, "shot at on a daily basis, although obviously it'll get much safer when the Americans leave and it's only the Iraqis firing at them." There is even a "joke" in the dialogue of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - developed by Rockstar North, based in Scotland - about an American aircraft deliberately engaging a supposedly friendly target with an excuse that it can be claimed afterwards that it was thought to be "a British tank."
...source en.wikipedia.org...

If British forces brought down American planes when fired upon by them, or perhaps during a legal tit-for-tat response bomb an American convoy, we would see real efforts by Americans to become less incompetent. One word sums up those that commit fratricide...pricks!

best wishes



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


If British forces brought down American planes when fired upon by them, or perhaps during a legal tit-for-tat response bomb an American convoy, we would see real efforts by Americans to become less incompetent. One word sums up those that commit fratricide...pricks!

best wishes


It is the fact we don't adopt this kind of policy that we are respected worldwide.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
One thing I note is that the pilots seemed to be more concerned for their safety than their mission, not wanting to be the first shot down etc. They should not be going into situations thinking like that. Such negativity is not good and can get yourself and others killed.

These are not some conscripted, 17 year old grunts with a gun. These are (allegedly) highly trained personnel, unless the US definition of highly trained is different to the UKs


I do sometimes wonder if the promotion of fly boys through films like top gun have got the wrong sort of guys in the job. They give these guys weapons that can operate at distances beyond their ability to identify the enemy. This shoot first, ask later attitude is probably endemic in the hole US military. It is no wonder they can't get the trust of the locals.

Elysiumfire I was most amused by your post
so much of it although humorous has some element of truth.

I suppose the main problem the US has got is that you can only make use of what you got and that standard ain't high. Lets be honest if it was not for technology and weight of numbers the US military would not be that effective.

Regarding Blue on Blue. I wonder how long it will be before a "rogue" element accidentally nukes someone:

"Gee sorry y'all, I did not realise that was THE St Paul's Cathedral.....I thought the silhouette looked like a mobile Scud B launcher!"



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Hi There,


It is the fact we don't adopt this kind of policy that we are respected worldwide.


Yeah, Jimmy, I quite agree. Although I did read of a particular incident where a British squaddie beat the crap out of an American pilot after he mistakenly fired upon his squad. This unfortunately, was reported in the Sun...not my usual reading fare. It just sticks in the craw to think that such pillocks get away with murder. They devastate families of their allies, and simply shrug..oops! It's outrageously shameful!

Best wishes



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
If British forces brought down American planes when fired upon by them,


Well. I beleive the convoy in question was composed of APC's and light tanks. As far as I know, I don't think they are remotely capable of bringing down an A-10 thunderbolt. If there was a rapier in the convoy that might be a different matter.

In the lebanese war not so long ago, a pair of Israeli jets attacked German naval forces and came by pretty close and low. That was one situation where I'd support a return of fire, but considering the nationalities involved it was such a touchy subject.

[edit on 3/2/07 by SteveR]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy1880

It is the fact we don't adopt this kind of policy that we are respected worldwide.



That respect, I assure you, is fading away with every day, every week, every month, and every year that the UK follows the US everywhere in foreign policy and wars, like a good little lapdog, unquestioning.

I heard a man on the radio who phoned in to discuss the American plane bombing the British tanks.

He said his father, a UK WWII vet had given him advice when he was young.

"If you find yourself in a war, if the Yanks are on your side or not, give them as much room as possible!!"

He was referring to friendly fire.

Apparently, nothing new.

I have heard US pilots are drugged up to the eyeballs on Speed or a similar drug to keep them awake....



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The Sunday papers are full of accounts of this incident and the Pentagons refusal to release the cockpit Video for the Coroners inquest, which is looking into the death of the British Soldier. The Pentagons position is not surprising. The position of our own MOD, who denied the tapes existence, until the Americans said it did exist but they weren't releasing it, is frankly nauseating. I think the USA really needs to rethink this and release the tapes, even if they won't allow the pilots to attend the inquest. The 'Rogue Pilot' rumour is probably the least damaging one doing the rounds. There is talk of "Kill Bounty" payments being made to pilots (which is ridiculous). More worrying however is the recurring rumour that USAF pilots in combat zones, routinely take Barbiturates in order to give themselves an 'edge'. The US really needs to consider the damage this is doing to the reputation of their forces and do the right thing. For the sake of the soldiers relatives, those tapes should be released.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
You guys talk so much about American troops and pilots that you forgot that a British Challenger crew tank fired on another British tank in Basra back in 2003. Hows that for a debate on it?



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
A bit of a lateral step..
I've been looking into infrasound, and after reading this friendly-fire story in the paper, found this paragraph describing the human effects of mechanically-generated infrasound:

"..Man-made structures, such as engines, cars, buses, trains, motorcycles, and airplanes also produce infrasound. John Cody also noted that pilots exposed to infrasonic vibrations of jet chassis experience a reduction in "vision, speech, intelligence, orientation, equilibrium, ability to accurately discern situations, and make reasonable decisions." source


Combined with pilots who are alleged to be under the influence of amphetamines, which has the effect of heightening senses and alertness, and could possibly be making the body more sensitive to the effect of jet-chassis vibration and increasing the feeling of disorientation and impainred thinking for the pilot..



[edit on 4-2-2007 by citizen smith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join