A couple of comments vis-a-vis the text of the article reproduced below:
The incident occurred just seven days into the war as two pilots were nearing the end of a two-hour mission to destroy rocket launchers and artillery from former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 6th Armored Division. The pilots were flying "tankbusters," jets whose prime mission is to destroy tanks.
Well, no, the prime mission of the Hog is not to be "tankbusters" but I chalk that up to general reporter cluelessness...not a big deal, really, and certainly not surprizing.
The enemy rocket launchers were dug into positions 25 miles north of Basra. Meanwhile, a British convoy of four armored vehicles was making its way north to probe enemy defenses.
Circling at 12,000 feet, one of the pilots spotted the Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north of the target of their previous attack run, as well as the convoy about three miles away. A Marine Forward Air Command official, code-named "Manila Hotel," asks them to engage the targets.
Which targets? The rocket launchers? The movers? The "Iraqi vehicles 800 yards north"? Those are the questions that immediately come to mind. I have no idea what the "Marine Forward Air Command" is; I assume they're referring to the ground FAC..but he could be an Air FAC. No clue.
The pilot, identified by the call sign POPOV36, radioed back that the vehicles' roofs appeared to display orange painted panels used to indicate coalition forces to aircraft. The pilot asked Air Command to confirm that there were no "friendlies this far north on the ground."
"That is an affirm," Manila Hotel radioed back. "You are well clear of friendlies."
OK. I'm well clear of friendlies. Or not. Several things here, and I can't say much more since I haven't heard the tapes but 1) does the FAC (assuming it's a Forward Air Controller) have eyes on the movers, in this case the Brit convoy? 2) Does he have eyes on the target? 3) Has his info been accurate in the past portion of the mission, i.e., has he established his cred with the flight that he knows the area, the target set, locations of the friendlies and other data (like accurately describing the target area) that lends one to believe he knows what he's talking about on questions like, "Are there any friendlies in the area?" Another thing...did the pilot ask about the orange panels? ("WTF? That looks like a good guy...I'm gonna tell him I see orange, or think I do.") Maybe it was asked, maybe it wasn't. And I confess to a certain amount of subject matter expert arm-chair quarterbacking here.
POPOV36 then contacted the second A-10 pilot, codenamed POPOV35, to coordinate the attack on the vehicles with "orange rockets" attached to them. An apparently confused POPOV35, however, requested that Forward Command fire an artillery round at the target to clear up the confusion, then suggested that the pair should return to base due to time constraints.
"I think killing these damn rocket launchers, it would be great," POPOV36 replied before rushing in to strafe the convoy.
BIG question mark here. First, the odd-numbered callsign, Popov 35, is the lead's. Makes sense he'd be calling in arty to confirm they, i.e., whatever he's looking at--could be the convoy, could be the launchers--are bad guys. He's also the guy principally responsible for fuel management (and everything else, for that matter). The words, "...before rushing in to strafe the convoy..." leaves the reader with the impression that the wingman engaged without any further discussion, clearance or guidance. That's possible, but unlikely--big hole in the story here. What was said? Who gave clearance, if any? How is "rush" defined? Two seconds after 35 talked about fuel? A minute later after confirming the target and completing the in-flight attack brief? What?
Seconds after the circling for a second attack, American and British voices frantically call the A-10s to call off the attack — but the damage already had been done. Lance Cpl. of Horse Matty Hull, 25, died of injuries sustained as the A-10s pumped 50 rounds per second of armor-piercing shells into the convoy. Four other British troops also were injured.
"I'm going to be sick," POPOV35 radioed when Air Command broke the news. POPOV36 can be heard sobbing in the background.
Sounds like it was unintentional. And I don't mean to be sarcastic here. Friendly fire incidents are in the back of your mind every time you roll in. These guys are made to sound like out-of-control American air pirates (the impression I think was deliberately planted by the "rushing in" characterization) but they were probably anything but.
A British investigation into the 25-year-old's death was adjourned last week after a coroner said he "had no choice" but to delay his verdict because the United States refused to release the tape.
"A copy of the video was used as evidence by the Board of Inquiry's investigation into the incident. ... This recording is the property of the United States government and the [Ministry of Defense] does not have the right to release it without their permission," a U.K. Defense spokeswoman said.
I wonder who did?
The incident has been a sore spot with some British lawmakers who have demanded that U.S. soldiers involved in friendly fire incidents attend U.K. hearings. The United States has denied requests for servicemen to appear in court but does submit anonymous statements on each case.
Hull's widow, Susan Hull, said she was told the tape can help bring justice for her husband, the Sun reported.
"I'm very relieved this is being made public at long last," she said. "I can't believe these pilots can discuss what they're doing so casually when these are the last moments of my husband's life."
Don't see the "casually" in the transcript. Eager to kill enemy targets is casual? Their evident horror after the fact was anything but casual. Maybe these guys were different, but I cannot think of anyone I know who has been casual...at anytime...on a combat mission. The lady's anguish is certainly understandable and I can't fault her for the characterization, but I honestly don't think it fits. Again, my opinion only.
Sources last week said the tape, which the Ministry of Defense claimed did not exist, was "incriminating."
A senior U.S. military source told The Sun: "This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account."
I'd LOVE to know who that was. I think he needs to be identified and asked to explain his position.
The Sun is owned by News Corp., which is the parent company of FOXNews.com.
Final thoughts:
1) Blue-on-blue incidents are horrid and the things that REALLY make you wake up in a cold sweat at night. It really is the scariest thing to contemplate. Getting shot down is bad, but killing your own guys is MUCH worse. But it will happen. In. Every. War.
2) It can, however, be stopped by just not doing CAS. It's an option.
3) Maybe no CAS with coalition forces is the answer.
4) Perhaps the money we spend on fixed-wing air should be restricted to counter-air missions, i.e., shooting down enemy jets and weapons and attacking airfields well behind enemy lines (the latter is more efficient, by the way).
But, bottom line, the only way to guarantee no mistakes is to just not do it.
-Instapilot
]]>