Military joint war operations lauded
The armed forces scored high marks for joint warfare during the war to
topple Saddam Hussein, but still lacks the technologies and methods to
prevent "friendly fire" deaths on the battlefield.
at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-110951-1421r.htm

"Mike Yared" > wrote in message >...
> Military joint war operations lauded
> The armed forces scored high marks for joint warfare during the war to
> topple Saddam Hussein, but still lacks the technologies and methods to
> prevent "friendly fire" deaths on the battlefield.
> at http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-110951-1421r.htm

That the first is true is good; the second is no big surprise (except
to sensationalist media types and various alarmists). An article in
the latest AFM about the UK's contribution to the air effort in Iraq
was pretty well worded in this regard.

"The coalition flew some 15,800 sorties over areas covered by the
Patriot air defence system...PAC-2 and PAC-3 batteries in Kuwait
intercepted most of the 12 Iraqi missiles fired at Kuwait during the
conflict..." and [regarding the Patriot fratricide events], "There is
no quick fix solution to 'blue on blue'.Thermal panels for vehicles,
infra-red beacons and glow tapes for soldiers abounded in Iraq, and in
spite of all the hand-wringing about it being time for a good
Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, it has been suggested that
some coalition pilots turned off their transponders to avoid being
located by Iraqi surface-to-air defences. Army types also prefer to go
about their business covertly--they do not like beacons on their
vehicles sending out 'here I am' signals to all and sundry. It can
only be hoped that in the future all concerned will spend more time
and money on inter-allied training and procedures." (Andrew Brookes,
"British Air Power in Iraq", AFM, October 2003).

Brooks