"System Failure Is Blamed In U.S. Downing Of British Jet"

[Mike]

System Failure Is Blamed In U.S. Downing Of British Jet

The plane, hit near the Iraq-Kuwait border last year, could not
identify itself as friendly, a report says.

By Associated Press

LONDON -- A British military jet shot down by a U.S. missile during
the Iraq war was hit after a failure of the electronic system designed
to identify it as a friendly aircraft, the government said Friday. A
U.S. Patriot missile battery shot down the Tornado GR4A near the
Iraq-Kuwait border on March 23, 2003, killing both crew members. The
jet was returning from a mission over Iraq. Defense Minister Ivor
Caplin said several factors contributed to the fatal mistake,
including a failure of the jet's "identification friend or foe," or
IFF, system. Caplin released a summary of findings by a Royal Air
Force Board of Inquiry that investigated the downing. He said the
"immediate cause" of the accident was the Patriot missile battery that
"misidentified" the Torna do as an enemy "anti-radiation missile"
designed to home in on radar systems. Caplin said other factors
included the "wide classification criteria" for anti-radiation
missiles programmed into the Patriot system. He said the Patriot rules
of engagement were "not sufficiently robust to prevent a friendly
aircraft without a functioning IFF system being classified as an
anti-radiation missile." The RAF report recommended that the IFF
system on each aircraft be checked after takeoff and that the
Tornado's IFF installation should be modified so a cockpit alarm
sounds whenever the IFF system fails. In a statement, the U.S. Central
Command said it concurred that the failure of the plane's IFF system
was at fault. "The investigation board determined that the Patriot
crew fired in perceived self-defense in accordance with existing
procedures and Rules of Engagement," the statement said.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mike" > wrote in message
om...
> System Failure Is Blamed In U.S. Downing Of British Jet
>
> The plane, hit near the Iraq-Kuwait border last year, could not
> identify itself as friendly, a report says.
>
> By Associated Press
>
> LONDON -- A British military jet shot down by a U.S. missile during
> the Iraq war was hit after a failure of the electronic system designed
> to identify it as a friendly aircraft, the government said Friday.

Ouch! ISTR a few Brits around here were quite convinced that the Patriot was
the real culprit in this case, and were rather indignant at the idea of
having to wait until the investigations were completed to get the complete
story. Does crow taste better roasted, or fried?

Brooks

A
> U.S. Patriot missile battery shot down the Tornado GR4A near the
> Iraq-Kuwait border on March 23, 2003, killing both crew members. The
> jet was returning from a mission over Iraq. Defense Minister Ivor
> Caplin said several factors contributed to the fatal mistake,
> including a failure of the jet's "identification friend or foe," or
> IFF, system. Caplin released a summary of findings by a Royal Air
> Force Board of Inquiry that investigated the downing. He said the
> "immediate cause" of the accident was the Patriot missile battery that
> "misidentified" the Torna do as an enemy "anti-radiation missile"
> designed to home in on radar systems. Caplin said other factors
> included the "wide classification criteria" for anti-radiation
> missiles programmed into the Patriot system. He said the Patriot rules
> of engagement were "not sufficiently robust to prevent a friendly
> aircraft without a functioning IFF system being classified as an
> anti-radiation missile." The RAF report recommended that the IFF
> system on each aircraft be checked after takeoff and that the
> Tornado's IFF installation should be modified so a cockpit alarm
> sounds whenever the IFF system fails. In a statement, the U.S. Central
> Command said it concurred that the failure of the plane's IFF system
> was at fault. "The investigation board determined that the Patriot
> crew fired in perceived self-defense in accordance with existing
> procedures and Rules of Engagement," the statement said.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> om...
>> System Failure Is Blamed In U.S. Downing Of British Jet
>>
>> The plane, hit near the Iraq-Kuwait border last year, could not
>> identify itself as friendly, a report says.
>>
>> By Associated Press
>>
>> LONDON -- A British military jet shot down by a U.S. missile during
>> the Iraq war was hit after a failure of the electronic system designed
>> to identify it as a friendly aircraft, the government said Friday.
>
> Ouch! ISTR a few Brits around here were quite convinced that the Patriot was
> the real culprit in this case, and were rather indignant at the idea of
> having to wait until the investigations were completed to get the complete
> story. Does crow taste better roasted, or fried?

What I find intersting is that the Tornado Pilot had now way to know
whether or not the IFF systems were working. You can't very well go
to the "I'm really a friendly but my Transponder's busted" procedure
if you don't know if its not working. It's kind of ironic,
considering teh British preoccupation with safe lanes through the SAMS
& AAA for busted aircraft over the FRG back in the 1980s when Imminent
Nuclear Destruction was something real.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[BUFDRVR]

Peter Stickney wrote:

>What I find intersting is that the Tornado Pilot had now way to know
>whether or not the IFF systems were working.

The IFF malfunction experienced by the GR.1 (based on what I've seen of the
reports so far) would have had the same tragic results in every U.S. airframe
as well. I really don't feel comfortable treading into the specifics, but
needless to say this could have happened to any aircraft experiencing this same
malfunction.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ExpatEgghead]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
> >
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> System Failure Is Blamed In U.S. Downing Of British Jet
> >>
> >> The plane, hit near the Iraq-Kuwait border last year, could not
> >> identify itself as friendly, a report says.
> >>
> >> By Associated Press
> >>
> >> LONDON -- A British military jet shot down by a U.S. missile during
> >> the Iraq war was hit after a failure of the electronic system designed
> >> to identify it as a friendly aircraft, the government said Friday.
> >
> > Ouch! ISTR a few Brits around here were quite convinced that the Patriot
was
> > the real culprit in this case, and were rather indignant at the idea of
> > having to wait until the investigations were completed to get the
complete
> > story. Does crow taste better roasted, or fried?
>
> What I find intersting is that the Tornado Pilot had now way to know
> whether or not the IFF systems were working. You can't very well go
> to the "I'm really a friendly but my Transponder's busted" procedure
> if you don't know if its not working. It's kind of ironic,
> considering teh British preoccupation with safe lanes through the SAMS
> & AAA for busted aircraft over the FRG back in the 1980s when Imminent
> Nuclear Destruction was something real.
>

Yes and no. A total out and the aircrew would know. A mode failure and they
would have to check in more detail. The basic level 1 was working they think
but not level 5.

--
ExpatEgghead
http://expategghead.blogspot.com

[Drewe Manton]

"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.

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
...
> "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"

[fudog50]

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.

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

>
>"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
...
>> "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"
>

[Drewe Manton]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

> 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?
>

Nope, feel free to google it (though I doubt you have the desire to do
so, I certainly don't!) but my stance from day one has been that it was a
fog of war tragedy. Although I will admit to a wry smile when a couple of
days later an F-16CJ fired on a Patriot radar system (I think I'm right
in saying no-one was hurt in that incident, do you remember anything?).
Just another chain of events in large scale operations that come together
at the worst possible moment and create the worst possible outcome for
those involved.

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

[BUFDRVR]

fudog50 wrote:

>The question is: Was
>there an adequate, reliable and accurate check of the Tornadoe's IFF
>system before it left the deck?

Even if there wasn't, both RED CROWN and AWACS give you an IFF "thumbs up or
thumbs down" upon check-in with them, so it was obviously working earlier.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mike]

the report is at Military Aircraft Accident Summary for Tornado GR4A
ZG710 http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/maaszg710.pdf

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
> ...
> >> "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"
> >
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
. 4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Nope, feel free to google it (though I doubt you have the desire to do
> so, I certainly don't!) but my stance from day one has been that it was a
> fog of war tragedy. Although I will admit to a wry smile when a couple of
> days later an F-16CJ fired on a Patriot radar system (I think I'm right
> in saying no-one was hurt in that incident, do you remember anything?).

IIRC the radar got trashed, but no injuries to personnel. ISTR that incident
*was* a case of "RoboPatriot" screwing up...

> Just another chain of events in large scale operations that come together
> at the worst possible moment and create the worst possible outcome for
> those involved.

Agreed. But some of your fellow countrymen were quite a bit more accusatory
(and one-sided in those accusations) in the immediate aftermath--and they
are strangely quiet now.

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"

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, fudog50
> writes
> 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?

From the accident report:-

"The ground engineering check on ZG710’s encrypted Mode 4 IFF was
completed satisfactorily pre-engine start, and an RAF Regiment Rapier
Missile unit that regularly checked the IFF of departing aircraft did
not report the aircraft or log a fault. In line with extant procedures,
only Mode 4 was checked on the ground. However, there is no firm
evidence that ZG710 responded to any IFF interrogations throughout the
entire mission, although there is evidence that the navigator checked
the IFF switches at the appropriate times."

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Brian]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Drewe Manton" > wrote in message
> > Nope, feel free to google it (though I doubt you have the desire to do
> > so, I certainly don't!) but my stance from day one has been that it was
a
> > fog of war tragedy. Although I will admit to a wry smile when a couple
of
> > days later an F-16CJ fired on a Patriot radar system (I think I'm right
> > in saying no-one was hurt in that incident, do you remember anything?).
>
> IIRC the radar got trashed, but no injuries to personnel. ISTR that
incident
> *was* a case of "RoboPatriot" screwing up...

Actually it's a case of poor signal identification on the part of the CJ.
That's what you get when you put cheap EW pods on aircraft and expect them
to identify radar signals. I seriously doubt a F-4G crew would have made the
same mistake.

[fudog50]

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!

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

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
>> ...
>> >> "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"
>> >
>>
>

[fudog50]

Thanks Paul.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:52:44 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, fudog50
> writes
>> 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?
>
>From the accident report:-
>
>"The ground engineering check on ZG710’s encrypted Mode 4 IFF was
>completed satisfactorily pre-engine start, and an RAF Regiment Rapier
>Missile unit that regularly checked the IFF of departing aircraft did
>not report the aircraft or log a fault. In line with extant procedures,
>only Mode 4 was checked on the ground. However, there is no firm
>evidence that ZG710 responded to any IFF interrogations throughout the
>entire mission, although there is evidence that the navigator checked
>the IFF switches at the appropriate times."

[fudog50]

Thanks Mike,,I'll read it.

On 18 May 2004 07:08:05 -0700, (Mike) wrote:

>the report is at Military Aircraft Accident Summary for Tornado GR4A
>ZG710 http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/maaszg710.pdf

[Kevin Brooks]

"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
> >> ...
> >> >> "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"
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

[Drewe Manton]

C > wrote in
2.12:

> The only such missile in-theater was the HARM (High-Speed Ant-Radiation
> Homing Missile)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

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

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Drewe
Manton > writes
>C > wrote in
2.12:
>
>> The only such missile in-theater was the HARM (High-Speed Ant-Radiation
>> Homing Missile)
>
>Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

ALARM for sure.

AS-9 possibly, though that requires an Iraqi aircraft to get into
position to launch it.

Neither have flight profiles that look much like an aircraft, though.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk