Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/28/07 09:18 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/28/07 09:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 4) GPS coordinates plugged in by the pilot were incorrect (this would be incredibly unlikely, not only because they check it several times with the forward air controller, but because if it was for instance - a typo or something, it is VERY unlikely that it would have resulted in the bomb landing on the friendly spot).

Does the pilot have to input the numbers in manually?

Yes.

'Cause from everything you're saying that's what it sounds like has to happen. If it is then surely it would be possible to set up some kind of digital signal to send to the fighters which could automatically be put into the missile guidance systems? or is that not possible?

They MIGHT have something like that now. But in lieu of other developments, it doesn't seem very likely or practical.

I do know that there are UAVs like (unmanned aerial vehicles) being developed that are entirely commanded by ground forces. They are supposed to linger over an area to provide constant cover, and they are armed with missiles that are individually called in and given target information by ground forces (Stryker units), with no pilot involved. However, that is part of an incremental US Army program called Future Combat Systems, and that portion of it probably isn't going to be fielded for a several years, though other less incredible portions are already fielded.

Anyway, think about it, who is more likely to make the mistake?

A) The forward air controller who has to judge where the bomb should go, survey the terrain, locate themselves on GPS, locate the enemy by reference to their position, and then calculate what point is the optimum point for impact, then read it off to a pilot over radio.

Or

B) The pilot who simply gets numbers over the air waves and types them in, repeatedly rechecking them for accuracy, then releases the bomb.

I'd go with A.

I don't know that much about jet technology or fighters so forgive my ignorance.

It's all good.

However, just try to think subjectively.

At 8/28/07 09:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: They MIGHT have something like that now. But in lieu of other developments, it doesn't seem very likely or practical.

I find it highly odd that they wouldn't have something like that. It removes a burden on the pilot so he can focus on actually piloting which in a hostile situation could be a life saver. A small device given to the units on the ground that correlates with the GPS and then sends the coordinates to a corresponding device designed to interpret the coordinates and then target the missiles at the point doesn't seem that far fetched to my knowledge.

Anyway, think about it, who is more likely to make the mistake?

I'd go with A.

I do agree, it is more likely to be A, but I'm just saying that there are a number of instances that may cause a situation where the pilot does fuck up putting the numbers in, especially as they have to do it manually.

At 8/28/07 09:45 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/28/07 09:35 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: They MIGHT have something like that now. But in lieu of other developments, it doesn't seem very likely or practical.

I find it highly odd that they wouldn't have something like that.

Innovation results from necessity usually. Something like that isn't necessary, and maybe some people consider it to be counterproductive.

It removes a burden on the pilot so he can focus on actually piloting which in a hostile situation could be a life saver.

I don't think so. Pilots are used to multi-tasking A LOT more than simply flying and typing numbers at the same time.

A small device given to the units on the ground that correlates with the GPS and then sends the coordinates to a corresponding device designed to interpret the coordinates and then target the missiles at the point doesn't seem that far fetched to my knowledge.

Even though that's not that much of a bad idea, I don't think enough people would go for it. Pilots like to be in control, and they are pretty freaking good at it. Considering the ridiculously high amount of bombs dropped successfully, and the relatively minuscule (yet over-hyped) instances of friendly fire... There just doesn't seem to be enough to cause such a change in tactics, especially when there is the possibility that such a thing would make things less effective, more complicated, be too expensive when money spent in other areas would save more lives etc..

You also have to consider that the US and British forces have different budgets. While the US might field or might have already fielded something like that, the British military might not go for it due to budget restraints or more pressing priorities.

At 8/27/07 11:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/27/07 11:09 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Why is it that every "Friendly Fire" incident seems to involve American troops shooting/bombing their allies or civillians

Because in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only are Americans the only force constantly in combat operations, but Americans are the only force with the capability, resources, and technology to have a high tempo of air strikes. Friendly fire is a reality in that kind of operation, but luckily for other forces, they don't have that responsibility, they only really provide the contribution they can afford to provide.

So, can you tell me at which point it's excusable for US troops to strafe a makeshift ambulance in crossfire, then finish off the obviously caucasian inhabitant wounded afterwards?

File under "trigger happy" and "not interested in the consequences." Two phrases that go hand-in-hand with plenty of friendly fire incidents.

Isn't checking their targets before opening fire included in their training - or is the policy "Shoot first, make excuses later"?

See, you're just parading your ignorance.

And then there's Kosovo: US air attacks blowing up a passanger train, mistaking a tractor for a tank: these are schoolboy errors - or patently moronic.

1) Even if they hit the right target, sometimes friendlies or civilians will still die. It's impossible to keep track of everything and everyone in an engagement.

Even though somebody, the Forward Air Controller, is supposed to check the target before a bomb is dropped? And, as the link stataes, if there is any doubt, you don't drop bombs as you have to be 100% certain.

2) In close air support operations, it is the responsibility of the PEOPLE ON THE GROUND to guide the bomb to the target with a designator (if it's a laster guided bomb) or provide the pilot with the coordinates (if it's a GPS guided bomb). In these operations, it is more likely the fault of the forward air controller if a bomb goes errant.

See the above link - it isn't.

So I'll just skip your traditional flaming troll shit - you're wrong. Sorry to break it to you, but as Gerneral Wald stated:
"They're trained [i.e., the Forward Air Controllers are trained] for identifying military targets, as you can imagine, and at that time will call in another set of fighters, probably two, to expend their ordnance on the target. But before they do that, the FAC, the forward air controller, will talk to the other set of fighters and make sure they both have 100 percent assurance that they have the correct target, they both identify it, and there's a verbiage that goes on between the two of them. And just as my answer is taking a long time, it takes a long time for this to happen."

If that does not happen, they should not release their bombs: simple.

This is happening too damn often the American Army is a shambles, they shoot first and ask questions later. We are their as allies to them and guys are getting shot because of the itchy trigger finger of America's Armed forces. I recall this happening in Iraq as well with a British armoured convoy being attacked. There was also a recent report that in Helmund province in Afghanistan are making the British Army's hearts and minds progress useless with Delta Forces constant use of overwhelming airpower, in and around civilian areas.

At 8/29/07 10:42 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: So, can you tell me at which point it's excusable for US troops to strafe a makeshift ambulance in crossfire, then finish off the obviously caucasian inhabitant wounded afterwards?

What another HILARIOUS example of you using a link to claim something it doesn't validate at all.

The man was shot while inside of an unmarked, "MAKE SHIFT 'ambulance", in the middle of a BATTLE. There is absolute ZERO proof that he was intentionally killed. And the fact he was killed doesn't even reflect negatively on US forces because that's what happens when imbeciles drive into the middle of a battle.

File under "trigger happy" and "not interested in the consequences." Two phrases that go hand-in-hand with plenty of friendly fire incidents.

You're so ignorant of everything you ever say. You're talking about inadvertent casualties in the middle of a invasion, something that is always going to happen. The vehicles drove into the MIDDLE of a firefight, and the Iraqi forces were using unmarked vehicles during the whole invasion. US forces followed the rules of engagement, and they had no reason not to believe those vehicles were being used by Iraqi.

And then there's Kosovo: US air attacks blowing up a passanger train

That would be NATO you disingenuous ghoul.

mistaking a tractor for a tank: these are schoolboy errors - or patently moronic.

Prove it maybe?

Meanwhile, you're just parading your ignorance further. You're so delusional that YOU, so isolated in your tiny understanding of things, can actually criticize the inevitable mistakes that will happen in any ar, and you somehow thin this reflects the entire military.

Maybe you should read how many German hospitals were bombed to shit during WWII by British planes?

How dumb are you that you can't acknowledge that the ONLY reason friendly fire is more prevalent among American forces is because A) it's the Americans that are DOING ALL THE WORK, while British forces only take a third-string role and B) Your media is so pathetic that you emphasize it, while entirely ignoring when the British have had friendly fire.

Hell, in the Falklands war, that was so incredibly MINUSCULE in scale to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, several British were killed by their own forces.

If the British had anywhere NEAR the tempo and difficulty of operators the US engages in, they would have far more friendly fire incidents. The only reason you dumb fucking Brits are under some illusion that US forces are more prone to it, is because you have no point of reference because your military is lifted up by the bootstraps by the US military. British force are rarely if EVER in a situation in which friendly fire is likely to occur by their hands, and yet it STILL happens.

1) Even if they hit the right target, sometimes friendlies or civilians will still die. It's impossible to keep track of everything and everyone in an engagement.

Even though somebody, the Forward Air Controller, is supposed to check the target before a bomb is dropped? And, as the link stataes, if there is any doubt, you don't drop bombs as you have to be 100% certain.

How the fuck is the person in the plane going to be more responsible for identifying the target than the British air controller that is ACTUALLY there on the ground and can ACTUALLY see what's going on in context?

Holy hell you're delusional.

2) In close air support operations, it is the responsibility of the PEOPLE ON THE GROUND to guide the bomb to the target with a designator (if it's a laster guided bomb) or provide the pilot with the coordinates (if it's a GPS guided bomb). In these operations, it is more likely the fault of the forward air controller if a bomb goes errant.

See the above link - it isn't.

Um, the link you used, in no way, proves this simple fact wrong/.

So I'll just skip your traditional flaming troll shit - you're wrong. Sorry to break it to you, but as Gerneral Wald stated:

If that does not happen, they should not release their bombs: simple.

Haha I can't believe you're that stupid. First of all, that was talking about Kosovo. SEcondly, it's not talking about close air support.

Thirdly, you're making it seem as if a pilot has it easier to identify a ground target than the person that is ACTUALLY on the ground.

If someone good the coordinates wrong, for GPS bombs, it is almost certainly the person who is the SOURCE of the coordinates, the forward air controller.

If someone misused the laser designator in close air support, the only person at fault would be the person on the ground lasing the target.

At 8/29/07 04:21 PM, A-Knight-of-NEEEE wrote: This is happening too damn often the American Army is a shambles,

It's the most advanced military in the world. Sure, they do sometimes fuck up but everyone does that.

Although i do agree with many of the things that cellardoor6 has said im not a fan of the whole brit bashing tone.

Being a brit i know what the media is like over here and i know that all of the FF reporting is mainly bollocks written to sell newspapers. And looking at the link you provided i do feel somewhat more enlightend.

Ive always said that in war anything can happen and FF is an immutable part of war because humans are far from perfect and we are always going to make mistakes. Its just nice to read a post were someone has seen the other side.

Oh and that link claims that the Americans claimed to invent the internet, which is wrong. It was a brit who first created the HTML code. Just thought id let everyone know.

At 8/30/07 06:05 AM, TheLastDodo1 wrote: Oh and that link claims that the Americans claimed to invent the internet, which is wrong. It was a brit who first created the HTML code. Just thought id let everyone know.

Um, the internet was invented by Americans, by the US Department of Defense.

The internet existed before HTML code did. They aren't mutually exclusive.

At 8/30/07 06:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/30/07 06:05 AM, TheLastDodo1 wrote: Oh and that link claims that the Americans claimed to invent the internet, which is wrong. It was a brit who first created the HTML code. Just thought id let everyone know.

Um, the internet was invented by Americans, by the US Department of Defense.

The internet existed before HTML code did. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah, everyone know Americans invented the internet (sort of).

It was the British who invented the internets.

Ill admit when im wrong and this is one of those times. thaks for telling me. Makes me slightly more aware of what has really happened

At 8/30/07 08:41 AM, Elfer wrote: It was the British who invented the internets.

I didn't know Al Gore was British...

Well now I've learned something.

If the Brits invented friendly fire, can you how the Americans were already at it during the American Civil War? Or getting quite good during WWII? That's a remarkably biased link.

Why not try reading this? It states that the highest rate of friendly fire death wasn't air strikes, but ground fire (a reversal of WWII and Vietnam): in other words, itchy trigger fingers. Or >here: 52% of US casualties in the Persian Gulf were attributible to friendly fire, 41% in Iraq and 39% in Vietnam? How have they doubled since WWII, considering there are smaller numbers of troops deployed?

Also, look at another recent incident - ground control say there aren't friendlies in the area, the pilots spot symbols that indicate they are flying directly towards friendly units, but as ground control say there aren't friendlies in the area he doesn't think for himself, and opens fire.

That's the important part: thinking for yourself. Command aren't ever 100% sure, especially when the pilot had a view that would tell him command was wrong. That he opened fire goes back to what's been posted before: a smart bomb is only as smart as the moron aiming it.

you put alot of effort in trying to put the blame on the non-American troops but even if it was the fault of the Americans i don't see how it is that big a problem. friendly fire is a fact of war, especially in modern warfare.

At 8/28/07 09:20 AM, DubleG wrote: The american military practically invented friendly fire, this is no surprise to me.

Friendly Fire's been around for only 234 years? Wow that's a big surprise to me.

At 9/2/07 01:31 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 8/28/07 09:20 AM, DubleG wrote: The american military practically invented friendly fire, this is no surprise to me.

Friendly Fire's been around for only 234 years? Wow that's a big surprise to me.

No no, not in that sense. Before the USA these incidents were called 'military accidents'. But the USA has had SO MANY of these 'military accidents' that they had to come up with a name for them, 'military accident' was just to generic.

The earliest case of friendly fire was 1461, at the Battle of Townton in the War of the Roses: although, in that case, it was a sudden change of wind direction that saw arrows drop down into the advancing front line, while in 1809 French troops fired upon allies in the Battle of Wagram - althoguh that can be put down to the problem of their Saxonian allies wearing similar colours to the Austrian enemy (this too happened in the American Civil War, before uniforms became standardised).

Each of those offer an excuse (bad luck or bad communication) - not the same as the case I posted before, where the polit could see friendly markings on the convoy, but opened fire as he didn't/couldn't think for himself as much as the intelligence was wrong. Or that the Americans doubled the British bodycount in Operation Desert Storm in a day when they attacked a convoy of British APCs (which, again, were surely marked and easily identifiable as friendly).

It seems that all too often, when the person with their finger on the trigger has to think for themself, they fail. This says something of all military training.

Whenever one of my allies is shooting at me i yell STOP TKING YOU FAGS!

oh wait... that's a video game.

At 9/2/07 11:11 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Whenever one of my allies is shooting at me i yell STOP TKING YOU FAGS!

oh wait... that's a video game.

There was a news report a few weeks that showed somebody controlling a smart bomb with a 360 controller.

My God, it all makes sense now: the US military keeps recruiting PK's. Jack Thompson was right!!!

At 9/2/07 11:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
There was a news report a few weeks that showed somebody controlling a smart bomb with a 360 controller.

My God, it all makes sense now: the US military keeps recruiting PK's. Jack Thompson was right!!!

OK, I found pictoral evidence - albeit it's a bomb disposal vehicle being operated with a 360 controller. And, if there's any doubt, there's this pic.

In other words, the user better be good at their games, or there'll be a large hole with soggy bits around it.

You could do the same thing with a television remote, a stop watch, a pen clicker, really anything could be rigged for a detonation devise.

At 9/2/07 12:24 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You could do the same thing with a television remote, a stop watch, a pen clicker, really anything could be rigged for a detonation devise.

Jackie Boy won't bother to remember that, of course.

At 8/24/07 09:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

or it could be due to equipment malfunction.

blame the equipment- it could have been the "drop bomb" button was pressed on accident (americans are perfect arent they...)

Little do they know, but the air strike was called in by a BRITISH forward air controller

it happens that the allied forces do have some way of identification to say they are with the coalition

It was a requested, coordinated close air support mission, that means that it was the job of the individual air controller to guide the bomb to target

but its those that do it that are the most stupid- if some moron to tell you to put your face in a flame, you do it and get injured... who are you going to blame? the moron that told you to or you for listening?

responsibility of the forward air controller to provide the pilot with the correct coordinates

and somehow, the vvehicle was moving...

I understand that US pilots have fucked up before. However, that usally only occures when the airplane is independently identifying, targeting, and striking a ground target in a hunter-killer op.

5 links
number 1
over 3.700 Afghan civilians killed by US bombs
6 so called 'errors' here
these planes have "considerable accuracy"
hospitals are terrorist hotspots too?

incident was due to mistakes by the forward air controller, or some sort of equipment malfunction

and the planes have good accuracy... and the controllers the scapegoat here isnt he/she

I also conclude that the hysteria among people who are blaming US forces is due mostly to their ignorance of how things work in the military.

and somehow, it couldnt be on purpose like here?