"HEY DUDE ! WE'RE IN JAIL!"
These were the breathtakingly intelligent words I-don't-think from one of the colour blind US pilot (bright orange panels on our tanks didn't register apparently) who went in all gung-ho as usual and shot and killied one of our troops!
1) WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO USE SMART PILOTS TO FIRE THE SO CALLED SMART WEAPONS ?
2) When the HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile in the Falklands war, wasn't there an issue with the Seawolf anti-air-missile system designed to intercept them; supposedly on board -and it didn't work because it recognised the imbound missile as being french, therefore disregarding it because the system recognised it as being 'FRIENDLY' or something along those lines?
Would very much like to know the truth about what happened there please ?
My point with the above example is surely the ALLIES could think up some system that would IMPEDE US FROM FIRING ON EACH OTHER to elliminate this 'friendly' fire business ONCE AND FOR ALL ? !!
2007-02-06
22:26:50
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
And yes I know before you techno-boffins tell me - that then there could be a problem with ordnance not being fired when it should be and costing lives that way - but as the saying goes - WHERE THERES A WILL THERE'S A WAY !!!
2007-02-06
22:28:50 ·
update #1
I really wish there would be some collateral damage with regard to the people who answer this question who are still fully paid up memebers of the Moral Coward Society !
2007-02-11
04:33:14 ·
update #2
"Friendly fire" and "blue-on-blue" incidents have been around since the beginning of warfare. It's doubtful that any amount of technology will ever prevent this from happening. Studies have shown that in the span from WWI to Desert Storm approximately 15% of casualties were caused by "friendly fire" (studies conducted by German, UK, and American research).
Did the US pilots screw up? Yes, due to a lot of mitigating elements. Do UK pilots screw up? German? French? Yes, it happens with all armed forces.
Oh, and your info concerning HMS Sheffield is completely incorrect. For one thing, Sheffield was armed with Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf, and Sea Dart were not designed to engage targets such as Exocet. The fact that the Exocet was French and "friendly" had nothing to do with detecting or engaging it.
Friendly fire will always happen, because humans, by definition, are imperfect and are going to make mistakes.
2007-02-07 00:21:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by PaulHolloway1973 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Good question. "Friendly fire" is a good example of weasel words, since no fire is friendly when one is on the receiving end. Rather, the word "friendly" refers to those who fired it.
"Smart ordnance" is slightly less badly named, in that the ordnance is actually designed to do a bit of self-correcting along the way.
I think you've highlighted several problems here: (1) the American military-industrial system's liking for words and phrases that hide the savagery of war, "friendly fire", "smart missiles", "collateral damage", "precision bombing" and "surgical strikes" immediately come to mind. (2) Artificial intelligence is not yet a reality, and so called "smart bombs" ain't. There are clearly, as you point out, situations their programmers haven't envisaged. Then there is a third problem hiding behind the others, (3) limited intelligence, particularly what is called human intelligence, or HUMINT. This lack of intelligence means that the "smart missile" homes in very accurately on targets one doesn't want hit. There is the possibility of a 4th problem, psyops, that is, operations designed for their psychological impact, which deliberately target allies.
The military is well aware of the problem of people fighting in situations where the intelligence available is limited.
I'm sorry I can't address some of the more technical aspects of your question, but I don't have the knowledge to do so.
2007-02-07 06:56:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Spell Check! 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
You misunderstood (or maybe do not understand) the terms 'Friendly fire" and "Smart ordnance".
Firstly, smart ordnance means that the guidance system of a weapon is capable of differentiating between a probable target from an innocent one (e.g a truck and an APC). It could also mean a faster response time and capable of defeating electronic countermeasures like chaffs and flares.
Smart ordnance also means that the weapon is capable of being targeted at a specific target to prevent collateral damages to innocent civilian structures.
As for friendly fire or fratricides, those are all unintentional. Try looking at a place in daytime and nighttime and you will notice the stark difference. No doubt the place is still the same but to recognize and pick out the features is a hell of a nightmare, even with NVG (Night Vision Goggle).
Imagine doing it with people all around who are shooting at each other.
2007-02-07 07:12:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by CuriousE 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
There are several systems used to prevent this sort of incident.
However - like any other safety system - they only work when they are used.
In the video you should have noticed the pilots being told that there were no friendly units in the area. This is the first clue as to what went wrong. The unit that was fired upon was either someplace they were not supposed to be or had misreported their position.
The tried-and-true method of avoiding fratricide engagements is very low tech. You mark 'graphical control measures' on your map and everybody obeys them. This works very well unless you are dealing with a British unit. Apparently the British do not believe in accurately reporting the locations of their units to their allies and they do not obey those lines marked on a map that are intended to prevent one unit from wandering into another unit's field of fire.
The fact that this British soldier died should be a major scandal inside the British MOD. This is because he died due to the same (British) mistake that killed several British soldiers in the first Gulf war. In that incident another American pilot had been told (by the British TOC) that there were no friendly units in a particular area when in fact there were British troops at that location. Instead of figuring out what they did wrong and fixing the problem - the British blamed the Americans. As a result - another British soldier died.
2007-02-07 10:34:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Largely an American issue that our (Allied) Soldiers pay for ! From what I know it's always been this way. But really no excuse for it ! It's the reason why our troops in Vietnam avoided the US at all cost - gunghoe bravado. I know this from relatives who were there, On ANZAC day talk to any surviving digger - if your lucky enough to, and the answers always the same ! I only need to speak to my Grandfather - the stories are horrendous! The US will always say thats an unfortunate consequence of war, & live firing in a combat situation. Really though, when does this attitude of wanting to fire cross the line and become sheer reckless and criminal ? Are any other Nations known for their seemingly complete disregard for Allied life ?
2007-02-07 07:09:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
I can tell you have never been inthe army. write something you know about, i been ther. its not a good thing, but it happens.
you ever been in the field 45 below. a guy wants to go to sleep decides to sleep under a duce in half. to keep warm. then some one decides to move the truck. he's run over. or the guy that is real cold at 45 - 50 below he's in a fox hole. gets a great idea. gets a tube from the exhaust pipe from the truck into his hole. covers the top of the hole with his poncho, and kills himself.
it happens.
2007-02-14 14:23:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by J 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What I really cannot accept is that whenever a situation like this happens, some people always give ready-made excuses like: the battle situation is confusing, the soldiers are stressed, events happen so fast, etc..
It's no different from a police officer who shot a person by mistake, then proclaim: "I thought he's gonna shoot me first", or "it was nightime and dark, so I cannot clearly see him", etc..
The real fact is that friendly-fire statistics is markedly highest for the Americans, and very few for the British. Why?.
And the Pentagon's repeated attempts of cover-up, obstruction in releasing facts, and refusal to cooperate with the British coroner's inquest. Such a banality of evil.
2007-02-07 07:42:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by roadwarrior 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
i think your confused because you see civilians getting killed by "smart bombs"
if you were to compare these bombs to the bombs they used in..lets say WWII... which used a blanket bombing technique...then you would see a dramatic difference...in other words... a one square mile of bombing has been reduced to a single building,bridge or vehicle.. naturally their will be Innocent casualties of war.. lets say..a family driving across a bridge that their government uses to supply their troops.. yes,its sad... but thank god blanket bombing is in the past... a nuclear weapon would be worse and that is why we are so aggressive to the point of looking like the bad guys..to try to stop certain countries from obtaining these weapons of mass destruction...we know that if we are provoked into self defense on the scale of do or die... which will happen if these certain countries get them.. then we will destroy a country... the fact is..if we don't win..no one will...so...smart bombs for now is a necessary evil...lets hope and fight like hell that a nuke wont be
2007-02-11 12:17:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lost Boy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The US is working on it but combat is combat. Bad things happen. It sux. The altitudes that the fixed winged fly makes it very difficult for them. I would imagine anyway because I am a pilot. All in all my guess is that the aviators have saved more US soldiers on the ground than they have taken.
2007-02-13 22:45:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by mferunden 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Have you ever been in combat? If the answer is no...than shut it.
You have no idea of what combat is like, how fast it is and the condition, it happens, it sucks, but it happens, and the only reason we are talking about it now is because of the video released from 2003... years ago.
2007-02-07 06:53:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋