Friendly Fire from aircraft

[Mobhack]

Pyros said:
What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors?

Then - read "Starship Troopers" and avoid the poxy movies made that merely used the name while almost completely ignoring the original Heinelen book they were allegedly based on

In any case - getting way off topic for the game now.

Cheers
Andy

[kevin]

I meant that as a % of overall fatricide casualties, airstrikes have gone down. Fatricide still exists in the form of bad arty coordinates, panic fire from troops, etc.

[BigJim]

Ok I take it then that the pilot was American and fired on Canadian troops because they either had different IFF's or none at all??? You must admit tho that this is RARE situation. I live in Tucson, right near the A-10 Base those guys fly "hot" training missions all the time and I have yet to hear of a "blue on blue" situation out here. Anyhow I guess the point is moot, the game allows it to happen and it's not a big enough deal to warrant the work it would take to program it out.

Thanks for you input tho, I was taken a back by your reports and I have no doubt that they are correct.

[junk2drive]

I have become so leery of FF from the air in all the wargames that I won't use it unless I have a large enemy unit in LOS. Even then in SP the aircraft my target an ammo dump instead of a tank or apc.

[Shadowcougar]

It is an uncommon occurrence. It has happen since the first aircraft attacked the ground target. It also happens in ground combat and well as naval operations.

In Operation Cobra the USAAF destroyed Panzer Lear and a US Inf battalion that was dropped on.

Remember that most pilots don't like CAS. Only in the USMC and the Warthog community is it an everyday mission.

Also… there is no such thing as friendly fire. Bombs and rockets have no friends... only those who use them and those who get hit by them.

[PlasmaKrab]

IFF are meant to be standard. Otherwise what is the point of NATO? And why would all the Eastern Europe countries spending big bucks to upgrade their frces to NATO standard, among else by fitting the standard IFF on their aircrafts.

And once more, to this day no ground unit apart from AADs have IFF transponder/reciever. That is why pilots have recognition classes, and that is why human error and info gaps lead to (fatal) errors. A patrolling pilot seeing soldiers and armor fighting in some forelorn desert corner will rather distrust his IFF, or admit that the bad guys got hands on some transponders anyhow, than assume some fellows if his are exercising and he wasn't told. I don't know the details of this canadian business but I guess that was something similar (except for the non-existent IFF).

So here you are, Jim! Anyway in the game you can lower your friendly fire rae by picking carefully your entry routes, strike points and aircraft loadouts: don't take a Maverick-armed tank buster when you're the only one with tanks, and don't send a CBU or napalm drop two hexes from your forward line.

That should keep you from too much unwanted damage!
But I have to reassure you, the subject pops up quite regularly!

Regards

[Chaim_Krause]

BigJim said:

No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

[BigJim]

I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????

ps I would love to try some senario's by you and I am not offended by those who disagree with me

Chaim_Krause said:

No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

[/quote]

[Pergite]

BigJim said:
I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????

I allready did... and the pilot even asked for permission to engage and was denied. Afghanistan 2002. The Canadian soldiers were conducting a live-fire training exercise in a recognized training area. They where bombed with a LGB.
In a separate incident was when a pilot dropped a 500-pund bomb on some other canadiens during a training accident.

Then there was a B-52 bomber that dropped a 2,000-pound guided bomb on positions manned by ground troops who were directing air strikes against nearby Taliban targets. Or when a BBC team acompanying SF tropps in northern Iraq was attacked.

Put all this in a hostile combat enviroment and you will have to multiply the accidents bigtime.

I however dont know what you in this case argue as a friendly zone of control.
And once again, NO, there are no standardized groundbased automatic IFF system in use...yet.