Friendly fire - how big a problem is it?

[Babbling Brooks]

A previous thread about an accident involving an American A-10 putting a 500lb bomb all too close to a Canadian unit in Afghanistan was shut down due to speculation.  In keeping with the wishes of the moderators here, I have no desire to see further speculation on that particular incident here.

But it prompted at least one CF veteran to say this:

Solution: If it's coming hot and straight and you haven't called for direct air support and you're not illuminating a target, shoot the friggin' thing down. You can always say you thought it was a Taliban aircraft.

(source: http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/07/us-bombs-canadian-troops-again.html)

Generally speaking - again, no speculation on this particular incident - how big an issue is friendly fire, especially from close air support for Canadian troops?  It's been awhile since I wore a CF uniform, but "shoot the friggin' thing down" is not a common sentiment among my circle of friends and acquaintances who are still in.  I'm curious to see how it plays with the folks around here.

Personally, I think it's a shortsighted solution to a reasonably rare problem.

First, U.S. pilots back up Canadian troops often enough that incidents will happen - not to minimize the gravity of these incidents for those involved, or to excuse negligence, but no military in the world has ever been able to completely eliminate blue-on-blue, and the Coalition in Afghanistan seems to be doing a reasonably good job minimizing it, given the number of opportunities for mistakes.  If someone's negligent, throw the book at them hard enough to punch holes.  But there's still a wide gap between accidents and negligence, and between negligence and intentionally shooting at your own team.

Second, if you pop a CAS aircraft making a bad run, what happens the next time you or your buddies call for support?  The pilot suddenly has a mechanical failure requiring he RTB, and you're stuck in the crap without air cover.

Third, where do you stop?  Is it OK because it's an American pilot?  Would it be OK if it was a Canadian Hornet?  What if it's fellow Canadian ground troops mistakenly putting rounds your way?  Where exactly do you draw the line on shooting at your own side?

Fratricide is an issue, especially in coalitions, and I'm interested in hearing how big a problem you think it is.

 

[1feral1]

Well Bab, friendly fire has been around since warefare began, now the technology is on our side, but it still happens. Lets just hope not as often.


Regards,

Wes

 

[Foxhound]

(source: http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/07/us-bombs-canadian-troops-again.html)

Generally speaking - again, no speculation on this particular incident - how big an issue is friendly fire, especially from close air support for Canadian troops?  It's been awhile since I wore a CF uniform, but "shoot the friggin' thing down" is not a common sentiment among my circle of friends and acquaintances who are still in.  I'm curious to see how it plays with the folks around here.

I don't think that would play at all around here.  As far as I have heard and read, the Taliban doesn't have that many air assets that could be confused with friendlies.  Anyone who decided to "shoot the friggin' thing down" would shortly become numero uno on somebody's sh*t list, quite possibly another pilot's.  In other words, there's no way you could say "Oops, I thought they were bad guys." and have anybody believe you were just mistaken.

I am in agreement with your first point where you point out that the odd incident may be inevitable, however it is extremely unlikely that anyone in the field will be conducting summary retribution.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You down a A 10 with anything less then an ground to air missle I'll polish your boots for a year.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Here's one point of reference from a while back:

"This article identifies and analyzes several controversies related to fratricide: how to define it, how to calculate it, and how to present the results. Case studies used in the analysis--from all major 20th-century conflicts--strongly suggest that fratricide rates have been at least five times greater than the generally accepted rate of two percent."

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1995/steinweg.htm

Note that the figure expressed is a fraction of total battle casualties.

Adding attempted fratricide ("shooting back") to accidental fratricide is not a useful solution.

 

[tomahawk6]

With so many calls for CAS its a wonder there arent more blue on blue incidents.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=179

 

[Red 6]

The issue with friendly fire, (not just CAS, but all types) boils down to one of two separate, but sometimes interrelated factors: 1)Target ID and 2) situational awareness. For most modern combat systems, you can kill targets way beyond the range you can identify, even under optimal conditions. Look at the ballistic table for any type of service SABOT, and you'll see what I mean. Add in target obscuration or degraded mode gunnery and accidents are almost inevitable. One reason why friendly fire has much greater prominence than in previous wars is that there simply aren't as many casualties on our side, so each incident is much more heavily scrutinized than it would've been in, say World War II. When you're looking thru thermals on a rainy night at hot spots 2,000 meters away, the possibilities begin to narrow when you begin seeing tracers coming toward you.

Situational awareness (or lack thereof) is usually the other culprit. I've never flown a fast mover, so I can't speak to how tough it is to ID targets at 500 mph. But, most of us here can relate to trying to figure out who's on what phase line, BP, or whatever. I doubt any battle tracking software will ever completely solve the problem, nor will thermal ID panels, orange panel markers, glint tape, or any other stuff. They all serve to reduce fratricide, but I just don't think it will ever be completely eliminated. On many occasions, these missions are coming in on targets that are danger close to begin with, just like when artillery is firing immediate suppression.

As far as trying to shoot down a friendly a/c, that's just dumb, and potentially suicidal. You send tracers up in the sky in the direction of a CAS aircraft, and if that doesn't confirm you're the enemy to him, it definitely will to his wingman. Instead of one 500 pounder, you might wind up with and entire stick, and a couple of Mavericks thrown in for good measure. We have to operate from the position that no one would intentionally fire at a friendly unit in combat. We're all trying to do the same thing, which is engage and destroy the enemy. When accidents happen, we need to regroup and move on.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

it happened, not getting into details because its not something people of higher rank like to talk about. The souce was there and is still around to talk about it. enough said

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Babbling Brooks,

Fratricide is an issue, especially in coalitions, and I'm interested in hearing how big a problem you think it is.

You've got 3 posts here. You started the thread and then went silent waiting for all the info to flow to you. Before this goes any further, I think you should fill out your profile. You have no history here and your first thread is a hot button issue. We've had journalists use this same ploy, and then have found ourselves quoted. I just don't have much faith in someone that posts such a well worded question first time out. It's framed way to conveniently.

 

[The Bread Guy]

E-mail seems to match this:

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/

See how paranoid we can get, going so far as Googling your e-mail address?  ;D

 

[ArmyRick]

To answer the question directly. Friendly Fire is a real big problem if your on the receiving end.

It happens in training and it happens in operations. I have seen guys accidently shoot or frag each other on live fire ranges and in 1993, the Airbourne Regiment had an ND that resulted in the death of Corporal Able.

I think most of us remember the 2002 incident still fresh in our memories.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

E-mail seems to match this:

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/

See how paranoid we can get, going so far as Googling your e-mail address?  ;D

Well, there ya go. I only want a straight answer about what he wants to do with the info. Is this out of genuine interest, or does he need filler?

 

[Babbling Brooks]

I'm not a journo.  RMC, Class of '93 - now I sell commercial insurance for a living and blog as a hobby.  I 'went silent' because I had to drive home after work and go grocery shopping with the wife and kids.

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com is my own site, and http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com is a group blog I started a few months back that focuses on the CF past, present, and future.  Both sites average around 200 visitors a day, although they occasionally get linked to by some of the bigger blogs.

As far as being quoted is concerned, that goes with posting on an open forum - and army.ca can be viewed by anyone.  I wasn't planning on posting about this at my own site, but as a rule, I'd suggest that anything you don't want to see disseminated to a wider audience shouldn't go on an open forum.  Feel free to do as you please, though.

I asked the question because I think shooting at your own side, even when they're shooting at you by mistake, is an abysmally bad idea.  But as a civvie, I'm far enough removed that I don't know just how pissed off the current Army is about taking casualties from coalition air.

As you can tell, I'm fairly new to the site, and don't know the protocols as well as most of you will - I didn't know there was a profile I should fill out, for example.  Hopefully you'll cut me a bit of slack as I learn.  Any other questions to ease your mind, let me know.  Or just ignore the post if you're not comfortable talking about this.

 

[tomahawk6]

Welcome to the board brooks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That's fair and that's all we ask. We know about being quoted, and don't have a problem with that. Most here are honourable enough to stand behind their words. We just don't like being led down the garden path, in what we perceive to be a friendly discussion, only to find out it was a research piece, started by the offender because they were to lazy to do their homework. Anyway, I'll echo tomahawk and say welcome.  There's lots here to keep you occupied.

 

[pbi]

Welcome brooks. These days we've become a bit trigger-happy, for good reason. I for one thought your question was a good one and well presented.

And, no...I don't think you'd find anybody in favour of  'retributive fratricide', either.


Cheers