Club Arnage

I have to say that I would be really surprised if they were better than the Red Arrows. Anyway I think the USAF would be better served learning how to distinguish who is 'on their side' before they spend hours pi++ing around doing w+nky aerobatics.


<Topic split from original Red Arrows topic - Steve>

I have to admit that I haven't seen the USAF Thunderbirds, but given the description of the stunt you describe sounds nothing that the Red Arrows can't or indeed don't already do.  I wonder how they compare with Gerry Andersen's Thunderbirds?

I have to agree with Monkey's sentiment.  I hardly think that now is the time to be extolling the virtues of the USAF as they clearly cannot, or perhaps just don't want to, follow established procedure when it comes to engaging ground forces.  Even if they did follow the rules the sunglasses the posing 'Top Gun' prima donnas always seem to insist on wearing are clearly having an adverse effect on their ability to distinguish colours.

For those unaware of the background to the 2 previous posts - see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6339369.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6339369.stm)

Well when was the right time? 1943? A daylight raid over Berlin perhaps?  >:( :(

Whilst I concur that there are many awkward questions to answered with regard to the level of professionalism of the part time Air National Guardsmen involved and their level of competence to be flying combat support missions in A10's, I do feel this has absolutely nothing to do with the display abilities of the Flying Angels and the Thunderbirds, both who are utterly awsome to watch.

I'm disappointed too about the making of infantile comments about Gerry Anderson. Had you seen them (the USAF ones that is, not the puppet ones on the telly) you would know just how spectacular they are. I was lucky enough to witness and then meet several members at Pensacola FL some years ago. And it's also a fact that the Thunderbirds and Angels can do things the Arrows can't do simply because the US Govt see's fit to equip them with aircraft that have reheat.

Please, please, please, do not let this thread descend into a slanging match about the current news events that relate to a very tragic blue-on-blue engagement in 2003  :police: :police: My banter with Fax about the relative merits of aerobatic teams was just that.

Just as a personal plea, unless you have experience of flying a fast jet in the midst of a battle, with active ground-to-air threats, whilst actually flying the aeroplane, talking to multiple ground and air contacts, monitoring your wingman, your defensive aids and sorting out what is going on, then please don't make judgements based on just seeing the video and reading the transcript. 

A series of mistakes were undoubtedly made, not just by the pilots involved, which led to the very tragic finale, in what is the most direct, unclear and rapidly changing battle scenario of close air support.  They will have to live with their actions, just as the families of those injured and killed are forced to come to terms with their disabilities or loss. 

Nobody got up that morning with the intention of making it all go so horribly wrong.  And yes it makes me bloody angry and sad that it keeps happening, but think about the relative numbers of nations involved and probabilities, and don't forget blue-on-blue engagements are not confined to the US v Brit scenario.

End of plea

MG Mark

Thanks Mark, well said.

Sorry MG Mark it is not that simple. The mistake was made and as you correctly point out I am not qualified to comment on the circumstances. However I am qualified to be able to say that the forces responsible should have been man enough to stand up and be counted .Instead there has been a catalogue of lies and deceit that frankly I find utterly unacceptable. It would seem those responsible have so little respect for those that they killed and wounded that they think they can just shut up shop and the problem will go away. It really pi++es me off!! 

Any way enough from me. I have signed the petition   

Thanks Monkey.

Every signature helps.

signed.  :)

The facts of the incident (and all the others) have been known and published for over a year now - Appendix 2 of the NAO report published in February 2006 is pretty clear on the matter. Copy at:
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf)

The catalogue of lies and deceit to which you refer has been not over the Forces - it's over the political machinations.

Nuff said - back on topic

(http://www.sky-flash.com/reds/2001/012.jpg)


MG Mark


< Pic link fixed - Steve >

Interesting how some people would take a good natured debate about the relative merits of air force demonstration squads and go on a rant about a tragic sequence of events in the heat of combat. All I have to say is that horrible mistakes happen in war, always have and sadly always will.  As far as the way the US government handled it?  I've made my feelings quite clear about how I feel about the lot in power.
Andy hit my feelings about the qualities of the Red's vs the T-Birds & Blue Angels pretty well.  Yes, the Red's are terrific, as are the Royal Canadian Snowbirds.  But as the leader of the Snowbirds himself said, "We're using trainers, what we do is a bit more graceful and ballet like. The US guys, since they're using contemporary fighters hit the stage loud, fast and powerful."  They can do some staggering maneuvers that the Reds and Snowbirds can't, simply because they're flying supersonic fighters (F-16's for the T-Birds, F-18 Hornets for the Blue's).
Would be a great shame to see the Red Arrow's disbanded and hope it doesn't happen
Fax

Fax,

Well said on both fronts - and the assessment of the essential difference between the aerobatic teams is spot on.   Loud and fast or slower and elegant, they both fantastic to watch.

MG Mark

Monkey, if you don't give a toss then I fail to understand why you bother to comment at all.  ???

The thread was debating display teams and their relative merits. Ignoring the rudeness displayed to our many CA colleagues in the US, the fact of the matter is that the US teams have supersonic display aircraft with greater rate of climb and turn characteristics. By definition they will be able to do things which the Arrows cannot. The Hawk, pretty and manouverable as it is, is a trainer designed and built with all the limitations inherent in such aircraft. Perhaps then you're suggesting the US pilots are no good at displaying, despite a squadron heritage as rich as the Arrows? You may like to know the Angels started flying twenty odd years before the Arrows were formed.

I agree with Fax and Mark, needless to say. I really don't think it's appropriate for this thread to decend into an international slanging match. If you're so irked by by the political shennanigans (and who isn't?) then surely you would be better served starting a new thread on that topic?

If I had not commented, then you would not have known that I didn’t give a toss..........and I wanted you to know that. Simple really if you think about it

So if I've got this straight what you're saying is that you do give a toss that I know that you don't give a toss?

That's quite enough tossing for one day! ;)

errr, correct.   ;D

We should diversify this here, mebbe.

Not only should the MOD continue to fund the Reds, they should also pull the Hawks off 'em and stick the guys into the Eurofighter thingy that is very fast (with reheat!) and probably a better display aircraft than a fighter.

Can't shoot very much with concrete ballast instead of the gun can it?

 :(

Some good points by all here.  Would love to see the Red's kitted out with the new Eurofighter, they could expand on a already outstanding display.  As far as pilot talent goes, I think all patriotism aside, there's very little difference in the ability of these blokes (or in the case of the Thunderbirds, there's a bird flying as well). These are all the best of the best.  I know first hand that there's a huge amount of mutual respect among all the demonstration team pilots, one of my neighbors has a nephew who flew with the Angels.  He has a great story about the Dayton Air Show a few years ago when the Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, and Snowbirds all perormed each afternoon.  He said on the Sunday night after the show was wrapped up, all three teams invaded one of Wright-Patterson AFB's watering holes and there was carnage...the good kind.  But apparently there wasn't much booze left in the place the next morning. ;D
Fax

Too true Fax.
The brother of one of my long time friends is Richard Patanous. I think he is called "Red 1" or "Red Leader". Either way, I gather he is a pretty big cheese in the Red Arrows.
I have heard a tale or two regarding the above mentioned "mutual respect" that exists. And rightly so.

It really doesn't matter when the rigt time WAS, it is surely that NOW is an insensitive time to be 'bigging-up' the USAF.

As for the Gerry Andersen reference... no bol*ocks can't be bothered to answer that one.

You also, in another entry within this thread, comment about the rudeness shown to CA colleagues.  Admirable sentiment.  Perhaps you should consider the degree of rudeness you insert into your posts before criticising others on that score  ???

And Fax -  as intimated above it is the timing of this particular debate that has hit a rather raw nerve with some of us over here... I made my posts to indicate that.  They were not meant as a rant.  There are many topics on this site that people really do rant about like whether they can take their inflatable swimming pools onto a LM campsite (should anybody really give a f*ck about that?) or whether the allocated space on those campsites is slightly smaller than it used to be and so on, I suppose if my posts really were rants then better to rant about soemthing of some real importance.

Leaving aside the presumably indefensible Gerry Anderson comment, as suggested, I have indeed considered the degree of rudeness I insert into my posts before criticising others on that score. Here is the result of my investigation:-

Firstly let me give you my definition of rude- peremptory, illconsidered, uncivil and ill-mannered as to be bordering on abusive. Secondly, I may on occasion make "sharp tongued" posts at times but I don't think they are ever gratuitously "rude". They are made when the occasion IMO demands. I am quite happy for other to disagree with me. You might mistake my "dry sense of humour" as rudeness, that is your perogative. However, I'm not "rude" where it is totally uncalled for. Describing the professional pilots in the US display teams, who presumable command the respect of their peers, as sunglass wearing prima donnas is not only uncalled for, but gratuotously rude and boorish towards our American CA colleagues.

It seems to me we are never going to agree on any subject. Your inability to take on board other folks points of view
without getting your knickers in twist was amply proved on the "debate" we conducted about Schumacher. If I might be so rude as to say, i think you are nothing but a sillly old erm... timer.

Andy,

you skills are wasted on here  :D.

Get yourself a job on Newsnight, Questiontime or similar!

Andy.  Thanks for your restrained response.  Like you I may make "sharp tongued" comments in my posts from time to time and like you I make them only when the occassion demands.

It is a shame that you accuse me of describing the pilots in the US display teams as sunglass wearing prima donnas.  If you re-read the original post you will see that I was not directing that comment at the display pilots.  It seems your accusation was a little illconsidered. ;)

...dry sense of humour perhaps..?

Oldtimer, just out of curiosity, when was I "bigging up" the USAF?  We were discussing demonstration teams, perhaps you should read postings a bit more thoroughly before you go on another one of your trademark xenophobic tirades.
I have great sympathy for the friends and family of the bloke who was accidentally taken out by a A-10, but as I said...Its fricking war!  These things happen!  During the first Gulf war we lost the entire crew of a Bradley when it accidentally wandered into the kill zone of a Apache attack helicopter and failed to identify itself.  Once again, its horrible when it happens, but friendly fire is a fact of life in war.  I'm sure no-one feels worse than the pilot who fired on him.
Fax

so that's it is it. We just shrug our shoulders and walk away, or hide behind the coat tales bureaucrats denying the existence of any cockpit camera, is that how it works??

Its come to a sorry state of affairs when ‘its fricking war live with it’ (paraphrase) is in any form of response.

Well Monkey, what else is there to say?  I'm pretty certain he wasn't killed on purpose.  There are some people on this forum who are constantly trying to turn every thread into some kind of politcal statement, or seem to feel there's always some hidden agenda behind a post.  Just take a post for face value, we were debating aerobatic demonstration teams, nothing more.  If you want to launch into a tirade about what happened, then start a f**k*ng thread and yell at your computer till your hearts content.
Fax

OK, OK display teams it was but do you not understand why people on this side of the pond may be a little sensitive at the moment about the USAF?

You make a point about the loss to friendly fire of a Bradley during the first Gulf War, but there can be no comparison between the two events.  You say yourself that "...it accidentally wandered into the kill zone of a Apache attack helicopter and failed to identify itself".  That is the whole fricking point.  The British vehicles were identified by coloured panels and they further identified themselves to be 'friendlies' by releasing coloured smoke... but still, without waiting for appropriate clearance from the ground, the A10 attacked anyway.

Yes friendly fire happens in wars.  Yes friendly fire is terrible.  BUT IT CAN SOMETIMES BE AVOIDED BY FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

Were these rules followed in this case?  NO

Perhaps the deceased soldier's widow might feel worse about the whole thing than the pilot by the way.  I am not saying he doesn't feel remorse - or perhaps even guilt - because it seems from the voice recordings that the flight crew were genuinely upset.


I have some sympathy with the 'heat of the battle' argument that is often put forward to explain tragic friendly fire incidents, but do they really apply in this case?  The allied air forces have a free reign of the skies in the region don't they and the A10 wasn't taking ground-fire was it?  The voice recordings from the incident certainly do not suggest that the crew were under any unusual stress so why were they unable to follow the established rules of engagement?

Oldtimer.
You forgot the IMHO.

We only know what we are fed by the media. 

Blue on Blue happens.  Everyone should accept that.  Then having done so,  investigate how and why it happend and if possible take steps to prevent it happening in the future.

I've never been to war.  I won't want to go to war.  I don't really want anyone to go to war.
I've no idea what it's like to kill anyone.   

I imagine the pilot is pretty freaked out knowing what as happend.   I'm not sure he's the one to blame not am I sure if it's the USAF either.  I believe it's the whole system.

May be we should go after the butterfly that flapped it's wings.

t.

< The following was posted by 'Monkey' whilst I was spliting and moving the topic.  His comments have been reproduced in full here - Steve / Mod >

Thanks Steve.

Lawnmower Man put it pretty well.  There are countless checks to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.  I mentioned the Bradley, it was carrying a electronic identifying device, it had all the correct markings, but it still happened, just like the friendly fire tragedy that's been brought up.  I don't for a second mean to try a downplay what a horrible thing took place, but war in itself is a horrible thing.  In my opinion we (the US & Brits) shouldn't even be there in the first place, but that's another subject.  However as long as you have a bunch of people trying to kill each with devastating weapons, mistakes are going to be made, there are going to be system failures, and despite all the checks & training, casualties by friendly fire are going to happen.  The only thing you can do is review what happened, get everyone's accounts, determined what went wrong, discipline if necessary and try to put in place procedures to make sure it doesn't happen again...but it will!
Someone will shoot down the wrong plane, or drop a bomb on the wrong target, or shoot each other up in a firefight.  There's no way to get around it.
But getting on a soapbox and ranting about US pilots in Top Gun sunglasses and all that crap is just juvenile.
I'm glad to hear that RAF pilots have never bombed the wrong target or hit allied troops by mistake.
Fax

It's bad it's happened, but how many lives of British troops have they saved the rest of the time? The Americans provide the majority of air cover.
Mistakes happen, it's what they learn from it that's important.

Exactly, Rhino.  As long as there's people in a theatre of war, the wrong ones will get killed (assuming there are "right" ones in the first place).  If the tables had been turned and we had been providing air cover for US forces and such an accident had occurred, you can guarantee that there would be an equal amount of shock/outrage/finger-pointing then, as is going on now. 

All we can hope to recover from what's happened is that, as Fax says above, people on all sides will hopefully learn from their mistakes, and procedures will be improved to reduce the risk of this happening again.


Dunno about the comment regarding RAF accuracy though Fax... giving the hornets nest one more poke with a stick there?

Late in on this one, but here's my tuppence worth.
Friendly fire is a old as warfare itself.
The British coalition in Iraq and Afgahnistan is very much appreciated here in the US and the event has caused as much distress here as it surely has in UK.
One observation however - and unless I am mistaking the meaning of the transcript, both A-10 jocks were told that there were 'no friendlies' in the area of the co-ordinates they were targeting by their ground support people - and the pilots did question this at least twice.
In our day-to-day lives, the addage, "If in doubt, do nowt" doesn't really apply in a combat situation.
In summary, a sad, but inevitable aspect of armed conflict - that should have been admitted by US authorities as soon as it became clear what had actually happened. No comfort to grieving families and wounded servicemen, but as others have said, it will always happen from time to time and always has.

Stepping away from the "Americans must die... Brits are Best!" topic and back to the thread....

I just witnessed the most incredible aircraft experience in my life.  I've seen many fly-overs at sporting events and races over the last 20 years, and I've seen the Blue Angels do their stuff a couple of years ago which kept me off the Viagra for months after.  But I attended the Super Bowl in Miami last Sunday in a misty, rainy and very low ceiling.  As Billy Joel belted out the last line of the Star Spangled Banner, we were watching in-cockpit footage over the shoulder of one of the F16s approaching the stadium - all this projected on massive big-screens at each end of the field.  You could see another aircraft a few feet off his wing.  It was dark - around 6:15 p.m. local.

As Mr. Joel hit the word "brave", 4 F16s passed what had to be no more than a few hundred feet above the stadium, their formation completely filling the entire sky for a fraction of a second at best.  They were moving so fast that they were gone before your brain fully processed their presence.  It flooded my sensory system - sound, sight, vibration (sucked the wind out your lungs) - and smell... well, I think a few people cacked themselves.

Who gives a crap "who's got the best team" etc.  Just getting close to them gives you a whole new appreciation of how insane that hardware really is.

And here's to getting all those poor buggers (regardless of nationality) out of that lawless, sand bowl of a crap heap part of the world (Middle East, not Crawley).

Papa, not poking, just making a point.  Americans have hit the wrong target, Brits have, the Germans have, the French have...the Italians?  Not sure, they may not be able to hit anything ;D  (Just joking for a second in a serious argument)
Without beating this to death, when you've got a split second decision to make about whether or not these guys are friendly's or insurgents, and your mates may be a few hundred yards away, and there's no recognition from them that they're friendly's....Your protecting your mates on the ground and unloading the hell a A-10 can laydown.
As Rhino said, this was a tragedy, but how many times have British troops lives been saved because a A-10 may have been prowling in the area?
Dave, big congrats on the Colts, those were the Thunderbirds that rocketed over during the anthem, that was damn cool even on TV.
Fax

Blech.

There's my hostile contribution to this thread.  ;D

I think that the difference here is that everyone gets to see the incident on the telly and we all suddenly become experts. My old man who flew B24's during 43 - 45 reckoned that there were significant numbers of blue on blue incidents during his time of flying but no one ever got to see them on the telly and few were reported in the press. Split second decisions involving life or death, even though these guys are the best around, involve many elements and as we were not there we cannot know all of the circumstances.
The best that we can expect is that mistakes are admitted, investigated properly and action taken to prevent re occurrance. Probably the main issue surrounding this incident is that the evidence was seemingly withheld for whatever reason and that imho is wrong unless there are clear security issues that could affect the loss of other lives at stake.
One of the issues to day of course is that everyone is covering his or here rear end and spin is out of control.

< Added 18:05 10th Feb - The thread to which I had refered to earlier has now been deleted by the author of said post - many thanks >

No doubt you've gone into a great deal of research to come up with the above list.  Despite your opening comment, I feel that the list is somewhat weighted and biased and could prove to be inflammatory.

As you know, a fairly innocuous thread regarding the Red Arrows became somewhat contaminated and distorted.  I subsequently split this thread topic off from that earlier topic.

I am the first to hold my hand up to going off-topic.  However, I get the feeling that this thread is going nowhere and the main protagonists continue to bear bait each other.

As, I feel, this is not in the spirit of Club Arnage, I think it's time to turn the key on this one (http://www.clubarnage.com/forum/Themes/default/images/icons/quick_lock.gif)

This is something we rarely do, but in this instance, I feel it is for the best.