From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What happened to the Iraqi Air Force?
Date: 6 Apr 92 09:04:35 GMT
Organization: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Oulu

In article <1992Apr5.062537.17063@anasaz> briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.101923.15157@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar31.163136.709@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>The operator saw what he thought was 
>>>an F-14 icon, but it was the 747(?) icon.

>>I have not heard that this was the case.  Did an operator testify that
>>he reported seeing an F-14 icon?  I do not know what icon
>>appeared.  The plane was an Airbus, not a 747 or an F-14.  Does someone
>>have a tape or file of what was actually on the screen?  

>No way.  The Aegis radar system, combat control center, and weapons
>computer are all highly classified.  ...

Why does that mean that the ship would not record what was on the radar?
If the Navy had a tape, then it could determine what the icon was and
what caused it to be put there (operator assignment, a certain program...).

>>Was it actually an operator who reported an F-14?

>Pretty sure.  I've posted a request in sci.military to find out if any
>knows how to get the unclassified Navy report on it.

>>>In article <1992Mar31.055656.6255@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>>> The IFF signal that was sent to the plane returned the
>>>> information that it was a civilian air liner.  The speed of the plane
>>>> (detectable by the radar) indicated that it was traveling slower than a
>>>> _normal_ attack speed by an F14 (i.e. NOT typical attack posture).  However 
>>>	The *approach* was an attack posture.

>>Can we then assume that anyone approaching your vicinity is attacking
>>you and that you therefore have the right to kill them?

>In a war zone, if such a response is allowed by your Rules of Engagement
>following perceived hostile action, yeah, you got the right to kill them.

However this was not a war zone.  It was international waters during
peacetime.  The other end of the Persian Gulf was declared a war zone.
If the ship were to treat the area as such (legally or not) it should 
certainly attempt to warn any civilain traffic of its decision.

>>>> receipt of the plane's claim to be civilian.  I have not heard that there 
>>>> was any claim made that it was an F14 before the shoot down.  

>>>> Nothing further was done to verify what type of plane it was.  The
>>>> captain ordered the plane shot down on the basis of a probability that
>>>> some computer hacker assigned to its actually being a military craft
>>>> instead of the civilian airliner that it claimed to be, taking the risk
>>>> of killing hundreds of people if the "expert system's" assesment was
>>>> faulty.

>>>	Oh I have no issue with the fact that the crew made a major screwup.

>>Just with the fact that the Captain made one, huh?

>That's right.  

I notice that you edited out my list of what i felt were problems with
the Captain's actions instead of addressing the points.

>As Captain of his ship, he is completely responsible for the
>actions of his crew.  And if his crew wasn't trained well enough to
>properly use their weapons systems to their fullest extent, and as a result
>it results in a mistake, particularly a loss of life, its the Captain's
>fault.

>Had the crew been better trained and the Captain better understanding of
>his ship's abilities, he would not have had to exercise his right to a
>lethal response.

>>>>doug foxvog

>>>Brett

>>doug foxvog

>Brian Douglass			briand%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
>				602-870-3330 X657

doug foxvog
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi