From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: alt.desert-storm,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What happened to the Iraqi Air Force?
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:53:33 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Apr6.090435.6352@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>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?

Read your question again.  "Does someone have a tape or file what was
actually on the screen."  My answer was no, that tape is highly classified.

>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...).

And that's exactly what they did during the investigation.  They replayed
the tapes and found that the system worked exactly as designed, but that
the operator mis-interpreted what was being display.  Why did he
mis-interpret, because of lack of training, hence their putting the onus on
the Captain failing to make sure his crew was correctly trained.

>
>>>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.

This was part of the Captain's failure.  After the Stark incident, I
understand the ROE for all US warships in the Gulf were changed to so that
any approaching aircraft would be considered hostile until proven
otherwise.  Also given the fact the Vincennes had finished some kind of
running battle with Iranian gun-boat, the Captain believed his vessel to be
a hostile situation.

But again, your original question was general, asking if you have the right
to kill an approaching.  You did not specify, whether the Vincennes had the
right to kill all approaching vessels.  My answer was just as general as
your question.  Ask better questions and you'll get better answers.

>
>>>>> 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.

And I noticed you edited out my response that you got it all backwards.
The Captain relied on humans to make his decision instead of his "expert
system."  The Navy concluded had he relied on the computers instead of the
operators, the tragedy would have been avoided.

Your points were not germain because their base supposition, that the Captain
relied on his computers, was false.  Hence, your points had no support in
fact were not worth comment.

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


-- 
"You want to know what's scary?  The Third World has 12 new members and
some of them are nuclear armed!"  Former US intelligence officer.

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