# 99061. Fixes Touted to Combat Friendly Fire Casualties

```

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- Infantrymen all over the world will agree with a 
retired Army command sergeant major's assessment: "Friendly fire 
isn't friendly."

Friendly fire, or fratricide, incidents killed or injured about 
17 percent of the American casualties during Operation Desert 
Storm in 1991. Following the war in the gulf, U.S. officials 
vowed to lessen the number of friendly fire incidents in any 
future conflicts.

"The problem is our weapons can kill at a greater range than we 
can identify a target as friend or foe," said Army Maj. Bill 
McKean, a cavalry officer who is the operational manager of the 
Joint Combat Identification Advanced Concept Technology 
Demonstration. "Yet if you wait until you're close enough to be 
sure you are firing at an enemy, you've lost your advantage."

DoD examined changing the rules of engagement to see if that 
could fix the problem. "What they found was, if you tighten the 
rules of engagement to the point that you reduce fratricide, the 
enemy begins inflicting greater casualties on you," said McKean, 
who works at U.S. Atlantic Command in Norfolk, Va. "Waiting 
until you're sure in combat could mean becoming a casualty 
yourself."

The DoD combat identification technology demonstration began in 
1996. Researchers began testing promising technology in 
simulation and modeling labs and during exercises. "The beauty 
of the [advanced concept technology] demonstration is the way it 
can speed technology into the hands of the warfighters," said 
Gerardo J. Melendez, a technical manager of the demonstration 
and chief of the Battlespace Identification Branch at the Army 
Communications and Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

He said the process allowed members of the team to look at and 
assess promising technologies quickly. They discarded those with 
no military use, but accelerated the testing cycle for 
technology they found that could potentially solve the friendly 
fire problem.

The demonstration project brings together engineers, other 
technical experts and warfighters to assess different 
technologies under battlefield conditions. The teaming also 
allowed warfighters to help identify technical issues and 
problems using systems and to develop tactics, techniques and 
procedures for the use of promising technologies.

"This way, when we are finished," McKean said, "we can present 
the full package" -- improved equipment and the tactics, 
techniques and procedures to use it.

Combat identification is divided into four mission areas: air-
to-ground, ground-to-ground, ground-to-air and air-to-air. About 
61 percent of the fratricide incidents during Desert Storm came 
from ground-to-ground mistakes, and 36 percent were air-to-
ground. The demonstration concentrated on air- to-ground and 
ground-to-ground engagements with the objective of presenting 
and testing systems offering reliable identification capability.

Officials looked at four basic "concepts":

o Systems that align with the weapon or weapon sight and are 
pointed at the intended target. The system "interrogates" the 
target -- a reply identifies it as friendly, otherwise it is 
identified as unknown.

o "Don't shoot me" systems use the Global Positioning System and 
other similar data sources. An interrogation is sent in all 
directions containing the targeted position. Friendlies present 
in that position return a "don't shoot me" response.

o Situational awareness systems rely on periodic updates of 
position data to help users locate friendly forces.

o Noncooperative target recognition systems compute a signature 
using acoustic and thermal signals, radio emissions, and other 
possible data sources. The system compares the signature in its 
library database to characterize the target as potentially a 
friend, foe or neutral.

Systems that show the most promise are the Air National Guard-
Air Force Reserve situational awareness data link and the Army 
battlefield combat identification system, Melendez and McKean 
said.

The Army candidate identifies targets without affecting the 
firing function. Essentially, a tanker points at a target and 
queries it with a millimeter-wave device. If the target's 
friendly, an answer comes back.

The system is small and easily placed on vehicles, and it is 
potentially usable with allied forces, test officials said. The 
system's been used on Army and Marine vehicles and it works 
effectively in the fog of war, they added.

"It will work through smoke, fog, dust and rain," said Melendez. 
"It works well beyond visual range."

"This [project] really demonstrated the effectiveness of 
integrating warfighters into tests," McKean said. "Soldiers used 
[the system] in ways we hadn't anticipated. They used the system 
to get a better read of the battlefield." Their comments become 
part of the assessment and doctrine, he noted.

The situational awareness data link, or SADL, can be used for 
air-to-surface and air-to-air identification. "In tests, this 
system worked very well in preventing air-to-surface 
fratricide," Melendez said. Without SADL, pilots use their first 
pass to identify the target and confirm the position of friendly 
forces. "With SADL, they know exactly where friendly forces are 
in relation to what they are attacking, so they can make drops 
on the first pass." Besides preventing numerous fratricides 
during test exercises, SADL also promises pilots higher 
survivability -- fewer passes means lower risks, he said.

Bottom line: Technologies exist that will cut fratricide, 
Melendez said. The problem will be integrating them into an 
overarching architecture. "We're not there yet," he said.

The demonstrators have made recommendations on 12 of 14 systems 
and expect to finish assessments on the remaining two this 
fiscal year. While the battlefield combat identification system 
and the situational awareness data link were good solutions for 
ground vehicles and fixed-wing close air support, respectively, 
more work needs to be done to outfit helicopters and forward 
observers/forward air controllers.

"I think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to eliminate 
fratricide, but we can reduce it significantly and, at the same 
time, improve our combat effectiveness," McKean concluded.

Read about a historical accident that may have changed the 
outcome of the Civil War in DefenseLINK News "Friendly Fire That Changed a War?"

##end##
```