Investigation Finds U.S. Missiles Downed Navy Jet

Washington Post ^ | December 11, 2004 | Thomas E. Ricks

[Former Military Chick]

A military investigation has concluded that a "friendly fire" incident in which a Navy pilot was shot down and killed by U.S. forces during the spring 2003 invasion of Iraq occurred because operators at two Patriot missile batteries and a command center all mistakenly took his F/A-18 Hornet for an incoming Iraqi missile, the U.S. Central Command said last night.

The April 2003 incident was one of two during the campaign in which Patriot anti-missile batteries mistakenly hit allied aircraft. In the other, in late March 2003, a Patriot destroyed a British Tornado GR4 fighter-bomber near the border of Iraq and Kuwait, killing two crew members.

The core conclusion of the Central Command report, that the Navy jet was downed by Patriot missiles, confirms what was widely believed almost immediately after the incident occurred.

- - -

The report was released on Friday evening because the family of the Navy pilot, Lt. Nathan White, first had to be notified of its findings, she said. It took more than 20 months to release the report because Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the chief of Central Command, asked that its findings be reviewed, she said. But she said she did not know what the outcome of that review was.

Dennis White, father of the downed pilot, said he did not want punitive action taken. "It's a heartbreak for us, but I personally do not hold these young men responsible," he said. An Air Force veteran, he added, "I was a combat pilot during the Vietnam War, and I know what the pressures of combat can do."

[Former Military Chick]

Before you criticize me for posting this story, let me say this is how an investigation should be done. It appears from the family of the downed pilot that they indeed understand that sadly this is part of war.

There son seems like such a wonderful American. He could be anyone's son. I salute the parents, pray for their son and hope his fellow zoomies can find a way to carry on with such a heavy heart.

America Supports You

[JRandomFreeper]

Why did the IFF not work? That needs to be fixed. Now.

/john

[patton]

It was turned off.

[BIGLOOK]

I believe the Patriot missile is an anti missile system; they may not be fitted for IFF identification since incoming missiles do not have IFF. ID was probably based on radar profile.

This sounds like a JDAMS or JTTP problem.

[ProudVet77]

The IFF would be used to discriminate between our aircraft and inbound missiles.

[HerrKobes]

It started out as an anti-aircraft system, and has been 'evolved' into an anti-missile system.

JDAMS or JTTP problem? I don't see how either of those things apply.

From things I've read (I certainly don't have first hand experience with Patriot missile batteries), it is more of a technical issue regarding failure to use IFF interrogation and problems distinguishing aircraft flight profiles from missile profiles.

[JRandomFreeper]

The Patriot started life as a SAM system and was upgraded to anti-missle later. It is perfectly capable against aircraft (obviously), and it does have an IFF system. I suspect joint ops failure. The services have to learn to fight together better. Joint doctrine has to be improved.

/john

[Doohickey]

That's a good question. IFF was a requisite for any aircraft, ship or submarine to take part in any action. No IFF, no mission. Period.

[BIGLOOK]

True. But was the anti missile battery fitted with IFF or did they rely on something else. I don't know what a Patriot battery had in 2003 but I'll bet they have an IFF receiver now.

[JRandomFreeper]

Whose day-code do you use? Navy? for returning to the fleet? Army? for avoiding Patriots? AF? for avoiding air-to-air? Army and AF do a fair job of joint ops, but there is room for much improvement. Did the Navy AC fall under the air boss? Was there an ATO?

Balancing central command and local control leaves room for a margin of fatal error, but everthing that can be done, should be.

Joint Doctrine is the answer.

Prayers, BTW, for the family. But I don't want any family to suffer from a fratricide loss again.

/john

[ProudVet77]

You're right, but that is the way it is supposed to work. Served on a ship that was in contact with Soviet Naval aircraft for about 2 weeks, and our IFF was down the whole time. The CO did not want to report this little fact to the Commodore. Eventually he got found out when we were calling our A4s bogies. (The skipper eventually went on to earn 4 stars.)

[BIGLOOK]

Thanks for the info. JRF, I agree this was a joint ops F/U. The Patriots were defending against attacks on our bases in Kuwait and SA at the time. If I recall right, at about the same time, Kuwait was hit with what was believed to be a Silk Worm toasting a mall and another splashed in the Gulf. Tension level High.

[HerrKobes]

There is always an ATO, despite the best efforts of the Navy to avoid it.

Basically, the air war is controlled by the COAC - Combined Air Operations Center.

Underneath that you've got planners who come up with the ATO 48 hours in advance, and then Current Ops who'll run that ATO.

As for IFF? It is certainly not a question of codes (that was standardized long ago) - more a question of whether the IFF is used. The Army has a history leaving it off, strangely believing that their IFF serves as a beacon to the enemy (look up the friendly fire incident in Iraq involving USAF F-15s and Army Blackhawks in 1993, I think).

In this situation, the key was a technical glitch regarding the failure of IFF interrogation. You can't expect Patriot battery operators to look through an ever changing ATO within seconds to launch a missile. The key is IFF and rational flight profile matching.

[Chode]

did the ever say if he was in or out of the assigned corridor for his mission???

[JRandomFreeper]

I know that war is complicated and there is friction and fog. Somehow, somewhere, some way, there has to be a solution to these incidents. And it doesn't have to adversely impact the ability to put bombs on targets or the Army to self-protect or project power.

I've been reading a lot of white papers recently about joint ops, especially in re: USAF side of things (go figure). As a slightly biased, but fairly well informed individual voter, I think:

Joint Doctrine needs an overhaul, and AF and Navy Doctrine might need to be changed.

(HERESY ALERT!) I think Space Command needs to be it's own Force and Department, separate from AF.

Trust between the Joint Services needs to be developed below the rank of Major. Above that rank, I see good trust (mostly) and Joint Effort.

/john

[HerrKobes]

I think seeing this primarily as a joint doctrine issue is, frankly, nonsense. It is a failure to use those capabilities you already have, and fixing the technical limitations of your equipment. Look up the report on the Patriot battery which fired on the RAF Tornado.

The one doctrine change which would help? Integrate Army fixed anti-air/anti-missile assets underneath an AWACS/JSTARS or COAC controller. Battalion and brigade level air defenses could remain autonomous - but note that US troops haven't been attacked from the air since Korea.

As for a Space Force? Why? Tell me what effect you hope to create by establishing a separate Space Force. It is better to keep the communications, surveillance and other space assets under actual trigger pullers, who use those technologies specifically for war fighting. Instead you've got a new 'armed' service that has satellites for the sole purpose of simply having something to be responsible for.

At the same time you talk about joint warfare, you're saying we should establish ANOTHER armed service. If anything, we should be talking about integrating the ones we already have.

[JRandomFreeper]

but note that US troops haven't been attacked from the air since Korea.

Correct. US troops have not been attacked by the enemy from the air since Korea.(discounting the Scud attack in Saudi). But we've had some troops attacked from the air by friendly fire.

I still think that Joint Doctrine is key. Army isn't going to put deep battle forces under AF control. AF isn't going to let go of interdiction.

All of the arguments are old. A new order needs to be established.

By establishing a separate Space Force, and moving a lot of intel under it, I propose to establish a one-stop shopping place for all of the Services to get imagery and intel. ATOs or STOs can still be requested by the theater commanders. But the AF doesn't have any business running any platform over 60K ASL. (IMHO)

/john

[colt1911]

I was in Iraq with the parent Brigade Headquarters of the Patriot Battery in question when this occurred. Since I am not an Air Defense Officer, I too asked why the aircraft was not properly identified using IFF prior to launch. I was told, to put it simply, that the Patriot computer system had wrongfully identified the incoming aircraft as an enemy missile. Since enemy missiles are not IFF equipped, there would be no subsequent IFF query of the bogey identified as an incoming missile. Bottom line is that this pilot died because of a quirk in the computer software codes utilized by the Patriot system. May he rest in peace.

[El Gato]

Why did the IFF not work? That needs to be fixed. Now

Might not be anything to fix. He may have had it turned off. The antenna may have been masked from the radar site. Lots of possibilities, none of which call for a "fix". Others may call for a change in procedures.

[El Gato]

I believe the Patriot missile is an anti missile system; they may not be fitted for IFF identification since incoming missiles do not have IFF.

It's both an anti aircraft and anti missile system. I'm nearly positive that it does have IFF capability. But even if it's targets were to be missiles, either ballistic or cruise, it would still need an IFF, because while missiles may not have IFF, aircraft do and the whole point of IFF is to avoid fratricide.