Stopping Blue-on-Blue

The Weekly Standard (on line) ^ | 09/08/2003 | Christian Lowe

[Radix]

IT KILLED 35 troops during Operation Desert Storm and was considered one of the biggest problems facing U.S. forces on the battlefield. A decade later, little has changed.

The U.S. military calls it "blue on blue"--but most people know it as "friendly fire" or "fratricide." The problem of friendly forces killing their own has been a danger throughout history. Though the rate of friendly fire deaths has declined since the Gulf War, the combination of more rapid movement on the battlefield, more precise weaponry, and the increasingly close ranges within which these weapons are being employed in modern warfare has made the chance of fratricide more dangerous--and more deadly.

U.S. commanders were keenly aware of the dilemma in Iraq. Still, forces that deployed during the war were often ill prepared to deal with the potential for blue-on-blue strikes. Sometimes life and death hung in the precarious balance between the gut feeling of a Marine or soldier on the ground and a pilot's targeting computer in the air.

During the Vietnam war U.S. aircraft and some troops on the ground carried a system called Identification Friend or Foe--essentially a radio transponder that sent a coded message to another transponder that identified the sender as a friendly aircraft. These systems were sometimes transferred to ground units to let aircraft high above know who the good guys were in the dirt. But IFF systems were prone to interference and the codes could be broken or mimicked. Over the years, various updated versions of the IFF system were developed, but never universally employed.

Decades later, both U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq were forced to settle for more low-tech approaches to the dilemma.

Standardized communications such as the so-called "nine-line" brief--a detailed list of coordinates dictated to pilots by ground units calling for close air support; well defined forward lines of control and "kill boxes" that designate where friendly troops are positioned and where U.S. forces are free to engage any target that's moving; and some ingenious tricks such as affixing strips of tape to helmets and jackets that glow green when viewed through night vision goggles are but a few of the methods by which U.S, and coalition forces kept from killing one another in the wide open deserts and village warrens of Iraq.

But that still didn't prevent blue-on-blue casualties. At least two British fighters were shot down when Patriot missile batteries mistook them for Iraqi SCUDs; a Marine AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter shot and disabled an American M1A1 Abrams tank, injuring its crew; and at least six Marines were killed when an Air Force A-10 Warthog attack jet engaged them during the battle of An Nasiriyah on March 22.

New systems are being supplied to forces in Iraq such as the Blue Force Tracker--the most modern version of the IFF--and futuristic technologies are being developed which could give weapon sights a "shoot, no-shoot" signal or even disable the weapon if it is pointed at blue forces. But the U.S. military is still a long way from getting the problem licked.

"We're the most technologically advanced country in the world," remarked the Marines' top commander in Iraq during an interview at his Camp Babylon headquarters. "Shame on us as we continue to kill our young people because we haven't developed something that 'beeps' or 'squawks' or sends out a transmission or something that tells our troops 'oops, that's a friendly vehicle.'"

A recently concluded Joint Forces Command exercise conducted in Gulf waters off Florida and meant to tackle the problem is a start. But if the post-1991 Gulf War efforts at eliminating friendly fire are any indication of this nation's progress, the services still have a long way to go.

Christian Lowe is a Staff Writer for Army Times Publishing Company and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. He recently returned from a six-week assignment to Iraq.

[Radix]

This is a big concern of mine, most especially since my son was engaged in this recent War.

[Radix]

PING!


I do not have a ping list, so I am posting it to a few persons who I have seen commenting on articles that indicate to me that this would be of interest to them.

Perhaps if it is interesting enough, other may want to read it.

[Prof Engineer]

ping

[MEG33]

I haven't had the opportunity to say good job and welcome home to your son.I think friendly fire is a real heartbreaker that has always been with us in war ...but now is so deadly.

[LadyDoc]

I was watching civil war buff Jeff Shaara on cspan, and he was discussing how Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own troops, and as a result the south lost the civil war....

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Perhaps if it is interesting enough, other may want to read it."

Another side of the dangers faced by the military while protecting our Freedom. PING

Radix : Thank You
2LT Radix jr : Welcome Home

[Soaring Feather]

Thanks Radix.

[Centurion2000]

I think friendly fire is a real heartbreaker that has always been with us in war ...but now is so deadly.

It's always been deadly ... it's just that we suffer so few enemy casualties that the percentage of blue on blue grows to almost equal amounts.

I like the shoot/ no shoot but would be very uncomfortable with any weapon that automatically disabled itself because a friendly was in front of it.

The bad guys could strap a captive to the front of a tank and have an invulnerable fire platform were that the case.

[boxerblues]

"Perhaps if it is interesting enough, other may want to read it."

Having loved ones in the sandbox and other hotspots I think we all tend to gather as much information as we can. I try not to think about friendly fire. I cant imagine what goes though those who are involved in a firefight, with all the new technology do they have time to react to what may be a friend or foe?

[MEG33]

Very true.I remember we bombed our own in WW2.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"I try not to think about friendly fire."

As a Gunners Mate on a Destroyer in Viet Nam our biggest concern was hitting the wrong target.
We were fortunate and never did, but we were concerned on each and every gunfire support mission.

[Michael121]

We did so in WWI, the Civil War, The Revolutionary War, at Agincourt, in The Steppes, in Mongolia, if a caveman was above another on a cave and threw a rock at the moment a rock hit him he could have killed his tribesman below him.

The Archers behind the 5 foot tall shields had one guy in front holding the shield, the archers were stooped down behind ready to volley fire arrows into the castle walls yet those on the walls volleyed also, if an archer stumbled or was hit by an arrow his arrow went into his shield holder a few feet in front of him.

Better communications between forces mean less FF instances.

It happened in the first battle in man's history, it WILL happen in the last.

But remember, in the 120 degree heat, with 40-100 lbs body armor kevlar helmet and all we have had 1 death possibly from heat. In less than a third of the same time FRANCE lost 11,000+ to heat.

Our loss is minimal. Unless of course it is someone you know. But as any Vet will tell you, they would rather it be them then their family, they know what they may encounter and are trained, their wives, kids etc... are not.

[MEG33]

Good post.Those who wait at home do worry lest their loved one is the one.That's only human!

[Michael121]

Hope your son comes home safe. But there are those who will not. I think of all. Good job, God Bless, come home safe.

[MEG33]

Amen to that.God Bless and watch over our troops and those who wait at home.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I can see why. Our weapons systems are MUCH more deadly than the Iraqis.

[cherry_bomb88]

Great post, Radix...thanks!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Bumping for lessons learned and prayers for the continuing protection of our troops and the advances in technology and training that allow them to do their good work with the fewest of such incidents.

These troops are pretty near perfect, though, imho.

[Valin]

I'm not in favor of it.. The problem is we are humans and humans make mistakes. And will continue to make them, and not even the most sophisticated can prevent it.
Murphy law(war laws)
Friendly fire - isn't.
If you are forward of your position, your artillery will fall short.
Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.
Five second fuses always burn three seconds.
Incoming fire has the right of way.
The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
The bursting radius of a hand grenade is always one foot greater than your jumping range.
Air strikes always overshoot the target, artillery always falls short.
It's not the one with your name on it; it's the one addressed "to whom it may concern" you've got to think about.