MH17

Message
Author
Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: MH17

#21 Post by Boac » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 pm

UP - I think it was President Reagan who issued an 'apology' for the attack?

Fox - I do not dispute the difficult situation, but I also do not think the Vincennes was being operated well which must inevitably reflect on the Captain. I would certainly NOT have awarded anything other than re-training for the war room. It had the makings of a shambles.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#22 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:52 pm

If people are shooting at each other, it's a warzone.
Air corridors cover over 50% of the Gulf, as you are aware.

The arrangements on board Vincennes do leave a certain amount to be desired. It is difficult, for me at least, to decide whether this was because of poor training and supervision by Rogers, or by poor provision of equipment and prior training by the US Navy. The former tends to be given the blame for similar situations generally, whereas the latter tends to avoid it; maybe the ranks of those involved have something to do with that ;))) Since I was in the RAF at the time, my inclination is towards the latter being at fault rather than the former. Most of the specific problems seem to be related to misleading information from the equipment, something I was staring at daily at the time.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: MH17

#23 Post by Boac » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:59 pm

"If people are shooting at each other, it's a warzone."
er - is the Pope a Catholic and do bears.......?

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: MH17

#24 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:02 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:52 pm
If people are shooting at each other, it's a warzone.
It was Americans, in Iran's backyard, shooting at Iranians.

Nobody, other than America, was shooting at airliners.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: MH17

#25 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:15 pm

Boac wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 pm
UP - I think it was President Reagan who issued an 'apology' for the attack?
Are you sure?

He was in a very advanced stage of Oldtimers Disease and quite unable to apologise for anything other than **** in his pants.

His presidency was totally owned by Bechtel and they sure as hell weren't going to write an apology script for him or his sidekick Bush to read or recite.

America has never apologised for the crime and has never tried to prosecute its own war criminals.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#26 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:19 pm

The report of the situation states that the Iranian gunboats fired first. The Stark was fired upon by aircraft without warning. That IR655 was an airliner was not something known to the Americans on the scene at the time. That there might be uncertainty is well acknowledged by the international community and why confirmatory procedures are in place. This was emphasised by the US issuing a NOTAM 10 months before confirming this for this specific area and re-emphasising the procedures. I would repeat that the Iranians were criticised by ICAO for not listening out on 121.5. Frankly, if one is taking off from a joint military/civilian airfield with all that conflict and warnings around, not listening out is deeply irresponsible at best. I would, however, rate the actions of MH17 as even worse, especially since IR655 had happened, and unarmed aircraft had already been shot down over the Donbas region. The management of Malaysian has a lot to answer for.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: MH17

#27 Post by Boac » Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:03 pm

"The management of Malaysian has a lot to answer for." - yes, as do all the other major airlines using that route that day. The other shoot-down was at a much lower altitude and it had been judged there was no threat.This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, and yes, ICAO should probably have acted to block the routes, but did anyone expect a Buk up the Backsie?

As for 'listening out' on 121.5 - do you know they were not? It is suggested that the broadcast by the Vincennes was confusing enough that they may have heard it and assumed it was not for them. Especially if it had been given by the operative with mental issues who was yelling!

Regarding "That IR655 was an airliner was not something known to the Americans on the scene at the time" - not correct - they had notice of all planned civilian movements and did not cross-check properly. The flight profile exactly checked with the notified route albeit 27 minutes behind schedule - so? They had their knickers in a twist as well with time zones - this, a 'top of the range' ship. It's a shame Tom Cruise could not have taken over..............

I do not 'blame' the Captain who was operating in a tense and demanding situation but with a crap team (and with a reputation not unlike the Chump's Twitter reputation). I just would not have 'rewarded' anyone.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#28 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:46 pm

I agree they had been informed. I agree the operative may not have been clear enough to have gained a response. However, neither of those points was available to the Commander.
He was told the list had been checked. He was told the aircraft was not responding. He was also told the aircraft had squawked Mode II, it hadn't, but the operators of that equipment genuinely thought it had. He was told the aircraft had started a descent , it hadn't, but the operators of the equipment genuinely thought it had. There are, as ever in accidents, a lot of holes in the cheese.
On the information available to the Commander, he did what he'd been ordered to do.
We have, as I mentioned before, questions to address about the training of the seamen on the Vincennes, and whether their failures were attributable to the Commander or the Navy in general. We know what the shiny new computer-driven equipment was like at the time, I certainly do. It was supposed to give you God-like awareness, and many of the commanders and some operators though it did. Those using it and who considered things objectively knew it could lie to you like a cheap Changi watch. I recall getting special permission to take an acolyte of the new kit up on an actual flight. Thankfully, the kit misbehaved on cue, and he returned a chastened man. I also recall that we were employing tactics that specifically exploited the likely misbehaviour of the Soviet kit.
As to whether the Yanks would have covered up the screw-ups for political reasons anyway, well, everyone does. Take the loss of the Sheffield in the Falklands War, about which only now the truth is available.
I spent the next three years operating around boats, and I never went anywhere near the d@mn things without being prepared to be shot at unless we'd personally spoken to the guy commanding the AA just beforehand, no matter whose side they were on, and that lesson has been around for the learning since WW2.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: MH17

#29 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:29 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:19 pm
The report of the situation states that the Iranian gunboats fired first.
Admiral Crowley's "report" was nothing more than a pack of lies. It was just lies piled upon lies piled upon more lies.

Neither Vincennes nor its helicopter were under attack. Not by an Airbus, not by an F-14, not by a P-3, not by a Boghammer skiff. Not under attack at all.

Vincennes had just been tossed out of Omani waters for its aggressive and inappropriate behaviour and was inside, yes inside, Iranian territorial waters when it opened fire on the civil airliner.

The bastards should be in one of those ghastly Murricane maximum security prisons for life.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#30 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:07 pm

Well, we are going to have to differ on both the situation, and therefore the consequences. We have no evidence I'm aware of that the Vincennes' helicopter wasn't fired upon, other than Iranian statements, and we know they routinely lie their @sses off, and were doing at the time e.g. mining operations in International waters. That the US Government is also a proven liar means we will never know the truth. I'm inclined to take the US Navy helicopter pilot's word for it. And we get into a whole mess of unintended but generally quite predictable consequences - Pan Am 103, Gulf War, Palestine, etc. It doesn't look like ending any time soon.
Personally, I think the root cause of all this is greed, and especially the predatory business practices of large corporations in the USA and UK, aided and abetted by bought-off politicians. The dependence of any industry on foreign resources, whether oil or labour or whatever, for "essential" transportation or cheap t-shirts, tends to lead to misery.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: MH17

#31 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:53 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:07 pm
We have no evidence I'm aware of that the Vincennes' helicopter wasn't fired upon
Of course not.

It was almost certainly sunglint, not a missile attack, but it is impossible to prove a negative. It might have been an attack by Men In Black or non_earthly aliens or Russians or some bloke on a grassy knoll. It probably didn't happen at all.

On balance of probability, Vincennes probably wasn't under attack. Neither was her helicopter.

The only aggressive attack was the one by Vincennes against the airliner.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#32 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:04 pm

With no direct evidence, one can't argue for a balance of probability, except that in my experience USN aircrew do not report being fired upon unless it actually happened.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: MH17

#33 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:15 pm

The balance of probability, whether attested to by USN crewmen or not, is that Vincennes probably wasn't under attack by the Airbus.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#34 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:40 pm

You aren't presenting any evidence for that. The starting position for assessing the probability must be the report of it. My experience is based on getting detailed intelligence briefings on the situation in the ME at the time (whilst in Cyprus), on later tasking as an Intelligence Officer, and on serving with a couple of USN aircrew. They don't tend to make stuff up, even when lent on by higher ups to do so. I'm in agreement with you that the US does some pretty reprehensible things, and the CIA makes stuff up and conducts false flag operations as a matter of course, but that doesn't apply to rank and file junior officers.

User avatar
Rwy in Sight
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
Gender:

Re: MH17

#35 Post by Rwy in Sight » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:39 pm

This is the Newsweek report I mentioned in the Gulf thread. It address some of the issues mentioned like AEGIS radar not providing easily understood information.

SEA OF LIES

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#36 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:10 pm

Well, there are several errors of fact in there, and they never miss an opportunity to get in a polemic or incompetent adjective. There's a reason I read Newsweek once and never bothered again.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: MH17

#37 Post by Boac » Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:22 am

Fox - perhaps you could highlight where the information you were given differs from that article?

User avatar
Rwy in Sight
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 6740
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
Gender:

Re: MH17

#38 Post by Rwy in Sight » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:33 am

BOAC- Thanks for your question I was too much on a hurry this morning to ask it.

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12987
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: MH17

#39 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:51 am

The IFF Mode II response descriptions in the article do not match the official investigation.
The F-14 had been converted by the Iranians to drop bombs. It always had that option, and was in fact used in that role later by the USN. Iranian F-14s therefore were a valid threat to the Vincennes, and the profile reported to the Captain (in error, as we now know) matched the likely threat profile.
It is implied that using the Forrestal's F-14s to ID the airliner was a possibility. Given the timescale and their CAP distance of 75 miles, it wasn't.
It states that Adm Smith on the Forrestal chose not to intervene. In fact, he did not because he was unable to.
It is therefore also perfectly understandable why the commanders on the Forrestal were not interviewed subsequently.

It should be noted that the author, John Barry, is a self-stated policy expert, not a "nuts and bolts man", to quote him. His military expert is a retired USMC Colonel who was an Intelligence expert. Neither of them know the first thing about the nuts and bolts of air defense.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: MH17

#40 Post by Boac » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:49 am

IFF
I think you are splitting hairs. Page 2 of the USN report (a possibly deliberate vagueness on sequencing and timing?) says a Mode III (civil) squawk was first received followed by an operator error-based Mode II (Mil). Pretty much what the Newsweek article said.

F-14 capability
No idea of what was correct but the USN report is clear that intelligence provided to the Vincennes said it would be most unlikely an F-14 would be used against shipping as it had no air-sea missile capability

F-14 CAP
Correct, but they could have been called off CAP earlier. In any case, a visual ID would have required them to enter Iranian airspace, so pretty much irrelevant. I think
"There was enough time - barely - to call them in to check out the bogey."
pretty much covers it for a journalistic comment.

Overall I thought it an illuminating article with lots more information than provided in the official report - surprised?

I see you have added now

Admiral Smith
Newsweek said
"His staff was telling him that the blip was most likely a commercial airliner. But Smith stuck to the navy rule that the captain on the spot makes the decisions."
Since the Forrestal and the CAP is only briefly touched on in the USN report I don't see the complaint.

Post Reply