Ops-Normal.org

IFF - I agree the Investigation is vague, and that is not usual for official investigations.
Capability - I can't find any clear statement that an F-14 attack was most unlikely; reference, please? It does not take long to get proficient at dropping bombs from an F-14. One of my TWU instructors got the Miramar F-14 exchange as his next posting, and it was largely him who taught them how to do it for the Gulf War. You will be aware of the 1 Sqn US exchange officer's contribution to using AIM9-L on the GR3 Harrier for the Falklands.
I disagree that calling the CAP in was a possible option, even at the first option, and even if penetrating Iranian airspace had been considered, at that range and timing.
I'm not surprised at the detail, as the USMC collaborator was an intelligence officer who specialized in investigative work. My point is about what has been left out or supposed.

"I can't find any clear statement that an F-14 attack was most unlikely; reference, please?"
Sub para 5 page 10

Yes, I saw that. Doesn't count as most unlikely in my book. The fact that it was in the brief means it was considered a significant possibility, I would say. I did the NATO Intelligence Officer course, as part of my war role as 5 Sqn's Int Officer (before they started getting professionals to do it on AD squadrons). We were taught to avoid including the highly unlikely stuff, which was rightly seen as just ass-covering for the briefer and confusing for the briefee. The Iranians had conducted nearly 200 ship attacks up to August 1986. It was supposed they stopped doing them to conserve airframes. The Vincennes might just be the sort of target worth risking an airframe or two for. Threat = Intent + Capability. If they have the capability, intent can change in a heartbeat. The fact that the F-14s had been forward-deployed to Bandar Abbas would be seen as a weighting factor in the likelihood of them being used for ship attack.
The highly unlikely stuff might be included in a personal report to the ship's Int Officer only.

As far as I am aware, none of the 200 ship attacks were by F-14 as it did not carry the Maverick. The F-4 did. As a military fighter/bomber pilot I think it 'most unlikely' you would have pressed an attack on the Vincennes from 2 miles with 'iron bombs' in a single F-14? Not even on 5 Sqn

This is the opinion of a 'professional' (albeit USN, who do not rate very highly in my military estimation ):

"Although there has been no record of F-14s being used for iron bomb attacks, the aircraft is capable of being modified to be used in that role. To use iron bombs, the F-14 would have to close to within 2 NM of the target. That information was included in the intelligence information provided to USS VINCENNES on inchop."

My highlighting. I think most IntO's would have rated that as 'highly unlikely'.

I'm not saying I think it's likely, I'm saying the USN considered it possible, by virtue of the fact that it was included in the briefing.

I think I have lost you there.

My apologies.
My point is that the USN considered an F-14 bombing attack as possible, and at a probability at worst of unlikely, otherwise they wouldn't have included it in the briefing given to the Vincennes . That is to say, it was not, in their eyes, most unlikely.
You and I may both consider it most unlikely, and it certainly was most unlikely to succeed, but what matters in respect of the incident is whether Captain Rogers and the USN considered it possible, and that it was included in the briefing shows it was.

Yes, Fox.

Boac wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 pm

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

Boac, I apologise. I was wrong about the US not apologising.

Clinton expressed "deep regret", which is pretty much the same thing as apologising on behalf of the previous two administrations.

...and it was VP Bush, not President Bush you referred to. PRESIDENT Reagan DID apologise in a letter, presumably before the 'physical' events to which you (rather unkindly) referred.

You know Fox, the attitude of the ship was definitely under the complete control of her Captain.

And it stunk.

By covering up for the Captain, and by rewarding him with a medal for his crime, Admiral Crowe compounded American criminality.

HOT OFF THE PRESS;

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/04/28/burlaka/

I wonder will those responsible ever end up in the dock and ultmately convicted?

You do know that Bellingcat is an FCO black propaganda front, don't you?

Undried Plum wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:39 pm

You do know that Bellingcat is an FCO black propaganda front, don't you?

They are not the only recent source to report on this story. I presume you refer to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office black propaganda unit?

Yup. Bellingcat was outed quite a long time ago.

Undried Plum wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 28, 2020 8:49 pm

Yup. Bellingcat was outed quite a long time ago.

Does your timescale precede 2014? Looks like they belong in the same category as Private Eye and are they less or more credible than MSM?

https://www.bellingcat.com/about/

I think the following document might be regarded as reasonably reliable and would draw your attention to paragraph 26 wherein it states that Bellingcat has been subject to misinformation by Russia, presumably resulting from B’cat’s dogged investigation of topics about which that nation would prefer we know less.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 0/1920.pdf

Your witness...