Not sure if its been posted yet...

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:39pm

A few days ago an Australian pilot declined to bomb a target as he could not gain a positive ID and under the Australian ROE you cannot engage a target without this.

Has it been posted?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 11:41pm

weemadando wrote:A few days ago an Australian pilot declined to bomb a target as he could not gain a positive ID and under the Australian ROE you cannot engage a target without this.

Good for him but exactly how is this news?

weemadando wrote:Has it been posted?

I think so. Damn if I know where.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 11:41pm

I didn't think anyone else saw that! And I am not sure if it has been posted though.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:
weemadando wrote:A few days ago an Australian pilot declined to bomb a target as he could not gain a positive ID and under the Australian ROE you cannot engage a target without this.
Goo for him but exactly how is this news?

Several reasons

1- The Australian military set these rules of engagement much to the ire of the Australian government, as a kind of protest against the commitment of forces to a war that the military felt was unneccessary.

2- Several American officers have bitched about the Aussie rules of engagement and how would be a threat to the forces on the ground if the pilots (or whoever) refused to launch on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.

3- There were worries that such ROE's might cause rifts in the coalition.

4- Its a case of an Australian pilot following his orders to disobey orders.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2003-03-26 11:46pm

It's been posted in the breaking news thread somewhere. I thought you were the one who did it actually weemadando.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:47pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s814616.htm

Aborted raid

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has defended an Australian pilot's decision to abort a bombing raid in Iraq because of concerns about the target.

The ADF has denied the incident has caused a rift within the coalition forces.

Australian forces have stricter rules of engagement than the United States military.

The chief of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Marshal Angus Houston, says an Australian pilot decided against bombing a target because he did not have enough time to check whether it was a "legitimate" target.

"What happened was quite unremarkable because if it isn't all set up correctly, if the weather is a factor, we will say sorry we can't do the task," Air Marshal Houston said.

F/A-18 Hornets have since attacked enemy targets, dropping a number of 2,000 pound bombs.

Also in the past few days, Australia's special forces have called in coalition air strikes on a suspected missile launching site and a platoon of enemy soldiers armed with heavy weapons.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:48pm

Archaic` wrote:It's been posted in the breaking news thread somewhere. I thought you were the one who did it actually weemadando.

No, if not me it was probably Vympel.

I'm interested in peoples opinions of the pilots actions.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 11:49pm

Several reasons

1- The Australian military set these rules of engagement much to the ire of the Australian government, as a kind of protest against the commitment of forces to a war that the military felt was unneccessary.

You guys really need to work on that military discipline thing.

2- Several American officers have bitched about the Aussie rules of engagement and how would be a threat to the forces on the ground if the pilots (or whoever) refused to launch on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.

It may make for some nasty situations if they do that when troops are under fire. Caution is all well and good but being overly cautios is a good way to get people killed too.

3- There were worries that such ROE's might cause rifts in the coalition.

They might if an Aussie refuses to drop and ground troops die because of it.

4- Its a case of an Australian pilot following his orders to disobey orders.

For all the sense that makes.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-03-26 11:49pm

Any further details of the nature of the target?

It would explain much more as to why he did waht he did. Even though I doubt we will get any more info in the near future on this...

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 11:50pm

weemadando wrote:
Archaic` wrote:It's been posted in the breaking news thread somewhere. I thought you were the one who did it actually weemadando.
No, if not me it was probably Vympel.

I'm interested in peoples opinions of the pilots actions.

Yep, just found it before. It was Vympel.

And the pilot did the right thing, if he couldn't properly identify the target, then he couldn't complete his mission. A very wise choice.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-26 11:53pm

weemadando wrote: No, if not me it was probably Vympel.

I'm interested in peoples opinions of the pilots actions.

He obeyed the ROE set by his senior officers. It's totally routine.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:59pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Several reasons

1- The Australian military set these rules of engagement much to the ire of the Australian government, as a kind of protest against the commitment of forces to a war that the military felt was unneccessary.
You guys really need to work on that military discipline thing.

Yeah, but when its the chief of our military and the heads of each branch of service endorsing such things, you really have to ask questions.

2- Several American officers have bitched about the Aussie rules of engagement and how would be a threat to the forces on the ground if the pilots (or whoever) refused to launch on targets because of the risk of civilian casualties.
It may make for some nasty situations if they do that when troops are under fire. Caution is all well and good but being overly cautios is a good way to get people killed too.

3- There were worries that such ROE's might cause rifts in the coalition.
They might if an Aussie refuses to drop and ground troops die because of it.

That was the concern, but I believe that the RAAF has been given fairly clear cut strike missions for this reasons. Like hitting a pure military target in the middle of fucking nowhere rather than a potential target in a built up area.

4- Its a case of an Australian pilot following his orders to disobey orders.
For all the sense that makes.

That was actually the order given by the brass, "disregard any orders which may result in civilian casualties" or words to that effect.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-27 12:00am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
weemadando wrote: No, if not me it was probably Vympel.

I'm interested in peoples opinions of the pilots actions.
He obeyed the ROE set by his senior officers. It's totally routine.

Yes, the ROE set by the ADF on a mission tasked to him by what I'm assuming was American Command. Its interesting how forces interact, no?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 12:09am

Yeah, but when its the chief of our military and the heads of each branch of service endorsing such things, you really have to ask questions.

Yes you do. Like why aren't they obeying their legal commanders. The military isn't supposed to set national policy, it's their to enforce it.

That was the concern, but I believe that the RAAF has been given fairly clear cut strike missions for this reasons. Like hitting a pure military target in the middle of fucking nowhere rather than a potential target in a built up area.

Which is smart if you can't depend on them.

That was actually the order given by the brass, "disregard any orders which may result in civilian casualties" or words to that effect.

Which is a sensible goal carried to something of an extreme.

Yes, the ROE set by the ADF on a mission tasked to him by what I'm assuming was American Command. Its interesting how forces interact, no?

Yeah, it sure is.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-03-27 02:06am

weemadando wrote:
Yes, the ROE set by the ADF on a mission tasked to him by what I'm assuming was American Command. Its interesting how forces interact, no?

Coalition warfare can be very complex. The coalition that was formed to defeat Napoleon in 1813-1814 is an interesting study in that, and how it was kept together, for example.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-03-27 02:29am

Ando,

I'm not up on what's happening politically in Austrlia. I take it from your posts that the military is not happy about the government's decision to join the coalition or there is some sort of rift between the folks down under and the government. Sorry if this has been answered somewhere else.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-03-27 04:57am

Stormbringer wrote:
Yeah, but when its the chief of our military and the heads of each branch of service endorsing such things, you really have to ask questions.
Yes you do. Like why aren't they obeying their legal commanders. The military isn't supposed to set national policy, it's their to enforce it.

snip.

They are obeying their legal commanders. However it does appear that the Aussie millitary has had a bit of a tiff with the government. I think you will also find that with Aussies,{ and NZ armed forces}, that their actions tend to reflect national sympathys. So if Howard says one thing and the armed forces think its stupid and immoral they will say so and act accordingly

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-27 08:06am

Personally I believe the military is still rather angry with the Government over the 'children overboard' scandal. And rightly so in my opinion.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not sure if its been posted yet...

Not sure if its been posted yet...

Re: Not sure if its been posted yet...

Re: Not sure if its been posted yet...