A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Aussiegunnerreturns RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes 7/3/2006 5:22:44 AM

"Greatest Air Disasters" had an episode on this event a couple of months ago. Apparently the Vincennes' crew was distracted while engaging Iranian gun boats that were hitting a Pakistani tanker at the time and mistook the airliner for an F-14 as it approached. Other factors were that, 1. there were F-14's operating from the same airfield as the airline, so the ship picked up one of their IFF's from exactly the same direction as the airliner came from. 2. the airliner was an hour late so it wasn't in the log of scheduled flights that the ship had on board. 3. The crew member looking at the radar scope experienced some sort of psychological phenomenon that occurs during periods of high stress, where the sailor thought that the worse possible outcome(in this case that the aircraft diving into attack, while it was actually strait and level), appear to be occuring. 4. The ship also wasn't equiped to communicate on civilian air freqencies, so it couldn't raise a response from the airliner. Basically as far as I can see the crew followed all the proceedures, which turned out to be deficient when they were tested in the fog of war. That happens a lot in armed forces all over the world, so I don't think they are to blame. The report made a big deal of the fact that the ship had chased the gunboats into Iranian waters, which I think was a cheap shot at the Captain. After all, the gun boats were attacking neutral shipping... personally I wouldn't have begrudged the yanks if they had sent a (conventionally armed) TLAM at their base.

Quote Reply

AussieEngineer RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes 7/3/2006 6:05:23 AM

I saw a documentary on it not long ago and I'd have to say I would have done exactly the same thing as the Captain of the Vincennes did. Every bit of information he recieved seemed to indicate an attacking aircraft.

Quote Reply

tjkhan RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes 7/3/2006 6:48:27 AM

I had decided not to publish the balance of the Wikipedia article, but for completeness, I now will. You will see that the "fog of war" scenario may have been self induced, if you are to accept some of the material in the Wikipedia article. I have to say I have difficulty with the 'it was just one of those things" approach. This was 290 people who died, .... I will say little more for fear of once again offending the all seeing and all knowing SYSOPS. Anyway, read on, I am sure everyone will have their own views on the matter: "U.S. government accounts According to U.S. government accounts, the Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane as an attacking military fighter. The officers identified the flight profile being flown by the A300B2 as being similar to that of an Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force F-14A Tomcat during an attack run.(*) According to the same reports the Vincennes tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement. At 10:24 am, with the civilian jet 11 nautical miles away, the Vincennes fired two SM-2ER Surface-to-air missiles. The first missile broke the aircraft in two and damaged the tailplane and right wing. After the engagement, the Vincennes' crew realized that the plane had been a civilian airliner. This version was finalized in a report by Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988.[1] Only parts of this report have been released (part I in 1988, part II in 1993), a fact criticized by many observers. The unclassified version of a Congressional report of a U.S. Navy investigation headed by Admiral William Fogarty did not accurately show the location of the USS Vincennes some 2 NM (4 km) inside Iranian territorial waters. (*) An Airbus A300B2 is 177 feet long (54.08 m), nearly three times as long as an F-14, which is 61 ft 9 in long (18.6 m). Analysis of the radar return's strength can tell them apart, but this is not done in a busy environment because of the time it requires. [citation needed] Independent sources Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up.[2] An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[3] On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice concluded that the U.S. Navy's actions in the Persian Gulf at the time had been unlawful. Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[4] This contradicted earlier Navy claims. Captain David Carlson, commander of the USS Sides, the warship stationed nearby the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago" - referring to incidents on June 2, when Rogers had sailed the Vincennes too close to an Iranian frigate undertaking a lawful search of a bulk carrier, launched a helicopter within 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) of an Iranian small craft despite rules of engagement requiring a four-mile (6.4 km) separation, and opened fire on a number of small Iranian military boats. Of those incidents, Carlson commented, "Why do you want an Aegis cruiser out there shooting up boats? It wasn't a smart thing to do." At the time of Rogers' announcement to higher command that he was going to shoot down the plane, Carlson is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have been thunderstruck: "I said to folks around me, 'Why, what the hell is he doing?' I went through the drill again. F-14. He's climbing. By now this damn thing is at 7,000 feet." However, Carlson thought the Vincennes might have more information, and was unaware that Rogers had been wrongly informed that the plane was diving. Radio frequencies Throughout its final flight IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before the Vincennes launched its missiles. The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency. Subsequently U.S. Navy warships in the area were equipped with dialable VHF radios, and access to flight plan information was sought, to better track commercial airliners. The official ICAO report stated that 10 attempts were made to contact Iran Air 655, seven on military frequencies, three on commercial frequencies and addressed to the supposed "Iranian F-14". Possibly relevant factors The ship's crew did not efficiently consult commercial airliner schedules because they were not sure to which time zone they referred. An Iranian P-3 was in the area a while before the attack, providing an unlikely potential explanation for the lack of target acquisition radar interrogation[5] It was first claimed that Flight 655 deviated from the centre of its air corridor, an unusual occurrence with commercial flights - namely that it was 3.35 NM off the 10 NM-wide corridor at the time of shoot-down. It is further claimed that this deviation had it bearing straight at the Vincennes. It is unclear how much of this deviation was true, and how much was claimed to obscure the Vincennes' position within Iranian territorial waters. It is claimed that a Mode II IFF squawk of 21100 was mistakenly attributed to the Airbus track, identifying it as an Iranian military aircraft (commercial aircraft respond with Mode III squawks). However this was not the case: according to the official military report the flight was in fact using the correct squawk mode. The Vincennes simply either heard it wrong or believed it was a military plane using Mode III 36760 to deceive them. It has since been assumed that the tracking device used to identify IFF squawks was left in the original postition of Flight 655 when first sighted, which had subsequently moved, confusing the Flight 655 squawk with that of an Iranian F-14 fighter within the area. The Bandar Abbas airport was shared between commercial and military aircraft at that time. The crew of the Vincennes' Combat Information Center (CIC) confusingly reported the plane as ascending and descending at the same time (there were two "camps"). This seems to have happened because the Airbus' original CIC track, number 4474, had been replaced by the Sides' track, number 4131, when the computer recognised them as one and the same. Shortly thereafter, track 4474 was re-assigned by the system to an American A-6, several hundred miles away, which was following a descending course at the time. Apparently not all the crew in the CIC realized the track number had been switched on them. This incident took place just over a year after the USS Stark was attacked in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi Mirage F-1, costing 37 lives. The psychology and mindset after engaging in a battle with Iranian gunboats (*) might have contributed to the mistakes made. The actual reasons for the Vincennes' engagement with gunboats is not so clear to this date. Software development expert Steve McConnell claimed: Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes' Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of the Aegis user interface. (Professional Software Development, page 166) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (*) There are claims that Vincennes was engaged in an operation using a decoy cargo ship to lure Iranian gunboats to a fight. However, those claims are denied by Fogary in "Hearing Before The Investigation Subcommittee and The Defense Policy Panel of The Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, July 21, 1992". Also, the initial claims of Vincennes being called for help a cargo ship attacked by Iranian gunboats have been ruled out. That leads to claims that the Iranian gunboats were provoked by Helicopters inside Iranian waters and not the other way around.[6] Medals awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrong-doing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologised, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[2] According to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high-ranking officers upon successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement. The incident continued to overshadow U.S.-Iran relations for many years. Following the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 six months later, the British and American governments initially blamed the PFLP-GC, a Palestinian militant group backed by Syria, with assumptions of assistance from Iran in retaliation for Iran Air Flight 655.[7] The cause of the crash was later determined to be a bomb associated with the Libyan intelligence service, though an Iranian group had claimed responsibility for it.[citation needed] The Flight 655 incident has often been compared to that of Korean Air Flight 007 interception by the Soviet Air Force in 1983. Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush declared a month later, "I will never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are." [8][9][10][11] Compensation On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$ 61.8 million in compensation ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner) for the 248 Iranians killed in the shootdown. This was an agreed settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice.[12] The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for the incident. The United States has not compensated Iran for the airplane itself, to date. The aircraft was worth more than $30 million."

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes 7/3/2006 8:06:00 AM

What always fascinated me about this was the difference between it & the flight 007 tragedy. That was taken as more proof of the absolute evil of the USSR. The Reagan Admin made it clear that the shooting down of that flight could only have been a deliberate act of mass murder. Of course, they failed to mention the US spy plane that had overflown the same area less that 1 hour before, or that it is exceptionally hard to tell exactly what aircraft is what at night. There was also little mention that the area was one of extreme military sensitivity where it was not unusual for either US spy planes to fly over or even US carrier aircraft to feign attacks (I don't recall the exact name for it) to test Soviet response times. As in the Gulf, this was an area where everyone was on edge. In the end the downing of flight 007 was the result of the errors of even fewer people than flight 665. Essentially a couple of pilots & ground controllers under pressure. Of course, the Soviets were 'evil', the Americans 'mistaken'. Guess it all depends where you stand. Funny how little some things about the world change. You'd think some people would learn. I've tried to

Quote Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - BF 7/3/2006 8:44:00 AM

"What always fascinated me about this was the difference between it & the flight 007 tragedy. That was taken as more proof of the absolute evil of the USSR. The Reagan Admin made it clear that the shooting down of that flight could only have been a deliberate act of mass murder." There are some similarities between the two scenarios, but they are pretty vague. An individual spy plane flying around the edge of a superpower's airspace cannot be construed to be an immediate threat to life or limb, in the same way as an aircraft directly approaching a warship in a warzone. The justification for taking an a shot at all is highly debateable and is non-existant without visual ID. Do you really think that it would be too much of an ask for an SU-15 to fly by and eyeball a lumbering airliner/spyplane before shooting? In contrast, the sailors in the Persian gulf who were protecting neutral shipping from unprovoked aggression, thought that their arse's were on the line. I've never had my arse on the line like that, but I'm pretty sure that it would encourage you to make a quick decision where mistakes might happen. As for Reagan's propaganda about the "evil" Soviets, so what? Government's demonise their strategic opponents for doing things that are similar in some respects to their own actions all the time... whoopie frickin' doo. He didn't win the Gulf war by always being nice you know, just like we aren't going to win this current conflagration by having a love-in with the radical Muslims.

Quote Reply

southern cross RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - BF 7/3/2006 8:54:23 AM

And lets not forget that at the exact moment of the incident the Vincennes was engaged against Iranian vessels, so the possibility of being attacked from the air was a very real one. As far as I know the Soviet planes were not fighting another battle simultaneously. I'm not trying to say the Americans mistake was not as great or not as tragic, I am just trying to put the supposed similarities into context.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/3/2006 9:01:49 AM

"I have to say I have difficulty with the 'it was just one of those things" approach. This was 290 people who died, ...." So do I. I have great difficulty accepting that the Iranians put their own citizens at risk in such a way by attacking neutral shipping (from a fellow Muslim nation, Pakistan) and the US warships that were protecting it. I have difficulty with the Iranian airline sending its plane through a warzone, that was partially of its own countries making. I have difficulty accepting an article from an online encyclopedia that anybody can update as being credible, especially when it is referenced with such informed and unbiased sources as a couple of newsweek reporters and "Fisk, 2005". I have difficulty accepting the critisism of a US sea captain who comes out and bags one of his collegues, when he didn't have the brains to send one radio call over questioning why his collegue was going to shoot down an aircraft flying at over 7000feet(a bit of guilt or arse covering perhaps?). I have difficulty with the obsessive drive of some people to critisise the US for everything it has done, even when it is patently obvious that what it was doing at that time was protecting lives of people from many countries and ensuring global economic security by ensuring that the Persian gulf states could continue to sell their oil, and the rest of the world could continue to buy it. Nope, it wasn't just one of those things. It was all about the bunch of psychopaths running Iran playing war games and getting lots of people killed in the process.

Quote Reply

tjkhan RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/3/2006 4:47:54 PM

Aussiegunnerreturns said: "I have difficulty with the obsessive drive of some people to critisise the US for everything it has done, even when it is patently obvious that what it was doing at that time was protecting lives of people from many countries and ensuring global economic security by ensuring that the Persian gulf states could continue to sell their oil, and the rest of the world could continue to buy it. Nope, it wasn't just one of those things. It was all about the bunch of psychopaths running Iran playing war games and getting lots of people killed in the process." The hyperbole is just grand, but adds little to the discussion. It is true that the shoot down occured at a time of heightened tensions, no doubt about that, but that plane was shot down...prima facie that's a big problem. Additionally, it now seems clear either or both of the Sides and/or Vincennes were maneuvering in Iranian territorial waters....another problem I think. What else...contrary to your assertion, this was not a "war zone"...no state of war existed. The US had issued various warnings, but that, from any perspective did not absolve the US of responsibility...it's like standing in the middle of a car park and saying "I have a gun, anyone who moves is dead". There is no defence available to a subsequent shooting in "well I told them I would shoot". At the end of the day the question to be answered is whether the ROEs operating at that time were appropriate, and I have to say, in busy airspace over the Gulf, they appear not to have been. If you have difficulty with this, go to the congressional sources, some of which are available on line, and see what you then think. Naturally, I accept that you and others may not share my disquite over this incident, but don't serve up the "you're just bashing the US line", it really does become tiresome.

Quote Reply

tjkhan RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/3/2006 5:09:35 PM

Recognising that I am responding in a sense to my own thread, I should just note your earlier comments, which were: Aussiegunnerreturns "Other factors were that, 1. there were F-14's operating from the same airfield as the airline, so the ship picked up one of their IFF's from exactly the same direction as the airliner came from. 2. the airliner was an hour late so it wasn't in the log of scheduled flights that the ship had on board. 3. The crew member looking at the radar scope experienced some sort of psychological phenomenon that occurs during periods of high stress, where the sailor thought that the worse possible outcome(in this case that the aircraft diving into attack, while it was actually strait and level), appear to be occuring. 4. The ship also wasn't equiped to communicate on civilian air freqencies, so it couldn't raise a response from the airliner." Now assuming your summary of the show is correct (and I no reason to doubt what you say) then surely it points to at least part of the problem...the crew were not equiped to operating in a low intensity conslict environnment, particlulary when combined with high air traffic. That said, there are a couple of points I should add: 1) The assumption that the plane was one hour late may be incorrect. The ships clock was apparently set to Bahrain time, which is not the same as Iranian time, 2) The schedules the Americamns were working off were for scheduled departure times (that is the time leave the departure gate), not takeoff times (wheels leaving the ground)...just what difference that makes to the actual time that makes I am not certain, In that respect I will quote from some of Admiral Fogarty's evidence to Congress on this issue: "A few comments are in order with regard to commercial airline schedules in relation to deconfliction: Flights could vary from appointed times by taking off early or late (the latter being more likely), or by the addition of unscheduled flights. Most important, however, a flight schedule covering a joint military/civilian airfield it nearly useless in a tactical situation where the sortie of military aircraft on a combat mission would be made without regard to scheduled airline traffic, or use scheduled airline departure times for tactical cover. Therefore, I did not consider the issue of commercial airline schedules germane to the Vincennes investigation. It has been said that there were six critical fundamental considerations to the incident that then CO of Vincennes could neither control nor discount: Vincennes was engaged in intense surface action with Iranian gunboats. The unidentified assumed hostile contact had taken off from an airfield used by military aircraft. The flight was heading directly at Vincennes and its range was relentlessly closing. The unknown aircraft radiated no definitive radar emissions. Vincennes warnings went unacknowledged and unanswered. The compression of time gave him an extremely short decision window, less than 5 minutes. Additionally, it was only prudent for Captain Rogers to assume that the contact was related to his engagement with the Iranian boats until proven otherwise ? the proof never came." What is prudent for a Commander to "assume" in the heat of battle does not relieve those who set the ROEs and placed the ship and crew in that environment of responsibility.

Quote Reply

MustangFlyer RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/3/2006 10:03:21 PM

Not to forget that the US was there to protect Iraqi tankers.That was back when he was 'our boy' and the good guy. Wikipedia as well: The Tanker War and U.S. entanglement Upon invading Iran on 22 September 1980, then-Iraqi President Sadd�m Hussein boasted he would be in Tehran in 3 days.The United States had been wary of the Tehran regime since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the detention of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979?81 Iran hostage crisis. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons [1]. Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War." Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war. An Iraqi plane accidentally attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21.[2] But U.S. attention was on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. In October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged tanker Sea Isle City.[3] On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.[4] In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[5] . The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident but never apologised.

Quote Reply

DropBear RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes 7/3/2006 11:37:02 PM

Interesting how the nickname for the Vincennes in USN service is "Robocruiser". Apparently other ships reckon it was a trigger happy ship. I saw a doco on it years ago and whilst engaging boghammers they were themselves warned off by a very prim and proper Pom from the Omani Navy. Seems Vincennes didn't bother recognising sovereign territorial waters. Tsk tsk tsk. You reap what you sow.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunnerreturns RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/4/2006 4:50:07 AM

TJ, 1. Whether or not you agree with the ship being in Iranian waters is really irrelevant to the central issue of the aircraft being shot down. The same thing could happen over international waters. In fact, if the ship was 4nm back it well still have. Personally, I don't see how anybody can believe that a defending force chasing gunboats that are attacking a neutral, civilian ship into the waters of the aggressor country is problematic. Destroying them before they can come back and kill more innocent merchant sailors is perfectly reasonable, IMO. 2. There was nothing wrong with the USN ROE's used on that day. The ROE's basically said that if an aircraft is adopting a posture that indicates that the threat to the USN or the ships it was escorting was imminant and cannot be identified as harmless, then shoot it down. That is perfectly reasonable. The problem was with the identification proceedure and supporting equipment(next point), not the ROE's. 3. There were problems with the identification proceedures and equipment, when it came to operating in a complex environment involving multiple threats and lots of mixed civilian/military traffic. However, you name a workplace where mistakes don't happen, then have to be corrected through experience? You can have the best proceedures and equipment in place in the theoretical sense, but only real practice will prove whether they work or not. For most people who don't work in jobs that involve human life that situation is not as disturbing. However, in jobs like the military learning on the job does cost lives and that sucks but it is inevitable. Those jobs also tend to be the ones that occur in a complex, unpredictable, rushed environment, which contributes a lot to the risks involved. For instance, he same principles applies in other areas where lives are at stake like acute healthcare where I work. It is increadibly disturbing when people are blindsided by a systemic error that costs a life, but you can do is your best and make sure you learn from it and don't repeat it. Had the USN fired a missile under such circumstances before and not learned the lesson, then I would have a harsher judgement(like I do of the US ground forces for forgetting about COIN from Vietnam, which has made the current problems in Iraq worse than they need be). However, in this situation they did the best they could and don't deserve to be blasted for it. 4. What was eminantly avoidable was the creation of a situation where the USN had do send ships to protect neutral merchant shipping in one of the most strategically vital waterways in the world. To put it bluntly, Iran shouldn't have indiscriminatly been hitting ships. They also added to the risk of one of civilian facilities by locating military aircraft on civilian facilities. So, the worst thing that anybody can accuse the USN of in this incident is not having a crystal ball, with which they can prepare themselves for all eventualities. However, the Iranians can be held directly accountable for acting maliciously in a way that led to a great loss of civilian life. It is the inability/unwillingness of people to make that distinction that makes me strongly suspect bias and I stand by my comments to that effect, whether you want to call them hyperbole or not.

Quote Reply

MustangFlyer RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/4/2006 5:44:50 AM

Well the Iraq's were doing that as well (actually I think they started doing it first), but we didn't do anything about it (oh the suppose we in the West did, we sold them the equipment to make WMD). Two, The Aegis system is the most sophisticated ship based radar system in the world. If it can't tell the difference between an Airbus climbing and a F-14 diving to attack then you have to question its effectiveness. Alternatively the system was good and the people using it were very poor.

Quote Reply

southern cross RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/4/2006 6:58:53 AM

I guess it's easy to sit safely in your study/den and judge over long minutes of thought, but the fact is the CO of the Cruiser didn't have that luxury, he had to make a life/death decision based on the information he had, and he has had to live with it ever since.

Quote Reply

tjkhan RE:A bit of history: 3 July 1988: The Downing of Iranian Flight 655 by USS Vincennes - TJ 7/4/2006 7:38:03 AM

southern cross: "I guess it's easy to sit safely in your study/den and judge over long minutes of thought, but the fact is the CO of the Cruiser didn't have that luxury, he had to make a life/death decision based on the information he had, and he has had to live with it ever since." With respect, you miss the point. Of course decisions have to be made, and naturally sometimes those decisions will be wrong...put simply, that's the life experience. My concerns are: 1) Notwithstanding what else is said, Vincennes was itself engaged in provocative actions. You could hardly expect the Iranians to sit back once Vincennes and Sides approached and then entered Iranian territorial waters. We all know that the Iranians were playing provocative games (in the context of the ongoing Iran-Iraq War), but the US knew where they were, and also that Bandar Abbas was a civilian, as well as military, airport. Knowing that, a missile was fired and it struck a civilian aircraft. 2) Irrespective of what decisions were made on the ship, the USN failed to set in place an appropriate set of ROEs for action in a busy air and seaway. 3) The decision to fire in this instance must be disguished from those instances when civilian casualties are incurred during a state of war between two combatant nations. In this case, America was not at war with Iran, and the ROEs did not appropriately reflected that situation. I recognise that this incident took place only a couple of months after Operation Praying Mantis however. 4) What would have happened if, having entered Iranian waters, Vincennes had either struck a mine or been struck by an Iranian silkworm missile. You can talk about "sitt(ting) safely in your study/den and judg(ing) over long minutes of thought" the actions of the CO, but the sad reality is, the actions of the Vincennes could have resulted in the equivalent of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. 4) You are correct when you say that the CO has to live with his decsion...the pilot, crew and passengers of flight 655 didn't have that opportunity. Let's face it, if the situation had been that the airline shot down was American, the response by the US administration would have been entirely different. The CO, within days, would have been relieved of his command and court martialled. I doubt you would have heard one word about "the fog of war". Similarly, if the ship that launched the missile had been Iranian, and the aircraft shot down had been American I doubt we would be having this discussion, what we would have been talking about is where and when the invasion took place. Or do you think I'm wrong there?

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us