Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth)@adamscochran
The F-15 “friendly fire” claim is either *lie* or a US command failure. But something is OFF.
After talking to experienced military sources, here’s how we KNOW the reporting is cover:
* Kuwait uses three types of air defense system:
>Patriot
>Improved HAWK
>SHORAD
A SHORAD type air defense would not reliably take down an F-15.
An improved HAWK *could* hit an F-15 BUT because a hawk requires constant radar illumination, the pilot would be alerted to the lock by radar detection, could deploy chaff, activate ECM, and take maneuvers against it. So a hawk striking 3 planes is deeply unlikely.
The Patriot system can reliably strike targets like an F-15, and so we know it’s likely this was the system used.
* Patriot systems rely on multiple ID types to engage a target:
>Radar track behavior rules (it only shoots at things that act like a missile)
>IFF signature (a broadcasted automatic signature between fighter craft and ground systems)
>Link-16 (an integrated system for IDing friendlies in the air space, that is shared via integrated command)
>Air tasking order data (the equivalent of an issued flight route)
* F-15 broadcast an IFF that Patriot batteries can detect when the proper encryption key is shared with allies.
* Kuwaiti Patriot batteries support Link-16 integration with US data when properly shared.
* Our agreement with Kuwait to operate regionally requires sharing all Air Tasking Orders in their air space.
* After a single friendly fire joint emergency command orders would need to be shared with Kuwait.
In order for Kuwait to hit 3 F-15 with Patriot friendly fire in one night would require ALL of the following:
* We didn’t share IFF encryption keys or ID data with them, or were not broadcasting IFF.
* We did not share Link-16 data with them, or Link-16 broadcast capabilities were destroyed.
* We did not share Air Tasking Orders with them.
* We did not share emergency alerts with them after the first ejection took place.
* The area was under extreme barrage of missiles FAR more than reported.
* There was no AWACS data sharing, or no higher level C2 node integration, or these were damaged.
So either:
1) We made an operational decision to ignore our standard practices and leave an ally in the dark, not share data and risk American lives
OR
2) The Iranian attack was *far* more successful than the US let on, and damaged critical ID and comms infrastructure of US assets in Kuwait.
Either way, we are not getting the real story from the US side here.
People with contacts in Kuwait, or active command, should be asking serious questions about this blunder.
As it likely points to a gaping hole in US defense that puts our service members at serious risk!
