One of the villains in Goldeneye or Goldfinger or another Bond movie
I suppose it’s entirely possible that Qatar decided to risk the wrath of the United States (under Trump, a notoriously vindictive and hotheaded man) in order to slightly reduce the number of jets the US has access to. Do you find that at all likely though?
It’s possible to infer a few things from the facts as reported.
Friendly fire means the weapons engaging the aircraft were US-made. Almost certainly Patriot PAC-3 air defense systems. Pretty capable, especially up against targets that are in its original design intent: full-sized airplanes. (Instead of drones or ballistic missiles.)
The aircraft were apparently on patrol over friendly territory, so almost certainly not expecting to be lit up by air-defense radars, especially US-made ones.
The IFF failure or other operational miss on the part of the Kuwaiti Air Force’s air defense systems definitely needs to be examined, but I doubt we’ll learn much very soon.
Does Kuwait not have any systems made by anyone else?
Iran has attacked the US Embassy at Riyadh with a UAV.
Not after the Gulf War.
We kinda captured their market by helping them rebuild. The Iraqis took or destroyed anything that may have been from anyone else.
This is probably for the best.
Not really. It means attacking a friend in an attempt to attack a foe. The origin of the weapons doesn’t make a difference.
In this setting, friendly fire is using US-made weapons, since that’s pretty much all Kuwait has.
Yeah but if the planes were intentionally shot down by rogue Kuwaiti forces, that wouldn’t be friendly fire.
To lose one plane may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
This wasn’t really “three times”, though. It was all one incident, where the three planes were presumably all flying in formation, and shot down together. It’s not like an AA operator would say “I think those two planes are enemies, but that third one with them might be a friendly”.
Is the Qatari AA that much better than anything Iran has, or were the planes basically sitting ducks because they thought they were in friendly skies?
I’m guessing the latter. The F-15s would presumably be taking no evasive type action when in friendly skies - no flying nap of the earth, etc.
I may be getting this from old Tom Clancy novels but I am under the impression that Kuwait does not possess the world’s most… skilled military. Lots of very shiny equipment and no one who knows how to use it. Well, they know where the “launch” button is at least.
Kuwait uses the PATRIOT air defense system, same radars, launchers, and missiles. Top shelf equipment.
The F-15s were likely flying an anti-drone mission. Low speed and altitude so the fighters don’t overfly the drones. Being low means even a radar warning in the cockpit is too late. Slow reduces the fighter’s ability to maneuver (it’s designed to go against other fighters and missiles).
We don’t have enough information to assign any blame.
Here’s a link to past friendly incidents.
Remember what Hegsworth said about the fog of war?
Why not? Part-time leading seems to be working out well for Rama X.
Spain says bases in its territory cannot be used for attacks against Iran.
No linke for this, sorry. The UK’s prime minister has stated the US and UK are working in collective defense now that a British base has been attacked.
My question: How soon before a call to NATO involvement is issued?
NATO is not going to get involved.
Evidently two NATO members are and one is using the term collective defense.
But, yes, I, too, doubt NATO itself will get involved. I can see, though, the US president making the call, expecting it to be rejected, and then using that as an excuse for abandoning NATO.
If there’s any interest in discussing that scenario, I’d be happy to start a thead.