Friendly Fire from aircraft

[BigJim]

I find it very unrealistic to have friendly fire (air) in modern battles, this is a VERY rare occassion now what with IFF being wide use by almost every major power

[Pyros]

Hi,

What you described would add (from a designing/programming point of view) an additional variable in the game and this is not an easy task.

Also don't forget that WinSPMBT refers to a period of 70 years and the friendly fire by air assets was a fact in many wars during that period (Vietnam).

cheers,

[PlasmaKrab]

How do you discernate among ground targets FROM an aircraft?
It doesn't look as if much ground-IFF systems were on the field today (but maybe I'm wrong), and if they are or when they'll be, they tend to be more related to ground-to-ground weapons, AT helos at most.

There is no way for a strike aircraft to pick out friendly ground units with IFF, except probably radar stations. IFF is by definition air-to-air and ground-to-air only, because only aircrafts have transponders.
Only way is proper recognition training http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif, and that comes with country training I guess, although you can add experince to your pilots if you like.

Anyway, friendly fire from aircraft IS quite frequent rhight now, some happened during OIF/OEF, and way back in the first Gulf War.

Besides, you must take into account the sped of the aircraft and the time scale involved. One turn is about 3 to 5 minutes. You send a plane strike at one hex, from one direction, and he comes 2 turns (max 10 min.) later, an 500 mph or so, and, tough luck, some of your units are on his way.
Your pilot has about a half minute visibility on the target, probably already programmed the bombing run, what do you expect him to do?
Would you prefer your own planes to break off at the first doubt? Under fire?

Now you will agree that you don't see any friendly fire AGAINST aircrafts, which would be less likely, but can happen.
Anyway, the game has NO friendly fire logic AFAIK, and I don't think one is planned. Aircrafts are just instructed to deal with one target hex, more than often they don't see an enemy unit at all, particularly bombers, and just drop all they have on the target spot and don't give a damn.

On the other hand, you can decrease your chances of friendly fire by carefully planning your entry routes according to where your ground forces are, and always better target a unit that is in someone's sight, and not too close from your forces.

In desperate cases, I guess you could try to raise vision, FC and experience of modern fighters, that may be helpful (?).

Cheers,

Plasma

[Mobhack]

BigJim said:
I find it very unrealistic to have friendly fire (air) in modern battles, this is a VERY rare occassion now what with IFF being wide use by almost every major power



Tell that to the crews of the UK Warriors and CVR(T) shot up in ODS and the recent Iraqui business, and to the various US Bradleys etc shot up in both operations then..

SNAFUS happen, and gee-whiz tech just means that if your gee-whiz IFF transponder goes tits-up, BOTH sides will try to kill you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Oh - and vehicles do not have IFF transponders, in the last iraqui conflict, they had reflective panels.

If the A-10 pilot thinks he is operating in a designated kill zone he may simply ignore the IFF reflective panel check "because everything in this box will be enemy", and go straight to attack mode without the bother of doing a recognition check, because "they must be bad guys".

Anything with human beings in the loop is subject to human errors and hence, SNAFU. Anything that relies on IFF or other gee-whiz tech is also subject to both electronic AND human SNAFU. The electronic SNAFU just tends to kill you a tad faster than the human variety, is all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Navigation errors happen, even with modern GPS. Observers get thier coordinates wrong. Pilots and arty plotters punch the wrong buttons and enter erroneous data which the gee-whiz kit happily munches up.

War and SNAFU are constant companions.


Cheers
Andy

[Pergite]

BigJim said:
I find it very unrealistic to have friendly fire (air) in modern battles, this is a VERY rare occassion now what with IFF being wide use by almost every major power



In 2002, a 500-pound laser-guided bomb was dropped on the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, wounding eight and killing four.

On 28 March 2003 a armoured column was driving near the Shatt al-Arab waterway north of Basra came under fire from a pair of American ground attack aircraft. A trooper named Finney escaped from the burning vehicle. Returned to help his trapped and succeeded in rescuing him. Realising that his comrades inside were all injured, he returned to the vehicle a second time to inform his headquarters of the situation via the radio. He then proceeded to help the wounded safety even while the two aircraft carried out a second attack, hitting Finney in the lower back and legs. Finally, he returned to the scene of the attack a third time to attempt to rescue the injured driver of another burning vehicle. A well deserved GC.

And these wherent even battle related or CAS asignemnts. There have been many close call incdents that never make the offical statistics. Friendly fire is still a huge problem, and going 700knots doesnt make it easier to tell friend from foe.

True, there are IFF systems for ground units, but they arent standarized and I havent encountered it yet.
The problem is that technology alone wont eliminate the possibility of human error and if you order a air strike carelessly then you/someone will have to pay the consequences. The role of a FAC (Forward Air Controller) can be a nightmare in some enviroments, in SPMBT you can just choose an aproach vector and a target hex.

SPMBT however lacks friendly fire between ground troops, but that I guess is out of the game engines capabilities. The only cases is when you fire into the same hex as your troops, but no OP-fire incidents exist.

[DRG]

Pergite said:

SPMBT however lacks friendly fire between ground troops, but that I guess is out of the game engines capabilities. The only cases is when you fire into the same hex as your troops, but no OP-fire incidents exist.



IF you Z key the wrong hex you can FF your own troops and make them very unhappy

Don

[BigJim]

Heh ok the system is unable to handle it, but don't quote me a few "rare" situations and tell me the IFF system doesn't work. Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots). IFF works the same on the ground as it does in the air, barring any RFI. In the first Iraq war we shot up some of our own MBT's because the guys shot up DIDN'T have their's turned on (commander forgot to do it) and the other friendly did and will no "tone" fired on what he thought was an unfriendly target

[DRG]

BigJim said:
I find it very unrealistic to have friendly fire (air) in modern battles, this is a VERY rare occassion now what with IFF being wide use by almost every major power



How close were your troops that got hit to the target hex for the air strike and how close were they to the enemy troops? I have found, from complaints like this in the past, that players generally call in air strikes much closer to their own troops in the game that what would be normal in actual battle situations and that closeness generates more FF incidences.

Has anyone on this list actually called in an air strike in combat?? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this.

Don

[FJ_MD]

Well, I mostly play games in the 50s to 70s and in a lot of situation the aircraft dropped bombs too early or too late but this is part of the war I think! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Marek_Tucan]

I take extreme care of calling in air strikes far enough of my troops since one "good" attack run of Thunderbolt with HVAR's back in good old SP1, altough my tanks survived that one, some of them were quite seriously damaged.

[The Black Captain]

I have a whopper of an anecdote for this topic. Yesterday was playing a Vietnam 1968 battle. My Skyraider attacked a Marine helicopter! That is a little ahistorical.

[Shadowcougar]

Well it seems that flying a airstrike is about the second modt difficult thing you can do as a pilot. I think only a night trap is more difficult.

A F-16 pilot would 1. have to find the target area 2. find the target 3 ID the target. 4. employ his weapons 5. egress the area all without mating with a tree, hill, other aircraft... wlth everyone taking a pot shot at him.. Also he is listening to the FAC yelling in one ear and his wingman yelling in the other ear and remembering what is flight instructor said about Speed is Life.. not a easy task.

the A-10 has much the same issue ecept the Speed is Life issue.. No speeed ... no problem

I use TAC Air away from my forces and alwast being them accross the front of my forces.. never over them.. all it takes is a ARCLIGHT mistake to drive that point home

[Chaim_Krause]

@ Big Jim

If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&biw=1280&q =fratricide+aircraft+iraq+us&btnG=Search)

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0R2Wy4W1FtMJ:www.atwar.net/content.php%3Farticle.144+fratricide+apache+iraq+u s+video&hl=en&lr=lang_en).

[BigJim]

Chaim_Krause said:
@ Big Jim
Lets see if I got your point you think that IFF or the existance of IFF needs tons of research???? As to the last part of your statment thats just silly on the face of it.
If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&biw=1280&q =fratricide+aircraft+iraq+us&btnG=Search)

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0R2Wy4W1FtMJ:www.atwar.net/content.php%3Farticle.144+fratricide+apache+iraq+u s+video&hl=en&lr=lang_en).

[kevin]

OK guys, let's stop beating up on Big Jim here. This is a case where everyone is right.

Fatricide (from the air is extremely rare these days, compared to Vietnam Korea and WWII), but all fatricide has consistently remained the cause of approximately 10% of US casualities from the Revoulutionary War up to ODS. (I don't know the figures from OIF)

Fatricide is a huge problem. Put yourself in the position of the family. Your loved one has died and because of a mistake made by someone on his/her side. I have heard conferences where US Officiers and other lecturers have stated it may be better to pursue tactics that may result in more casualities overall, than to pursue a strategy with a lesser chance of overall casualities, but higher chance of friendly fire. In short: better to loose 25 guys to the enemy than, 10 guys to the enemy and 10 to fratricide for 20 total.

I've never been involved in calling in an airstrike in combat, but have in training. IMHO technological improvements are over-rated as solutions to the problem. They key is communicating. I don't mean having a better radio, I mean having everyone working on the same page. Usually a Forward Line is established. Units on one side are bad guys, units on the other side are good guys. Well, with advancing land troops in pursuit of the enemy, it's easy to cross the line without anyone knowing.

Also, imagine how hard it is to make sure to tell everyone when the line is moved. You have to coordinate between ground forces in combat (platoon, company, Battalion, Brigade, Division, Corps, Area Component commander, CINC) just to determine where the grunts are and how soon to and how far can you advance. The farther up the chain that guestimate is made, the more likely it is to be wrong. Then again, those closest to the action are the youngest and most inexperienced troops.

Okay, a decision is made, you have to send the answer down the ground chain, and then down the air chain: CINC, Air Component Commander, # Air Force, Wing, Squadron, Section, Pilot) Shadowcougar described what it's like for the Tom Cruise wanna-bes in the air.

In summary, it's the network systems, C&C, IVIS, GPS which are the best tools to use, but it is the end users of those tools that ultimately reduce blue on blue.

As far as the game goes..... I like holding my Air back to use against arty. If using it as true CAS, make sure you have a direct spotter, try to go for a target in the open and stay put once the strike is called.

[BigJim]

My point was and still is that in the game you call in an air strike and while over flying your own tanks WELL behind the targeted area and WELL within your own area of control you spot a tank and fire on it. With modern IFF that just doesn't happen much, all the comentary has been directed at CAS with near by friendlys, which of course has cause alot of FF kills and is well documented. That was NOT my point, my point was well answered on the first go round, which was that it would take massive progamming to take it out and not worth the trouble, I accept that.

[Pyros]

Pyros said:
Also don't forget that WinSPMBT refers to a period of 70 years and the friendly fire by air assets was a fact in many wars during that period (Vietnam).

cheers,



Hi people,

I agree with Kevin.

everyone is right http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Just try to be more precise to what you mean.

For example in Korea and Vietnam casualties from friendly fire was a reality.

Even in Desert storm this was a fact.

But what will happen after 2014?

With the new technologies based on military GIS (satellite positioning) and the applications of Future Combat Systems (FCS)sensors the "blue on blue" or "friendly fire" or "fratricide" won't be a serious issue in the futuristic battleground.

In other words BigJim is right concerning dates after 2010! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

So, everyone is happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

cheers,
Pyros

p.s BTW, it would be great if we could discuss the future of these new technologies!

[Pyros]

Gentlemen,

Maybe we should think another aspect of the WinSPMBT game...
Giving the fact that the commander/player has total knowledge of the positioning of all his troops and everything that these troops see, THEN we may assume that in the game the commander takes profit of a limited military GIS (satellite positioning)!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

cheers,
Pyros

p.s I think this makes things a bit more complicated as gameplay interfere with realism, so we must accept that in a game we can't have 100% realism in all the aspects of battle simulation.
p.s Using satellite positioning:
all participants in the battlefield can know where everybody else is at all times

[PlasmaKrab]

Pyros said :
Giving the fact that the commander/player has total knowledge of the positioning of all his troops and everything that these troops see, THEN we may assume that in the game the commander takes profit of a limited military GIS (satellite positioning)!!!


Well, that kind of technology is way easier to work out in video games than on the field. It is even harder indeed not to have total control and vision on the battlefield.

And in SPMBT as in most of these games, the battlefield network is far above the wildest wet dreams of any commo general! But even better than running liaison units allover to have short glimpses of the situation...
Call that gameplay compromises.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Although that would be fine to pour in some identification issues, but I dopubt this would be feasible...


p.s Using satellite positioning:
all participants in the battlefield can know where everybody else is at all times


Nope, that is when you have GPS + instant tactical network + everyone with a computerized interface. There is no advantage in knowing where everyone is, but having to tell them on the radio each time! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
You need something more like the navigational aids you get in cars these days (or in SP howitzers), only networked.
Most of all, you need data transfer. Ask the US guys in Western Asia who have to buy off satellite band from private comm satellites!

[narwan]

kevin said:

Fatricide (from the air is extremely rare these days, compared to Vietnam Korea and WWII), but all fatricide has consistently remained the cause of approximately 10% of US casualities from the Revoulutionary War up to ODS. (I don't know the figures from OIF)





You do realise you're more or less contradicting yourself here? How can it be extremely rare these days and still account for 10% of the casualties?

It SEEMS rare because no combat operations of the kind and on the scale seen in Vietnam, Korea, etc have taken place recently. And yes, I do know about the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but that's exactly what I mean. Those saw only limited conventional combat operations on the ground and for only a relatively short period (days or weeks).
During those relatively short combat campaigns quite a few incidents occurred. And it'll happen again, I'm sure of that.

Technology is NOT the answer here, at best it can be a tool helping the humans using it, but it can also be the cause for unwanted incidents. As someone else pointed out, the more gizmo's the more room for technological error.

narwan

[narwan]

On modern technology, the more data it will generate for combat units the more it will probably influence the battle NEGATIVELY.

Both data and information are near useless for actual combat units (data are just loose parcels of observations, information is structured data where the loose elements are combined and linked). It is only when information becomes KNOWLEDGE that it'll start to help combat units. Knowledge is contextualised information, where the new information is integrated in the total picture.
The difference is that data and information need (a lot of) interpretation before it can be put to use. After doing just that, you end up with knowledge. However, knowledge itself doesn't change a thing about the situation. You have to act upon it, think of something, 'innovate' (innovation is the application of knowledge to change an existing situation).

All of this takes time, a lot of time. Which on the modern battlefield is a scarce thing. The big issue becomes which data, information, knowledge, and innovation (battle plans in this case) should go to what level and part of the militairy machine at which point? So much of it will be generated that it'll easily lead to 'swamping' officers and troops with info that's useless to them. And a single bottleneck can cripple the entire effort.

Think of the office worker who spends 3 hours a day going through his emails of which 3/4 aren't relevant to him or his actual work. Wasting time like this can be deadly on the modern battlefield.

More data and information is not always a good thing, just like more options on a computer (program) does NOT make it more user friendly (a mistake many programmers still make!).

Narwan

[Pyros]

What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Mobhack]

Pyros said:
What if some day the soldier will be nothing more than a weapon platform carrying intelligent weapons, smart ammo and sensors? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



Then - read "Starship Troopers" and avoid the poxy movies made that merely used the name while almost completely ignoring the original Heinelen book they were allegedly based on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

In any case - getting way off topic for the game now.

Cheers
Andy

[Pyros]

PlasmaKrab said:

Pyros said :
p.s Using satellite positioning:
all participants in the battlefield can know where everybody else is at all times


Nope, that is when you have GPS + instant tactical network + everyone with a computerized interface. There is no advantage in knowing where everyone is, but having to tell them on the radio each time! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
You need something more like the navigational aids you get in cars these days (or in SP howitzers), only networked.
Most of all, you need data transfer. Ask the US guys in Western Asia who have to buy off satellite band from private comm satellites!



I know but I just want to generalize the basics...
First time I read articles concerning the command & control battlefield of the future was back in 1996 (reading JANES) while going on a mission to the Aegean sea http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[narwan]

Ahhhh, Heinlein, I have a whole row of them in my bookcase.... Startship troopers is one of my favourites.

But the starship troopers view of soldiering doesn't really change the problem. If the trooper only carries the smart weapons, there's still the question where he carries them, what targets he picks, and to what degree he can trust his sensors. It is sometimes surprisingly easy to fool these.
During the Kosovo campaign for example NATO used technology that could identify the shapes of tanks and other AFV's (as opposed to humans having to poor over the pictures). To verify that these were actual vehicles and not decoys they verified it with heat sensing data to see if the vehicle had an actual engine (different signature from the rest of the vehicle). Then they had a smart missile (worth hundreds of thousands) fired at the target. Which often was nothing more than the silhouette of a tank painted on the road with a big container of water placed on the area where the engine would be.

narwan

[Chaim_Krause]

BigJim said:

Chaim_Krause said:
@ Big Jim
Lets see if I got your point you think that IFF or the existance of IFF needs tons of research???? As to the last part of your statment thats just silly on the face of it.
If you are going to make statements like that, back them up with facts. Fratricide is a huge problem (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&biw=1280&q =fratricide+aircraft+iraq+us&btnG=Search)

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0R2Wy4W1FtMJ:www.atwar.net/content.php%3Farticle.144+fratricide+apache+iraq+u s+video&hl=en&lr=lang_en).




No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

[BigJim]

I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????

ps I would love to try some senario's by you and I am not offended by those who disagree with me

Chaim_Krause said:

BigJim said:
[huge problem (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&biw=1280&q =fratricide+aircraft+iraq+us&btnG=Search)

And speed doesn't have anything to do with it. Aircraft have blue on blue even at a hover (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0R2Wy4W1FtMJ:www.atwar.net/content.php%3Farticle.144+fratricide+apache+iraq+u s+video&hl=en&lr=lang_en).




No, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the existence or use of IFF needs research. I am saying your claim that air-to-ground blue-on-blue is rare needs research. You make a statement and don't back it up with data. FYI, I work at CGSC and it is my job to make sure simulations are an accurate representation of the battlefield as I assist the college's faculty to instruct our Army's Majors. I have seen many documented cases of blue-on-blue and have heard many second-hand stories from soldiers and Marines who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a very big problem. If you are going to claim it is rare, what is your source? Where did you get your data? That is what needs research, not the existence or use of IFF systems.

As for my comment on speed, you said "Sure there will be some foul ups but in the main the system works (even at 700 knots ESPECIALLY at 700 knots)." My point is that speed is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an airplane doing 700 knots or a helicopter sitting at a hover. Decision time is what is relevant. The longer a pilot has to process the facts, the more chance he has to recheck his assumptions and lower the chance of blue-on-blue.

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I am glad you are here. WinSPMBT is a great game and I am glad you like it. Maybe I can make some scenarios you'd like.

[/quote]

[Pergite]

BigJim said:
I guess you missed my point, I cannot produce any data of blue on blue in the situation I depicted cause it doesn't happen. Perhaps you can provide some cases of blue on blue in a "friendly" zone of control, where a pilot fired on his own assets while over flying them on the way to his assigned area of mission?????




I allready did... and the pilot even asked for permission to engage and was denied. Afghanistan 2002. The Canadian soldiers were conducting a live-fire training exercise in a recognized training area. They where bombed with a LGB.
In a separate incident was when a pilot dropped a 500-pund bomb on some other canadiens during a training accident.

Then there was a B-52 bomber that dropped a 2,000-pound guided bomb on positions manned by ground troops who were directing air strikes against nearby Taliban targets. Or when a BBC team acompanying SF tropps in northern Iraq was attacked.

Put all this in a hostile combat enviroment and you will have to multiply the accidents bigtime.

I however dont know what you in this case argue as a friendly zone of control.
And once again, NO, there are no standardized groundbased automatic IFF system in use...yet.

[kevin]

I meant that as a % of overall fatricide casualties, airstrikes have gone down. Fatricide still exists in the form of bad arty coordinates, panic fire from troops, etc.

[BigJim]

Ok I take it then that the pilot was American and fired on Canadian troops because they either had different IFF's or none at all??? You must admit tho that this is RARE situation. I live in Tucson, right near the A-10 Base those guys fly "hot" training missions all the time and I have yet to hear of a "blue on blue" situation out here. Anyhow I guess the point is moot, the game allows it to happen and it's not a big enough deal to warrant the work it would take to program it out.

Thanks for you input tho, I was taken a back by your reports and I have no doubt that they are correct.

[junk2drive]

I have become so leery of FF from the air in all the wargames that I won't use it unless I have a large enemy unit in LOS. Even then in SP the aircraft my target an ammo dump instead of a tank or apc.

[Pyros]

Hi,
Lately I am testing the use of air strikes (Korea era) and my advice would be to always be cautious when assigning air-strikes near areas with a lot of smoke.
In clear areas the pilots may efficiently choose their targets (priority to armored units).

[Shadowcougar]

It is an uncommon occurrence. It has happen since the first aircraft attacked the ground target. It also happens in ground combat and well as naval operations.

In Operation Cobra the USAAF destroyed Panzer Lear and a US Inf battalion that was dropped on.

Remember that most pilots don't like CAS. Only in the USMC and the Warthog community is it an everyday mission.

Also… there is no such thing as friendly fire. Bombs and rockets have no friends... only those who use them and those who get hit by them.

[PlasmaKrab]

IFF are meant to be standard. Otherwise what is the point of NATO? And why would all the Eastern Europe countries spending big bucks to upgrade their frces to NATO standard, among else by fitting the standard IFF on their aircrafts.

And once more, to this day no ground unit apart from AADs have IFF transponder/reciever. That is why pilots have recognition classes, and that is why human error and info gaps lead to (fatal) errors. A patrolling pilot seeing soldiers and armor fighting in some forelorn desert corner will rather distrust his IFF, or admit that the bad guys got hands on some transponders anyhow, than assume some fellows if his are exercising and he wasn't told. I don't know the details of this canadian business but I guess that was something similar (except for the non-existent IFF).

So here you are, Jim! Anyway in the game you can lower your friendly fire rae by picking carefully your entry routes, strike points and aircraft loadouts: don't take a Maverick-armed tank buster when you're the only one with tanks, and don't send a CBU or napalm drop two hexes from your forward line.

That should keep you from too much unwanted damage!
But I have to reassure you, the subject pops up quite regularly!

Regards

[Shadowcougar]

I also try to make sure the airstrike comes acrross the front of my forces and more than 6 hexes away. I have noticed that artt wil drift at most 6 hexes and I hope that the aircraft do the same.

Only had to have a cell of B-52's hit my front lines once to adapt the 6 hex rule.