Fauci in his own words.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD5WvDJxjVp/?igsh=MTR0bzBvMmpzOTVjag==
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DD5WvDJxjVp/?igsh=MTR0bzBvMmpzOTVjag==
Some of my notes on CG-64 conducting an error with shooting down an F/A-18F in a friendly fire incident. Bear in mind, even with my own expertise in the system, this is still a theory, and too much additional detail gets into highly sensitive territory:
The USS Gettysburg, CG-64, contains an older baseline of the current Aegis combat system, specifically AWS ACB 16 Baseline. 9.2.1 due to the lack of SPY-1(D) but rather equipped with a mix of the older SPY-1(A) or (B) variants. As a result, target discrimination is greatly reduced in capability, especially when compared with a newer Flight IIA and Flight III Arleigh Burke.
One piece of information that didn’t immediately come to light with this situation, but rather reported out a little while later, is that around the time of the friendly fire incident, missions were being conducted that involved our aircraft conducting airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital where the Houthis have been playing target practice with our surface ships, the most famous at the present time being the USS Carney.
Combine the two points above, and there’s a possibility that the Super Hornet was part of a squadron that was returning from one of these missions, and the ship took defensive actions as a result of the Aegis system mistaking the kinematics of the hornet with an incoming cruise missile.
I cannot elaborate further due to the sensitivity of additional information being disclosed, but the likely root cause of this friendly fire incident is a combination of operational and operator error on both sides of the coin. The pilots possibly flew back to the carrier in a way to be initially identified as a hostile threat, and the older Aegis system took action quicker than a CIC sailor can react. Emphasized scrutinization on the IFF and radar returns on the ship will probably take place, as this is a sister of CG-49, famously known for Iran Air Flight 655.
The USS Gettysburg, CG-64, contains an older baseline of the current Aegis combat system, specifically AWS ACB 16 Baseline. 9.2.1 due to the lack of SPY-1(D) but rather equipped with a mix of the older SPY-1(A) or (B) variants. As a result, target discrimination is greatly reduced in capability, especially when compared with a newer Flight IIA and Flight III Arleigh Burke.
One piece of information that didn’t immediately come to light with this situation, but rather reported out a little while later, is that around the time of the friendly fire incident, missions were being conducted that involved our aircraft conducting airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital where the Houthis have been playing target practice with our surface ships, the most famous at the present time being the USS Carney.
Combine the two points above, and there’s a possibility that the Super Hornet was part of a squadron that was returning from one of these missions, and the ship took defensive actions as a result of the Aegis system mistaking the kinematics of the hornet with an incoming cruise missile.
I cannot elaborate further due to the sensitivity of additional information being disclosed, but the likely root cause of this friendly fire incident is a combination of operational and operator error on both sides of the coin. The pilots possibly flew back to the carrier in a way to be initially identified as a hostile threat, and the older Aegis system took action quicker than a CIC sailor can react. Emphasized scrutinization on the IFF and radar returns on the ship will probably take place, as this is a sister of CG-49, famously known for Iran Air Flight 655.
🤔23🫡12👍5❤2
A little follow-up post as I’m watching particularly X and the seemingly endless supply of posts and reactions:
For certain parties “demanding” video of the incident, don’t go looking too hard. Depending on which side the video was recorded (NAVAIR if the Hornet caught it, NAVSEA if the Gettysburg’s cameras were working), the classification level can vary wildly. In either case, you’ll be waiting about 25-50 years for the unredacted version depending on the sensitivity of the equipment and data from this incident. I say this having seen both sides of this particular aisle.
While this incident is by all accounts an embarrassment and wakeup call for all Aegis Systems Engineers and Contractors alike, initial lack of video, under normal circumstances, is not a cause for alarm or conspiracy theories. Classification of sensitive data exists for a reason, and any specifics to the overall operations of the ship and fighter squadrons must be protected.
Lecturing of classification and security aside for “muh video”, complete lack of transparency in this case is wholly unacceptable. This malfeasance constitutes a situation where the US puts its own warfighters into dangerous situations with their own equipment. The government cannot sweep this under the rug, as this violates security principles of using sensitivity levels to hide “embarrassing information”. Keep in mind this also does a disservice to the aforementioned contractors and Engineers, as we can’t effectively design or provide solutions and lessons learned when left in the dark.
If we don’t get answers now, God help us and God hoping Trump’s administration pries this thing wide open. The beginning stages of a global war are unraveling quick and we can’t afford to lose Engineering superiority just to save political face.
For certain parties “demanding” video of the incident, don’t go looking too hard. Depending on which side the video was recorded (NAVAIR if the Hornet caught it, NAVSEA if the Gettysburg’s cameras were working), the classification level can vary wildly. In either case, you’ll be waiting about 25-50 years for the unredacted version depending on the sensitivity of the equipment and data from this incident. I say this having seen both sides of this particular aisle.
While this incident is by all accounts an embarrassment and wakeup call for all Aegis Systems Engineers and Contractors alike, initial lack of video, under normal circumstances, is not a cause for alarm or conspiracy theories. Classification of sensitive data exists for a reason, and any specifics to the overall operations of the ship and fighter squadrons must be protected.
Lecturing of classification and security aside for “muh video”, complete lack of transparency in this case is wholly unacceptable. This malfeasance constitutes a situation where the US puts its own warfighters into dangerous situations with their own equipment. The government cannot sweep this under the rug, as this violates security principles of using sensitivity levels to hide “embarrassing information”. Keep in mind this also does a disservice to the aforementioned contractors and Engineers, as we can’t effectively design or provide solutions and lessons learned when left in the dark.
If we don’t get answers now, God help us and God hoping Trump’s administration pries this thing wide open. The beginning stages of a global war are unraveling quick and we can’t afford to lose Engineering superiority just to save political face.
👍24😢18❤3