THE Ministry of Defence was last night facing searching questions about delays in buying vital new battlefield identification systems after a “friendly fire” incident in Afghanistan in which three British soldiers were killed by United States forces.

The accident, which also left two other UK troops hospitalised, is the latest in a string of “blue on blue” incidents involving US aircraft and UK ground forces, and has heightened British troops’ anxieties about “gung-ho” American tactics.

Damagingly for the MoD, the incident came more than five years after MPs first warned that British lives were being put at risk by delays in designing and ordering new battlefield identification systems meant to avert “fratricide” attacks.

Earlier this year, the public accounts committee of MPs again criticised ministers for making slow progress on the Battlefield Target Identification System, a network of compatible radios and signalling devices meant to identify allied forces to one another.

Joint UK-US exercises to help devise the new systems are due to take place next year, and the MoD does not expect to place even provisional contracts with defence firms until next year at the earliest.

The latest incident took place on Thursday evening near the British base at Kajaki, in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

More than 7,000 UK troops are in the country as part of the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), which is fighting an increasingly deadly war against Taleban insurgents who oppose the elected Afghan government.

The deaths happened after about 90 British soldiers were ambushed on several sides by the Taleban as they conducted a fighting patrol to hunt down insurgents.

The forces, from 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, called for air support from US forces. But when two US F-15 aircraft arrived at the scene, one dropped a bomb directly on to a British position, killing the three soldiers instantly.

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrats’ defence spokesman, said that, while friendly fire incidents could never be eliminated, the tragedy suggested the MoD had not done enough to put precautions in place.

“One can only conclude that they have not tackled the problem at all, if our troops are calling in US air support that then drops bombs on the people it is supposed to be supporting,” he said. “Clearly, there is still something fundamentally wrong with the communications systems here.”

Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow South West and a member of the public accounts committee, said the delay had been partly down to a failure to agree technical standards for communications systems with the US military “A lot of the difficulty seems to be in co-ordinating with the Americans, especially given their more gung-ho style,” he said.

Several British service personnel in Afghanistan echoed those concerns privately. “I just can’t figure out how this has happened - how do you tell the families they were killed by supposed allies?” one soldier told The Scotsman.

Another said: “Whenever I hear we have American jets overhead, I get f****** worried. They just don’t seem to know what they are doing a lot of the time.”

A third said: “They have a different approach to us - they fire first and think later.”

As well as the ISAF mission, a separate US force is active in Afghanistan, hunting down suspected al-Qaeda terrorists along the Pakistani border.

Earlier this month, a senior British commander appealed for US special forces units to be withdrawn from his area in Helmand province, warning that they were killing and alienating many Afghan civilians. He said small teams of special forces relied heavily on air strikes for cover as they were unable to defend themselves against large groups of insurgents.

This is believed to be the second friendly-fire incident involving British troops in Afghanistan. The MoD is still investigating reports that Jonathan Wigley, 21, a Royal Marine, was the victim of allied fire when he was killed in Helmand last December.

And earlier this year, UK-US relations were strained when the Pentagon refused to give to a British coroner a cockpit tape from the US aircraft that killed Lance-Corporal Matty Hull of the Household Cavalry in Iraq in 2003. The tape was eventually leaked and submitted to the inquest, but the incident angered many UK service personnel.

Gerald Howarth, a Tory defence spokesman, warned that the US must offer “full co-operation” over the Afghan incident.

“The events around Matty Hull’s death did real damage to public opinion in the UK, and that cannot be allowed to happen again,” Mr Howarth said.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, said that the MoD would always seek to “learn the lessons” of incidents such as Thursday’s.

But he went on: “I do not want us to get into a situation where we’re blaming each other when, as a matter of fact, US air support has saved our people’s lives on many, many occasions, particularly over the last four months in that very theatre.”

British forces in Afghanistan immediately announced an inquiry into the incident, while the US Embassy in London issued a statement saying: “The United States expresses its deep condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who died, and we wish those who were injured a speedy recovery.”

Christopher Pang, a former NATO official now at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a security think tank in London, warned that the investigation must be transparent.

“The most important thing is that the US authorities investigate this thoroughly and are seen to investigate thoroughly,” he said. “There is a growing awareness that the Afghan mission risks losing both the support of the Afghan population and the electorates in the countries that are providing forces for the mission.”

Paul Smyth, a former RAF commander at the RUSI, said that the nature of the Afghan mission meant ground forces were ever more dependent on air cover.

“As land forces operating in inaccessible and hostile environments place increasing dependence on close air support, the frequency of close air support attacks has increased,” he said.

The latest deaths take the number of British military fatalities in Afghanistan since November 2001 to 73.

Additional reporting by Tim Albone Q & A WHY WERE UNITED STATES FORCES ANYWHERE NEAR BRITISH TROOPS?

Joint activity carried out by military personnel from more than one country is an everyday occurrence, particularly in the part of Afghanistan where the soldiers died.

British air forces carry out air support for US troops and vice versa. Close air support is an operation in which air fighters drop bombs on enemy forces who pose a danger to colleagues on the ground.

In Afghanistan, the threat comes from the Taleban. DID THE AMERICAN PILOTS KNOW BRITISH TROOPS WERE ON THE GROUND?

Yes. “Fighter crews don’t go around indiscriminately attacking the Taleban in areas like this,” explained Tim Ripley, research associate at the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies (CDISS) at Lancaster University.

“Each party involved will have been in contact with the other. They were meant to be in the same place.”

He added that each side would have established verbal and visual contact with the other. WHO TOLD THE PILOTS TO DROP THE BOMB?

Close air support is co-ordinated from the ground by a forward air controller whose job it is to instruct the fighter pilots on where to go and what targets to hit. In this case, the British forward air controller will have been asking the American forces to hit nearby targets. The co-ordinates of the target are read out by the forward air controller to the pilots, who reads them back to confirm before dropping a bomb. WHERE WILL THE INVESTIGATION BEGIN?

The interaction between the British ground troops and the American pilots will have been preserved on the fighter jet’s data recorder. This will yield clues as to whether there was a misunderstanding between the ground controller and the fighter crew.

“The whole procedure of summoning close air support, flying past to establish visual contact and then reading out and reading back the co-ordinates is a carefully rehearsed procedure which should be done by the book on every occasion,” said Mr Ripley. “It will be pretty clear early on where something went wrong.” COULD FAULTY EQUIPMENT BE TO BLAME?

This is extremely unlikely, according to Mr Ripley. “Systems such as this are 99 per cent accurate and there are very few incidences of equipment failure compared with human error. It is possible something may have gone wrong with the bomb itself. If the fins were not attached properly at the air base, this may have caused the bomb to go off target.” WHAT ELSE COULD HAVE GONE WRONG?

Another possibility is that the co-ordinates for the attack location were wrong because of misinterpretation of the GPS equipment by the ground troops - a deadly mistake in which the British forces sealed their own fate.

A third explanation is that the US pilots entered the co-ordinates incorrectly into their own system, despite having read them back correctly over the radio. This possibility could be established by examining information from the fighter jet’s data recorder. COULD THIS BE A DELIBERATE ACT?

Each bomb has a blast radius within which casualties are likely even if they are not hit by the bomb itself.

Sometimes the Taleban are so close that it is impossible to bomb them without risking the lives of soldiers on the ground.

It is possible the British troops believed the risk of being hit by the bomb or its blast radius was less than the risk of being killed by nearby Taleban and that they ordered the American pilots to drop the bomb in a desperate bid to save themselves. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PILOTS NOW?

The pilots involved will now have to be interviewed at length to determine what went wrong. WHAT WERE CONDITIONS LIKE AT THE TIME?

The area is “open and uncluttered”, according to Mr Ripley, and it was not fully dark. “It is unlikely that poor visibility was a factor unless they had already dropped one bomb and the dust and debris from it obscured their vision.”

He said the area was well known to all troops and was full of Taleban forces. “It is like the old Blackadder sketch - you just attack the same area again and again.” WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE… FOUR CASES OF US-INFLICTED DAMAGE February 1991

IN THE first Gulf War a US A-10 “tank-buster” attacked British armoured personnel carriers, killing nine British soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and The Queen’s Own Highlanders.

The victims were: Paul Atkinson, Conrad Cole, Richard Gillespie, Kevin Leech, Lee Thompson, Stephen Satchell, Neil Donald, Martin Ferguson, and John Lang. The number of British soldiers killed in this single incident of “friendly fire” was equal to the total number of coalition soldiers killed by enemy fire in the whole war. March 2003

An American Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado of 13 Squadron, killing the pilot and navigator, Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Ft Lt Kevin Barry Main. The Tornado was returning from a bombing mission when the missile battery unit opened fire, believing the aircraft to be an Iraqi missile. During an inquiry it was discovered that a vital electronic system on both the RAF Tornado and at the US missile battery contributed to the fatal “friendly fire” incident in Iraq. Defence minister Ivor Caplin said there were several contributory factors including failure of the Tornado’s “identification friend or foe” (IFF) system and the “wide classification criteria” for anti-radiation missiles programmed into the Patriot system. March 2003

Lance-Corporal Matty Hull died when his convoy of four British armoured reconnaissance vehicles from the Blues and Royals was attacked near Basra by two US A-10 planes.

The pilot had mistaken the British forces for Iraqis despite orange identification badges on the top of the vehicles. In dramatic footage filmed from the cockpit, a pilot shouts “Get him, get him!” Looking down as a soldier drags comrades from the burning wreckage, he adds: “It looks like he is hauling ass. Ha ha.” The pilot unleashes a second burst of fire before being told over their radio by a pilot in a second plane that they have hit British allies. One pilot is heard to say: “We’re in jail, dude.” His colleague then weeps, adding: “God dammit, f**k me dead.” April 2003

A US Navy jet attacked a convoy of Kurdish and US Special Forces, killing 15 - among them BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed. Injured were BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson. The incident was filmed.

Related topics

- «news.scotsman.com»
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1034
- «news.scotsman.com»
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=444

BRUSSELS: A European Union investigation set off by concerns over how long Google stores user information has widened to include all Internet search engines.

The European Unions panel of national data protection officers said it was now concerned over the retention of data that the companies use to deliver more-relevant search results and advertising. Some fear the data could be sought by hackers and governments.

The panel “will deal with search engines in general and scrutinize their activities from a data-protection point of view, because this issue affects an ever-growing number of users,” it said in a statement on Thursday.

Trying to soothe European Union concerns, Google, based in Mountain View, California, offered this month to cut the time it retains data on user searches from the current 24 months to 18 months, saying this was going further than most other search engines. After that, identifying information is removed. It insists that its retention policies comply with European Union data privacy rules.

The 28-member panel, which advises the European Commission and European Union governments on data protection issues, said it still needed to analyze Googles response and would also look at other search engines in the coming weeks to evaluate what data protection issues were at stake.

It also has asked Google to answer questions on the specific use of technologies used by Google and other Web sites to collect insights about what sites people visit.

Microsoft, which operates the third-largest search engine in the United States, behind Google and Yahoo, said it had not had a formal conversation with the European panel.

“We recognize that online search is creating legitimate concerns about privacy and are actively engaged with data protection authorities around the world to ensure that our practices meet the highest standards when it comes to protecting privacy,” Peter Cullen, the companys chief privacy strategist, said in an e-mailed statement.

The European Union investigation into Google comes amid growing concerns over the companys privacy practices.

Privacy International, which is based in London, has rated Google the worst among the Internets top destinations on privacy.

The watchdog said it was particularly troubled by Googles ability to match data gathered by its search engine with information collected from other services like e-mail, instant messaging and maps.

The venerable coupon, deliverer of savings for more than a century, is getting a makeover via the cell phone.

Marketers are increasingly experimenting with mobile coupons with the belief that the savings vouchers can find a wider reach and gain new effectiveness and flexibility.

Mobile coupons are still in their infancy. JupiterResearch said only about 2 percent of people have tried mobile coupons in the past year. San Jose’s Cellfire, one of the largest mobile coupon companies, has offered more than $17 million in savings since it began in late 2005. By contrast, traditional coupons, which weigh down Sunday newspapers and clog mail boxes, offer more than $300 billion in savings annually.

But mobile coupon companies believe they can give new life to coupons by offering them on a device that more than 233 million Americans carry with them every day. And they believe consumers are ready: According to JupiterResearch, about 8 percent of cell phone customers said they would use mobile coupons in the next year.

“Paper coupons don’t always work for people who don’t clip coupons,” said Brent Dusing, chief executive of Cellfire. “But this works for anyone who can surf the Web on their cell phones.”

Here’s how it typically works: Consumers can fire up their Web browser and visit a mobile coupon company’s Web site, where they can find deals on everything from restaurants and dry cleaners to video stores. They just show the store employee the relevant digital coupon, and the employee punches in its redemption code. Some companies also offer coupons via text messages, which can be sent out when offers become available or when a user sends a query about a specific advertiser.

To take advantage of the savings, a user will have to pay cellular data charges, buy an unlimited data subscription or pay for text messages. Consumers who agree to these charges can find promotional coupons wherever they are and they’re not stuck wishing they hadn’t left the newspaper coupon at home.

Coupons have been around since the end of the 19th century, when a druggist who bought the formula for Coca-Cola gave out handwritten tickets for a free glass of the new soft drink. Today, 3 out of 4 people use coupons, though the heaviest users are older than 45, according to the Promotion Marketing Association.

Cellfire’s Dusing said mobile coupons have advantages over their print counterparts, such as their relative effectiveness. Cellfire says its redemption rate for coupons is about 15 percent, far better than the less-than-1 percent of print coupons that actually get redeemed. And they reach a younger, more tech-savvy audience, which is attractive to advertisers.

Mobile coupons also are cheaper for advertisers. Netinformer of San Ramon places coupons on cell phones starting at just $50 a month. There’s also a green advantage: Going mobile has the potential to save billions of dollars in paper and printings costs.

The method also offers advertisers flexibility. A national company may need to decide months in advance what kind of discount it wants to offer through coupons. Once the coupons are printed, they’re often good for 30 days.

But with mobile coupons, advertisers can decide to offer a discount within days of the promotion. And they can tailor it to specific days or times to drive traffic during slow periods. For example, a restaurant could offer a lunch special for just one day.

“That’s flexibility we don’t have right now with print coupons,” said Steven Lemley, president of field marketing media and merchandising for Hardee’s, which is using Cellfire in two markets.

Lemley said the company, which spends $6 million annually on print coupons, uses the cell phone coupons to introduce products. A recent promotion was for a “buy one, get one free” deal on a new buffalo chicken sandwich. He said mobile coupons allow Hardee’s to reach its target demographic of 18- to 34-year-old men better than print promotions and has shown to have a redemption rate three times as good as print coupons.

But mobile coupons present challenges. One is for companies that still like to keep track of coupons using a paper trail.

Netinformer is working on delivering a small terminal that can be placed in stores that allows consumers to print a coupon and present it to employees.

“Some merchants will take a mobile coupon but they still want something to put in the drawer that their accountant can count,” said Greg Pinter, CEO of Netinformer.

The lure of mobile coupons is drawing in companies like Coupons Inc. of Mountain View, the No. 1 online printable coupon provider. Coupons Inc. plans to release a mobile service this year that will incorporate both mobile Web and text message coupons.

The company also is teaming up with AirPrint Networks to help customers print mobile coupons while they’re shopping. AirPrint will start rolling out Bluetooth-enabled printers in more than 50,000 stores in the coming months.

Coupons Inc. CEO Steven Boal said mobile coupons have not yet proven themselves. But he said his company has decided to jump into the market because it extends the vouchers’ reach beyond personal computers.

“This gives you an opportunity to answer people and give them the opportunity to participate in price promotions wherever they are,” said Boal.

E-mail Ryan Kim at rkim@sfchronicle.com.