1. Case Study: USS Vincennes
There are MANY good references for this case study. It would be beneficial to search periodical listings for information (e.g.- search for “Vincennes” and “Iranian Airbus”).
Two excellent resources are:
- “Sea of Lies,” John Barry & Roger Charles, NEWSWEEK, 13 July 1992, pp
- “High Tech Horror,” George J. Church, TIME, 18 July 1988, pp

2. Events Leading to the Vincennes Incident
Iran-Iraq War
Iraq F-1 Mirage attack on the USS Stark
The hitting of a mine in an Iranian Minefield by the USS Samuel B. Roberts
Discuss geopolitical background leading up to the Vincennes incident.
Iran - Iraq war
- Iran gunboats would typically harass merchants
USS Stark 1987, one year earlier, 37 killed, CO, XO, and TAO relieved for not taking action
USS Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine
Navy wants AEGIS in the gulf, send USS VINCENNES.
Underway in a very short time for the gulf. No training for that environment.

3. Rules of Engagement (ROE) Changes in the Persian Gulf
Commanding Officers were authorized to take positive protective measures
U.S. warships no longer take the first hit
U.S. assets required positive ID and description of intentions from all aircraft and ships operating in those waters
- As a result of the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized positive protective measures for commanding officers to follow in times of hostile intent.
- The major highlight was the fact that US warships did not have to wait for the enemy to take the first shot.
- In order to facilitate these measures, the US government issued notices to mariners and aircraft, warning that the US was taking extra precautionary measures.
- These steps included positive identification of all aircraft and shipping by establishing communication with the US assets and describing intentions for that time and location.
US warships did not have to wait for the enemy to take the first shot.
Positive identification of all aircraft and shipping was required.

4. Law of Armed Conflict Necessary action Proportional action
Do not escalate the engagement!
Necessity: The requirement that a use of force be in response to a hostile act or hostile intent.
Proportionality: The requirement that the use of force be in all circumstances limited in intensity, duration , and scope to that which is reasonably required to counter the attack or threat of attack and to ensure the continued safety of US forces.
Do not escalate the engagement!

5. Why did the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff think changes in the ROE were Necessary?
Responsibility for American lives
Responsibility for the U.S. reputation
Responsibility for foreign lives
USS Samuel B. Roberts, USS Stark, we drew the line in the sand. Will not tolerate taking the first hit anymore.

6. Let’s talk about AEGIS.
NTDS Symbology - F-14 vs comm air, symbol the same
Track number assignment
AEGIS Doctrine - tailor to the threat, ID Doctrine, Weapons Doctrine

7. Use of Force Prior to the Downing of the Airbus
Surface Conflict with Iranian Gunboats
Discuss the surface conflict with Iranian gunboats prior to the air engagement.
- Helicopter closer than the required 4nm standoff
- USS Vincennes escalated the situation
Pursuit
Territorial Waters
- USS Vincennes initiated the attack on the gunboats, helo was already safe.
Stress the timeline, and how the “Seven Minutes...” took place during the 30-minute surface battle.

8. Protection of Merchant Vessels
USS Montgomery reported many Iranian Gunboats in the Straits of Hormuz.
Several gunboats maneuvering around Liberian tanker, German cargo vessel, and Pakistani merchant vessel in a common harassment tactic.
Was there a request for assistance by the merchant vessels?
Were the actions of the Vincennes appropriate?
Sequence of events states that the merchant vessels requested assistance, however, the A&E video, “Seven Minutes that Stunned the Navy,” states that no request for assistance was ever received. Also, Newsweek reported (July 13, 1992, p. 32) that the German merchant vessel “nonchalantly flashed an “A-OK” signal” as the Vincennes “charged” past.

9. Capabilities and Weapons of Vessels Involved
USS Vincennes
Aegis Command and Control System
Standard SM-2 missiles, 5”/54 gun mounts
Phalanx, ASROC, Harpoon, Mark 45 guns
Iranian Gunboats
107mm rockets
50 caliber machine guns
Grenade launchers
Were the gunboats really a threat?

10. Discussion of Captain Rogers’ Decisions
Control of airspace with the extended range of SH-60F LAMPS helicopter.
Use of force under the ROE
Use of force under the Law of Armed conflict
Necessary Action
Proportional Response
Escalation of the event
1. Control of airspace
- Was it necessary for the Vincennes to be in the immediate area of the gunboats even though the helo could have quickly departed the area? The Vincennes proceeded at high speed in the general direction it’s helo (Ocean Lord 25, Lamps MK-III) after it had reported that it had been fired upon by a group of small boats.
2. Was the use of force justified under the Rules of Engagement? Under the Rules of Engagement in the Persian Gulf at that time:
- US warships did not have to wait for the enemy to take the first shot.
- positive identification of all aircraft and shipping was required.
3. Was the use of force justified under the Law of Armed Conflict? The Law of Armed Conflict is premised on each nation state’s inherent right of self-defense. US doctrine provides that the use of force rest upon two elements under armed attack or hostile intent:
-Necessity: The requirement that a use of force be in response to a hostile act or hostile intent.
-Proportionality: The requirement that the use of force be in all circumstances limited in intensity, duration , and scope to that which is reasonably required to counter the attack or threat of attack and to ensure the continued safety of US forces.
Was it necessary for the Vincennes, Montgomery and the helo to pass into Iranian Territorial waters?

11. Events Leading up to the Downing of the Iranian Airbus
History of previous events, USS STARK.
Gunboats harrasing merchants, no distress call
Helo follow gunboats, inside his allowed CPA of 4nm
USS Vincennes followed and attacked inside territorial waters
Airport used for both military and commercial aircraft.
Identification of the air bus, monitoring the wrong contact
CO not going to take the first hit
USS SIDES properly ID the airbus just prior to missile launch, fail to communicate, destroy missiles in flight. (Hold Fire, Destruct)

12. Time Constraints
Missile had to be fired before aircraft closed within 10 miles of Vincennes
CO Vincennes had approximately four minutes from the time he was notified of the threat to react, while also dealing with the gunboats
Could anything have been done to give Captain Rogers more time?
Only seven minutes and five seconds elapsed from the time Iran Air Flight 655 was first detected by USS Vincennes and the decision made to fire the missiles. The Captain of the USS Vincennes was made aware of a possible incoming threat aircraft some four minutes before the decision to fire.
The ID Problem, swapped with an F-14, descending.
Battle with the gunboats going on simultaneously.
More time?
F-14 air intercept and escort - SOP for the gulf.
AW makes that call, department head on AW ship, Vincennes.
Drive at flank speed away from the contact!
USS Sides under control of Vincennes, assist in gun battle?

13. Technology Capabilities of Aegis system and the role humans play
Altitude discrepancy of Airbus as reported by crew and what was recorded by Aegis system
Identification of Airbus
Was this mission an appropriate use of the USS Vincennes’s technology?
Newsweek (p. 32), “Aegis cruisers are not designed for small-craft battles. They were built to take on the Soviet Navy in the North Atlantic. The Aegis‘s ultra-high-tech radar system is designed to track scores of incoming missiles and aircraft in a major sea battle. The Iranian gunboat launches were so small that as they bobbed on the swell, they flicked in and out of the Vincennes’s surface search radar, showing up not as separate targets but as a single symbol on the radar screen.”
Discrepancy in assignment of track numbers between Airbus and aircraft operating with USS Forrestal. This caused a report to Rogers that the airbus was descending and could be a threat to the Vincennes, when it actually was ascending. Also, the transponder code discrepancy - Iranian F-14 vs. COMAIR.
Crew had to go to a printed listing for commercial flights over the gulf. Flight 655 was missed on the list in the commotion of CIC. Newsweek (p. 36) also reported that Petty Officer Anderson was also confused by the four different time zones in the gulf.
The Aegis cruiser was sent to the Persian Gulf to counter the threat of Silkworm missiles. “Instead of positioning his ship to best deal with the Silkworm threat, and to manage the air picture, Captain Rogers steamed into littoral waters. Moreover, he was allowed to hazard this prime asset by higher authority (handout b, L 11, p. 54).”
Does technology actually hinder the actions of leader : “The central question is whether technology may be pushing the fallible humans who operate it beyond their ability to make wise judgments instantly on the basis of what, with even the most sophisticated systems, will often be ambiguous info.” (Time, July 18, 1988, p. 17).

15. Leadership Considerations
Conduct of officers and crew aboard Vincennes:
- When requested by an Omani officer to depart Omani waters, officers aboard Vincennes “smirked at each other, and did not bother to reply,” according to Newsweek (July 13, 1992, p. 32). This is also seen on the video clip in “Seven Minutes that Stunned the Navy.”
-Conduct on bridge of Vincennes as seen on video
- uniforms (T-shirts on bridge...morale/lax attitude ?)
- officers yelling “Hold the noise down, knock it off!” after the downing of Airbus
-Training - When the order was given by Rogers to fire missiles, “the young lieutenant was so undone, however, that he pressed the wrong keys on his console.... A veteran petty officer had to lean over and hit the right ones.” (Newsweek, July 13, 1992, p. 38).
- Training - same track number assigned to two different aircraft resulting in appearance of Airbus descending toward Vincennes.
Does technology actually hinder the actions of leader : “The central question is whether technology may be pushing the fallible humans who operate it beyond their ability to make wise judgments instantly on the basis of what, with even the most sophisticated systems, will often be ambiguous info.” (Time, July 18, 1988, p. 17).

16. CO’s Motivation Defend the crew Follow the ROE
Memories of the USS Stark incident
Follow the ROE
Improve the Navy’s image
Improve America’s image
As a warning to other nations
In the eyes of the U.S. public
Inaction = Court Martial (Stark)
Protect the crew - Rogers did not want another incident like the USS Stark. “... a captain who hesitates too long while trying to identify conclusively that radar-screen blip could lose his ship and the lives of all those aboard. That almost happened in May 1987 to the frigate Stark.” (Time, July 18, 1988, p. 17)
ROE - Was attacking the gunboats by the Vincennes and Montgomery within the guidelines of the ROE? Is the alleged firing on the helo by the Iranian gunboats justification for the Vincennes and Montgomery firing on the gunboats,? Were the Vincennes and Montgomery justified in entering Iranian territorial waters? Were the gunboats truly attacking the helo and the Vincennes? As was reported on videotape from the bridge of the Vincennes, “the boat’s crew can be seen relaxing topside. Hardly threatening behavior and the Iranians appeared not the least threatened by the passage of the US Navy cruiser.” Of another boat, “According to data later extracted from the Vincennes’ computers, it appears to have been a stern-chase situation, where the Iranian boats were headed toward the safety of their territorial waters.” And of another boat, “The camera zoomed in to an Iranian boat, which appeared dead in the water and floating between the Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery as they raced by.” Rogers reported the boats as “closing the USS Montgomery and the Vincennes.”
ROE - USS Vincennes sent out seven warning messages and did not receive a response from the Airbus. Didn’t the Rules of Engagement require the positive identification and description of intentions from all aircraft and ships?

17. Responsibility Commanding officer of the USS Vincennes
Commanding officer of the USS Sides
Other members of the two crews
How could this incident have been avoided?
Who could have prevented these deaths?
Who was accountable for the deaths?
* Was Captain Rogers responsible for the incident? If so, how?
* CO USS Sides (Capt. Carlson) did not speak up and challenge Roberts. His crew also failed to communicate strongly their beliefs that the target was COMAIR.
* Admiral Less was not equipped with Link 11 for real-time access to vital tactical information. He made his decision based on info reported to him from the Vincennes and other vessels.
* Communication:
- Between GS and COs of vessels
- Within CIC aboard Vincennes
- Between bridge and CIC of Vincennes
- Between USS Vincennes, USS Sides, USS Montgomery, USS Forrestal and Ocean Lord 25.
- Between allies within the Gulf (between Oman and US vessels)
* Should the Aegis equipped USS Vincennes have been placed in this situation? The Aegis cruiser was sent to the Persian Gulf to counter the threat of Silkworm missiles. “Instead of positioning his ship to best deal with the Silkworm threat, and to manage the air picture, Captain Rogers stormed into littoral waters. Moreover, he was allowed to hazard this prime asset by higher authority.” (“Seven Minutes....” video)
* Could Iran have prevented the incident?
- Iran allowed the airbus to enter an area where a gunfight was taking place.
- Airbus did not respond to warnings from US vessels.

18. Leadership Traits Honor Commitment Courage
1. Discuss examples of loyalty, honor, integrity, and courage(including moral courage) which occurred during this incident?
Was Captain Rogers’ actions characteristic of those of a good leader or was he “trigger happy” as reported in Newsweek and other sources.
Moral courage and integrity: Capt. Carlson, CO USS Sides, takes some responsibility for the incident “And this is where I take some responsibility for this mess. If I had been smarter, if I had said it doesn’t smell like an F-14, and pushed for re-evaluation, and if my guys had come forward ... I might have been stimulated to go back to Rogers and say, ‘It looks like you’ve got COMAIR here.”
Was it courageous for Rogers to take on the gunboats and the unidentified aircraft? Or should Rogers have departed the area with his helo? Should he have called in the F-14s from the USS Forrestal to investigate the aircraft: “On the display screen in front of him, Lustig could see that the Forrestal’s F-14s were circling just five minutes away. There was enough time - barely - to call them in to check out the bogey (Newsweek, July 13, 1992, p. 36).”

19. Decision Making
Clarify the issue to ensure you understand the parameters
Identify applicable goals
Identify authoritative rules and laws
Collect and organize information
Develop and analyze potential solutions
Consult with others
Ethics check
- What was the initial goal of the Vincennes and other US vessels?
- Authoritative rules and laws
* Rules of engagement
* Requesting permission to fire
* Communication with Admiral Less
- Was all information collected, communicated to Rogers, and organized properly? What could have been done differently to assure proper information was communicated to all necessary parties (COs, Admiral Less, etc.)? What effect did technology play? What if Admiral Less was equipped with Link 11 for real-time access to vital tactical information?
- Were all possible solutions analyzed properly during the surface conflict? Air conflict?
- Consult with others: Was the consultation between COs and Bahrain adequate during the initial stages of this incident? What could have been done differently?
- Ethics check: Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Would I want every other commanding officer, similarly situated, to make the same decision that I will make? What actions in this incident were / weren't ethical?