Romeo Squared

Defense with a Baltic edge

USA

Leadership culture and a reckless instructor led to U.S. Navy plane crash

By Leave a Comment

The U.S. Navy has finished investigations of a plane crash with a T-45C Goshawk aircraft from the Training Squadron 7. The accident happened on 1 October in Tennessee. That reports Navy Times.

Investigators found that the crash happened as the result of recklessness on the part of the pilot-instructor. The instructor flat-hatted just before the crash, which means to fly low in an airplane in a reckless manner for the thrill of it.

The official report found that the instructor was overly confident, nonchalant, and aggressive at low altitude training with limited awareness of the performance capabilities of the aircraft.

At the time of the accident, the instructor had decided to deviate from the approved route and simply follow the terrain. 10 seconds before the crash he directed the student to perform a hard right turn at low altitude. Unfortunately the speed was too slow for the rising terrain in front of them, and the attempted recover maneuver was beyond the limitations of the aircraft which entered into a stall. Due to the low altitude there was not enough reaction time for the aircrew to eject safely.

I find it commendable that the report points to cultural explanations for the crash. The reckless instructor was himself a product of a leadership culture which allowed the safety standards to slip. Apparently it had become commonplace in the squadron that instructors lacked sufficient qualifications, and that students were challenged with techniques that were too advanced for them to handle.

Fear of missile defense traces back to World War II for Russia

By 1 Comment

Austin Long has a thorough account of the Soviet and Russian fear of Western missile defense capabilities in War on the Rocks under the title “Red Glare: The Origin and Implications of Russia’s ‘New’ Nuclear Weapons”.

He explains Putin’s revelation of new nuclear weapons in his March 1st speech as grounded in an old Russian concern with Western missile defense technology. The experience of being unable to respond to the German air campaign during World War II caused Stalin to focus intensely on the ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear attack. Already at that time there was talk about the dangers of an American missile defense which would leave Russia vulnerable to a first strike.

So when the Russian leadership is determined not to let an American missile defense threaten the retaliatory power of Russia, it is in line with a long history of military thinking.

So what does this mean for the nuclear relationship? First, U.S. leaders should recognize that no amount of explaining of the technical limitations of present or even potential U.S. missile defense capability is likely to change long and deeply held Russian views about missile defense competition.

Second, and more importantly, there is probably no future for formal, treaty-based U.S.-Russian arms control if the negotiations do not cover missile defense. The Russians sought unsuccessfully to include missile defense in the last round of strategic arms control negotiations (2009-2010). Today, with their “new” systems, they have a stronger bargaining position.

On the scholarship-policy gap in foreign politics

By Leave a Comment

John Glaser has written an interesting commentary on War on the Rocks under the title “Truth, Power, and the Academy: A response to Hal Brands”. It is about the relationship between academic expertise and the political establishment in the United States.

Last fall, Hal Brands wrote an article in The American Interest in which he points out that there is a “scholarship-policy gap which is real and widening”. It seems that the scholars and politicians simply do not agree on any issues of importance, so there is little basis for the view that academia informs policy making. Hal Brands largely blames the scholars for this situation. Apparently academics work in a secluded universe where they don’t have to deal with the complex realities of the world and do not face any penalties for being wrong.

John Glaser agrees that there is a problem, but he very much disagrees with everything else in Hal Brands’ article.

“Most of Brands’ account, however, is just flat out wrong. The evidence repudiates the suggestion, for example, that policymakers are held accountable for their ideas. […] The scholarship-policy gap persists because the people and ideas that drive foreign policy in Washington are not held accountable for their failures, and instead are often rewarded with a lifetime of high-status revolving door positions in the policy and think tank worlds.”

I really enjoyed Glaser’s argument about a kind of perception bubble in the political establishment. If your views fall outside the established conventional truths, you are disregarded. This is a result of several factors such as government’s inherent resistance to challenges to the reigning doctrine, socialization and status quo bias, self-interests and palace politics, and the desire of think tanks to receive funding.

So if you want to remain in business in politics, it is much safer to work on how to operationalize the existing doctrine than to question the assumptions. But the trend is dangerous for the ability to make wise foreign policy decisions.

Podcast recommendation: WOTR – A big debate about a little nuke

By Leave a Comment

There is a great discussion about Russia and nuclear weapons in this episode of the War on the Rocks podcast.

The panel is terrific. Olga Oliker is brilliant, Frank Miller is wrong about most things concerning Russia but argues his case very well, and Vipin Narang has deep technical insights. Ryan and Usha do a fantastic job of moderating the discussion between the guests who clearly represent very different views.

The discussion follows up on the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review which has some controversial assumptions about Russia’s nuclear doctrine and on Putin’s announcement of a new suite of nuclear weapons.

If the nuclear discussion interests you at all (and it should), this is a must-hear.

Predator retired

By Leave a Comment

Joe Chapa in War on the Rocks:

Today, the U.S. Air Force “sunsets” the Predator, permanently retiring it from service. Though individual squadrons have been transitioning from the Predator to the Reaper for some time, that transition is now complete. This provides a good opportunity to look back at the Predator to learn what we can of its impact on contemporary war and on future combat.

Few weapons have changed warfare the way the Predator drone has.

Comparison between U.S. and U.K. naval officer training

By Leave a Comment

There is an interesting comparison of U.S. Navy and Royal Navy Officer Training in the March edition of Proceedings. Dr. Anthony Wells has experience from both navies and insights into their training programs.

In short, Wells is not impressed by the U.S. seamanship education. He suggests the U.S. Navy can learn a lot from their British counterparts.

I wholeheartedly agree. My critical review of U.S. warship collisions was far from flattering for the U.S. Navy. It can only be described as irresponsible to have people in charge of large ships without proper education in seamanship and navigation.

My own anecdotal experience with the Royal Navy and the seamanship of British officers is that they are very competent.

U.S. Nuclear Posture Review misses the point on Russia

By Leave a Comment

Nuclear Posture Review cover pageThe Pentagon published its Nuclear Posture Review for 2018 (NPR) earlier in February. It dramatically changes some assumptions about nuclear weapons that were laid out in the previous NPR from 2010.

The new NPR concludes that there has been a deterioration in international relations with a return to great power competition and a more complex threat environment. This causes the Pentagon to advise an ambitious plan to enhance the nuclear capabilities of the United States.

Of special interest is the American focus on Russia’s so-called escalate-to-deescalate strategy. The idea is that Russia would escalate a conflict to intimidate the West into accepting peace on Russia’s terms. According to the NPR this has lowered the nuclear threshold because Russia will use non-strategic nuclear weapons to achieve this goal. The West does not have the same arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons as Russia, and according to the NPR this may lead Russia to believe that they could get away with a small scale nuclear attack. Therefore the NPR suggests an increased focus on establishing an American arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons.

…Continue reading

U.S. military budget for 2018 blows the boundaries of reason

By Leave a Comment

US military spending is an interesting topic. On the one hand there is a widespread conception among military personnel that the military is suffering under severe budget constraints. On the other hand the actual spending on the military is very high — and much higher than during the Cold War.

Now the 2018 budget is ready. William Hartung has a good comment on the agreement:

“Today the Senate reached a budget deal that would increase spending for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons to a mind-blowing $700 billion this year, while locking in an even higher figure for 2019. This would put the Pentagon budget at one of its highest levels since World War II, and many, many times as high as the military budget of any potential adversary. Do we really need these huge sums of money to defend the country?

The short answer is no.”

This reminded me of this episode from the War College podcast about the issue and myths of American defense spending. The essential point is that the budget is ridiculously high but the money is wasted on prestige weapons that are so expensive that they are impractical to use. Organizational infighting also contributes to the poor value that the United States gets from its defense Dollars. The tendency to oversell the features of new weapons and underestimate the production costs means that almost all procurement projects blow the budget.

Russia’s foreign policy toward USA is not schizophrenic

By Leave a Comment

Professor Kimberly Marten tries to explain an apparently schizophrenic Russian foreign policy toward the United States in this policy memo on PONARS Eurasia.

She comes up with four possible explanations:

  1. Putin succumbed to his own ignorance and biases.
  2. Putin’s advisors are afraid to tell him the truth.
  3. Inconsistent foreign policy is the result of infighting in Putin’s inner circle.
  4. Disparate members of Russia’s intelligence network are controlling foreign policy with negative consequences for state interests.

I think there are a few additional explanations to consider.

It’s not about Russia: Nobody can figure out Donald Trump

Marten gives two examples of inconsistencies in Russia’s foreign policy toward the United States.

…Continue reading

Homicide charges for US warship collisions are a big mistake

By Leave a Comment

Four officers from USS Fitzgerald and one from USS John S. McCain including both commanding officers will face criminal charges for negligent homicide. As Navy Times notes, this is a very rare step, and now the internet is boiling over with discussions about it.

I think the criminal charges are a big mistake. …Continue reading