President Vladimir Putin (right) with General Vladimir Popovkin at the Voronezh Radar Station in a 2007 file photo (ITAR-TASS)
When all else fails – and your butt is on the line with a major PR catastrophe looming, it is best to man-up, square your shoulders and do your duty as organizational lead by assuming responsibility before The Big Guy…unless you are the head of Russia’s ROSKOSMOS space agency. Then you can hint darkly about “sabotage”
Roscosmos director Vladimir Popovkin’s comments to state-backed daily “Izvestiya” echo a recent allegation by a retired Russian general who said a U.S. radar in Alaska might have emitted an electromagnetic burst to disable a mission to probe Mars’ moon Phobos in November. “It’s not clear why our setbacks often occur when the vessels are traveling through what for Russia is the ‘dark’ side of the Earth — in areas where we don’t see the craft and don’t receive its telemetry readings,” Popovkin reportedly told “Izvestiya.” “I don’t want to blame anyone, but today there are some very powerful countermeasures that can be used against spacecraft whose use we can’t exclude.”
Never mind the fact that sloppy manufacturing, nonexistent quality assurance, much less configuration management might perhaps to be to blame? Nope – easier to blame it on nefarious doings over on the dark side of the Bering Strait…
Just as the star-crossed BULAVA SLBM suffered a series of test failures stemming from absent quality controls and poor engineering design that caused a series of upper stage failures (finally corrected after a detailed autopsy of the design and manufacturing process), the PHOBOS-GRUNT mission was doomed by last minute modifications that were not part of the original design, poorly executed and with little, if any risk management applied. The net result — when it came time to position the spacecraft to burn the thrusters setting it on path to Mars, they failed to start. The satellite began to drift and when it was unable to orient itself to allow the solar panels to provide power to the spacecraft, it became so much space junk. $5B rubles worth of space junk with over 7 tons of highly toxic nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine used as fuel – and no means to conduct an intercept like the US did in 2008. So, in a few days when Doc Newton is proven right (again) and Phobos-Grunt re-enters the atmosphere, there is a very real possibility some larger pieces may survive and make it all the way to the ground with the potential for property damage and personal injury. The good news, if one wants to call it that, is that unlike that 2008 satellite which had been on orbit long enough for the hydrazine to freeze solid (and thereby improve chances of survival on re-entry), the odds are that isn’t in play here and most of the really toxic stuff will burn up in the upper atmosphere.
Still, in light of the other very public failures of multiple launches last year – including a failed ISS re-supply mission that forced a reduction in manning for the space station, questions are mounting regarding the direction and management of Russia’s space program, from outside as well as within:
In late November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev hinted at the “need to carry out a detailed review” of the space program’s problems “and punish those guilty.”
Given that Popovkin’s appointment came about when his predecessor was fired over a failed SATCOM launch and in light of Medvedev’s hints of further punishments, perhaps it is understandable that the old chestnut of “sabotage” is trotted out – but the track record isn’t so good for others that have tried:
They were all disloyal. I tried to run the ship properly by the book, but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out, that’s all right, let them! Take the towline – defective equipment, no more, no less. But they encouraged the crew to go around, scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming in circles and then ‘Old Yellowstain.’ I was to blame for Lieutenant Maryk’s incompetence and poor seamanship. Lieutenant Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Captain Queeg. Ah, but the strawberries! That’s, that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist. And I would have produced that key if they hadn’t pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer. (He pauses – looks at all the questioning faces that stare back at him, and realizes that he has been ranting and raving.) Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory… (Caine Mutiny)
Vlad, in the interest of post-Cold War relations and the big red reset button, allow me to offer another time honored excuse rational explanation:
It is January and this month’s issue of Proceedings and Naval History will include the ballot for the next Board of Directors. In contrast, I think, to years past there is a wide selection of candidates to chose from who come from a number of paths – aviators, SWOs, submariners; Navy, Marines and Coast Guard, active duty, retired and distinguished civilian that ranges from senior enlisted through FO/GO. It is, in sum, an exceptional list of accomplished candidates and one I am deeply humble to have been nominated for as well.
Yes, you read that right — I am a candidate on the ballot for the 2012 USNI Board of Directors.
I was approached by a group of members who were seeking to recruit candidates who had attained a degree of success and recognition in their naval service and if retired, who carried that recognition into their current career. In addition, this membership-led effort was concerned with forwarding candidates who would ensure the Naval Institute would remain an independent, objective forum for the naval services as reflected in the concerns raised by a large part of the membership last year. I participated in the debate through this and other fora as one who argued for the USNI to hold to its founding principles which have separated and elevated it above the many warfighter community, Service and industry oriented advocacy associations that have grown and multiplied over the years. The Naval Institute, by both challenging all to “dare to think, write and debate” and providing the independent forum to do so, has staked out this singular, widely recognized and respected territory and should not cede it. To that, I remain committed.
That, however, does not mean there is no room for change. Indeed, there are several challenges across a number of fronts the Institute faces in the coming years in an effort to remain relevant in the ongoing national debate. These are among the concerns as a member of the Board of Directors I would address and argue for action:
Grow our membership through outreach and recruiting of junior officers and senior enlisted.
Establish an advisory board comprised of active duty and Reserve officers (O-3 to O-5) and enlisted (E-5 to E-7), representing a cross-section of the naval services that would compliment the already existing Flag Advisory board to provide the POV and concerns at the deck-plates-level I think is lacking today.
Open the aperture on all forms of traditional and “new” media – this would include expanding the online offerings to include current, relevant and substantive content that resides behind a membership firewall and encourages membership growth.
A clear path of encouragement, recruiting and mentorship resources to assist up and coming writers – be they interested in blogging, writing for Proceedings or Naval History, or even those interested in submitting to manuscripts to the Naval Institute Press.
These are but a few of the concerns the Naval Institute needs to move forward. The coming year, with the challenges to be faced domestically and internationally by our nation and its naval services places us at another of those critical junctions with questions not only about force structure and missions, but the very character of and rationale for a Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The existence of an independent forum with a reputation for the full, free and frank informed discussion and debate on these and so many other issues is vital in this process and that forum is the Naval Institute. As a member of the Board of Directors, that will remain my chief concern and focus.
Thank you for your consideration and vote.
v/r,
CAPT Carl W. (“Will”) Dossel, USN (Ret.)
Steeljaw Scribe
Please also consider these candidates when making your selection:
MC3 Benjamin Crossley / Navy An E-2C Hawkeye from the Golden Hawks of Airborne Early Warning Squadron 112 launches from the carrier John C. Stennis on Dec. 18 in the Persian Gulf, marking the Navy's last air mission in support of Operation New Dawn.
When an E-2C Hawkeye snagged the arresting cable on the carrier John C. Stennis on Dec. 18, it marked the official end of naval air missions of the Iraq War.
The Hawkeye, from Airborne Early Warning Squadron 112, the “Golden Hawks,” was shot off Stennis at 7:32 a.m. and provided early warning and communication support for ground troops before returning with its crew of five at 11:04 a.m.
It was a quiet end to a war that began nearly nine years earlier with shock-and-awe air attacks from supersonic jets against Saddam Hussein’s defenses.
“We knew that we might be the crew to fly the last mission over Iraq. As always, we stayed focused on completing the mission we were assigned. After confirmation that we were the last, I realized I was part of something pretty special,” said Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Reynolds, the Hawkeye’s pilot.
BZ to the Golden Hawks of VAW-112 as well as all the VAW squadrons who played a vital, but again, unheralded role in Naval Aviation’s mission over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The utility and versatility of the Hawkeye and its crews were underscored time and again as they were pressed into mission sets (and endurance – remember, the Hawkeye is not capable of in-flight refueling) well beyond what the folks at Grumman envisioned back in 1957 as the (then) W2F began to take shape on the drawing boards.
A quick look at the sidebar will reveal a variety and number of books read over the course of the past year, oft times engendering discussions off-site as to selections and purpose. Looking at the current working stack on my desk, I thought I’d take this opportunity to talk to why these particular selections.
Gerson, The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict: Deterrence, Escalation and the Threat of Nuclear War in 1969
My first read of Kissinger’s book got me thinking about deterrence theories that emerged during the Cold War, how they were put on the shelf 20 years ago when the Soviet Union disappeared and now, how some folks think we can just pull them off the shelf and apply them to China. Problem is, not only do I think those theories may not apply, they may in fact, carry us down avenues with results quite different than we intended. Part of my studies and work on theater nuclear forces was grounded in a better understanding of Russian culture as applied to Soviet deterrence practices across a range of operations, theaters and levels of war. That I ended up disagreeing with the prevailing (at the time) school of thought shouldn’t come as a surprise to readers here – and neither should my initial thoughts laid out above vis-a-vis China. This isn’t just in the nuclear arena, but even more so conventional as we look at the array of advanced anti-access/area denial forces being fielded by China, employable outside of a conflict over Taiwan. So – I’m taking a historical perspective/approach looking at China’s actions in a conventional realm versus near peer (conventional) powers and major nuclear power. There is a pattern that points to an offensive deterrence that, during a confrontation, has led to fairly aggressive actions that incurred substantive losses on the other party’s account, followed by a rapid withdrawal from overrun territory by Chinese forces to show occupation wasn’t their intent. A noteworthy element of these actions though, and one that must be factored into the analysis is that these case histories stem from Mao’s reign and a PLA that was short on technology and long on manpower (ground forces) which runs counter to the decade-long modernization and overhaul in doctrine and operations (epitomized, for example, by the development and wide deployment of a range of conventional ballistic missiles). Additionally, while most of the Party leadership were veterans of the Long March and Korea and as such, had experience with military operations, today’s Party leadership has at best, passing acquaintance with military operations and requirements. In such a scenario, will there be more deference given plan and COAs sourced from the military — IOW, a tendency to accept at face value n the part of Party leadership? As I delve into this issue, these are some of the questions I am asking myself and which form the entering argument with the publications above.
When the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, there was a varied response from Russia, ranging from Putin’s non-committal “do what you must” to statements from the Defense Minister and Chief of Staff that Russia would investigate dropping out of the INF Treaty. In the intervening years since, this threat was rolled out on various occasions when the Russians wanted to highlight their concern over various aspects of the US efforts to develop and deploy ballistic missile defense. Since the initial announcement of the European Initiative in 2007 (basing 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, supported by an X-band radar in the Czech Republic) it has become a recurring theme, in concert with “other military-technical means.” This begs a couple of questions – namely, what are the real motivations behind the rhetoric, what real benefits would Russia accrue in stepping away from the first bi-lateral nuclear treaty that banned an entire class of weapons and set the stage for the START treaties on strategic nuclear forces and, in an age of growing numbers of ballistic missiles, nuclear and conventional, inhabiting the 500-5500km range (essentially longer ranged SRBM, MRBM and IRBMs as well as ground-launched cruise missiles), is the INF Treaty still relevant? Part of the investigation includes a deep dive into the developmental history of Russian ballistic missiles with particular attention being paid to one of my old haunts — the period 1976-1987 and the impetus behind the development and deployment behind the SS-20/Pioneer IRBM. As noteworthy as the political, military and engineering decision-making behind Pioneer’s development and controversial deployment was, there were two other programs – Skorost (“Speed”) and Kuryer (“Courier”) which bear investigation. Each program was the result of a deliberate decision to respond to the Pershing II/GLCM deployment (itself a response to the SS-20 deployment) with new ballistic missile systems (or in the Russian vernacular, missile complexes), derived from (then) new mobile strategic systems like the SS-25 and aimed specifically at the systems the US was deploying to strengthen the nuclear guarantee to NATO. The impetus behind this is to see if there are parallels between then and now that may predict or explain certain behaviors and statements from Russian leadership in the current dispute over the US-led European Phased Adaptive Approach to ballistic missile defense against the Iranian ballistic missile threat.
Another Look at History and the “Rule of Unintended Consequences”:
It is popular to talk about the “global economy” in referential terms as if it is a late-20th Century/21st Century phenomena. In actuality, beginning with the return of Columbus from the 1492 expedition, profound ecological and economic wheels were put into motion – almost all of which had unforeseen consequences. Mann’s work is a masterful, scientific review of the “Colombian Exchange” and later, the impact the founding of Manila some 80 years later by the Spanish explorer Legazpi would have on not only Europe, but the American and African continents that stretch into today. Economist Miller (author of “War Plan Orange”) turns to recently declassified documents to take another look at attempts by the US to dissuade Japan from its aggression in China in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. Building on his experience in international trade while working for a major mining company, he brings new perspectives on the role international finance had in influencing Japanese decision-making and actions — and in the process spurred a branches & sequels process that led to the Pacific war. While far from finished with Bankrupting the Enemy, I think those who would argue for a trade war/currency war today with China would be well advised to consider Miller’s work and a look at the unintended consequences (as well as what a bureaucracy can do to thwart Presidential initiatives) that may result. Both authors have a compelling writing style that addresses head on, complex ideas and concepts, placing them in a thoroughly comprehensible context – something, unfortunately, that cannot be said about some the preceding texts which can verge on the turgidly pedagogical….
And finally, there is reading just for the simple pleasure of a story well told, even if it is of an event that has been as widely dissected and told as that of Midway. One of the vehicles used under such conditions is historical fiction and a new entry in that genre is Vengeance Strikes the Blow, written by G. Alvin Simons and published by Cripple Creek Press:
Excerpt from the book:
Kusaka staggered a few steps as Akagi turned toward the approaching enemy aircraft presenting a smaller target. He watched as three of the battered, tattered medium bombers continued winging toward the carriers intent on launching their torpedoes. Frantic Zeroes, having retreated earlier from the tremendous volume of friendly gunfire belching forth from the screening vessels, now ignored the threat. They dove in, blasting away at the deadly intruders.
The deep Pacific waters already littered with destroyed enemy aircraft, Kusaka wondered at the Americans’ tenacity. We slaughter them with ease, yet still they come, he thought. Seemingly oblivious to the certain death awaiting them. Almost contemptuous in their disregard for our defense. Are they arrogant? Stubborn? Fools? What kind of men are these?
The lead aircraft closed to within a thousand meters before releasing its torpedo. It splashed down and disappeared from view, running toward its intended target. The unburdened plane skittered away across the wave tops with enraged Zeroes hounding its tail. Kusaka’s eyesight remained locked in place, waiting for the weapon to reappear when it neared Akagi. The huge ship made another hard turn, veering away from the oncoming torpedo. Kusaka lurched sideways into Genda, releasing a groan of pain from the young officer. The torpedo chugged past, missing the carrier and leaving a trail of bubbles in its wake. Cheers and clapping drifted on the combat-torn wind, falling silent as the second enemy plane bore in. The defensive gunfire increased in volume. A mountain of shot and steel sought to destroy the attacking aircraft. Amidst the panicked frenzy and close quarters, friendly fire struck neighboring vessels. Kusaka winced at the number of stray rounds zipping between the ships. This is utter madness, he thought. We could be wounded or killed at the hands of our fellow countrymen.
Haven’t had much of a chance to get too far in, but what I have read so far I like and it is getting good reviews in important venues like the Battle of Midway Roundtable; definitely a recommended buy(available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle versions).
So that’s were the end of 2011 and the (near) start to 2012 finds us — some of the research will find its way here, but the bulk is for other venues. I will be interested to see what is in the offering for the new year (book-wise) and am interested in what you are reading as well as why – let’s hear what’s on your Stack of Shame!
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. — Isaiah 9:2, 6 (KJV)
It is no secret this past year has been one fraught with disappointment, challenge and loss. Many of you whom I commune with either in real life or via a shared virtual front porch have been touched in one way or another along these lines. Some lost a job or are standing on the precipice; others find themselves relocated to distant shores, in new surroundings and few if any friends or family near; others face debilitating disease and a long haul to recovery and still others lost loved ones – parents, spouses, children or siblings. All trying enough in normal times, doubly so in times like these.
As we enter this Christmastide, I know these and other concerns press close aboard, and please know you all – by name or by reference, are in our thoughts and fervent prayers. All of us in this house pray that you come into the peace and joy of the Christmas message and carry that into the new year.
May your Christmas be a blessed one and the new year bring peace and prosperity to you and your household.
Seventy years ago those words ushered in a period of unbelievable agony, trial, effort and sacrifice. What was once before was forever changed afterward. Jack-booted thugs bent on their “Final Solution” strode cobblestone streets of the land distantly remembered as the forebear of a new nation, a New World. And across the broad expanse of the ocean called “peaceful” – because it’s discoverer found such contrast to the stormy passage he had recently survived, rampant nationalism was advancing at the tip of bayonet and crushing naval power.
The warnings were there – it’s just that being so far away; over the horizon in distance and mind, that what happened in the dim, exotic lands of East Asia just didn’t map to the concerns of Pennsylvania Avenue, Wall Street, or 5th and Main. The Old World was in flame yet again, though by now it was beginning to appear that once more, the oceans would serve as a guardian to keep the Ancient Evil – Over There and our boys home, over here. No more Beallau Woods, no more Marnes — no more Flanders. The plucky occupants of a small island off the coast of that continent – protected again by the seas, had apparently staved off the onslaught of the German air force, which washed across the Channel and appeared to break on the rocks of “the Few” who rose in their isle’s defense. Cause for muted celebration – but not really of our concern. And now that industrial war machine had turned its attentions to the riches of the Eurasian heartland and engaged in battle with yet another statist foe. Fascist against Communist, German against Russian; West vs Oest /Восток против Запада. Let them slug it out and bleed each other white – not our concern. Let the Old World and the Far East dissolve in flame and fury – we have our own problems and the great distances of the oceans to protect us…
Seventy years ago a lesson was seared in a generation’s conscious and would underpin the awakening of a giant, heretofore unseen or much thought of.
A slogan was born and a promise made – a lexicon updated.
For the better part of the remaining century that followed, as plans were drawn, metal cut and bodies counted; that phrase lay, oft time unspoken, deep within the hearts and minds of men as they prepared for a war they hoped and prayed would never come.
“No more Pearl Harbors”
Less than a decade after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the twin strategic surprises of Russia with The Bomb and North Korea’s invasion of the South forced a re-evaluation of force structure and planning — there would be no recovery from a nuclear Pearl Harbor, ergo tens of thousands of nuclear weapons were stockpiled and deployed – some on quick alert, less than 30 minutes from delivering a nuclear fist of vengeance on the Soviet Union. Unblinking satellites and constant probes around the periphery ensured that there would be no surprise attack.
“No more Pearl Harbors”
That war didn’t come, but on the eve of the 60th anniversary another adversary reached out and struck our nation. Scheming and executing from within, they turned vanilla airliners into the most lethal of cruise missiles, taking almost 3,000 innocent victims with them. As it was in the days and weeks after Pearl Harbor, the enormity of missed opportunities and agencies working in a vacuum providing unintended enabling actions to the jihadist’s mission gradually reveled itself and a new cry was raised in parallel – “No more 9/11′s” A decade long land war in Central Asia ensued with significant blood and treasure expended. And now, the problems at home seem so overwhelming. An economy that can’t seem to pick itself off the deck. A work force embraced by hopelessness of ever finding a job in a land of plenty. And across the broad oceans, beyond the visible horizon old forces are stirring once again in different lands. Scores to be settled – philosophies to be paid homage; resources to be gathered and sent homeward. Debts rendered – accounts marked “paid” in blood red. Fiscal debts mount while fleets dwindle, airframes age and manpower is excised by broadsword and battle axe rather than scalpel, none of which passes unnoticed.
And a promise which rang with clarity across a land and through generations is but a fading whisper upon the ear.
Remember Pearl Harbor.
Ceremonies and observances of the 70th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor may be found here (CHINFO PDF)
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
Strong winds polished the snow of southwestern Alaska and stretched marine stratocumulus clouds into long, parallel streets in early January, 2012. After crossing Bristol Bay, the winds scraped the clouds across the tall volcanic peaks of the Aleutian Islands. As the wind impacted the immobile mountains, the airflow became turbulent, swirling in symmetric eddies and carving intricate patterns into the clouds on the leeward side of the islands. At the top of this image, the bright white color indicates a thick layer of snow overlying the land of southwestern Alaska. The pristine white is broken by the rugged Ahklun Mountain Range in the east, which is partially covered by a bank of clouds. Off the coast of Alaska, sea ice floats in Bristol Bay, cracked and chipped by the flow of the waters which lie underneath. A few cloud streets – parallel lines of clouds – can be seen in the far northwest over land. The clouds increase over the sea ice and become thick over open water, where row upon row of clouds lie close in perfectly parallel formation. The Aleutian Islands stretch from northeast to southwest across the image. Sea ice, which is bright white here, lies on the windward side of the islands. A few of the tallest volcanic peaks can be seen rising from the icy islands. The character of the cloud streets change as they impact the Aleutians, especially near the center of the image, where two rows of beautifully symmetric swirls of eddies in the clouds stretch across the sky. These swirling formations are known as von Karman vortex streets. This true-color image was captured by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aboard NASA’s Terra satellite on January 11, 2012. Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Jeff Schmaltz/MODIS Land Rapid Response Team Read More
Now Reading
Planned books:
None
Current books:
1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created by Charles C. Mann
Strategic Culture and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Culturally Based Insights into Comparative Nation by Kerry M. Kartchner, Jeannie L. Johnson, Jeffrey A. Larsen
Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor by Edward S. Miller
Vox Populi