About This Collision.

As RT reports the US Navy came to the conclusions re: USS Connecticut (SSN-22, Seawolf-class) with what amounts to the running ship (sub) into the ground in a classic navigation mishap.   

The US Navy has relieved the captain, executive officer and chief sonar technician of USS Connecticut, the nuclear-powered attack submarine that struck an undersea mountain in the South China Sea last month. Commander Cameron Aljilani, Lieutenant Commander Patrick Cashin and Master Chief Sonar Technician Cory Rodgers were relieved of command “due to loss of confidence,” the Navy said on Thursday.Vice Admiral Karl Thomas, commander of the 7th Fleet, has determined that “sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident.”

In terms of disciplinary action it is totally expected, as Soviet/Russian Ships Manual (soon to be replaced with a new one) states--Commanding Officer is responsible for the ship and everything what happens there. I am sure the same approach exists in the US Navy. You broke the ship--you lose your command in most cases. There are some (rare) exceptions, of course, to this rule.

The Seawolf-class SSN-22 fast-attack submarine was in the South China Sea on October 2 when it struck an “object” and had to return to Guam for damage assessment. The object was later revealed to have been an “undersea mountain,” according to the US Naval Institute. Several members of the Connecticut’s crew were injured in the collision, though none of the injuries were life-threatening. The submarine’s nuclear reactor was not affected. The boat will remain in Guam until the damage assessment is completed, at which point it will sail to Bremerton, Washington shipyards for repairs, the Navy said.

Connecticut is a 22 years old sub (she was commissioned in 1998), which means that she has a state of the art navigational complex and Combat Informational Control System designed to provide a high level of situational awareness. Unless one doubts (I don't see much reasons to doubt it) that Connecticut indeed ran into the uncharted feature (seamount) as 7th Fleet press-release states, the fault inevitably lies with: 

1.  Naval Oceanographic Service, aka NAVOCEANO, which either didn't chart that seamount (why--is a separate story) or didn't issue an appropriate navigational warning about the area; 

2. Obviously, organization of the watch and tactical and navigational proficiency of the team responsible for safety of the ship (sub) underway. 

I do not know all the facts, but considering capabilities of modern navigational complexes (be that US or Russian, British, I assume too) to provide an extremely accurate dead-reckoning (its very high reliability) over very long periods of time, including active maneuvering at different speeds, it does come across, from what I know (which is nowhere near to all the facts), that navigational service onboard Connecticut was not the best-organized, to put it mildly. Plus, do not discount CO's decisions. But Connecticut is not the first US sub or ship which ran into the ground (seamount) in the last few years. There is an established fact of the US Navy effectively putting navigational training of the crews on the back-burner. This whole thing is on record. 

In other words, navigational problems in the US Navy are not new. Every serious navy in the world has its share of navigational mishaps, but the US Navy's problem with seamanship and navigational safety seems to persist. I know how one feels when having an advanced technology at own disposal (I know the feeling really well) but basic, time-tested skills of navigators and interaction of the watch officer with both CO and navigator are of crucial importance, especially when being underway submerged. And especially in the area where any mishap may lead to conflagration. The technology is only as good as people who operate it. Could the Connecticut affair be the case of the fatigue, as was one of the factors with USS Fitzgerald as NTSB concluded? Possible. Swedish Komsomolets, certainly was. I'll give you a hint--only experienced navigation officers should be next to navigation complex when submarine is underway submerged. Was this rule followed by Connecticut's CO? We may never know, but in the end--CO is always the guy who takes the fall.

Why The West Is Lost (In The Cold War).

I know I am becoming simply nauseating with driving this point home but I will continue to do so to the last breath. Combined West knows shit about Russia, it knows even less about Russia's military, and here is another proof. Bloomberg (of course, who but Bloomberg with its military "expertise" and an army of experienced Russian military working for it) publishes today yet another sophomoric piece on NATO preparing for the Cold War, literally--the war in the North. Behind usual amateur fodder about NATO's Trident Juncture exercise written by Leonid Ragozin (some journo from Moscow "liberal" shuffle), we immediately begin to encounter one chef'-d'oeuvre after another. 

“If we discount the martians, there is no one else who can attack Norway apart from Russia,” says Aleksandr Golts, a Russian military analyst who observed the NATO exercise, which ended earlier this month. “The scenario and the sheer number of troops involved in both this and similar Russian exercises show that we are back to the Cold War-time military confrontation.”

I have some news to Bloomberg, well, actually not for Bloomberg (I don't give a shit about this organization), this is more for those who read this blog--Alexader Golts is NOT "military analyst", he never was one because he has zero qualifications or experience for that. The only way he was ever connected to military was during his tenure as an employee of the Red Star (Krasnaya Zvezda) newspaper (till 2001) and has a degree in what else--journalism--from Moscow State. He is a feral Russophobe who currently writes for such sewer as Moscow Times and, actually, was known to work with Michael Kofman of Center for Naval Analysis by writing all kind of pseudo-"intelligence" BS on Russian military. Golts is about the same "military expert" as notorious Pavel Falgenhauer with the latter having the degree in biology (I believe the graduate thesis was on flat worms) from the same MSU, and who is known for predicting Georgian Army defeating Russia in 2008. Well, when your thesis is about flat worms and you didn't serve a day in uniform one is bound to be that "precise" in their forecasts. 

So, how humanities "educated" (often it is, actually, opposite result because it dumbs people down--I know many cases personally) civilian journalist who doesn't know shit from shinola and who uses Western "methodology" (Golts attended Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, to be trained in "talking points") on warfare (we all know the "shiny" record of "success" of those Centers) can become a military expert or analyst remains a complete mystery. At least for me. I understand that Golts might have rubbed shoulders with some Russian military professionals but rubbing shoulders does not mean having fundamental courses on tactics, operational art, military technology or combat experience rubbing off, same goes for Form 1A clearance. In other words, Golts is another ignoramus who is trained only in spewing from the scripts written for him by somebody else and I remember having a triple face-palm moment reading Golts' explanations on naval doctrine and his assertions that patrols of strategic missile submarines was not really a naval task. In general, one can easily find Golts' "expert" opinions on a whole plethora of Russia's military issues--all of them manifestly amateurish if not down right dumb. Obviously, it is difficult to explain to this "expert" how the force is calculated and what is criteria of effectiveness, or...yeah,--how to put it, it is difficult to explain to Russophobic journo how this whole "military science" thing operates. But in general, Golts is a classic representative of the new class of "military analysts" who populate Western publications and who helped to bring the West in general and US in particular to the sad state of a complete unawareness of Russia and her Armed Forces. 

Golts is simply more Russophobic than the others (similar) and he is one of those about who Margo Simonyan spoke explicitly:

I’ve been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those parasites.  

I need to make  here yet another disclaimer, I am NOT in the market, in fact I respect myself too much to "advise" any US MSM. Golts, however, is not alone--Russia is not free from people, and some of them I was unfortunate to communicate with, who are utterly unqualified to pass any judgements on serious military issues and all their "expertise" is based only on merit of studying couple-three courses in some Western civilian institutions on defense. As you may expect, people with humanities background, unless they are rigorously retrained  (not the case here) within actual military professional environment, will not do that well with modern tactics, operational art, weapons and C4ISR complex. One MUST have serious fundamental sciences, military technology background and tactical and operational experience to be able to operate within this environment. The United States is currently paying the price for armies of journalists, political "scientists", lawyers and other "humanities" folk who formed utterly delusional picture of American military capabilities because they thought that they can become "analysts". For Russia, however, things are different and openness afforded by modern communications technologies and freedom of speech allowed to identify false "experts"and "analysts" and call their BS out. 

But Bloomberg's (Ragozin's) piece doesn't stop there--it produces another wowser.    

Even Ukrainian officers were on hand for Trident Juncture, advising NATO forces on Russian tactics. Colonel Andriy Dyda of Ukraine’s military says he was eager to share his experience.

At this stage one has to (using quadruple face-palm) ask the question--what Russian tactics? I omit here the fact that Ukrainian Army had its ass handed to it in several cauldrons by primarily volunteer LDNR force (granted provided with some assistance from Russia, especially in ISR), so in this sense NATO needs to learn how to lose brigade and division size formation and Ukrainians are really good at it. But the question remains WHAT Russian tactics can possibly this Ukrainian Colonel know? I will disclose a "secret" here--Ukrainian Army didn't encounter ANY modern Russian tactics, bar some limited elements on net-centric warfare, but fought merely within confines of 1990s and early 2000s Combat Manuals and technology, some of them updated for Chechnya-2 and 2008 Georgia experiences. And, of course, there never were any Russian formations (read attentively--formations) in Ukraine which fought within modern Russian tactical and operational procedures. What those procedures are, you may ask? Well, we may start with what Russian Armed Forces will do if the real war comes and what Ukrainians didn't experience at all. 

For starters all communications will be suppressed completely (OK, Ukies did encounter some of it), so will be any sensors in range. Simultaneously sustained fire impact will start into the operational depth (well, around 700 kilometers) to wreak a havoc with Command and Control, logistics, rear personnel etc. Tactically, same will occur with sustained fire impact (Iskander anyone?) and....well, let me put it this way--if that would be Ukrainian Army, by the time advanced tank and motor-rifle formations of Russian Army would start movement, the army such as Ukrainian will cease to exist as a force. Thus the question: WHAT Russian tactics can this Duda guy possibly share with? As I said, he certainly can share with how to abandon positions, massive amounts of materiel and equipment and sustain huge losses. That is very good experience to be shared. But then again, if that would have been Russian "tactics" this Duda guy probably wouldn't be "sharing".  But the issue here, in the end, is not military per se--NATO is a military organization and it is completely within its prerogative to train and conduct military exercises on decent enough scale. My issue is--how much longer this army of thoroughly incompetent people and fraudulent "military analysts", who wouldn't be able to organize platoon for either defensive or offensive, even with the Combat Manual in hand, let alone would fail to plan basic operations for a battalion size unit, not to mention understand the mechanics of serious operational planning, will continue to spew utter unprofessional BS? My concern is sincere, because it is precisely this cabal of American (and "Russian")"military analysts" operating in the public space which may end up being partially responsible for whipping up increasingly insecure America into a very real conflict with Russia and then there will be the time to really learn about Russian tactics but at that time praying to God will be the only sensible course of actions. As for America, with "friends" and "analysts" like Golts who needs the enemies. After all, it is so normal for auto-mechanics to perform open heart surgeries. It is so easy... in the era of a wholesale incompetence.