The Air Force has grounded its fleet of Osprey aircraft in order to investigate a series of recent safety incidents, according to Breaking Defense. The news comes just a few weeks after the Air Force ordered inspections of its F-35 fleet due to ejector seat issues, which began flying again this week after an almost month-long stand-down.
The pair of incidents show the dangers of the military’s quest to replace older aircraft with high-tech planes that have a bad habit of breaking down. And the risk goes well beyond wasting taxpayer money: This year alone, eight U.S. soldiers have died in Osprey training crashes.
These recent incidents are far from the first issues that the Osprey has faced. The aircraft has a “tiltrotor” design, meaning that its twin propellers can be adjusted in order to fly like a helicopter or a plane. This leads to two things: The Osprey is very cool to look at, but it’s also very hard to keep in the air.
These issues have been clear from the start, as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb told Responsible Statecraft back in June. “That darn thing should never have been bought,” said Korb, who was working in the Pentagon when the Osprey was being developed.
The Osprey’s latest problem is related to the aircraft’s clutch. In short, a safety feature that would allow the plane to fly with just one engine is malfunctioning, causing the power load to quickly shift back and forth between the plane’s motors. The sudden shift makes it difficult to control the aircraft, forcing the pilot to immediately land.
Air crews have managed to safely land the Osprey during a pair of such incidents that occurred in the past six weeks. But, as an Air Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense, “if the aircrew were unable to control the aircraft when the incident occurs, it could result in loss of control and uncontrolled landing of the aircraft.” In other words, a mixture of luck and skill was the only thing standing between the soldiers onboard and yet another deadly crash.
Connor Echols is the managing editor of the Nonzero Newsletter and a former reporter for Responsible Statecraft. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.
A V22 Osprey doing a demonstration at an air show. (shutterstock/ jathys)
A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Tuesday slammed a Republican proposal to pour $150 billion into the military beyond the increases already planned for 2025.
“Republicans are putting the Pentagon before the people,” Markey said during a press conference on Capitol Hill highlighting wasteful Pentagon spending.
The senator stood next to a large list of alternative projects that could be funded by a $150 billion allocation including new hospitals, student loan forgiveness, affordable housing units, and free school lunches.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) took aim at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, highlighting the hypocrisy of a military budget increase amid massive cuts to much smaller federal agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Education.
“Let’s not be fooled by the hollow claims that Elon is going to go after waste in Pentagon spending,” she said.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said the $150 billion spending increase proposal was driven by her colleagues’ investments in the military industrial complex, echoing an opinion piece she published in the Detroit Free Press late last month.
Rounding out the slate of speakers were Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, Gabe Murphy, and Thomas Countryman. Murphy, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan organization Taxpayers for Common Sense, lamented the bloating influence of private companies, noting that “half of our budget goes to defense contractors.”
Meanwhile, Countryman, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Affairs and current Board Chairman at the Arms Control Association, criticized the proposal’s emphasis on nuclear weapons spending as a defense strategy. “What concerns me about this particular agenda request by Republicans is that it will contribute to a nuclear arms race,” he said.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo credit: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy pays tribute to fallen defenders of the country as he visits Snake (Zmiinyi) Island in the Black Sea, retaken by the Ukrainian Armed Forces a year ago, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Odesa region, Ukraine, in this handout picture released July 8, 2023. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS
Ukraine has undertaken a number of optics-driven decisions and initiatives that have ended up doing real damage to its military and its ability to defend territory. A primary example is the standing up of the brand-new 155th Brigade — its short life and its subsequent demise.
The problematic aspects of how the 155th Brigade was formed and dissolved are currently under investigation by the Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigations (GBR). Nicknamed “Anne of Kyiv,” the much touted, highly publicized brigade was a joint effort by France, Ukraine, and to a lesser extent Poland. It was largely funded by France to create a powerful “flagship” regiment whose success on the battlefield would showcase just how effective NATO training and equipment, combined with Ukrainian troops, could be in combatting Russian forces.
Suffice it to say, the effort backfired, and it now joins other initiatives such as the Kursk incursion and the Bakhmut defense campaigns which arguably were driven far too much by public perception concerns than executing effective military tactics and strategy.
The formation of the 155th Brigade began in March of 2024 and went through several evolutions, but in the end some 2000 Ukrainians were trained in France and equipped with Western equipment such as German Leopard tanks and French made 155mm Caesar Howitzers. The remainder of the brigade’s 5800 men were trained in Poland and Western Ukraine. It took some nine months to recruit and train the men, and during this period, some 1700 of its members went AWOL.
And while the exact number of AWOLs in West Ukraine vs. Poland is not known, a French Army official confirmed that “dozens” of the desertions happened in France, too.
Despite these serious issues, the 155th was deployed to the southern Pokrovsk region in late November 2024. Sadly, due to the combination of poor leadership and lack of drones or electronic warfare equipment that already established brigades count on to survive and fight, it quickly began to disintegrate as it suffered heavy casualties. This led to its dismantling in a matter of just a few weeks, with its surviving members distributed to other units in desperate need of manpower.
So, after just a few weeks of combat, the brigade that cost roughly 900 million euros to stand up is gone.
One person who believes the whole failed exercise to be a scandal is Yuri Butusov, well-known Ukrainian investigative journalist and editor-in-chief of "Censor.net" magazine. A short summary of his investigations reveals how things should have been done.
According to Butosov, existing brigades operating in the higher intensity areas tend to lose general infantry much faster than they lose more specialized personnel such as drone operators, engineers, medics, etc. Consequently, replenishing existing brigades with infantry is often the most efficient way to leverage experienced people, while ensuring that newly trained/less experienced infantry can learn from more experienced troops while receiving the support of the specialized personnel that will help them survive long-enough to become experienced, more effective troops.
The way the 155th was formed ignored the above, and it also ignored that most of Ukraine’s brigades are understrength and in desperate need of infantry to restore their effectiveness. Hence, the way the men were trained, deployed, used, and destroyed was a debacle that could have been avoided. In his expose Butusov comes to this conclusion: “The soldiers of the 155th Brigade have become hostages of Zelenskyy's PR project, which the government has actually treated ineptly and irresponsibly.”
But this debacle is not the only such initiative carried out by Ukraine’s Commander in Chief. Zelensky’s many public proclamations on the importance of Bakhmut, insisting Ukraine would never allow Bakhmut to be taken, resulted in Kyiv deploying 38 brigades, including Ukraine’s most elite brigades, about 180,000 men, over the course of the battle, into a cauldron subjected to Russia’s 10 to 1 advantage in artillery fires.
This is particularly foolish in a war in which 80 percent of casualties are the result of artillery. Yet Zelensky stubbornly refused to listen to allied advice, urging that he order a tactical retreat from Bakhmut.
This failure to execute sound military tactics due to what looked like a fixation on the symbolism of Bakhmut resulted in the loss of many thousands of Ukraine’s most experienced, best-trained soldiers — a loss from which Ukraine has yet to recover.
Other examples include the initial Kursk incursion, the battle for Avdiivka, the most recent effort to take territory in Kursk, and the doomed-to-fail 2023 counteroffensive. These operations, along with the 155th, are examples of poor decisions that substantially weakened Ukraine, allowing Russia to accelerate its expansion of territory.
The upshot of this is that if Ukraine had made decisions based more on battlefield realities than optics or symbolism, it would not have lost as much territory and would be much better positioned for negotiations to come.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Straight Arrow News: Nearly 100 US Special Forces vets hired to operate key checkpoints in Gaza (YouTube/Screenshot)
The notion of sending private contractors to Gaza has been floated numerous times, to mixed-to-poor reviews. Last year, National Security expert Peter Singer dismissed the cause as “not even half baked.” More recently, a retired military official told RS it was a “bad, bad idea.” Even Washington Post columnist David Ignatius described the concept as “potentially controversial.”
Despite the disquiet, U.S. private contractors are ultimately going to Gaza to work on checkpoint and security maintenance as part of a multinational consortium created pursuant to the recent ceasefire and hostage deal. The consortium, according to Axios, is to facilitate Palestinians’ return to north Gaza while preventing possible weapons flow in the same direction.
Two American contracting outfits are involved. The first, Safe Reach Solutions (SRS) drew up operational plans for a key checkpoint between southern and northern Gaza. The second, UG Solutions, has been assigned to help staff it — company emails say that armed guards will carry out “internal vehicle checkpoint management and vehicle inspection[s]” there.
For this mission, UG Solutions is offering a daily rate of at least $1,100 to personnel (at least 100) it sends to the enclave — along with a $10,000 advance. Contractors have reportedly already been deployed.
The introduction of private contractors is apparently critical to the success of the ceasefire, as Israel’s earlier demands to have IDF forces staff the checkpoint were reportedly holding up previous attempts to broker a deal. But former private military contractors who spoke with Responsible Statecraft say the practice of privatizing military and security-related affairs poses a number of risks to the contractors while allowing governments — in this case, the United States and Israel — to forgo putting their own military on the ground.
Furthermore, these experts say, the private military industry in general — thanks to the built-in profit incentive and overarching opacity of its operations — lends itself to exacerbating and prolonging violence and conflict, not restraining it.
Opacity by design
Founded in Davidson, North Carolina, in 2023, UG Solutions offers little information about its operations on its website. There is little publicly known about it and the company did not respond to multiple inquiries by RS. Jameson Govoni, a principal individual managing the organization, is a former U.S. Special Forces soldier.
Former contractors described UG Solutions’ furtiveness to RS as an industry hallmark. “The need for non-attribution in warfare, the need for plausible deniability to get away with things, is one of the drivers of the market for… mercenaries,” said Dr. Sean McFate, a former contractor and author ofThe Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order.“That's why [the industry is] opaque, because that's one of the chief selling points.”
Indeed, the rules governing private military and security contractors’ conduct rest on shaky foundations due to the legal ambiguities created by operating abroad as non-military personnel.
“We weren’t under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] as civilians. We weren’t under the laws of Iraq as PMCs [private military contractors], and U.S. laws are not meant to govern civilians in combat zones,” said former Blackwater contractor Morgan Lerette, the author of Guns, Girls, and Greed: I Was a Blackwater Mercenary in Iraq. “We didn’t have any codified rules of engagement or defined chain of command. It was legally ambiguous.”
The former contractors also observed that their peers had had little outside support during and after their service, despite risking their lives on the job, but also, as Lerette had observed, suffering from post-service mental health problems sometimes leading to suicides.
According to Brown University’s Cost of War project, 50% more contractors than troops were present in the U.S. Central Command region in 2019, which included Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, more contractors than service members have died in wars waged post-9/11.
“Contractors are cheaper than hiring your own military…when the conflict is over, you don't have to send them home to sit at… Fort Liberty, where they're drawing a paycheck but not fighting. You just fire them, the contract is over,” McFate explained. “You don't have responsibility for [contractors’] physical or mental health. You don't have responsibility for taking care of their funeral. There's no Arlington Cemetery for them.”
And working in Gaza certainly poses varying risks for contractors and Palestinian civilians alike. “If I were there [as a contractor], my biggest concern would be taken hostage by Hamas and used as leverage for negotiations,” Lerette explained, elucidating the risks faced by U.S. contractors in a conflict zone.
UG Solutions’ contractors are allegedly tasked to stop vehicles only if something brought to the checkpoint is “deemed unsafe,” according to Washington Post reporting. But Truthout reporter Sharon Zhang, observing that Israel has often banned necessities, including food, from Gaza, wonders whether UG Solutions’ purported checkpoint activities would stay true to their publicly proclaimed scope.
Along similar lines, McFate asserted that contractors’ wrongdoings, even accidental ones, could “inflame the situation.” Again, it would be easier to avoid backlash and brush it under the rug. “Israel and Washington can really try to use the inherent plausible deniability with…contractors and say, ‘okay, they're fired. It wasn't us,'" he said.
Private contracting: a tool for forever war?
We should not be surprised that contractors are being used to provide security in this volatile situation because contracting has become one to engage in war without incurring political baggage or accountability. Indeed, former contractors say the practice can actually feed conflict.
“Using PMCs [private military contractors] has become a way for politicians to put U.S. citizens in harm's way while avoiding ‘boots on the ground,’” Lerette said. “PMCs are being used as proxy armies so the American public doesn’t protest getting into the next forever war…A contractor being killed or injured overseas doesn’t get the same media attention as a service member.”
Then there are the baked-in incentives to keep business going.
“When you tie lethality to profit margin [through contracting], you're incentivizing the potential to start and elongate conflicts for interest, for profit,” McFate told RS. “I'm not accusing the contractors on the ground in Gaza of wanting to do that, but they are a tentacle of a larger animal that is seeking to do this very thing.”
“I'm not saying it's happening, but it's possible some [contractors] would go to a place and, you know, start messing things up so they can create demand for their own supply,” he added.
On the other hand, McFate highlighted that the private contractors being sent to Gaza by UG Solutions, as former Green Berets, are experienced and competent. “Contractors, if they're well used, can do a great deal of good in the world, and I'm hoping that these individual contractors in Gaza can help do that,” said McFate. “But there's a chance they can royally mess it up.”
In this respect, Lerette expressed concern regarding the many responsibilities, especially ethical ones, that could be imposed on personnel operating in Gaza. “I call [private contracting] outsourcing the morality of combat operations to private contractors, because those guys have to make split decisions [about tenuous on-the-ground-conditions] without having those rules and regulations like a military member does,” Lerette said.
“It is a big moral conundrum on what to do or what not to do [in a conflict zone]. And when you outsource that morality [to private contractors], it’s a bad way to go.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.