
How a preventable disaster killed six marines - jbegley
https://www.propublica.org/article/marines-hornet-squadron-242-crash-pacific-resilard
======
duelingjello
Military family here. My step-brother flies F/A-18’s in the Navy (not exactly
the same spec as Marine Hornets but shares many parts), so that’s extra
concerning. This is sad and understandable based on how the MIC works. Tens of
trillions spent on crap; and chickenshit CO’s blame the victims (soldiers) and
coverup incompetence and gross negligence rather than exhibiting leadership,
taking responsibility and learning lessons. Don’t join up because your life
isn’t worth a damn to pig generals, politicians and corporate schmucks.

PS: A roommate of mine in college was a Marine Herc Navigator MOS, for KC-130
and C-130. They would frequently get on the plane drunk from the night before
but be expected to function. Squad meetings? At the bar, with mandatory
alcohol. He bemoaned the V-22 Osprey as an overpriced death-trap, which it
definitely was, in the beginning. I think many military cultures needs to
strongly encourage less binge alcoholic consumption for operational
effectiveness and because more personnel end up alcoholic, like my
grandfather, for one (who was a paratrooper and later an AP (MP)).

~~~
aspaceman
Yeah my experience in the Marines resonates with this a lot. So many training
meetings about how drinking and driving was bad, followed by a meetup at the
bar. Even during the presentations the officers in charge would joke about it.
None of it was ever taken seriously. The best example of double-talk I have in
real life. Way they would talk about "partying in Okinawa" was always creepy
when you consider the Marines' history there.

Not blaming anyone specifically of course. I feel for anyone who feels like
they need to drink to get through their days. Just think it's also a good
example of CO's talking big but meaning nothing, and that attitude trickles
all the way down the chain.

~~~
C1sc0cat
And your problem is here ?

If the meeting attendees where not driving after the meeting, I don't see the
problem with social drinking and bonding.

~~~
pjc50
Well, the original post said they were _flying aircraft_ while still impaired
afterwards ...

~~~
C1sc0cat
Well it was more the mandated PowerPoint presentation they had to sit through.

Anyone who's worked for a big corporation will know what I mean. "what the
anti brbary course dint we do that 6 weeks ago "

~~~
reallydontask
Isn't the difference that most people are unlikely to be in any position where
they can be bribed whereas in the military a lot more people use heavy
equipment (for want of a better word)?

~~~
C1sc0cat
Its the same sort of repeat the same tick the box training - and woe betide
you if you don't do it properly.

[https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/12/soldiers-accidentally-
sum...](https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/12/soldiers-accidentally-summon-
cthulhu-after-commander-forgets-to-give-safety-brief/)

------
chad_strategic
Devastating story, thank goodness for ProPublica bringing this to light.

I served on the ground side and never experienced this level of incompetence.
(There was plenty of other fun stuff...) But maybe the shear fact that Marine
Officers are on the front line with the enlisted, curbs dangerous behavior.
The Air Wing in the Marine Corps is it's own branch. Marine Air Wing
commanders are constantly being relieved, and usually make the cover of the
Marine Corp times.

My thoughts and payers go out to the families.

Semper Fi

Retired CWO2

------
RickJWagner
I was air-crew on a C-130 platform, I got to take part in a night aerail
refueling once.

It's truly an awesome sight. The aircraft are so big, and so close together.
The tanker has colored lights all over it, I expect to help guide the
following plane.

Through the windshield, it looks larger than life and a little surreal.

------
salex89
I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying
stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look
up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards,
marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it
looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.

~~~
aspaceman
The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable
about this, so someone might have more details.

Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon.

Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions.

Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters
as well.

So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an
issue of Marines not being good enough to fly, as there are very talented
Marine pilots around the world. Instead, these Marines weren't being given the
resources and training they needed, and were being ignored by the higher
chain. The argument that Marines don't take things as seriously is a little
ridiculous.

~~~
eaandkw
You should look up the MAGTF concept. Pilots are pilots and they are all very
well trained. The Marines generally deploy in a fully functional unit that has
a ground element, support element, and air element. There are different sizes
of MAGTFs that can support various levels of operations anywhere in the world.
One of the many advantages of the MAGTF is that everyone is speaking the same
"language" and using the same playbook making communication a lot easier.

~~~
aspaceman
Thank you for reminding me of this weird word hah. Been a while since I’ve
heard about MAGTF

------
nnvvhh
Donate to ProPublica!

------
tomlocke
No one has yet mentioned "Lying to Ourselves," so I will. It's a great essay
on this topic.

~~~
mncharity
> Lying to Ourselves[: Dishonesty in the Army Profession]

A post[1] and working link[2]. The two HN submissions got no traction.

[1] [https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the-
dem...](https://warontherocks.com/2015/03/lying-to-ourselves-the-demise-of-
military-integrity/) [2]
[https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA615274](https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA615274)

------
js8
Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely
support them. Why?

I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open
problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no
clear winner.

~~~
bluntfang
Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created.
I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy,
but am very inclined to read an opinion.

~~~
js8
You can have democratic decision-making, which isn't hierarchical and yet is
explicit about the distribution of power.

So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather
than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred by
humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on the
state level.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So while it's true that holacracies can quickly turn into hierarchies rather
> than democracies, it's still doesn't explain why hierarchies are preferred
> by humans over democracies, while the latter is obviously more acceptable on
> the state level.

Democracy on the state level mostly refers to bureaucratic heirarchy where the
leaders are (sometimes indirectly) accountable to the electorate; heirarchy
and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive. Heirarchy
dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just like it
does virtually all other human enterprises.

Democracy, on the state level, seems to be more reliant on formal reservation
and delineation of powers and well-institutionalized means of enforcing those
formalities than non-democratic heirarchy, which is perhaps why holacracy
becomes informal non-democratic heirarchy rather than something democratic.

~~~
js8
> heirarchy and democracy coexist rather than being mutually exclusive

Exactly, that is my point, in the army they are exclusive though. The people
lower in the hierarchy have little say in whether they trust the people upper
in the hierarchy.

> Heirarchy dominates state-level organization with or without democracy, just
> like it does virtually all other human enterprises.

That is true, but that's my point also. Why does it dominate, if we know from
our (rather limited) experience with democracy that at least on the state
level, it leads to better outcomes?

~~~
rmah
The US experimented with democratic military structures during the early days
of the Civil War (and perhaps before) at the regiment and company levels. Some
volunteer regiments elected their officers. This did not turn out well and the
practice was abandoned.

~~~
js8
That's certainly a worthy endeavor but I don't believe you can build democracy
from the bottom (by embedding it in the larger hierarchical structure), it has
to start from the top. At the bottom, it will not be taken seriously.

------
jonstewart
The preventable disaster—and one that’s cost taxpayers maybe a trillion
dollars with the F-35–is that the Marines have fighter jets. The argument we
should be having is whether the Navy should have its own fighter jet
capabilities in addition to the Air Force... but the argument we’re having is
that the Marines also have fight jets and impose silly requirements on their
jets.

~~~
anilakar
In that case, the question might as well be whether USA needs a navy at all,
considering that the aircraft carrier and its planes have been the deadliest
naval weapon system since WWII.

~~~
jonstewart
No doubt air craft carriers were very effective in WWII, when neither side had
high precision radar let alone real-time satellite imagery. They won’t be
effective in future wars. Air craft carriers are sitting ducks and will also
prove to be a terrible waste of blood and treasure.

The Navy is hugely important, and I think there’s even a good argument to be
made in favor of the USMC continuing to exist in a quasi-spec-ops/rapid
deployment infantry role. I think there’s no good argument to be made in favor
of the USMC having fighter jets.

~~~
mcguire
The Air Force doesn't do close air support. (They barely want to do air
superiority. No, really, check out the history of the AAF going into WWII and
B-36 in Korea.)

The Navy can do close air support, but likes to keep its planes on its ships
rather than forward deployed where the Marines need them.

The Army uses helicopters for close air support to get around the Air Force,
but those have the problem of loiter time.

If you did manage to bludgeon the Air Force into handling air support, those
units would have to be so tightly tied to the Marines and Army that their
careers would be compromised in the Air Force.

~~~
jonstewart
Our services could use some bludgeoning to work better together. There’s no
question that CAS is an important mission. Providing it with F-18s and F-35s
through an underresourced mini-air force within the USMC seems kind of dumb.
Give the USMC drones to handle some basic missions, make USAF provide CAS, and
use a more diverse, cheaper, and specialized set of platforms.

