Choppers for Darfur

[Kenneth P. Katz]

What a farce. This is why serious people don't take the EU seriously.

 

For weeks, the EU has struggled to muster the dozen or so helicopters needed to move European soldiers quickly around the vast area. In addition, problems have hit a planned United Nations-African Union force of 26,000 for Darfur itself.

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

It took how long for the US to move a Company (Batt?) of Apaches to the Balkans?

 

That would be the goat f?ck known as Task Force Hawk. No combat missions flown by the Apaches, $300 Million in deployment costs.

 

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202hawk.pdf

Edited November 23, 2007 by Hittite Under The Bridge

[EchoFiveMike]

Which we would use for what, in the context of UK requirements? A standing amphibious ready force somewhere outside of northern European waters?

 

I don't know, looking after UK interests in the world? Deterring Aregentinian invasion perhaps? Providing aid and comfort to 3rd world shitholes in their time of catastrophe? You know, same thing the US uses the MEU's for. S/F....Ken M

[Colin]

So where is Russia or China, it's about time they took up some of the slack, of course China already has troops in Sudan.

[Ariete!]

You mean a formation like 3 Commando Brigade, 9e Brigade Légère Blindée de Marine or the Spanish Marine Infantry Brigade?

 

Smartass.

 

I’m aware that some nations in the EU have amphibious brigades. I’m questioning their ability to coherently deploy afloat and then effect forced entry with a a brigade-sized force. Especially on short notice.

 

How often do 3rd Cdo Brig, 9e BLBdM or the Spaniards ‘float’, do full FTX (let alone deploy/operate) as a whole brigade? Hmmm? MEBs do it all the time.

 

Most amphibious ‘brigades’ in Europe are merely reservoirs of professional light infantry, typically used a battalion / TF at a time.

[Assessor]

Coming vaguely back toward the topic, last time I had a look, MEU's had a significant helicopter capacity, built in to their establishment, and presumably these are expected to be used.

 

I don't think anyone is Western Europe has much in the way of helicopters quietly dozing aboard amphibious ships whilst deployed ground forces beg for more, so even if you scavenged up all the amphib. capacity, and put the infantry on it, you still don't get an "MEU" (as such) because yoo don't get around a basic problem: too few helicopters.

 

For the UK, given we are buying Typhoons, a couple of carriers and (probably) a replacement for the Trident system, there is effectively no possibility of this changing.

 

HMG's procurement priorities (such as they are ) evidently lie elsewhere.

[Anixtu]

I’m aware that some nations in the EU have amphibious brigades. I’m questioning their ability to coherently deploy afloat and then effect forced entry with a a brigade-sized force. Especially on short notice.

 

How often do 3rd Cdo Brig, 9e BLBdM or the Spaniards ‘float’, do full FTX (let alone deploy/operate) as a whole brigade? Hmmm? MEBs do it all the time.

 

Did lack of regular training as a complete brigade impair 3 Cdo Brigade's performance at Al-Faw? (allowing that not all of 45 Cdo were present)

 

Most amphibious ‘brigades’ in Europe are merely reservoirs of professional light infantry, typically used a battalion / TF at a time.

 

Hence my omission of the Dutch brigade and Italian couple of regiments as they definitely lack the lift or numbers for a brigade.

[Anixtu]

While we're here and on the subject, how often do MEBs exercise as a complete brigade? I notice that according to the USMC website each requires half of the US Navy's amphibious lift to move. The USMC seem to be aimed much more at MEU sized operations, with the MEBs assembled for specific large-scale events.

 

Input from our resident marines most welcome!

[RETAC21]

How often do 3rd Cdo Brig, 9e BLBdM or the Spaniards ‘float’, do full FTX (let alone deploy/operate) as a whole brigade? Hmmm? MEBs do it all the time.

 

Dunno about the other, but the Tercio de Armada has at least a couple of big exercises every year involving most of the brigade (Infantry battalions may rotate).

[rmgill]

As compared to the US

 

10 x LHD

10 x LPD

12 x LSD

 

For a total of 32 vessels (with between them a disproportionately larger lift capacity than the European 26).

AFAIK there is only one Commando in Afghanistan at present, the other two could therefore be available for MEU-type games. If all three and their supporting units were available you could have 3 Commando Brigade to play with, more of an MEB-type unit.

 

And you're missing the 123 maritime sealift (27)/preposition (35) and ready reserve (52) ships which is less capable of forcing the shore but can still supply the mission at the unimproved harbor or using improvised or dedicated lighters at the supply point across the shore. They have their own lighters, cranes and capability for working in unimproved harbors. That offsets the above capability even more I think.

[Colin]

Another problem with the use of Civilian helicopters is the fact that with economic booms going on, most the helicopters and pilots are in high demand already. To convince a company to fly in Dafur with the risk of AA fire, rather than the Alberta tarsands is going to take a lot of money!

 

Canada could send it's Griffions there, but unlikely as they would better off in Afghanistan with the rest of the Army.

[Anixtu]

And you're missing the 123 maritime sealift (27)/preposition (35) and ready reserve (52) ships which is less capable of forcing the shore but can still supply the mission at the unimproved harbor or using improvised or dedicated lighters at the supply point across the shore. They have their own lighters, cranes and capability for working in unimproved harbors. That offsets the above capability even more I think.

 

It was a deliberate omission, as with the Point Class. I was sticking to amphibious assault lift capacity. The functional (if less capable) equivalent in the European context would be chartered commercial shipping.

[swerve]

Already said.

Edited November 23, 2007 by swerve

[Archie Pellagio]

Dunno about the other, but the Tercio de Armada has at least a couple of big exercises every year involving most of the brigade (Infantry battalions may rotate).

 

How many troops did the italians put ashore in Lebanon last year?

[EchoFiveMike]

While we're here and on the subject, how often do MEBs exercise as a complete brigade? I notice that according to the USMC website each requires half of the US Navy's amphibious lift to move. The USMC seem to be aimed much more at MEU sized operations, with the MEBs assembled for specific large-scale events.

 

Input from our resident marines most welcome!

 

MEB's are generally only permanently organized as a staff, the USMC's unit of merit is the battalion. A MEU is organized around a BLT, which is a rifle battalion with just about all the attachments it's supposed to have, per doctrine. Winds up being about 1200 men and that's just the combat element. A MEU has organic helos, Harriers and logistics elements as well. IIRC, it's almost 2200 Marines.

 

http://www.usmc.mil/15thmeu/PAGES/what_is_a_meu.htm

 

So a MEB is going to be just over three times that. Each MarDiv has MEB command staffs that are manned IOT form MEB's from the subordinate units on an as needed basis. Ken Estes would know more about this due to his experience, I have had nothing to do with the USMC above the battalion level by choice until recently. And that experience has validated my previous position S/F.....Ken M

[Ariete!]

How many troops did the italians put ashore in Lebanon last year?

 

Both S. Marco and Lagunari were sent (dunno if at full strength). But it was an unopposed landing of two battalions with reasonable foreplanning.

[rmgill]

It was a deliberate omission, as with the Point Class. I was sticking to amphibious assault lift capacity. The functional (if less capable) equivalent in the European context would be chartered commercial shipping.

 

Why? It doesn't have the same capability, same lighter-age and unimproved harbor capabilities that the civilian ships that would be Chartered have. And the US can charter additional hulls if it needs MORE space over and above what it already has. The TAKR's are NOT just commercial ships. They've been modified for their tasks and they're on a less than 96 hour response time assuming they're not already working right now. Having their own cranes is useful too, Not just little jibs, but 110 ton jobs so they can REALLY lift off their own cargo (In the Case of the Bob Hopes). You're not going to be lifting MBT's over the side onto lighters with more conventional cargo vessels or contracted RORO ships.

 

Or for example The 18 Algols can get nearly all the gear a Mechanized division needs to the Persian Gulf in 18 days from CONUS. They'll do 33 knots in calm seas and 22 in rough seas.

 

Frankly, you're still stuck in the same habit that doesn't work. Don't own it, try to rent it when everyone else wants to rent it. Again, you're going to ask that you fire brigade have to borrow it's equipment. Instead of JUST looking for helicopters, you're also going to be looking for ships to put the helo's on and move them, along with everything else. Really efficient I tell you.

 

I suggest you read up on the full suite of ships. You know the Maritime Preposition force ships have 40,000 Gallons / Day PLUS of fresh water production on board. You're not going to find that on Maersk Line Container ships either.

[Anixtu]

I don't get your point.

 

MSC is a more capable and readily available means of strategic sealift than chartered commercial shipping? I never suggested otherwise. That is the very reason for the UK MoD's Point class.

 

 

On a minor point,

 

You're not going to be lifting MBT's over the side onto lighters with more conventional cargo vessels or contracted RORO ships.

 

Indeed, you'll roll them off the stern ramp and over an RSP onto lighters.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Anixtu

[rmgill]

I don't get your point.

 

Discounting/handwaving away the dedicated Preposition/Fast transports is like waving away half of the ships that moved material across to Normandy because they weren't LST's. To project force, you don't just need warships, you need ships to provide fuel and stores to enable those ships to stay on station longer. The same goes for supplying forces ashore. Sure, you need something to put the material ashore but you ALSO need ships to supply those and to provide space for follow on forces. Something configured to supply additional material Multiplies the value of your already existing LSTs. And you'll note that a lot of Amphibious ships don't beach any more or even come close to shore.

 

MSC is a more capable and readily available means of strategic sealift than chartered commercial shipping? I never suggested otherwise. That is the very reason for the UK MoD's Point class.

On a minor point,

Indeed, you'll roll them off the stern ramp and over an RSP onto lighters.

 

What lighters? How'd you get them there? You don't have anything you didn't bring. All you have are some shallow docks and crappy beach. Where'd you find the lighters? Oh, wait, the USNS brought them right?

 

And how are you unloading your containerized supplies? Forklifts up the ramp into the RO/RO Ship?

 

One wonders how many of these Europe has dedicated to their military. The whole facility is pretty amazing when you realize there are 3 Loading Piers, a rail yard, a separate container handling area, dispersal areas for loaded rail cars and dispersal areas for separate containers or vehicles.

Edited November 26, 2007 by rmgill

[Anixtu]

My initial comparison was of amphibious shipping. Strategic sealift is a separate but still valid issue for force projection. As is underway replenishment since you've mentioned it. However, as they are separate issues, they were omitted from the comparison.

 

However I enjoy the discussion of afloat logistic support so we can carry on...

 

What lighters? How'd you get them there? You don't have anything you didn't bring. All you have are some shallow docks and crappy beach. Where'd you find the lighters? Oh, wait, the USNS brought them right?

 

If it's the UK, Mexeflote powered lighters. Built units brought as side cargo on LSD(A)s. Additional units can be carried as deck cargo on any ship with a modest crane and sufficient deck space, to be assembled in situ. Can land tracked and wheeled vehicles over a beach or ramp.

 

And how are you unloading your containerized supplies? Forklifts up the ramp into the RO/RO Ship?

Does rather sound like the plan. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PA..._n15648545/pg_3

 

Out of curiosity, on how many occasions since WWII has the US had to employ these logistics capabilities in earnest in the absence of a suitable port facility? I can think of at least one European nation that has had to do so.

 

One wonders how many of these Europe has dedicated to their military. The whole facility is pretty amazing when you realize there are 3 Loading Piers, a rail yard, a separate container handling area, dispersal areas for loaded rail cars and dispersal areas for separate containers or vehicles.

 

Sounds awfully like SMC Marchwood on steroids.

 

For European nations other than the UK, YMMV. Anyone know the score for France?

[Assessor]

Not wanting to stop a good rant, or to argue that Europe lacks expeditionary capability, just consider the following:

 

For most of the latter half of the twentieth century, no-one in Europe expected to need any sort of amphibious capability or maritime pre-positioning. Why? Because the war was expected to be fought in their own back yards, where the nearest thing you needed to amphibs was a decent pair of boots to ford a stream and you were pre-positioned by the nature of the fact that you lived ON the likely battlefield.

 

Therefore, Europe had about as much need for those items as the US had for permanent minefields and road bridges designed for easy demolition. Hence, they weren’t bought. The exceptions, like the UK and France, had specific, limited missions in mind, not a whole new doctrine of threats.

 

Further, how long does it take the US, with an unbroken history of designing and building amphibs from (I guess) 1942 till now to get a new vessel from the concept stage to fleet service? This isn’t quite like going out and buying a new car, is it?

[Archie Pellagio]

Bear in mind that the US would be hard pressed to have Marines hitting the beach in less that a three even as a deterrent/defence force ala Desert Shield

 

Less that two weeks (without prior warning) would be nigh on impossible unless the MEU happened to be just off the coast.

 

The key to an amphib force is they represent the first real combat power on the ground.

 

If something happens in Derka-derkastan you can dispatch your A!RBORNE GAV!N-tastic light inf. rapid reaction forces within days, but to stop armour etc you need the power that a force like the USMC provides until Big Army shows up in two or three months...

[rmgill]

Further, how long does it take the US, with an unbroken history of designing and building amphibs from (I guess) 1942 till now to get a new vessel from the concept stage to fleet service? This isn’t quite like going out and buying a new car, is it?

 

The West vs Soviet thing was going on elsewhere from the 50's onwards. Korea/Inchon, Vietnam, Malaya, Africa, Middle East. How many times since Iran got frisky has there been some sort of mass movement of a brigade or larger somewhere to do something OTHER than Europe?

[rmgill]

My initial comparison was of amphibious shipping. Strategic sealift is a separate but still valid issue for force projection. As is underway replenishment since you've mentioned it. However, as they are separate issues, they were omitted from the comparison.

 

Define 'Amphibious'.

 

Oh, and I do have to observe that Britain does generally seem to do more than her fair share given her size for naval operations, though the current drawdown looks a bit ominous, that's food for another thread. Still, my above and below protestations are aimed at the continentals and not so much at blighty.

 

However I enjoy the discussion of afloat logistic support so we can carry on...

If it's the UK, Mexeflote powered lighters. Built units brought as side cargo on LSD(A)s. Additional units can be carried as deck cargo on any ship with a modest crane and sufficient deck space, to be assembled in situ. Can land tracked and wheeled vehicles over a beach or ramp.

Small things like that would be handy I supposed. But Something bigger would be more useful for more Flo/Flo work.

 

 

Does rather sound like the plan. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PA..._n15648545/pg_3

 

Seen these

 

 

Out of curiosity, on how many occasions since WWII has the US had to employ these logistics capabilities in earnest in the absence of a suitable port facility? I can think of at least one European nation that has had to do so.

Sounds awfully like SMC Marchwood on steroids.

 

Inchon, Vietnam, Threatened amphib landings on Iraq, any number of operations in support of humanitarian aid (major hurricane/tsunami ops). Of course how many times has the UK had to use any number of it's amphibious capabilities? Or Nuclear Weapons or the like?

[Anixtu]

Inchon, Vietnam, Threatened amphib landings on Iraq, any number of operations in support of humanitarian aid (major hurricane/tsunami ops). Of course how many times has the UK had to use any number of it's amphibious capabilities? Or Nuclear Weapons or the like?

 

Are you confusing combat landings with logistics over the shore (Inchon and Iraq, I've no idea about Vietnam)? What elements of MSC-portable logistics over the shore capability have been deployed in support of humanitarian operations vs the use of Navy amphibious assault ships? It was only a curiosity question, but as you are emphasising the importance and capability of current US over-the-shore logistics and using it as a differentiation from capabilities present in Europe I thought perhaps there would be some important and large-scale specific examples.

 

Edit - I found the Vietnam and Desert Storm logistics examples at the bottom of your link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lots.htm though the Vietnam examples mention LARCs and LCUs rather than the more specialist equipment.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Anixtu