Choppers for Darfur

[swerve]

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.

 

One thing that isn't being drawn down is amphibious capacity. Significant build-up in the last decade, with old ships replaced by bigger, better new ones. Last Bay-class LSD has just been commissioned. Reliance on STUFT has also been reduced greatly, with the Point-class. Other W. European countries are also increasing amphibious capability, though from a lower starting point.

 

Of course how many times has the UK had to use any number of it's amphibious capabilities?

 

Not often, but off the top of my head - Suez, Falklands, & at least once in peacekeeping operations (Sierra Leone).

[Assessor]

I notice the question on how long to design and build these ships still hasn't got an answer

 

Quote: "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?"

 

All the time in the CW, carting troops to Norway for re-inforcement exercises. I seem to recall the Falklands and Suez at least in this context - neither of which was exactly "East v West", more our own problem. I don't recall Vietnam having a fat lot to do with us.

 

Look, no-one is disputing how big the US is, or how capable or anything like that. It was (and maybe still is) a question of priorities. If there seems a real, realistic possibility that you'll be fighting to keep the enemy out of your own towns and villages, the ability to project power thousands of miles away is NOT your priority. Hence the way most of Europe worked in the Cold War. The US, by being bigger, and having a bigger populatoin and hence a bigger pot of money, can give a small proportion of this pot to amphibs, but a small proportion of a vast number is still a lot of gelt. How do you see this working for (e.g.) Belgium?

 

How soon after the end of the Cold War (even if no one had expected a "peace dividend" - yeah, right!) was it abundantly clear that long-range intervention forces, long on infantry and short on armour were the "next thing"? Even if it had been decided at that moment to build amphibs, how long would it have taken? Like I said, this isn't like buying a car - there aren't any sales lots with "good deals" on amphibs - or for that matter helicopters!

[swerve]

...

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

 

What do you define as small? According to the British army website, Mexeflotes have a payload of up to 180 tonnes. The army also has a few RCLs (290 tonnes displacement).

[Anixtu]

Like I said, this isn't like buying a car - there aren't any sales lots with "good deals" on amphibs - or for that matter helicopters!

 

Have you tried Uncle Sam's Used Landing Ships?

[Anixtu]

The army also has a few RCLs (290 tonnes displacement).

 

The problem with RCLs is getting them to the theatre. They are "self-deployable" but only by hugging the coast and they aren't very quick, having to be despatched well in advance of the main body. Any operational use outside NW European waters would require the use of <aghast> chartered commercial shipping </aghast> to get them there. AFAIK they are slightly too large for British LSD/LPD docks. We can only hope that the Army replaces or augments them soon-ish with something that will fit an LSD dock to make up for the lack of LCUs to go round.

 

An RCL must be the most independent command for a Staff Sergeant, potentially 1000s of miles from higher authority.

[Assessor]

Have you tried Uncle Sam's Used Landing Ships?

 

Anything Uncle Sam feels like selling is, I fear, likely to be "well run-in" in used car sales-speak

[rmgill]

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.

 

The US response to the Tsunami involved off the top of my head, a Carrier Group, A Marine Amphibious Group AND MPSRONTHREE (out of Guam) less the ammunition ships (for obvious reasons). Pushing combat units over a shore AND keeping them supplied is a critical component of that. IF you can't carry enough supplies for the sustained combat mission you might as well not go.

 

 

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.

 

Desert Storm saw heavy use of the newer converted Container/Roll-on/Roll-Off ships, largely because they weren't in existence so much during vietnam. Certainly not in the form of failed or converted examples from the civilian market. The alternative in Vietnam was slower amphibious hulls (or ones with a crane lifted bow ramp and more conventional bow) or conventional over the side shipping at piers.

[rmgill]

What do you define as small? According to the British army website, Mexeflotes have a payload of up to 180 tonnes. The army also has a few RCLs (290 tonnes displacement).

 

We have, in the tradition of Normandy/Mulberry a range of things either in use or in development for LOTS.

 

Elevated Causeways

Floating Causeways, which can be powered or unpowered made up of ISO container sections.

A design study and tests for a platform that's meant to act as both a discharge platform for RO/RO ships AND a landing platform for LCAC's so they can run up on the platform and work. They used a Flo/Flo ship for this test.

 

And of course there are LCACs, Older LSTs, lighters, small harbor tugs and other craft which can be deployed by the Heavy Lift ships. Apparently, you can even roll amphibious landing craft out of the stern ramps of the Roll on Roll off ships as the ramps are long enough to get down into the water for a comfortable departure from the ship.

 

There's even a mobile version of PLUTO which mates a pipelinelaying/pumping vessel with a tanker to provide speedy distribution of fuels ashore from an unimproved landing area.

 

You know, I'm a bit confused why anyone here is arguing against notional support elements for supplying troops/vehicles ashore in lieu of ONLY Amphibious ships when forced amphibious landings are less likely in peacekeeping roles AND the need for ships able to self unload in unimproved or damaged harbors is more likely. Seems like your arguments over not enough forced landings should be urging the EU towards at LEAST a notional preposition/Transport fleet for getting their gear from Old Europe to elsewhere.

[swerve]

...

You know, I'm a bit confused why anyone here is arguing against notional support elements for supplying troops/vehicles ashore in lieu of ONLY Amphibious ships when forced amphibious landings are less likely in peacekeeping roles AND the need for ships able to self unload in unimproved or damaged harbors is more likely. Seems like your arguments over not enough forced landings should be urging the EU towards at LEAST a notional preposition/Transport fleet for getting their gear from Old Europe to elsewhere.

 

I haven't noticed anyone arguing against it. Anixtu has, perfectly reasonably, pointed out that it was a low priority during the Cold War, when for most W. Europeans some more tanks seemed far more useful than a cargo ship. He hasn't said - nor has anyone else, AFAIK, that it's a bad idea now.

 

IMO, the Point-class is one of the best buys we've made recently, & I think it'd be a damn good idea for other W. European countries to do something similar - or even buy more of the same, and a load of Mexeflotes or similar things for offloading where ports aren't available. The few long-term charters (e.g. the Danish navy has had two since 2003 & 2004) of ro-ros are not, IMO, enough.

 

What does get up my nose a little is that you seem to be suggesting that there isn't any transport fleet at all on this side of the Atlantic (not enough, I accept: but to say none is incorrect), & that amphibious capability is being run down, when it's about the only part of EU navies that is growing. The French have just replaced two 8500 tonne LSDs with two 21500 tonne LHDs, for example.

[rmgill]

I notice the question on how long to design and build these ships still hasn't got an answer

 

 

Well, interestingly a four of the Large Medium Speed Lift Ships, and all of the Roll-On/Roll-Off Container ships, Dedicated Container ships and Fast Sealift Ships were conversions from civilian hulls. Things typically added were:

 

Larger C4I Suites to integrate with the Naval Communications Systems

Large Cranes for better handling of their own cargo in ports where there are no cranes.

 

In Some cases Fresh Water production facilities on the order of 40,000 or more gallons per day.

Larger or more ramps (both sides and a stern) for Roll On/Roll Off functions or discharging craft directly into the water

 

 

Larger davits for small landing craft and lighters for self unloading operations, or landing craft stowed aboard which can be launched by the onboard cranes.

Helecopter decks for Vert-Rep and other operations

 

 

 

All the time in the CW, carting troops to Norway for re-inforcement exercises. I seem to recall the Falklands and Suez at least in this context - neither of which was exactly "East v West", more our own problem. I don't recall Vietnam having a fat lot to do with us.

It was the Cold War old chap, the Aussies chipped in so the Brits didn't have to.

 

 

Look, no-one is disputing how big the US is, or how capable or anything like that. It was (and maybe still is) a question of priorities. If there seems a real, realistic possibility that you'll be fighting to keep the enemy out of your own towns and villages, the ability to project power thousands of miles away is NOT your priority. Hence the way most of Europe worked in the Cold War.

 

The Maritime Prepsoition force has gotten bigger since the end of the cold war or as it drew down.

 

The US, by being bigger, and having a bigger populatoin and hence a bigger pot of money, can give a small proportion of this pot to amphibs, but a small proportion of a vast number is still a lot of gelt. How do you see this working for (e.g.) Belgium?

The US has a GDP of ~13,000,000 million. Belgium has a GDP of just under 400,000 Million. It's about a 33rd of the US GDP. The US has a 293 ship fleet which includes high dollar items like Carriers (12) Ballistic Missile Submarines (14) and Attack Submarines (58). That's nearly 9 ships if you take a 33rd slice. Of those 293 vessels, 51 of them are Amphibious and Maritime Preposition forces ships. 35 ships are part of the Preposition program (one source seems to exclude the tankers, dry cargo and ammunition ships as auxiliaries differentiated by class) and there are 52 Sealift/Ready Reserve Force ships of various types. Surely Belgium can afford, as a percentage of their GDP some relatively cheap merchant class hulls (buy them second hand if you have to and upgrade them) convert it with some ramps, a helicopter deck, some cranes and a crew of 30 men.

 

Surely there are some yards in Belgium that could do the conversion work (you're paying your own people!). When they need to chip in with the rest of the first world, drive your company of tanks, 2 comapanies of infantry, and several companies of logistics/support vehicles on and ship them in with the rest of the European Taskforce to come help the rest of the world. Buy some fast patrol craft, make some special davits or what not and store your smaller brown water navy forces and make them portable with your MSC craft and bring your share of your pie to the party. Heck, you could get wild and crazy and make 2-3 hulls and fit them out as combination Container/RO/RO/Transport ships with some containers converted as living space for berthing, RORO space and a fancy Arapaho style flying deck on top of the containers for some extra helos. At least work up the capacity to move a part of 1 Brigade or 7 Brigade somewhere further than Paris. How many ships to move a Full brigade? 2-3? The Algols can move 95% of a full US Mechanized 1/2 type division. That's with big fuel guzzling Abrams and other vehicles. surely the Panudrs, Mowags, Dingos and Unimogs are less fuel/space/logistics intensive?

 

How many men should Belgium bring? Well, if we use the US system again, there's 35,000 troops worth of amphibious shipping available to the US Marines/Navy. Can Belgium muster 1060 men for an amphibious force? How many men are in 1 Brigade?

 

I'm not expecting Belgium to force the port themselves, but if they could provide a battalion of troops and get themselves there to the port and get ashore either using our LOTS system or their own lighters, I think it'd go a long way to avoiding looking like they're avoiding doing their fair share.

 

How soon after the end of the Cold War (even if no one had expected a "peace dividend" - yeah, right!) was it abundantly clear that long-range intervention forces, long on infantry and short on armour were the "next thing"? Even if it had been decided at that moment to build amphibs, how long would it have taken? Like I said, this isn't like buying a car - there aren't any sales lots with "good deals" on amphibs - or for that matter helicopters!

 

How long has old Europe's Colonies been a cesspool of problems that Europe has wanted to ignore? Surely, the problems in Belgian Congo could be seen as writing on the wall or were the wogs just expected to get on and what they did was never going to affect or bother the Europeans? Britain's been spending money policing up the colonies and assisting the commonwealth for years. Even if you're just pushing trucks around on humanitarian missions and you don't need a single pound of armor, you still need some way to get the Military tactical trucks there so you can get where the impacted people are. Look back at the basic gist of the thread, Europe wants to help in Darfur but can't sorry, we're fresh out of Helicopters.

 

The US has cut back on it's Amphibious shipping as the cold war has drawn down but the preposition ships started getting produced and expanded as time has gone on. The Large Sea Lift ships seem to have been expanded and refined as time has gone on. Some readings I've found seem to indicate the Iranian Hostage Crisis as the point where more was found for those kinds of ships. The Algols were an unsuccessful business venture for a high speed container ship (33 Knots sustained) but were just right for US Navy use for moving US Army vehicles, so we bought the lot of them from Sea-Land in 1981. They cost of $4 Million a Year just to sit on the quays on maintenance, more if we're moving vehicles around to GI Joe in the far flung corners of the world.

 

When you get down to it, for the cubes they bring make for more efficient use of $ per tons moved. they're not combat capable, but when you have a conventional amphibious force to force the shore AND these to bring more material/men/supplies you're just bringing more of what you need. We can even look to the Falklands war as an example of how conventional container ships could be pressed into service.

 

Interestingly, what makes the difference between Amphibious Ships and Maritime Lift is the presence of the combat troops on board the ships or not (aside from maintenance staff along with the vehicles).

 

I found some use data this is just for the 8 Algols:

 

In early 2003 all eight FSS were activated to carry U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps cargo to the Central Command area of operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In February 1999, USNS Antares was activated to carry U.S. Army cargo in support of the NATO peacekeeping mission Operation Joint Guard to the Balkan port of Rijeka, Croatia.

In October 1998, USNS Algol was activated to carry disaster relief supplies and equipment to Puerto Rico and other nearby islands following the aftermath of Hurricane Georges.

In 1994, USNS Antares was called into action to transport equipment and supplies to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Haitian and Cuban refugees were provided safe haven by U.S. forces.

In 1994, USNS Capella and USNS Denebola worked with NATO forces on convoy exercises in the Mediterranean.

In 1992, during the U.S. humanitarian relief effort in Somalia, six FSS were activated to transport vehicles and equipment to support U.S. forces assigned to Operation Restore Hope/UNOSOM II.

Edited November 28, 2007 by rmgill

[rmgill]

I haven't noticed anyone arguing against it. Anixtu has, perfectly reasonably, pointed out that it was a low priority during the Cold War, when for most W. Europeans some more tanks seemed far more useful than a cargo ship. He hasn't said - nor has anyone else, AFAIK, that it's a bad idea now.

 

The cold war has been over for a good while and there was stuff going on outside of Europe during the cold war. The UK and France at least figured that out.

 

IMO, the Point-class is one of the best buys we've made recently, & I think it'd be a damn good idea for other W. European countries to do something similar - or even buy more of the same, and a load of Mexeflotes or similar things for offloading where ports aren't available. The few long-term charters (e.g. the Danish navy has had two since 2003 & 2004) of ro-ros are not, IMO, enough.

This is what I'm driving at.

 

What does get up my nose a little is that you seem to be suggesting that there isn't any transport fleet at all on this side of the Atlantic (not enough, I accept: but to say none is incorrect), & that amphibious capability is being run down, when it's about the only part of EU navies that is growing. The French have just replaced two 8500 tonne LSDs with two 21500 tonne LHDs, for example.

 

Aside from what the RFA sent, how much transport fleet gear went where in the past year on humanitarian ops? Perhaps I'm just not seeing it on CNN International or BBC.com? Did Europe send anything to the Tsunami impacted regions by sea that wasn't chartered after a series of government bids? The EU has a combined GDP of just a bit more than the US does. Yet we're able to muster money for 275 ships in our navy to do things all over the world. From what I see, only the UK is close to pulling her own weight depending on how you slice things (hulls, tons).

 

What gets me is that Europe has more Ferries that go pretty significant distances than you can shake a stick at. It seems like to me, there ought to be little trouble scaring up some ersatz amphibious assets on short notice.

 

I'll try to do a quick count, fill in any gaps I have please.

 

Nation - GDP in Millions of US - Amphib/Landing/Sealift Ships

Germany - 2,906,681 - 2 40 Meter landing Craft

UK - 2,345,015 - 1 Ocean, 2 Albion Class LPD, 4 Bay Class LSD, 6 Point Class, Galahad & Lancelot

France - 2,230,721 - 2 Mistral LPHs, x2 Ouragon LPDs and x2 Foudre LPDs

Italy - 1,844,749 - 1 Cavour, 3 San Giorgio

Spain - 1,223,988 - x2 Rotterdam LPDs, x2 Newport class LSTs,

Netherlands - 657,590 - x2 Rotterdam LPDs

Belgium - 392,001 - x1 CLST

Sweden - 384,927

Poland - 338,733

Austria - 322,444 (we'll forgive them not having a navy, though a Tegetthoff would be appropriate, though I guess they couldn't base it in Italy?)

Norway - 310,960

Denmark - 275,237

Greece - 244,951 - x5 Jason LSTs, x2 Terrebonne Parish class LSTs

 

What did I miss?

 

What's interesting is that Singapore with a GDP of 132,158 Million has 4 LPDs and a gaggle of frigates corvettes and DE Subs.

Edited November 28, 2007 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

Did Europe send anything to the Tsunami impacted regions by sea that wasn't chartered after a series of government bids?

 

Don't know about other nations, but Germany sent AOE Berlin with an embarked modular hospital (MERZ), which happened to be off the Horn of Africa under OEF when the tsunami struck. Additional MERZ containers for full level 4 care and other aid materiel were taken onboard in India, and Berlin arrived off Banda Aceh four days after the disaster to stay for two months. Plus Luftwaffe aid airlifts started immediately, with another field hospital installed by the Medical Fast Deployment Forces Command on land.

 

Total of 2,311 patients treated ambulatory, 854 stationary, 196 surgeries and 3,429 inocculations performed. Medical instruments and drugs for a total worth of 1.4 million Euro handed over to reinstate local hospitals, total of 650 tons of aid delivered. Total cost of the military mission 15 million Euro. Civilian federal agencies like the Technical Aid Agency (THW) and the Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) continued reconstruction efforts afterwards (the THW is Germany’s primary fast response disaster relief force, both domestically and globally).

 

Might not have registered on your radar. Various reports in German are here:

 

http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/PA_1_0_P3/...sitory=youatweb

 

http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/Curr...p;s=10&c=10

[swerve]

...

Aside from what the RFA sent, how much transport fleet gear went where in the past year on humanitarian ops? Perhaps I'm just not seeing it on CNN International or BBC.com? Did Europe send anything to the Tsunami impacted regions by sea that wasn't chartered after a series of government bids? ...

 

Yes. Off the top of my head, there were various navy ships in the Indian Ocean, (RN, French, German - maybe others) & they were diverted to tsunami relief. US channels focus on US efforts, the BBC on British efforts. Try looking at some others, e.g. German or Spanish. Spain sent a hospital ship.

 

Just checked the French & British. We had an RFA & a frigate in theatre, the French a helicopter carrier/training ship & two frigates. All were immediately committed.

 

Immediacy matters in these cases. Ships from Europe take too long for emergency relief, so you fly in the urgent stuff, unless you have ships nearby. Normal commercial procedures are quick enough for long-term rebuilding aid.

 

What's interesting is that Singapore with a GDP of 132,158 Million has 4 LPDs

 

An island, which needs sealift to get anywhere & is totally dependent on trade. Special case, methinks. You won't find another country in the world with so much in relation to size. And 4 small LPDs (officially LSTs), combined tonnage less than Juan Carlos I (new Spanish LHD building).

[swerve]

...

What gets me is that Europe has more Ferries that go pretty significant distances than you can shake a stick at. It seems like to me, there ought to be little trouble scaring up some ersatz amphibious assets on short notice. ...

 

That's what everyone keeps telling you. Our military planners know that those ro-ro ferries can be requisitioned in cases of dire need. But taking them out of service to ship relief supplies thousands of miles, to get there too late, can't be justified to electorates, or shareholders of the firms that own them. Fly in urgent stuff, buy longer-term stuff wherever it's cheapest & ship by normal commercial channels.

[Assessor]

Mr Gill:

 

It was the Cold War old chap, the Aussies chipped in so the Brits didn't have to.

 

Let’s do it like this: YOU don’t mention the UK not getting into your war in Vietnam and I won’t mention you not helping us in Ulster, or elements of US military and law enforcement conspiring in the supply of arms to the IRA to shoot at the British Army.

 

 

Surely Belgium can afford, as a percentage of their GDP some relatively cheap merchant class hulls (buy them second hand if you have to and upgrade them) convert it with some ramps, a helicopter deck, some cranes and a crew of 30 men.

 

Not specifically referring to Belgium, but across Europe generally. Do I think they are capable? Eminently. Do I think it’s a good idea? Definitely. Do I think there’s a snowball in hell’s chance of them having the will? No.

 

Surely there are some yards in Belgium that could do the conversion work (you're paying your own people!). <snipping a bit for brevity>

 

No doubt. But that would also require the will to do so. (See below)

 

How long has old Europe's Colonies been a cesspool of problems that Europe has wanted to ignore? Surely, the problems in Belgian Congo could be seen as writing on the wall or were the <expetive delete> just expected to get on and what they did was never going to affect or bother the Europeans?

 

In many cases, that WAS about the size of it. And this is where will comes in again. It’s easier for Europe to play the “we get accused of neo-colonialism” card that to get our hands dirty most of the time, and it’s easier for the former colonies to blame the colonial power than do anything susbstantive themselves. Whinging is cheaper than acting. Some nations are probably scratching their collective heads over what to do about this – until fairly recently, many countries would have been pretty distressed at the idea of GERMANY having any sort of amphibious capability – that’s a bit aggressive, not defensive at all

 

 

Britain's been spending money policing up the colonies and assisting the commonwealth for years. Even if you're just pushing trucks around on humanitarian missions and you don't need a single pound of armor, you still need some way to get the Military tactical trucks there so you can get where the impacted people are. Look back at the basic gist of the thread, Europe wants to help in Darfur but can't sorry, we're fresh out of Helicopters.

 

No argument. But this is NOT a one size fits all solution. No one, not even the US Navy, can sail to (say) Chad! But for what you’re talking about, (i.e. the level of violence that probably doesn’t exceed what some US police forces encounter) I think chartering commercial shipping (then giving it back) is probably more cost-effective. For the price of the routine care and maintenance of those scows, you can buy and run a lot of trucks.

 

 

 

The US has cut back on it's Amphibious shipping as the cold war has drawn down but the preposition ships started getting produced and expanded as time has gone on.

 

No dispute – when I asked about amphibs, I wasn’t really thinking of the kind of pre-positioning / military transport vessels you’ve described. I thought you meant amphibious combat vessles (LSTs, LPDs, LHAs etc). These, where the need is for a vessel built for the purpose from the keel up, the lead time is much, much larger, I would suggest.