# NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2011)

Dilemma:

Aircraft Carriers are very useful and there are never enough of them on hand.

Aircraft Carriers are very expensive and there are never enough of them on hand.

Solution:

Augment the "Armoured" Aircraft Carriers with a Fleet of Allied Operated "Logistics" Aircraft Carriers operated under the NATO flag by mixed crews (possibly even with a civilian RFA - Royal Fleet Auxiliary - type component).

The operational model is of course the NATO AWACs fleet.  The thought has been nourished by: the Brits and the French musing out loud about sharing a Flat Top; the Brits considering maintaining the Fleet Air Arm skills by supplying a Squadron or two of F-18 E/F Super Hornets (one up for you Mark) to fly off USN carriers; the Brits adopting Rivet Joint as their ISTAR replacement for the Nimrod R1.  Jointness is in the air (or is that combinedness - I can never keep those definitions straight).

What would happen if NATO were to sponsor the construction of a fleet of "Civil" lily pads that could be maintained on station at the rate of 3 per Ocean?  Make them to Civvy standards, not  war-fighting standards, and use them as transit points, flight ops centres  and FARPs for fixed and rotary wing assets engaged in "civil" activities.  In war time they would be moved to low(er) threat environments with the "Armo(u)red" Carriers moving to the high threat zones.

Effectively they would operate the same way that allied islands (fixed)  - Diego Garcia, Guam, Barbados, Azores, Iceland..... operate but would have the double advantages of being mobile and internationally owned in addition to their "cost effectiveness"

The mobility speaks to the primary advantages of carriers, flexibility and responsiveness - a problem with fixed nationally owned assets.

The real advantage of the plan is in its internationally owned aspect.

Consider the following:

Platform internationally owned and operated by NATO and operates under the command of forces like STANAVFORLANT.  
It would be assigned to areas like the Horn of Africa (example) where NATO is already using "civil" platforms like the Dutch LSD Johan deWitt as Floating FOBs to support "anti-piracy" policing tasks.
It would have the cover of operating as an international asset thus making it a really hard political target - sink one of these things and you are declariing war on a very large group of people.
That cover would be enhanced if operations were being conducted as part of a UN sponsored mission.

There need be nothing that commits a NATO partner to any specific operation - they could withdraw their forces from the vessel(s) at anytime as is their sovereign right and let the vessel and their partners continue with operations according to their collective sovereign wills.  

In the meantime a large number of NATO parners are learning skills that would allow them to operate from the heavy "Armo(u)red" carriers that would still be national assets of none but a very few natons.

These carriers would also improve the world's ability to manage disasters of the natural kind, speeding evacuations and the delivery of aid as well as the maintenance of order.

They are not so much weapons of war as mobilie civil airfields.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2011)

Would these be "escort carriers" like the mini carriers of WWII era fame? The small size might really restrict their utility (and given the cost of building even modest carriers, I imagine any new builds would be fairly small).

What might make the most sense is having the USN refurbish and lease its older carriers, since they are big enough to handle a mixed fleet of aircraft (a single American carrier has more aircraft in its carrier wing than many nations have in their entire airforce) and are already built to military standards. NATO, the Japanese etc. can supply the escorts and the logistics of keeping these things running. Even old carriers like the Kitty Hawk (CV-63) wouls still be larger and far more capable than "through deck cruisers" like Ark Royal or Invincible, or the Japanese Helicopter "destroyer" Hyūga.

Just $ .02 for the discussion


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2011)

Likely better to use a merchant ship hull, you could build a jump on the end and have a lift and hanger as well. Such a ship would not require a significant crew to keep running, but crew requirements would quickly grow with added air wing. 

Down side is you will have a single engine and one that is not designed for significant amounts of maneuvering. Also easy to damage and sink. Some of that could be limited by placing a few bulkheads in the hold area, even if not completely watertight. a reduced car carrier design would likely work and keep costs down a bit. keep a RO/RO ramp and it could fulfil other duties. Onboard tankage for aviation fuels would not be a problem.

http://www.ships-info.info/label-car-carriers.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2011)

Sorry for not following this up earlier.  Bad connections.

Not thinking about escort carriers.  More thinking along the lines of a mobile islands.  And not weapons of war so much as civil platforms that, like police stations and hospitals, advertise their presence and find protection in their civil status.

I’m thinking about a vessel that would be primarily a warehouse from which helicopters could operate and from which a small squadron, or large flight (6-12) of Recce-Strike Fast Jets could operate.

I would also note that in 1963 the USN successfully landed a C130 on the 1070 ft, 81,000 ton USS Forrestal.  Given that perhaps it might not be too much to consider making such a platform compatible with the smaller C27J/C295, which have half the wingspan and half the landing and takeoff requirements.

The UK is building the Queen Elizabeth class carriers of 932 ft and 72,300 ton displacement.  These are breaking the defence budget despite only having a complement of 600 with 470 passengers, about 20% of the complement of a US carrier.

Meanwhile Maersk Shipping of Denmark has built the 1302 ft, 170,974 ton Emma Maersk (25 kt) for about $170,000,000.  (and is building bigger ones for about $200,000,000).

In addition to the aerial connectors (rotary and fixed) the ability to launch sea going boats would be nice to have (CBHs and LCVPs – perhaps LCUs).   Lots of POL and water. Lots of beans and bandages - some bullets.  Some limited, sparse hotel (200 slots) to manage weather delays and a Provider type hospital capability.

Just some blue sky nonsense to be shot down........


----------



## GK .Dundas (2 Mar 2011)

I have just finished a novel by Thomas Kratman that might be pertinent to this thread the novel called the The Liberators . In the book a group of rather well funded Mercenaries Modify a Container ship into a covert assault ship using Russian built MI 8 HIPS and surplus LCM 6s as well as about a dozen Kit built replicas of the Fiesler Storch .
 http://www.webscription.net/chapters/9781439134023/9781439134023.htm?blurb   
See Chapter 11 for the description .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Mar 2011)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I have just finished a novel by Thomas Kratman that might be pertinent to this thread the novel called the The Liberators . In the book a group of rather well funded Mercenaries Modify a Container ship into a covert assault ship using Russian built MI 8 HIPS and surplus LCM 6s as well as about a dozen Kit built replicas of the Fiesler Storch .
> http://www.webscription.net/chapters/9781439134023/9781439134023.htm?blurb
> See Chapter 11 for the description .



Reading the same book now. I am enjoying it.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2011)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I have just finished a novel by Thomas Kratman that might be pertinent to this thread the novel called the The Liberators . In the book a group of rather well funded Mercenaries Modify a Container ship into a covert assault ship using Russian built MI 8 HIPS and surplus LCM 6s as well as about a dozen Kit built replicas of the Fiesler Storch .
> http://www.webscription.net/chapters/9781439134023/9781439134023.htm?blurb
> See Chapter 11 for the description .



There you go.....par for the course......a day late and a dollar short  ;D

I'll need to pick that one up.


----------



## GR66 (2 Mar 2011)

While cheaper than complete military-spec aircraft carriers these ships would still I'd imagine represent a pretty hefty amount of both upfront cash and ongoing operating expense.  Their role would seem to be to get our aircraft "in the vicinity" of a conflict without getting TOO close (they are designed as non-combattants after all).  Is getting "in the vicinity" of a conflict a major difficulty at the moment?  I'd imagine that the bigger problem is getting from the "vicinity" right into the thick of it.  I don't see this as a solution to that problem.

Would our money perhaps be better spent on additional strategic and tactical airlift resources (which you'd probably need to make these ships operational anyway?) or even on creating a form of Navy Auxilliary...subsidising the ferry companies on the coasts to obtain Roll-on Roll-off ships that are upgraded beyond normal civilian specs that can be brought into service when required to transport troops and equipment overseas.

If we're looking to spread costs among allied nations perhaps a better target would be something along the lines of jointly owned/operated NATO AOR vessels to support regular multi-national fleet deployments.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2011)

Just remember a converted civilian ship does not have the same levels of protection a military ship has (even simple things like redundant power supplies; most heavy container ships today have only one (honking) engine turning one propeller, for example). The Atlantic Conveyor was carrying helicopters for the British Task force taking back the Falkland Islands (and modified enough so they could at least deploy and take off from the ship), a single hit put it out of action and destroyed all the helicopters.

So long as you are willing to accept these risks,"Pure Car Carriers" might provide a good starting point, their fully enclosed superstructure provides the "hanger" space, their top decks are fairly flat, so limited modification would be needed to provide a helicopter or aircraft flight deck, and PCC's are designed as RO/RO ships, so logistics would be simplified when in port. Building such a ship to military standard would be quite expensive.

Of course, since Kirkhill is suggesting an "Island", then perhaps something much bigger is needed. A structure built out of multiple concrete "pontoons" (not sure if that is the right word in this context) would be scalable, and possibly cheaper to build. Then again, there was a suggestion to creat true "islands" in WWII out of artificial ice floes, made of a mixture of water and sawdust (pykrete).


----------



## McG (2 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not thinking about escort carriers.  More thinking along the lines of a mobile islands.  And not weapons of war so much as civil platforms that, like police stations and hospitals, advertise their presence and find protection in their civil status.
> 
> I’m thinking about a vessel that would be primarily a warehouse from which helicopters could operate and from which a small squadron, or large flight (6-12) of Recce-Strike Fast Jets could operate.
> 
> I would also note that in 1963 the USN successfully landed a C130 on the 1070 ft, 81,000 ton USS Forrestal.  Given that perhaps it might not be too much to consider making such a platform compatible with the smaller C27J/C295, which have half the wingspan and half the landing and takeoff requirements.


If you want a NATO carrier from which member nations can come & go then I would suspect that it will be necessary for that aircraft carrier to accommodate transport aircraft.  Loading of stores would be done by air lines of communication for items that the USN may typically do in port or by cross-loading from a support ship with helicopters.

If Canada were to send 4 - 6 fighters to such an carrier to conduct operations, we would also be sending deck-crew for the aircraft, spare & replacement parts, munitions, and misc amenities.  You can expect the same to be true of many other NATO nations and even more true where a non-NATO allie is allowed to operate off the ship. As good an idea as NATO COLOG is, nations have thier own unique requirements (or bureaucratic limitations) that will result in each maintaining its own little stockpile while it is on board.  Many nations would want to fly the supporting personnel and materiel as opposed to wait for a ship to link-up at sea.

On the ship itself, nations will likely want magazine/armoury space, stores space and offices.

None of this make the idea unfeasible, but it does mean that a purpose build ship would necessarily look different that a uni-national carrier.  Alternately, a converted older carrier would likely support a reduced number of aircraft in comparison to its prior service under a single nation.

... the way to work around this would be for the ship and all its aircraft to all operate under the NATO banner (ie. nations do not send their own aircraft to operate from the NATO carrier).  I suspect the politics of such a capability would be far more complicated than the NATO AWACS.  A Euro Carrier may be a more politically achievable concept, but it leaves us out of the loop ... maybe an ABCA carrier?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> More thinking along the lines of a mobile islands.  And not weapons of war so much as civil platforms that, like police stations and hospitals, advertise their presence and find protection in their civil status.


Instead of a "super carrier", it sounds like you're thinking like something like this (in this case, a proposed "floating airport" for San Diego)





but with a broader range of facilities on it, no?

Also, if police and detention facilities are part of the complex, anyone with any idea whose laws might be used to govern/regulate policing/detention?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Mar 2011)

If said aircraft carrier was built to civillian mercantile standards, how would it fare if there was a fire in the hangar or there was a crash on deck. Those types of fires are hard enough to fight as is on a milspec CV(N), I would suspect there would be an even greater chance of losing the entire ship.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2011)

Interesting groups of thoughts here.

GR66 - point taken on the operating costs, but as to the use I haven't explained myself clearly.  I don't see them as going in harms way.  I see them as holding ground on the lines of communication and allowing the heavies to push forward into the "enemy's" littoral.  I see them as doing the standing patrols, like STANAVFORLANT, as well as doing anti-piracy patrols in low(er) risk areas like the Horn of Africa and the Straits of Malacca.  In the Straits I would expect them to operate in cooperation with local forces like the Singaporeans, Malaysians and Indonesians.  I wouldn't expect to see them operating in the current China Seas environment.   Could similar forces be supplied from shore bases? Yes, but only with the agreement of the host country.  A mobile platform is less likely to be held hostage by just one member of a coalition (Dubai comes to mind, as does Khazakstan).

We operate from shore and can extend outward from oil platforms like Hibernia. These vessels will move that capability out further into blue water.

The recce-strike force would be directly analogous to NORAD QRFs using Pearson, YVR and Rankin as alternative operating locations.  The "airfield" supports more than just the fighter ops.  It is haven, warehouse and distribution centre and it is a link in a conveyor belt to move goods and materials forwards (and back).

Thuc and Ex-D:

I see what you are saying about protection levels (and Colin alluded to the same issue) - obviously compartmentalization would be an issue as would fire fighting.  But a big vessel is harder to sink than a small vessel.  (15% flooding of a 170,000 ton vessel equals a Provider under water - 3% equals a Halifax).  As to the fire issue ... how does the civvy world deal with helicopter crashes on oilrig helidecks?  Or for that matter on any helideck?


On the question of the size and mobility of the island (Tony and Thuc):

Bigger than Hibernia and smaller than the state of Texas... ;D  Something that can be relocated easily and built at a reasonable cost (a warehouse and not a hotel).

McG:  good point on the logistics - perhaps a civilian warehousing and distribution company would have better operational and management protocols than the typical national Q system.  Somebody that has to cater to the needs of a variety of clients all with differing systems and differing needs in the level of support required.

Ultimately these things are about PRESENCE - maintaining the image of governance on the high seas without having to commit billions of dollars of heavy carrier to the task,  A police cruiser for the local neigbourhood when a Leo2 is just a little too much awe.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2011)

I'm getting a king of mixed feeling about this, are we talking about an aircraft carrier or a logistics support base? Maybe I'm getting confused here, but no aircraft carrier that I know of can easily or reliably operate large transport craft. Yes, a demonstration was once done with a C-130 landing and taking off from a carrier deck, but it was a demonstration (was the plane actually loaded, or did it take off and land empty?). Landing the large numbers of planes needed for supporting an operation would need something more akin to the floating airport posted above than an aircraft carrier or converted civilian ship.

Re reading your parameters, I would go in quite the opposite direction. If you are primarily concerned with being able to support extended ops in far off waters/lands, then get a "liberty ship" like assembly line and build a fleet of bulk carriers like the PCC's or other RO/RO craft.

Fill them with all manner of trucks, pallets and seacans full of supplies, a reinforced top deck to allow helicopters to take off and land and have them at sea on station able to steam to potential hot spots within (say) a week.  Like the rest of the fleet, we have 3X groups; one at sea, one in transit and one in port undergoing refurbishment/restocking. If desired, a company of combat troops can be aboard to go in with the first lift/initial landing to secure the beachhead. Engineer/Pioneer troops would be handy as well. Of course a PCC type ship is an even BIGGER honking ship, capable of carrying an entire battalion with all their LAVs, trucks, beans and bullets (and possibly a fair slice of support arms and services as well) and delivering them to an unopposed landing. A fair sized Headquarters suite could be carried as well.

Notice the key caveat: *an unopposed landing*. If the ship needs to carry troops and supplies to an opposed or contested landing, then it will have to be built to naval standards, have a weapons and sensor suite and probably a different hull form for landing craft or hovercraft to deliver troops ashore. This PCC based fleet would be the follow up element coming in behind a naval task force or airborne/airmobile assault in order to bring the second and subsequent waves of troops and supplies, which _I think_ is what you were getting at Kirkhill.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2011)

These are not aircraft carriers.  Not any more than a warehouse is a truck launching facility.

They are a combination of floating garrison and floating warehouse, connected to each other and shore by helicopters and STOL carriers (like the C27J and C295) as well as by surface transport.  (An element of a pre-positioned force there).

Three in an Ocean would increase the probability of being able to 'bounce" helicopters forward to a point of use in a hurry.  The STOL capability would allow for troops to be deployed to these bases from long ranges.  The final leg of the journey could be newly arrived troops and helos marrying up on one of these bases and bouncing forward off a CVN or LPD close in to the enemy.

In low threat environments then the platform could form the base of operations for small anti-piracy teams, and/or act as a mothership for smaller boats.

In civil emergencies they would support the rapid arrival of aid and the rapid removal of evacuees via the STOL links.

The embarked fast jet force is not for striking heavily armed enemy targets - it is for recconoitring unknown targets and also for supplying air cover to the anti-piracy forces.

France and Italy supply police forces with 105mm guns on armoured cars to control organized ruffians with machine guns.  Perhaps we could consider these as paramilitary garrisons for the high seas.  Designed to establish governance, not to close with the enemy.  

But .... given that the enemy can come to the garrison, how vulnerable is it?

Did a bit of digging on the Atlantic Conveyor
Displaced 15,000 tons (vice 170,000 tons for the Emma Maersk and 190,000 tons for the new Triple Es)
Embarked 5 Chinook, 6 Wessex, 14 Harriers and Sea Harriers
Flew Off 1 Chinook, 4-5 Wessex and all 14 Harriers
Struck above the waterline by 1 or 2 Exocets - burnt and abandoned - DID NOT SINK - Scuttled.

Other converted  container ships served without incident.

Conveyors cargo included ammo and avgas apparently stored in containers above the waterline.

Atlantic Conveyor Link 

As I said - these are floating islands - Mobile versions of the Azores, or Hibernia, or Diego Garcia, or Guam - points from which power can be projected and which can support forward deployed elements.

Another way of looking at these is that they move NATO shorelines forward into the High Seas to extend NATOs version of the rule of Law - which brings up the REALLY interesting question that was asked - which law is that and how would the pirates be handled once captured.

In the meantime NATO pilots have additional landing spots and NATO troops have additional bullets close to the fight, NATO reinforcements can be more easily bounced into supporting positions - and NATO can save the occasional tsunami victim and make it look as if they are the good guys.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2011)

Further to your last Thucydides:

29 touch and go

21 unarrested land and stop
21 unassisted take-offs (no catapults, no RATO, no JATO)  heavy seas and a 40 to 50 knot wind along the deck.

Landing weights up to 121,000 pounds all up.  



> Lockheed's Ted Limmer, who checked out fighter pilot Flatley in the C-130, stayed on for some of the initial touch-and-go and full-stop landings. "The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off. Admiral Brown was flabbergasted."
> 
> The plane's wingspan cleared the Forrestal's flight deck "island" control tower by just under 15 feet





> From the accumulated test data, the Navy concluded that with the C-130 Hercules, it would be possible to lift 25,000 pounds of cargo 2,500 miles and land it on a carrier. Even so, the idea was considered a bit too risky for the C-130 and the Navy elected to use a smaller COD aircraft.



Hence my suggestion to operate with the 1:2 scale C27J (or the politically correct C295) of the larger deck (1300 ft vs 1000 ft) of the Emma Maersk

C130 Link

C130 Video


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 21 unassisted take-offs (no catapults, no RATO, no JATO)  heavy seas and a 40 to 50 knot wind along the deck.



I assume you mean that the wind over the deck, from ahead, was 40 to 50 kts, which is the normal way to launch and recover aircraft on a carrier. The old pre-nuke US carriers could crank up to 32-34 kts, accounting for most of that. We are talking about 70 to 80 km/h of wind speed in favour of the airplane before it even starts to accelerate. What is the take off speed of a Herc? So there was no surprise there. But a carrier can't come to a stop of all air operations each time a monster like that wants to come onboard. That is why you land planes on the after angled deck and with barrier (short space), launch from the bow with catapult (also short place) and use the mid section for aircraft handling/loading/preping between those two stations and the hangar below. When they did the Herc trials, it landed from end to end and nothing else could go on on deck at the same time: It was not efficient compared to the small COD planes currently in use.

Also, re: Emma Maersk (and other such ship)  compared to PRO and HAL for size: Be mindful that in the Navy, we use displacement tonnage (the actual weight of the ship, calculated by the weight of water displaced by the hull. A quick formula is to calculate the volume of the underwater part of the ship in cubic feet and divide by 35 (35 cu/ft = 1 tonne of water). Merchant ship , like Emma, use Gross and Net Registered tonnage, which is the internal volume of the ship, expressed in "ton" (meaning a barrel, as in the old barrels wood ships would carry stuff in) - basically, you take the full volume in cubic feet of everything that is enclosed in the ship (including superstructure, smokestack, full hull with freeboard) and divide by 100 to get gross and do the same formula after subtracting the volume of all spaces NOT used for cargo to get the net. 

Emma Maersk is 171,000 Gross tons (internal volume/100) and 55,000 Net tons (volume of cargo/100). I do not know her actual tonnage displacement, but by looking at her specs and hull form, it is likely in the order of 100,000 tonnes light ship and 145,000 tonnes when fully loaded. If you add to her the weight of PRO in water when she is at full load, you are not talking 15% damage, you have probably knocked out 100% of her reserve buoyancy and she will sink. 

Finally, I don't know what you are trying to achieve here with your "floating islands in the Sea Lanes of Communication": They would be very slow (at that size- that is for sure) and, unless at places where there is little to no threat, would need strong defences. It would defeat the purpose. If on the other hand they were in locations where there is little to no threat, they would serve no purpose because ordinary patrol by LRMPA and some lightly armed smaller types of ship would be sufficient. Finally, if you simply look at them as a means to get military equipment quickly where international situation may require it, the model already exists: It is the maritime pre-positioning ships of the USNS, operated by the Military Sealift Command.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

OGBD:

I appreciate the instruction.

Thank you for confirming my understanding of aircraft carrier operations.  Indeed I suspected that the wind over the bows not only decreased the take-off distance required but also the landing distance.  And your point about the space that a Hercules takes up seems well founded.  That is why, as I noted to Thucydides, that perhaps an aircraft in the C27J class might be a better fit?  Interestingly (to me at least) the C27J and the CH47 seem to be considered usefully sized carriers for the US Army when it is conducting small unit operations from advanced and rough Forward Operating Bases.

With respect to the Emma Maersk:

Again, thank you for the instruction.  The Emma has a Dead Weight Tonnage of 156,907 tons (it is not clear from the literature whether that is long, short or metric - but it is mass and not volume).  Perhaps we can agree that if we take the Emma Maersk hull and only put 70,000 tons (long, short, or metric) into her that that will leave 86,907 tons of reserve buoyancy over and above her designed reserve?  And, I would suggest, that represents a massively larger amount of water than either the PRO or HAL can swallow thus making her a harder target.

As to the role of these units, you touch on it with the Maritime Prepositioning Force.

However the MPF has a number of shortcomings that have caused the US to move from the MPF and JLOTS concept towards "Sea Basing".

There is only one MPF of 29 vessels and it is geared to support large interventions.  It requires a port.  It can'd be easily broken down.

Consequently the US is looking at breaking it into smaller flotillas that can be distributed and which can operate on the high seas - conducting at sea transfers from RoRos to 28 (and counting) JHSVs across the decks of those semi-submersible ships whose designation escapes me just now.  The Marines funded a number of studies (one published here by FAS) that look for different concepts of operations.  The one I cited actually makes reference to vessels similar in concept to the type of thing I am proposing.

I note that all of the concepts are based on the use of Civilian Standard vessels for military purposes when the threat level permits.

I would also note that "sea bases" come in all sizes with the JHSV being touted as a mini-seabase.  On that basis I suppose that any vessel could be a seabase (marines in Daring, special forces in LCS mission bays).  Perhaps HMS Ocean, HNLMS Rotterdam and perhaps even HDMS Absalon, could all be seen as seabases - all built to civilian standards and navalized.

Edit (hit send too soon):

The Army operates from large bases at home and then projects power through a cascade of bases that decrease in size and spread out: from KAF to platoon houses and ultimately the mobile operating base known as the LAV.

These Islands-Sea Bases-Mobile Offshore Bases-Forward Operating Bases - are a means for projecting power in a distributed, nodal fashion, that increases maneuverablity and flexibility by supplying landing points and caches that will suuport ongoing small unit operations and the rapid movement of larger intervention forces.

As part of a C27J based conveyor (carrying 60 troops per AC from 2500 km) at the rate of one landing per half hour - in a 24 hour period an Emma sized platform could cross deck 2880 troops to CH47s or JHSVs or any other vessel in the area


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2011)

I'm with OGBD. You are asking for a range of capabilities which are provided by an entire base/airport/seaport. It seems far more efficient to split the "wants" into separate elements.

Logistics support could be a function of a NATO or allied "Joint Sealift Command". Even if each nation insists on using their own ships, this would not be a huge hardship, you would assemble a "logistics task force" from the participating members and steam into action. Italy's government decides it isn't interested in the mission anymore? The Italian Captain sends his regrets, takes his portion of the staff from the flagship and sails home. Perhaps the only true advantage that could be derived from this is for all the member nations to agree on the parameters of the AOR/AOE and then build them assembly line fashion to reduce unit costs (Canada wants 1-3 "Big Honking Ships" [or at least AOR/AOEs], which is hugely expensive. If 15 of the same class of ships were being produced in an alliance wide buy, the unit cost per ship would be lower and more affordable. This is ignoring the political squabbling).

I don't think flying helicopters across the Atlantic would be good for the aircraft, probably better to wrap them in plastic and sail over with them in the hold. If you really want/need the ability to fly across the ocean, air to air refueling is a pretty refined art. Airstrikes in Iraq or Afghanistan could be mounted from bases in the United States (and F-15 and F-16's provided air support from bases in the middle east against Taliban targets). A battalion of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division was drooped on an exercise in the Ukraine after a direct flight from North Carolina; the longest air insertion in history (My copy of the Ingenuity Gap is MIA, but that is where I remember this from). 

From the Canadian point of view, we might get away with buying and refurbishing older RO/RO merchant ships as the logistics arm; they will be much larger than our current AOR/AOE fleet but probably more affordable and brought into service much more quickly than any new builds.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2011)

Be careful Kirkhill, you are introducing yet another concept with regards to Emma.

DWT is NOT an indication of reserve buoyancy (and by the way, I did not have her DWT figure, but looking at it, my estimate for her displacement tonnage is probably bang on). DWT is the maximum allowable total weight she can weigh, including cargo, the ship herself, all of the crew, food, paper, furniture, fuel, everything onboard, that will bring her to her load line (Plimsol line). At that point, she rides as low in the water as permitted by certification agencies and passed that point, she is uninsured. So, if you remove the actual weight of the cargo carried from DWT, what you are left with is the weight of the ship herself plus whatever margin of weight  there may be for all the other stuff onboard or more cargo - NOT how much reserve buoyancy she has. 

If you want to estimate her reserve buoyancy, what you do is measure from the lowest point of the upper edge of her hull down to the waterline and measure the inner volume of the hull between those two points then divide by 35. That should give you the number of tons of reserve buoyancy. Again here, this is my eyeball estimate, but i would say that when she is a DWT, it would be in the order of 30,000 tonnes. And I am ignoring the fact that water may come over the top of the hull at lower amounts due to waves and swell and I am ignoring the free surface effect or other stability factors that would be affected by taking on water on a merchant ship loosely compartmentalized. I have little doubt she would flounder before using all her reserve buoyancy.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2011)

So, the idea is basicly a floating Camp Mirage?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

Thanks OGBD 

Could I tackle it from another angle?  If she were loaded half full, so that the plimsoll line (do they still use that term) were only half way to the waterline, how much additional weight (above and beyond the mass of the ship itself and her crew) do you reckon she could carry?  Assuming that she were holed and took on water in a manner that she settled on an even keel how much water could she take on board before she foundered?

McG - Yep - on a miniaturized scale.  With the advantage that she is mobile (and can be moved towards and away from threats) and not subject to "national vetoes" on use.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill: Rule of thumb, you would have a reserve that is greater by half the weight of cargo. Likely in the 22 to 25 thousand extra tonnes in this case.

But again, a whole slew of different set of problems arise at half load. Merchant ship stability is a complex matter, with very different solutions at varying loads and load distributions. If you punch a hole, there are no scenarios I know of where  a ship will settle on an even keel without serious human intervention. Usually, things start to happen where the water comes in and that determines the likely outcome. In WWII, the Japanese had some of their battleships sink on an even keel as a result of wonderful work by damage control parties using counter-flooding. They went down on a even keel ... but they went down! Remember that Titanic was unsinkable.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

Point very clearly taken OGBD.  I presume that would apply to all surface vessels?

As to merchant vessel stability - I have often wondered how that was managed on those container and car-carriers which combine massive "sail" area from all that slab-sided structure above the water line with the combination of travelling heavy from Asian and light from Europe.  I understand that most of the outbound container traffice from Rotterdam is empty while the inbound is full.

11000 empty TEUs outbound
11000 full TEUs inbound at 14 tons apiece equals an equivalent air draught but an additional 154,000 tons of mass displacing water.

And Emma's new big sisters, the Triple Es, have an 18000 TEU capacity in a 190,000 ton GT vessel.  (Their hull form looks like that of a scow as a result).

Interestingly those vessels are twin engine, twin screw vessels designed to cruise at the slower rate of 20 to 23 kts vice the 25 kts of the Emma.   That still makes them faster than HMS Ocean and comparable to the Rotterdam and the Absolon as well as the majority of the MPF fleet. 

I also read an opinion that with big enough props and a few more engines their hull lengths could support a theoretical speed of some 44 kts.  (I'll try and dig that up).


----------



## GR66 (4 Mar 2011)

Instead of a floating base what about a modular design that would be (hopefully?) cheaper and more flexible.  Similar in concept to the WWII Mulberry harbours.

You could have a couple of semi-submersible oil platform-like structures that can be moved to a region of interest.  One could be like a semi-permanent AOR...resupply point for vessels operating in the area, helicopter pad for aerial operations and boarding parties, tethered airship-borne radar for wide area surveilance, etc.

A second "module" could be a cross-docking facility where full container ships and laden RO/RO vessels can meet up with troop carrying ships and landing/assault ships to make their final move to the area of operations.  There would also be storage capability for goods to be stockpiled for future use.

A third "module" could consist of a landing platform.  Something like two flat-topped merchant vessels that can be semi-permanently moored in place and connected end-to-end creating a landing strip where transport aircraft can come in and drop-off/pick-up personnel and/or material.  Instead of being like "civilianized" aircraft carrier this would be basically be the equivalent of a rough landing strip that you can place in the water where you need it for a period of time.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

Good option GR66 - and coming closer to the type of thing the Americans seem to be contemplating.  Maybe there is room for both models?  One as a Corps transit Point and the other as a Brigade Point....for example?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill, I think I am close to giving up. 

First, lets compare on comparable basis and you may see some light. Emma: 170000 GT, Triple EEE 190000: Difference 20000, but that is volume. Still: you can use to compare size: EEE are 15% bigger in volume. But  Emma is 157000 DWT while the EEE will be 165000 DWT: only 8000 tonnes, or 5% heavier. For that difference, the EEE's have 86000 BHp engines compared to 109000 BHp engine for Emma - So Emma is ton for ton 28% more powerful, for a gain of only 2 knots of speed. And that is a good rule of thumb: the faster you go through water, the more power you need (almost exponentially) to gain an extra knot of speed. Hull form or not, there are no engines (Remember Emma has the largest diesel engine in the world) that you could usefully design to get a EEE to speeds of 44 knots, unless it was a hydrofoil (and it ain't).

Also: we don't deal with mass of water but with weight of water, We are on earth and its all gravity affected. These are different physics concept and the difference does matter in questions of speed, force, stability, etc. of  a ship. Also, look at the difference between Emma and EEE's: there is an 8000 tonnes difference in DWT and a difference of roughly 2000 TEU container carrying capacity: This gives you an average weight of 4 tonnes per container, which is about right. While some containers may carry up to 14 tonnes, I would say 4 tonnes average weight is about right, with about 1 1/2 tonne of it being the container itself.  (Think about it this way: I could ship scrap metal in a container and it would be heavy, but more often than not, a container from Asia will carry a bunch of television sets. How much does a flat screen Tv in its box weigh for the volume it occupies? Not much.) So Emma may carry (16000 TEU at 4 t.) 64000 tonnes of cargo to Europe and come back with  mostly empties (16000 at 1 1/2 t.) weighing in at 24000 tonnes of cargo. 

Finally, while your "sail area" will affect your permanent list in a cross wind , it has only a very minor effect on ship stability, merchant or otherwise, unless you are going through a hurricane.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill et al

I have followed this, if for no other reason than to learn something about matters maritime. I must admit that I wonder about the practicality of the whole thing. Where in the world do we think we would need one? How do we get this behemoth there in a timely manner and are there other solutions? I am not trying to be a wet blanket, but the solution seems overly complicated and technically difficult compared to any other number of potential ways of approaching the challenge of maintaining a multi-national force in out of area operations.

Or maybe I am just all wet again.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

Good enough...

Having demonstrated to all and sundry that this vessel is indeed empty it shall cease making noise.  ;D

Cheers.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Mar 2011)

Kirkhill

Don't stop looking at out of area solutions.

Sweatie


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2011)

But perhaps I can let someone else address the problem to which I was alluding:

Stars and Stripes Aug 2009

Note the tonnage required for a Stryker Brigade - 15-20,000.

TTFN.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Mar 2011)

I agree with Old Sweat: Keep on looking at new solutions. These discussions are good for all and evolve as they go along: Here we started with an apparent shortage of aircraft carriers as the original problem, to end up with sea basing Over The Horizon of army operations support. 

Cheers to all, and Kirkhill in particular for bringing this idea up.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2011)

The connection between the two concepts is found here



> Several US operations in the past five years have had significant Seabasing
> components. The largest was during Operation Enduring Freedom, when Special
> Operations Forces (SOF) and Marine units embarked on USS Kitty Hawk and
> accompanying expeditionary strike group ships underway in the Gulf of Oman executed
> ...



The same study supplies the rationale in its abstract (and comprehensively detailed internally)



> A fully-developed Seabasing capability would be of substantial value to the Joint
> Force commander, enhancing the Joint Force’s freedom of action and significantly
> improving its agility in support of national military and strategic objectives. It would
> reduce the time from decision to action by eliminating the need to build supplies ashore
> ...



The study makes reference to the conversion of Emma's smaller S-Class sisters as cost effective expedient seabase components.  It also notes the lack of adequate air connectors in general and fixed wing connectors in particular.... hence my wandering into the C130/C27/Forrestal weeds.  Two C27s can be parked wingtip to wingtip across the deck of Emma.  That suggests to me that if the bridge were converted to an island there would be lots of room to land C27s.

The other connectors could be the JHSV (also referenced) and the MH47G(CH-147G).

The point of the exercise was to find politically acceptable means for NATO nations to contribute to international security operations in a cost effective manner so that (for good or ill - depending on point of view) the USN was not the sole policeman of the high seas and was not the only force capable of operating "from the Global Commons"  (great expression found in referenced study).

Cheers and thanks for the support and continued instruction.

Note for discussion: Details on the Emma Maersk and how she is loaded


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Mar 2011)

I don't think it would work for NATO, there is too much infighting amongst the alliance now. I could see this working with the US, UK, Australia, Canada and maybe a couple of others but as a NATO initiative you maybe asking for too much.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't think it would work for NATO, there is too much infighting amongst the alliance now. I could see this working with the US, UK, Australia, Canada and maybe a couple of others but as a NATO initiative you maybe asking for too much.



Point taken.

But the EU exercise off Somalia offers some comfort - maybe we don't get all of NATO "onboard"  but perhaps we could get a quorum and some others to chip in a nickel.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Mar 2011)

I agree with Ex-D: I can't see this as a NATO thing, but a USCANAUSUK, sure.

However, that would require our masters in Ottawa to accept to spend a lot of dough on B.H.S., even if at merchant standards.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2011)

Well, that would be a start.

How about the Dutch and the Scandinavians?  They seem eager enough to be involved.
Germans? They are contributing their Berlins - as long as they don't get shot at and aren't seen to help.
Italians? Spanish?  They maintain an "independent" stance while still supporting "Western" policy - as long as it doesn't cost them too much.
French?.........never mind
As to the rest.... catch as catch can.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2011)

Another Useful Reference:  - perhaps the best one.

http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/download.aspx?Path=./Uploads/Files/CDI_Seabasing%20for%20the%20ROMO%2026%20Mar%2009.pdf

And as to partners - Ex D and OGBD may have a point wrt NATO

Perhaps Japan, Korea (South), Taiwan and Singapore might be better partners -  India?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2011)

Maritime Angolosphere powers:

US, India, Canada, Australia/New Zeland, the UK.


----------



## GR66 (8 Mar 2011)

I think that technologies for improved sea basing will continue...they make sense but realistically it will be a US show as they are the only military currently with the size and capability to make use of such a concept.  I seriously doubt if they would have any interest in giving away control of such a key enabling system to even their closest allies and I equally don't think that any of their allies have the cash (or interest) in developing such a major system that would be used primarily by another nation.

The best course of action for Canada I think would be to coordinate as closely with the US as possible so that any systems that WE develop and field (JSS, LOG systems, etc) will be fully compatible with what the US deploys so that we can effectively contribute to future joint operations.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2011)

Three fundamental questions though:

Is it a good thing that the "Global Commons" be policed?
Is it a good thing that the US be the only policeman?
Can the US afford to be the only policeman?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2011)

Generally "the commons" only exist if there is no one capable of policeing them.

The tragedy of the commons is an illustrative example of what happens when there are no property rights, with a disinterested police and judiciary to enforce them. On a realistic basis, there can be no true "global policeman" without a true "global judiciary"; given the hijacking of international institutions to promote various schemes (generally anti-western), maybe a "global posse" might be a better description of the state of affairs. Yes, the US is the Sherrif and the Judge, but would you really want to submit to the rule of an organization that until recently had Lybia leading the Human Rights comission?

The United States has several interests in being the global posse;

Freedom of the seas for American trade
Freedom of the seas for allied trade
providing a low cost alternative for allies and neutrals for freedom of the seas and providing reasons for them not to spend money on building their own, potentially competative sea power.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2014)

Bump...

More news on the Civilian model seabase front.

It seems the US hasn't been sitting idle.

Another BHS alternative for Canada to consider alongside the Little Honking Ship.  Leasing converted 30,000 tonne Maersk RoRos at $35,000,000 a year.

Edit to add imagery:


----------

