Author Topic: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?  (Read 30423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2011, 15:24:14 »
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?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 141,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,669
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2011, 15:39:16 »
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. 

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2011, 16:17:37 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2011, 19:20:12 »
Good enough...

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

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2011, 19:36:57 »
Kirkhill

Don't stop looking at out of area solutions.

Sweatie

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2011, 19:37:12 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 141,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,669
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2011, 09:16:14 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2011, 16:00:48 »
The connection between the two concepts is found here

Quote
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 longest ship-to-objective maneuver in history, moving 400 miles inland to seize the
desert airstrip south of Kandahar.”26 However, some blemishes were seen in this
implementation of the Seabasing concept. First, the use of USS Kitty Hawk as a
Seabasing platform required the removal of almost her entire normal air wing
complement, rendering her ineffective as a strike or fleet defense platform. This
highlights the need to procure dedicated Seabasing ships, rather than employing a (very)
expensive CV/CVN to fill that role.

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

Quote
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
before starting operations, enable the Joint Force to act without the political constraints of
friendly host nation access, and defer the time until the Joint Force commander must have
a large supply base ashore to continue operations. The two main challenges to the full
implementation of Seabasing are that the equipment required is expensive and that
several critical pieces of technology required do not yet exist. Because of this, an
incremental approach to developing and fielding Seabasing technologies is the most
fiscally and strategically responsible plan.

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
« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 16:03:50 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,010
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2011, 16:22:28 »
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.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2011, 16:33:41 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 141,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,669
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2011, 17:25:25 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2011, 19:32:38 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2011, 22:56:43 »
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?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,733
  • Freespeecher
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2011, 09:33:00 »
Maritime Angolosphere powers:

US, India, Canada, Australia/New Zeland, the UK.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 56,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 623
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #39 on: March 08, 2011, 10:40:59 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #40 on: March 08, 2011, 17:39:34 »
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?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,733
  • Freespeecher
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2011, 23:23:55 »
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.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,717
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: NATO Islands - An Allied Response To Policing Sea Lanes?
« Reply #42 on: February 03, 2014, 11:03:12 »
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:



« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 14:07:29 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"