Galrahn has a post on the relief efforts in Japan with an updated list of the ships involved. Awesome stuff. Where we go in opposite directions is his last paragraph....
With the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) expected to serve as a helicopter support base offshore for both US Navy and Japanese SDF helicopters, once again the nuclear powered aircraft carrier is poised to be the most versatile and flexible capability in responding to the needs following an international catastrophe.What the fuck?
Talk about justifying using super carriers in an LHD role!
We've gone over it and I've rechecked the numbers. Unless the CVN dumps its entire airwing and reloads with helos (which in order to fill it out would have to come from LHDs anyway)....one LHD has the helo lift of 5 aircraft carriers.
One.
Additionally the LHD has onboard a surgical hospital, and is designed to handle refugees...the CVN isn't.
The LHD can offload troops and have space tailor made for those needing extra bunks...like Japanese Helicopter Crews in the middle of rescue operations....the CVN can do likewise but will have to jump thru hoops to do it.
What are we actually seeing in the Navy's deployment of ships to these recent disaster zones?
1. The budget wars are here. An aircraft carrier steaming at 35 knots to Haiti...an aircraft carrier steaming to Japan...all show no go. Just like the Coast Guard sending ships to Haiti...they can get there first--make claims about all the work they're doing but its all about publicity and budget more than getting the actual work done. Show over go!
2. Bastardizing the Sea Base concept. Simply having an assemblage of ships operating off a coast is not a sea base. I'll be watching Marine Corps reaction to these events...if they even whisper the term sea base in describing this then the sea base concept as I've read it is as dead as disco.
3. Looks matter more than performance. Watching the Navy get the "facts" out about the action in Japan indicates that our PAO's have jumped the shark. What do I mean? Its no longer about actually telling the story to the American people but in tailoring it in such a way as to emphasize certain weapon systems...ships etc...
Information should be provided to the public...we don't need publicist in uniform.
UPDATE:
This photo by MS1 Steve Smith shows to good effect the potential for the LPD-17 class to revolutionize amphibious operations in general and disaster relief in particular. Note the number of helos on the deck of this LPD! Two CH-53's and other helicopters plus room for a MV-22 to land? That represents more than the standard number of helicopters found on a CVN. Amphibs prove their worth...carriers show the flag.
Another fallacy needs to be put to rest on this operation. A fleet of ships does not constitute a sea base. An aircraft carrier that leaves its planes on shore and becomes a helicopter carrier is not a sea base....we need to make sure that we stick to the approved USMC definition of a sea base...otherwise we will be left with a pale version of the same.
The USMC has removed its Sea Basing Site and all the information within from the web. Why they've taken this action is beyond me...luckily I have archived past information...future developments will be hard to come by. It seems that the proper telling of the USMC's story and the debate about its future needs will be done outside the view of the public.
for a Marine you are really getting good at pointing to the essentials about Seabasing~~
ReplyDeletekeep it up but don't forget "Amphibious Lift" includes MSC and RRF too.
Support of an HA/DR is defined in the following metrics: # of BOG, # helo spots, # connectors, MEDCAP teams ashore, SEABEES, and how much relief supplies in weight tonnage gets ashore. Counting bottles of water in gallons is not a good number to count by.
thanks.
ReplyDeletecheck out the latest post. but explain this for me...how does your beloved NECC fit into these type operations?????
latest post? I only see yours and mine??
ReplyDeleteI did not mention NECC, but since you asked, MESF untis provide afloat security to a seabase. Both MESFrons and RivRons can also protect lighterage moving along the shore.
Is that what you meant?
I meant to add that there are seveal definitions of seabase floating around. And as Bob Work pointed out in recent USNI Proceedings, what may be a more appropriate term is JOINT Theater Entry Operations to distinquish the seabase from and operation more service unique as in USMC forcible entry operations?
ReplyDeleteIOW all seabases do not necessarily support the Marines alone? Also Marine operations in the future will probably be more "scaleable"? If you read between some lines in current force resturce docs.
There might be security reasons why they sent the USS Ronald Reagan, so maybe North Korea doesn't get any funny ideas, while Japan is out of commission... Maybe it was the closest ship with those capabilities in the vicinity, I'm sure even for the US Navy it's not always pick and choose, probably more like what are our options, my 2 cents!
ReplyDeletegood points about CVNs in area. But they have got to keep there defenses up while helping in the DR
ReplyDelete