The Navy finally announced the ships that its sending to the Black Sea to be on standby in case trouble erupts at the Sochi Olympics. A Destroyer? A command ship?
Really?
Seriously?
Hmm, doesn't seem credible enough to handle a boy scout convention much less trouble at the games. The idea that these two ships have the aviation facilities, berthing areas and are equipped to handle even an administrative evacuation is laughable.
The Pentagon is playing reindeer games with us on this. Keep track of these ships if you want to, but I'm heading to Google sat to take a look at bases in Georgia, Turkey and maybe a few other places. Its beyond obvious that the ships they're sending are just for show.
No surprise here. When I first read the US would be sending ship, I was wondering what they'd be. There is a treaty that governs the size of ships foreign powers can send through the Bosporus Straits and the Dardanelles.
ReplyDeletetwo of the old as hell LSDs would be more credible and would accommodate the restrictions.
DeleteI have a feeling we have a few contingency plans up our sleeves. Sounds to me like a command ship to exercise C2, a destroyer to protect it (think HQ element) the actual force is probably land based somewhere (where? thats none of my business).
Deletewithout a doubt but understand that the idea of command ships is so outdated that its not even funny. every big deck amphib and every Burke class destroyer not to mention the carriers and subs all have the necessary gear to act as fleet flagships...which means they can control the actions of a rescue force.
Deletei still think Georgia is the jumping off point but we'll see.
The treaty is called "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits"
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
Espacially: "Non-Black Sea state warships in the Straits must be under 15,000 tons."
From USNI "Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet":
DeleteLCC-19 "Blue Ridge"
- commissioned 1970
- 16,790 light/18,646 ton (FL)
- 636' x 108' x 28'
- 22,000hp via single steam-turbine and single-screw
- 22 kts
- 2x 25mm Bushmaster Mk.38, 2x 20mm CIWS "Phalanx", several .50cal MGs
- Personnel: 595 (34 off + 561 enlisted)
- Flag: 257 (72 off + 185 enlisted.
- based on the 11-vessel LPH "Iwo Jima" class Assault Helicopter Carriers (1961).
- Sister-ship LCC-20 "Mount Whitney"
According to the treaty the USS "Mount Whitney" is not a warship - to few guns heavy guns. USS "Mount Whitney" is an auxilary vessel.
DeleteMH LCCs are classed as naval auxiliary ships and so could go through without being held up by the treaty.
DeleteI really doubt how many civilians that she could lift in a NEO?
If things goes wrong, Every important delegation is protected by Special forces / Private Security company. It 's already perfect for Green on blue and blue on blue.
ReplyDeleteIf Us had a flying battalion on this... If even a chopper is shot down by terrorist...
France has send Counter terrorist force ( GIGN and RAID )
2 Littoral Combat Ships would be good enough. They are quality and work well. ..... ..... Nog.
ReplyDeleteRubber boat borne IED, USS Cole style could erase both these ships most riki tic.
ReplyDeleteThe RoE for these two Targets is most likely very tight and max ammo load is five rounds per weapon, the first shot is a blank round more than not.
Talk about ships in a bottle, the Black sea is a Russian bottle with a narrow neck.
Why are people insulted by the choices of a Frigate and a Support ship?
ReplyDeleteThat is a perfectly adequate force to send in the event of a terrorist attack, both vessels are essentially impervious to any credible terrorist attack and anything big enough to hurt them (i.e. anti ship missiles) would have to expose itself and by promptly destroyed by the Russian Forces in the area.
Since their objective would be to act as a staging point for special forces and evacuation vessels for the delegations, there's no real reason for anything bigger, the LHCs and carriers have obligations elsewhere and would be politically toxic to deploy into Russian territorial waters.
do you know how much support the average SF team requires? do you know how much air support they consume? do you realize that without conventional forces those bastards don't even get out of bed?
Deleteif you're thinking that one helicopter filled with a SF A-Team is going to be doing even an administrative evacuation then you don't know how that works.
you're talking about several helicopters....more than several. you're talking about having personnel on the ground establishing a perimeter. you're talking about a command staff liaising with foreign counterparts...you also have to have logistics personnel to get all their shit together, both for the shooters and the people evaced...then you have to deal with State, CIA and other alphabet soup agencies.
you're going to need many more people than you have on those two ships and you're going to need dedicated ground forces that will go and do the deed.
sorry dude. but on this one, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. oh and be advised. i just gave you the mickey mouse version.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLet me also add that I agree this is not an optimal situation and that the Russians have not done nearly enough to secure the Sochi games. But . . . It is what it is. Political realities are very rarely sensible.
DeleteApologies, I made a mistake in this post.
DeleteNo, I do not think that US special forces are going to use A-Team magic, this is not Call of Duty or a Tom Clancy Novel, yes I am aware of the fact that a complete evacuation is not in the cards using these ships.
Perhaps special forces was the wrong term, I was referring more to a security detail taking personal responsibility for US citizens during an evacuation.
Let me be clear, I do not doubt that these measures would be insufficient for what you believe is needed.
That is irrelevant because Russia would be unlikely to tolerate a fully readied assault landing ship of the United States military operating in their backyard, and you can be sure they'd make noise about any other US forces skulking in the area.
The political blow back simply makes it too toxic for Putin to tolerate, even more so as it would imply that Russia cannot provide sufficient security, the host nation's greatest responsibility, for the Olympic Games.
Any US military involvement would consist of babysitting our delegation behind a wall of Russian military hardware of which they have amply provided. (Albeit in the interest of protest suppression, but I digress.)
Any other scenario, hostage taking, a chemical or biological attack, mass bombing, etc . . . Would not benefit from a large US presence because the US forces would not be directly involved with preventative security or immediate response.
If something "erupts" in black sea area nothing will leave black sea. So its actually a wise decision.
ReplyDeleteHey Solomon this might interest you pic.twitter.com/mJqaezaAPF
ReplyDelete