LCACs and tsunami support?

[Mike Bandor]

Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that the
LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or still
functioning).

Just curious.

Mike

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike Bandor wrote:
> Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think
> that the LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task
> of getting supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep
> enough -- or still functioning).

There are LCACs in the Bonhomme Richard ESG, which is either already
assisting or is on the way to assist.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Mike Bandor" > wrote:

>Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that the
>LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
>supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or still
>functioning).
>
>Just curious.

First reaction would be that you're talking mixed blessing here.
Fine, if all of the supplies needed are transported
in/crossdecked to LHAs/LHDs/LPDs/LSDs for loading onto the LCACs
in their well-decks. Otherwise, use of LCACs would require the
supplies to be offloaded by crane as they lay alongside the cargo
ship bringing the supplies. [Which also begs the question of how
many break bulk cargo ships are left in this container era? And
how many standard containers can an LCAC carry? Will the onshore
relief effort have the capability/manpower needed to handle and
unload containers brought in by LCAC instead of unloaded at a
port? Will they be able to handle even break bulk cargo brought
in by LCACs?]

This is not to gainsay the benefits the availability of some
LCACs may offer in the relief efforts, but to warn against
overestimating their ultimate value. LCACs work best/most
efficiently coupled with the gator navy ships they were designed
to be deployed aboard/from.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[T Bird]

Have not seen them , But the Bonnie Dick Amphib Group almost certainly
has them . Along with LCUs and LCM8s .

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Bandor" > wrote:
>
> >Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that
the
> >LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
> >supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or
still
> >functioning).
> >
> >Just curious.
>
> First reaction would be that you're talking mixed blessing here.
> Fine, if all of the supplies needed are transported
> in/crossdecked to LHAs/LHDs/LPDs/LSDs for loading onto the LCACs
> in their well-decks. Otherwise, use of LCACs would require the
> supplies to be offloaded by crane as they lay alongside the cargo
> ship bringing the supplies. [Which also begs the question of how
> many break bulk cargo ships are left in this container era? And
> how many standard containers can an LCAC carry? Will the onshore
> relief effort have the capability/manpower needed to handle and
> unload containers brought in by LCAC instead of unloaded at a
> port? Will they be able to handle even break bulk cargo brought
> in by LCACs?]
>
> This is not to gainsay the benefits the availability of some
> LCACs may offer in the relief efforts, but to warn against
> overestimating their ultimate value. LCACs work best/most
> efficiently coupled with the gator navy ships they were designed
> to be deployed aboard/from.
> --

They would indeed be more appropriate to ferry supplies further inland from
port facilities (probably improvised port facilities) to areas that can't be
reached by trucks (and then specifically to carry loads too heavy for
helicopters).

[[email protected]]

Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
the door from a hover.
Walt BJ

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
> nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
> ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
> the door from a hover.

Just a couple educated guesses, but-

It probably depends on the distance they need to carry the loads.
Slinging isn't very effective past a few miles, you usually can't fly
as fast with a slung load.

Then there's the "retrograde:" the cargo net, hook, and other tackle.
You eventually need to bring this back with you to reuse it because
most ships don't have _that_ much of it. Somebody else in this
thread mentioned the difficulty of moving a whole pallet in soft
ground. You can use straps through the frame of the pallet to
support it from a cargo hook, but laying out a cargo net and placing
the pallet on top of that is also common. So now how do the folks on
the ground receiving the cargo get the cargo net out from underneath
(easily and efficiently again and again)?

Anyway, just a couple ideas. I'm a helicopter guy, but never did
much vertrep. I could ask some friends who did for more educated
guesses though :)

[D]

----------
In article . com>,
wrote:

> Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
> nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the

They are. There was a report in the news that one of the slings gave way
and dropped its cargo on a car in a parking lot in Indonesia. The
Indonesian government then told the Navy to no longer use sling loads.



D

[Jim Carriere]

D wrote:
> ----------
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
>>nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
>
>
> They are. There was a report in the news that one of the slings gave way
> and dropped its cargo on a car in a parking lot in Indonesia. The
> Indonesian government then told the Navy to no longer use sling loads.

Well, this is a better answer than my previous guesses!

Since you didn't mention it, can we assume no one was hurt or killed,
hopefully only property damage?

[Ogden Johnson III]

wrote:

>Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
>nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
>ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
>the door from a hover.

Jim Carriere has hit one main reason, which I'd like to expand
on. D has IDed one of the other pitfalls that can happen with
external loads, particularly in the absence of HSTs on the
ground.

Helicopter Support Teams - trained guys and gals on the ground
supporting heavy duty external load operations are a must. Even
though most grunts likely to be on the receiving end of external
loads learn the basics, Red Cross relief workers and other good
samaritans on the receiving end of these supply transports may
not have any experience. And the time to get that training and
experience is not when you've got a section of helos coming in
with 10K - 20K lbs of stuff each on a sling.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On 5 Jan 2005 21:22:29 -0800, wrote:

>Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
>nets/pallets of supplies?

Perhaps because SH-60Fs aboard carriers aren't intended for such
missions and don't have the proper equipment?

These are ANTI-SUBMARINE helicopters, NOT cargo aircraft.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Jim Carriere]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2005 21:22:29 -0800, wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
>>nets/pallets of supplies?
>
>
> Perhaps because SH-60Fs aboard carriers aren't intended for such
> missions and don't have the proper equipment?
>
> These are ANTI-SUBMARINE helicopters, NOT cargo aircraft.

Andrew, the SH-60B and F variants are both equipped with single
6000lb capacity cargo hooks that open approximately 2 inches for a
pendant. Both are very visible in the relief effort. Which proper
equipment do they not have?

Often you post good information here, often you come across as very
rude, and sometimes you are wrong. This time, you are the second
case, the third case, and plain full of crap all at once.

To be sure, go to news.navy.mil, click on "search" at the top of the
page, select photos, then type "sh-60f" and "vertrep" in the field.

You know, nobody is right all the time, but the guy asked a
legitimate question and he asked politely.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:27:22 -0600, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

>Andrew, the SH-60B and F variants are both equipped with single
>6000lb capacity cargo hooks that open approximately 2 inches for a
[snippage]

I am well aware of this.

Had I posted all this, your response probably would have been
something like this:

VERTREP is not the same as delivering humanitarian supplies into
undeveloped or devastated areas. VERTREP transfers prepared,
palletized cargo between two flat decks. This relief operation
requires flying supplies (which probably are not palletized,
containerized, or otherise easy to handle) into forward areas where
there may be no place to land, no place safe to set a heavy load,
nobody on the ground to receive the cargo, no organization, and indeed
vast hordes of people rushing the aircraft. This is different from
VERTREP and requires different gear - are you going to leave all your
slings and pallets behind every time if you have no way to retrieve
them?

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Jim Carriere]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:27:22 -0600, Jim Carriere
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew, the SH-60B and F variants are both equipped with single
>>6000lb capacity cargo hooks that open approximately 2 inches for a
>
> [snippage]
>
> I am well aware of this.
>
> Had I posted all this, your response probably would have been
> something like this:
>
> VERTREP is not the same as delivering humanitarian supplies into
> undeveloped or devastated areas. VERTREP transfers prepared,
<decent explanation of logistics issues>

I don't follow your response.

Walt BJ asked a fairly broad question, inquiring why the helicopters
were not sling loading nets and pallets. You answered very
specifically that SH-60Fs did not have the proper equipment. I said
wait, they do have hooks, what other equipment does a helicopter need
to carry a sling load?

Now you answer, backtracking then speculating about a response I
supposedly would have written had your answer about SH-60F equipment???

The gist of my reply to you was threefold: One, that the 60F (and
60B, which in this case is aboard the aircraft carrier) is capable of
carrying slung cargo. Two, that you answered Walt BJ unnecessarily
and unprovoked rudeness that is characteristic of many of your
answers. Three, it is OK with me to be wrong here, no one is
perfect. The problem is rudeness plus being wrong is very unproductive.

Let me be clear- if you meant that the carrier based squadrons lacked
equipment to sustain a sling load logistics effort, that you knew all
along that of course all of the aircraft have cargo hooks, and I
interpreted your answer as a different meaning- that is fine with
me... oh well, just another misunderstanding on usenet.

Getting back to the subject line (this is not meant to sound
insulting), I'm sure you realize the 60F is a minor part of the
relief effort, and there are several other helicopter types operating
over there.

[Harriet and John]

Chill it, you guys!

As an ex-LPD, LPH, PHIBRON Commander, my PHIBGRU's constant chant was -
"Sailor, there's a way!"


"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:27:22 -0600, Jim Carriere
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Andrew, the SH-60B and F variants are both equipped with single
> >>6000lb capacity cargo hooks that open approximately 2 inches for a
> >
> > [snippage]
> >
> > I am well aware of this.
> >
> > Had I posted all this, your response probably would have been
> > something like this:
> >
> > VERTREP is not the same as delivering humanitarian supplies into
> > undeveloped or devastated areas. VERTREP transfers prepared,
> <decent explanation of logistics issues>
>
> I don't follow your response.
>
> Walt BJ asked a fairly broad question, inquiring why the helicopters
> were not sling loading nets and pallets. You answered very
> specifically that SH-60Fs did not have the proper equipment. I said
> wait, they do have hooks, what other equipment does a helicopter need
> to carry a sling load?
>
> Now you answer, backtracking then speculating about a response I
> supposedly would have written had your answer about SH-60F equipment???
>
> The gist of my reply to you was threefold: One, that the 60F (and
> 60B, which in this case is aboard the aircraft carrier) is capable of
> carrying slung cargo. Two, that you answered Walt BJ unnecessarily
> and unprovoked rudeness that is characteristic of many of your
> answers. Three, it is OK with me to be wrong here, no one is
> perfect. The problem is rudeness plus being wrong is very unproductive.
>
> Let me be clear- if you meant that the carrier based squadrons lacked
> equipment to sustain a sling load logistics effort, that you knew all
> along that of course all of the aircraft have cargo hooks, and I
> interpreted your answer as a different meaning- that is fine with
> me... oh well, just another misunderstanding on usenet.
>
> Getting back to the subject line (this is not meant to sound
> insulting), I'm sure you realize the 60F is a minor part of the
> relief effort, and there are several other helicopter types operating
> over there.
>

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:11:56 -0600, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

>I don't follow your response.

My point is this: no matter what I had said, you probably would have
objected and said my answer was silly, because you're in the mood to
argue.

When we started this, SH-60s appeared to be the only (naval)
helicopters involved in the mission (the amphibs weren't in range
yet). That has changed now, but your argument about other aircraft
being involved is irrelevant at the time of the original question.

And if we really want to talk about what's silly, the original
question is a bit odd - did anybody know if helos were using cargo
slings or not, or did someone just *assume* this because they hadn't
*seen* a picture of it happen? It's a safe bet we haven't seen
pictures of even 1% of what's going on over there.

Considering it was basically a hypothetical question, I provided a
pretty good hypothetical answer. Nobody said it was the only possible
answer.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Jim Carriere]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:11:56 -0600, Jim Carriere
> > wrote:
>
>>I don't follow your response.
>
....
> When we started this, SH-60s appeared to be the only (naval)
> helicopters involved in the mission (the amphibs weren't in range
> yet). That has changed now, but your argument about other aircraft
> being involved is irrelevant at the time of the original question.
....

OK, now I follow, and I think I see your point of view. Most of my
exception to your original reply (to Walt BJ, not me) was due to the
tone- you did use capital letters, which normally means shouting. In
my original reply, I did include a statement that you often post good
information.

As the last poster directed, I'll chill it now.

[D]

----------
In article >, Jim Carriere
> wrote:

> Two, that you answered Walt BJ unnecessarily
> and unprovoked rudeness that is characteristic of many of your
> answers.

I'm with you here--he thinks he knows so much that he is quick to be rude to
anybody he suspects does not know as much as he does. Occasionally this
results in his inserting his foot in his mouth, as he did here. He needs to
remove that foot and use the mouth to eat some humble pie instead.




D

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On 9 Jan 2005 01:12:03 GMT, Clark > wrote:

>(argumentative). That is just downright wrong. The only way to train the boy
>is to point out his errors, no ifs ands or buts.

The last thing I need is this stupid "train the boy" attitude. This
just tells me you're a grizzled cantancerous old man who can't stand
anybody who isn't the same way.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[John Miller]

Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
> The last thing I need is this stupid "train the boy" attitude. This
> just tells me you're a grizzled cantancerous old man who can't stand
> anybody who isn't the same way.

Most boys would react the same. Most men would appreciate the criticism.

--
John Miller, Navy veteran, experienced as both man and boy

[CPOWHR]

>From: "Harriet and John"

>Chill it, you guys!
>
>As an ex-LPD, LPH, PHIBRON Commander, my PHIBGRU's constant chant was -
>"Sailor, there's a way!"

Having served in one once even though I'm an aviation type I gotta say we
always did find a way.

600 more or less Sailors with 2000+ Marines as passengars carrying tons of baby
food and formula and an OB/GYN Doctor aboard.

Most dangerous mission I ever served on was escorting President Carter to West
Africa.

[CPOWHR]

>From: Clark

>Wrong again Andy. I'm a 40 something engineer who promotes and encourages new
>
>approaches to solving problems. However, I do discourage rudeness and narrow-
>mindedness in people when I see it - there is just no need for it and it has
>the strong potential of inhibiting open discourse.
>

I'm a 58 year old veteran that can understand the difficulties in solving
problems. You always assign the hardest job to the laziest guy because he will
figure out the easiest way to get it done and probably get promoted because
folks will think he is smart.

You inhibit discourse in the military so the superiors who decide promotions
cannot reveal that they are also lazy and that is why they got promoted.