Pages

Monday, December 5, 2022

Merchant Ship Conversions to Wartime Use

It is no secret that the Navy has nowhere near enough amphibious and logistic support ships to prosecute a sustained war with China.  New construction of sufficient numbers and types of ships when war comes will be impossible given the state of US commercial shipbuilding.  An alternative to new construction is to acquire and convert commercial ships as was done routinely during WWII, especially at the start of the war.

 

Consider the case of troop transports.  At the start of WWII, we had nowhere near enough Attack Transports which were the backbone of the entire Pacific campaign.  Instead, we converted commercial ships to troop transports until we were able to ramp up our wartime shipbuilding.  Here’s a few examples:

 

McCawley Class - The McCawley class consisted of two converted commercial ships built for the American shipping company, Grace Lines, by Furness Shipbuilding Company.  The ships were completed in 1928 as Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. They were bought by the Navy in 1940 and converted to troop transports as the USS McCawley (AP-10) and USS Barnett (AP-11).

 

USS Harry Lee (AP-17) - The Harry Lee was built as the passenger ship SS Exochorda by New York Shipbuilding Co. in 1931 before being acquired by the Navy in Oct-1940 and converted to the Harry Lee (AP-17) in Dec-1940.

 

USS John Penn (AP-51/APA-23) - The John Penn was built as Excambion in 1931 by the New York Shipbuilding Company as one of American Export Lines's original "Four Aces."  She was acquired by the Navy 8-Jan-1942 and converted to a troop transport in Apr-1942.

 

 

Even prior to WWI, the US recognized the need for vastly increased numbers of commercial ships that could be converted to wartime use.  With the 1916 Shipping Act, Congress established an organization to do just that – the United States Shipping Board which, in turn, founded a business, the Emergency Fleet Corporation whose mission was to acquire merchant ships for war needs.

 

Paraphrased from various Wikipedia entries,

 

The Shipping Board had been established while the United States was at peace, with the intent to restore the nation's Merchant Marine.

 

Ten days after declaration of war, on 16 April 1917, the Board created the Emergency Fleet Corporation (EFC) in the District of Columbia with a capital stock of $50,000,000.  The EFC’s purpose was to acquire, maintain, and operate merchant ships to meet national defense, foreign and domestic commerce during World War I.

 

When the United States declared war against Germany the purpose and policy of the Shipping Board and the Fleet Corporation changed from a body established to restore the American Merchant Marine to a military organization tasked with providing transport of war materials to Europe. 

 

The EFC was renamed the U.S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation in February 1927, then abolished entirely in October 1936. Its functions were transferred to the United States Maritime Commission.

 

The EFC operated together with some 80 shipyards throughout the country to design commercial ships suitable for conversion to war use.  For example, the Design 1029 ship (full name Emergency Fleet Corporation Design 1029) was a steel-hulled passenger/cargo ship designed to be converted in times of war to a troopship.

 

Today, China does something along these lines with their commercial ships being designed for rapid conversion to wartime vessels.

 

We see, then, that acquisition and conversion of merchant ships to wartime use has been a common practice throughout history.

 

Given our appalling shortage of transport and logistic ships, we will definitely need to acquire and convert merchant ships.  Unfortunately, the US flagged merchant fleet is lacking in numbers.  The U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, lists only 180 US flagged, privately owned, oceangoing ships of 1,000 tons or greater, as of 2021.[1]  The breakdown by type is shown in the table below.

 

 

Ship Type

Qty.

Containership

63

Dry Bulk

4

General Cargo

20

Ro-Ro

26

Vehicles Carrier

3

Tanker

64

Total

180

 

 

Of the 180 vessels, 157 were deemed militarily useful.[1]

 

We don’t need to attempt to build more amphibious or logistics ships but we do need to ‘change the landscape’, so to speak, with the following actions:

 

  • Need to require merchant ships to include military conversion features in their design.
  • Need to increase the number of US flagged merchant ships by modifying the applicable laws.
  • Need to plan for acquisition and conversion of merchant ships.
  • Need to have conversion plans for each individual ship in hand and ready to go.
  • Need to assess shipyard capacity to accomplish conversions.

 

Most of all, we need some kind of organization tasked with the described acquisition and conversion.  It is unclear to me whether such an organization exists within the government/military.  The ‘s responsibilities have, over the decades, been diluted and distributed among various organizations such as the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) but none seem to have the charter to produce/ensure that commercial ships are designed for easy and rapid conversion to wartime configurations.

 

Of course, converted merchant ships won’t be perfect fits for wartime uses since they are, after all, merchant ships at heart.  For example, we can easily convert a merchant ship to a troop transport, like we did in WWII, but we can’t convert it to a big deck, aviation ship of the type the Navy currently procures.  However, this fits well with the blog’s overall ship design philosophy of single function, cheaper, smaller ships.  The Navy needs to institutionally come to grips with this reality – and desirability!  We then need to revise our doctrine and operations to include these types of ships instead of the big deck, aviation ships we have today.

 

One final consideration is the cost of naval amphibious or logistic ships – they’re expensive to buy and operate!  By having a fleet of merchant ships capable of being usefully converted to wartime work, the Navy largely avoids the cost of procuring and operating the ships while still having access to the numbers and capabilities the ships represent.  Thus, the cost of administering such a program would easily pay for itself.

 

 


_______________________________________ 

 

Related Note:  Following is an example of a commercial ship, the SS United States, designed for conversion to wartime needs.  The ship was designed and acquired under the direction of the United States Maritime Commission (MARCOM) which succeeded the United States Shipping Board.  From Wikipedia entries,

 

… the US government sponsored the construction of a large and fast merchant vessel that would be capable of transporting large numbers of soldiers. Designed by American naval architect and marine engineer William Francis Gibbs (1886–1967), the liner's construction was a joint effort by the United States Navy and United States Lines. The US government underwrote $50 million of the $78 million construction cost, with the ship's prospective operators, United States Lines, contributing the remaining $28 million. In exchange, the ship was designed to be easily converted in times of war to a troopship. The ship has a capacity of 15,000 troops, and could also be converted to a hospital ship.

 

The vessel was constructed from 1950 to 1952 at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Newport News, Virginia. The hull was constructed in a dry dock. United States was built to exacting Navy specifications, which required that the ship be heavily compartmentalized, and have separate engine rooms to optimize wartime survival.[2]

 


SS United States



 

____________________________________

 

[1]https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2021-04/DS_USFlag-Fleet_2021_0316_Bundle.pdf

 

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_United_States


48 comments:

  1. A couple months ago, a friend died. He was an anti-aircraft gunner in WWII. The first ship he served on was from a fleet of tankers owned by Esso Oil Company. The Navy acquired them, painted them grey, named them after American rivers, and mounted defensive weapons on them. This doesn't add much to the topic at hand other than I personally knew someone who served on a converted merchant ship during war.

    MM-13B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate that kind of story. It makes the topics real, so to speak, and offers a tribute to your friend. Thank you for sharing with us.

      Delete
  2. "Need to require merchant ships to include military conversion features in their design."

    That won't be possible unless the US government directly funds a significant portion of the merchant ships' construction, as was the case with the SS United States. Direct funding of merchant ship construction will have to compete with countless other agendas- including USN warships' construction, maintenance, upgrades- for the budget, as well as politicians and political activists falsely claiming such a requirement is "Fascist" and/or "Communist."

    It's a genuinely good idea, but there's a very slim chance the US government will actually implement it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there's a very slim chance the US government will actually implement it."

      Likely all too true. Of course, if we reverted to a basic Nimitz design instead of more Fords, we'd save around $8B+ per carrier which could fund a LOT of merchant ship subsidies.

      Delete
    2. Not necessarily. The Air Force has a similar program that finances cargo aircraft that would be taken over in time of war. Most of your overnight shipping moves in it.

      Delete
  3. From what I've heard, the current laws seem to be tailor-made to ensure as few vessels are flagged in the US as possible. I'm no naval law expert but it has been the consistent theme among US merchant sailors I've talked to. Would anyone with more expertise or knowledge about US merchant ship laws care to chime in with exactly what makes the US such a bad option?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Money! It's always the money. US laws and regulations make it more cost effective to operate under a foreign flag.

      Delete
    2. The great merchant fleets are
      Panama, EU, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bahamas, Malta, Greece, China.

      Though you should combine China + Hong Kong,
      they'd be #3. US is #22

      Delete
    3. More specifically taxes.

      Delete
    4. The commercial shipping fleet could be greatly increased in the United States with a few regulation and tax changes.

      1. Don't charge any fees for inspections and classification surveys of US flagged commercial vessels. Just have the Coast Guard eat the cost.
      2. Create a special tax rate (0%) for income derived from US flagged vessels. (European shippers pay a tonnage Tax and no income taxes, so it is difficult for US flagged vessels to compete)
      3. 30% transferable tax credit for purchase of US manufactured Vessels ( promote US shipyards and allow ship owners to sell the tax credits to other corporations)
      4. Special tax rate for shipyard income derived from commercial vessel construction. (Zero%)

      Delete
  4. USA has neither the will, finances or capacity to manufacture sufficient numbers and types of ships. Of any kind. We don't even have the manning to man our Navy. And haven't for going on 40+ years- During the 80s I was stunned I had 4+ manning numbers to consider while running a division manned just under 70%. No wonder PMS is a stretch; much less Big Picture Competence (see Bon Homme Richard).

    If we can't get out of the game we should change the rules. Go OFFENSIVE. Entirely. There will be no more island landings. Tell China 'hands-off' Australia and Japan. Both are explicitly under the nuclear umbrella. Singapore can take care of itself. So sorry SE Asia. US doesn't owe you anything AND you haven't, heretofore, jumped to our side. Granted, inconsistent Foreign Policy across diff Administrations exacerbates this.

    But here's a example:

    -Trump went to our 'allies' and told them to pay up for their defense.

    - Germans laughed and told USA to go to hell.
    - South Korea hesitated, and said "Let us think about that."
    - Japan said, "Here's what you asked for and here's even MORE."

    Who should we support given we have limited resources?

    Any nation-state requires three things for survival: Food. Energy. Fresh water. USA is uniquely, damned near solely, self-sufficient in all three (amongst all the worlds nations). Am I arguing for a New Isolationism?

    Pretty much. Yep, I think so. We don't need the rest of the world more than they need us. So how best to employ the limited assets we currently have available?

    Use them offensively to interdict trade sea lanes. Extract a minor premium from the rest of the world for any trade we choose to directly protect. $1 per barrel for oil exported from the US? $1 per bushel of wheat exported from the US? "Oh, you're balancing US interests on the back of the rest of the worlds nations!" Damn right I am. My foreign policy is becoming more murderous by the day.

    Team America World Police is a outmoded concept.

    Protecting/Enabling 'World Trade' was formerly a good idea. Pulled the entire world out of bone-crushing poverty. But now, it's as bad a idea as 'Peace in our time.' Times have changed. Financial challenges, nowadays, impose different constraints.

    Our blood and treasure should be better spent looking out for our personal (national) interests.

    Mindset changes Policy. Force Composition follows.

    Else you have a WWI Battleship-Admiral mindset.

    And we know, with hindsight, how that turned out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The former was written by PSECNAV. Want y'all to know you're dealing with a strategically consistent mindset. Our mission is wrong, so our CONOPS is wrong. Therfore our platforms, which we can't build/maintain/deploy in sufficient numbers, are wrong.

      IMHO.

      Delete
    2. "Go OFFENSIVE. Entirely."

      "Am I arguing for a New Isolationism?

      "Pretty much. Yep, I think so."

      These policies are contradictory. Isolationism is a DEFENSIVE strategy. Going offensive will force us out of that.

      "So how best to employ the limited assets we currently have available?

      "Use them offensively to interdict trade sea lanes."

      Historically, armies needed a three-to-one numerical ADVANTAGE to defeat an entrenched enemy, i.e., in a DEFENSIVE position. Your OFFENSIVE strategy will force the US to greatly expand its military, i.e., do the exact opposite of what you want.

      THINK MORE. If you instead proposed the US responded to enemy provocations with direct nuclear strikes on their cities, your proposal wouldn't be so contradictory. But as is, it's a mess.

      Delete
    3. Don't think so.

      Going OFFENSIVE allows us to pick our shots. Choose time and place on our terms. Put the rest of the world on the back foot. Make THEM react. We don't have to cover the entire court; just snipe (the sea lanes). Not contradictory at all. Cut off grain and oil imports- Selectively. And at our whim.

      Go back to Mahan and get away from "From the Sea" which assumed infinite economic resources way back in 1992. That world no longer exists. Nor do those finances/taxbase/industrialBase. Exist. They no longer do.

      From The Sea? Here it is: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/fts.htm

      The Marine Commandants strategy of re-orienting his force to sniping naval forces with SSMs directed by island spotters is galacticly (sp?) stupid but give him (minor) credit for putting forth a force strategy more recent than 1992. IF USN has declared a comprehensive doctrine since 'From The Sea' please let me know what this is/was.

      Don't understand your point about The Army. I'm arguing it makes no sense in this day and age, whatsoever, to take ground. Hearts and minds don't follow. And USA culture doesn't have the will to 'go Roman' on any other culture/people.

      IMHO.

      Delete
    4. "Don't understand your point about The Army."

      The point is we have to have a NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE over enemies and potential enemies, to pursue the OFFENSIVE strategy you're advocating- one historical armies and, I assume navies needed, unless the enemy leaders were hilariously incompetent. That is NOT the best way to "employ the limited assets we currently have available."

      Delete
    5. Forgive my ignorance, but what is PSECNAV?

      Delete
    6. "give him (minor) credit for putting forth a force strategy more recent than 1992."

      Just to be aware, there are a dozen or more 'strategies' that have been put forth since 1992. Off the top of my head, here a few to provide a starting point for investigation:

      -Vision for the 2026 Surface Fleet
      -CNO Navigation Plan 2022
      -A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower

      Delete
    7. "what is PSECNAV?"

      It's a username not an organization. :)

      Delete
    8. "Going OFFENSIVE allows us to pick our shots. Choose time and place on our terms."

      Of course, the enemy will be doing the same so ...

      Delete
    9. To be fair he is espousing a Strategic Raiding concept versus a conquest concept. Because in this kind of strategy you are not attempting to defeat the enemy's forces, but cripple their economy and will, it doesn't necessarily require the 3 to 1 ratio quoted. Very similar to the strategic bombing concepts developed by the early Air Force. In many ways it is a form of Asymmetric warfare, striking at your opponent's weak points.

      Delete
    10. "To be fair he is espousing a Strategic Raiding concept versus a conquest concept."

      Raiding- especially when submarines perform this mission- was effective against the UK and Japan, island nations with limited resources, which they must compensate for via imports. China is NOT an island nation; she has domestic sources for many critical resources, e.g., oil, natural gas, iron, rare earth elements critical to the production of electrical and electronic devices.

      DO MORE RESEARCH. As Sun Tzu said, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, and your victory is guaranteed. If you don't know the enemy but know yourself, your chances of victory is 50%. If you know neither your enemy or yourself, your defeat is guaranteed."

      Delete
    11. Oh, I agree the weakness of this strategy is that it really isn't decisive. Although I do wonder if the PLAN has a class appropriate for convoy duties.

      Delete
    12. "Although I do wonder if the PLAN has a class appropriate for convoy duties."

      Like the Type 054 class frigate, of which China has over 30?

      Delete
    13. Or the Type 056 class corvette, of which China has over 70?

      The Type 054 has a range of 7000 km (6800 miles); the Type 056, 6500 km (4000 miles).

      Delete
  5. Some years ago, the Malaysian Navy converted two container freighters in auxiliary naval vessels. One of them was called Bunga Mmas Lima: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunga_Mas_Lima-class_auxiliary_ship

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's worth noting that while the Malaysians were happy with what BM5 brought to the table, it was always intended as an interim solution, to be replaced by a dedicated LPD class, because an LPD brings a lot more to the table than an ad-hoc ghetto commando carrier that can only fit one helicopter.

      Unfortunately corruption andthe shrinking malaysian economy mean that the LPDs will remain a pipe dream.

      Delete
  6. Not a lawyer, but I think there are provisions in US law to take over US owned (not just flagged) ships in an emergency. That still leave the question of who would man such ships, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point of the post was that we need to be producing merchant ships that are designed for quick and easy conversion to war use. Simply 'taking' a ship is only the easy half of the problem. China designs every merchant ship for easy conversion to military use. We need to begin doing the same.

      Delete
    2. I recall reading that theyve recently done some mobilization and utilization drills with their civilian ships as well...

      Delete
    3. I was a merchant seaman during 1969-70. My license was stamped "validated for emergency service." This meant that the Navy/Coast Guard could deploy me whenever it saw fit. Not sure if they could also take the ship.

      Delete
  7. The USS United States is still in mothballs in Philadelphia harbor if you want it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Minor note, it's SS rather than USS.

      Delete
    2. 1200 psi steam propulsion. Probably nobody left who actually could steam that plant--among other issues.

      Delete
  8. The British used two ocean liners to get 3000 troops to Argentina for the Falklands war and another civilian ship for a hospital ship. The liners sailed close then transferred the troops to military vessels for the last leg.
    Chinese operate the docks of most Pacific ports, so it will be difficult to keep secret which ships we plan to use. If we rehearse using civilian ships the Chinese spies will report our training back to China and act as a deterrent because the Chinese to have to look for a much expanded target set that blends in with civilian shipping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "blends in with civilian shipping."

      What is with this constant notion of ships blending in with civilian shipping? In war (what other situation would this be applicable to?), there won't be any civilian shipping in or near a war zone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any unidentified ship will be assumed enemy and instantly sunk. Give up this notion of ships hiding in civilian traffic. Do I have to do a post on this?

      Delete
    2. "Do I have to do a post on this?"

      You may have to. Too many commentators apparently view war and the geopolitics that cause it, as "prank wars" that result due to rivalry between different football teams. They seem to forget people die in wars, including many on their own side.

      Delete
    3. Probably not a bad idea to outline your thinking on this issue in a separate post.
      Apart from the obvious impracticality of ‘instantly sinking’ all unidentified ships (which is to say most of them, as few will have decent comms gear or an English speaking skipper), this would also be a war crime. It would be no different really to a policy of shooting on sight Afghan or Iraqi civilians because we think, for no particular reason, they might just be carrying concealed weapons and represent a threat.
      And if we were to ‘instantly sink’ one of the hundreds of thousands of Indonesian, Thai, Vietnamese, or Phillipines flagged ships that sail the South and East China Seas every day, this would of course be an act of war, which is an outcome we would probably wish to avoid, as we’d already have our hands pretty much full.
      I know we did this sort of thing in WW2, along with routinely shooting POWs, but times have changed a bit since those days, so probably no longer such a good idea.

      Delete
    4. "would of course be an act of war"

      I ask this as gently as I can ... do you have any idea how a war works? It would seem not.

      In a war, there are no legal niceties. War is brutal, barbaric, and horrifying. For that reason, THERE WON'T BE ANY COMMERCIAL SHIPPING IN THE AREA. If there is, one can safely and wisely presume it to be the enemy.

      "I know we did this sort of thing in WW2, along with routinely shooting POWs"

      We did not routinely shoot POWs as evidenced by the tens of thousands of prisoners released at the conclusion of the war. I'm sure isolated examples occurred (see the earlier sentence about brutal, barbaric, and horrifying) but it was not routinely done. I insist on accuracy in comments.

      "times have changed a bit since those days,"

      I say this as bluntly as I can ... do you have any idea what war is? Clearly not. The barbarity of the Ukraine-Russia war disproves your notion that 'times have changed'. People, uniformed and civilian, are being tortured and killed regularly, civilian facilities are being destroyed, mass graves have been reported, etc.

      You need to have a sit-down discussion with reality and history and try to get an understanding of what war is. It's not a neat little video game.

      Delete
    5. "times have changed a bit since those days,"

      I would think upon opening of hostilities, there would be a general statement made by the govt along the lines of "any vessels inside X area or travelling to a Chinese port will be turned away or sunk, beginning DD/MM/YY" and would basically create an exclusion or blockade-ish zone. Is that how its done?? Im curious if somthing like that was done in WWII, or if Declarations of War were enough, and ship owners and operators were on their own to figure it out and take their chances??? I agree that theres no "blending with civilian traffic", because itll scatter and try to get out of any potential danger zone asap, and within a few days would be out of the area. After that, yes Id think anything remaining would become fair game. Im just wondering about how the legalities were addressed in the past and how they might be in the future???

      Delete
    6. We did not, as a practice, just shoot Iraq or Afghan civilians. We would tell the public that a curfew was on and if you were outside past a certain time you would be treated as hostile. We were very explicit, don’t walk along the road with a shovel, don’t shadow an American patrol with a rifle and don’t stare at a patrol while on your cell phone. These were widely disseminated.
      All this echoes ComNavOps point: war is brutal

      Delete
    7. "wondering about how the legalities were addressed in the past and how they might be in the future???"

      Study your history. The victors are hailed as war heroes and the defeated are tried for war crimes.

      Delete
    8. The concept is known by a variety of names, but most commonly as a Maritime Exclusion Zone. For more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_Exclusion_Zone

      Delete
  9. All, I thought this would be a worthwhile share

    I downloaded the Joint Explanatory Statement To Accompany The James M. Inhofe NDAA for FY2023 and started perusing through the entire 748 page document.

    Anywhos, I made it to Page 7, Section 131: Tomahawk and SM-6 Missile Capability on the FFG-62 class vessels. It states:

    The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 125) that would require the Secretary of the Navy to ensure FFG-62 class vessels are capable of carrying and employing Tomahawk cruise missiles before accepting delivery of the vessels. The House bill contained no similar provision. The agreement includes the Senate provision with an amendment that would modify the requirement to exempt the first vessel in the FFG-62 class, instead requiring the integration of both the Tomahawk and the SM-6 on the second and subsequent vessels in the class prior to each vessel’s first deployment.

    Link to the whole shebang:

    chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR7776EAS-RCP117-70-JES.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great. So the first in class is already set for an early decomm since itll be "less capable", like the twin-arm Ticos. Nice to see the Navy planning ahead LOL...

      Delete
  10. Today is Pearl Harbor Day. My dad lost his brand new Harley
    at Pearl that day. His sub had to scramble out and he never saw it again!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I am as reticent as you about being outed."

    Citing a provision in a treaty is not going to out you.

    I am so doubtful about the claim that I am deleting the thread. If you can provide a reference, I'll gladly publish it.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.