Saturday, March 9, 2024

Gaza Aid Port

Biden has announced plans to build a port, of sorts, to enable ships to deliver aid to Gaza.  As noted in an Axios article, the aid effort has been thwarted by the lack of access to a deep water port. 
Efforts were already underway to coordinate shipments by sea but the biggest complication was the lack of a deep-water port to enable big ships to dock and off load aid.[1]
 
The U.S. military will establish a temporary pier in the sea off the Gaza coast with a causeway that will allow trucks to bring aid to shore … [1]
 
… it will be at least a few weeks before it's operational.[1]
Update:  Pentagon spokesman, Gen. Pat Rider had this to say about the timing,
Finally, in terms of timing, we're working to set this up as quickly as possible, but we expect that it will take several weeks to plan and execute.[2]
Several weeks???  This should be a canned plan, sitting in a planning book.  It's a basic operation, not even a combat operation.  This should be about a week to set up.  As an example, the American Mulberry was operational 12 days after D-Day and that was a much larger operation executed under combat conditions and in extremely unfavorable weather.

This operation illustrates a couple of points relevant to our military discussions:
 
  • It is not possible to logistically support a military operation of any size by air.  Support/supplies must come from ships.
  • A readily accessible port is a mandatory requirement for any overseas military operation and is often the purpose behind an amphibious assault (Normandy D-Day, for example).
 
This is as close to an actual combat amphibious assault logistics operation as you can get in peacetime.  It is going to be fascinating to see how the military goes about establishing this port.  In theory, this is exactly what the US military should be able to do in their sleep.  Can the US build a port/causeway in the time frame required?  Given our failure in recent logistic exercises and our failure to surge amphibious ships when required, this is by no means certain.

Mulberry Causeway at Normandy, WWII


 
On a related note, this places the US perilously close to becoming involved in the Israeli-Hamas conflict.  I hope someone has thought through the ramifications.  This also showcases the highly vulnerable state of a port in a combat action.  Either side, or a third party actor, could opt to launch an attack to disrupt the operation.  Will the US put any defensive assets and policies in place and what will our response be to an attack?
 
 
Warning:  It should go without saying but I’ll say it anyway:  this is purely a military analysis of the operation and does not indicate any political position, pro or con, towards either side in this conflict.  There will be no political comments allowed.  Period.
 
 
 
 
_________________________________
 
[1]Axios website, “Biden to announce "emergency mission" to build port in Gaza for aid shipments”, Barak Ravid, 7-Mar-2024,
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/07/biden-port-gaza-humanitarian-aid-state-union







Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

31 comments:

  1. LonfoMarch 9, 2024 at 9:30 AM

    Building a port in a warzone without the Navy being involved (apparently) is, well, an interesting choice.

    And yes, what happens when some random dude fires an RPG at the apparently undefended port? Would that bring the USA to war?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMarch 9, 2024 at 11:35 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 9, 2024 at 11:39 AM

      I think the was the Marines only. Army still has their system.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 9, 2024 at 12:07 PM

      "I believe the unit that was responsible for the piers was disbanded"

      Comment deleted. Feel free to cite a reference concerning the equipment status but leave the politics out of it.

      Delete
    3. Don McCollorMarch 9, 2024 at 4:14 PM

      The memory of the LST, the LSM, the DWUK amphibious truck and the Rhino Ferry have faded away. When Mulbery A was totally wrecked in a storm shortly after completion, these craft eventually moved more supplies ashore daily across open beaches than the artificial harbor's projected capacity.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousMarch 9, 2024 at 8:04 PM

    Considering minimizing civilians casualties would be the top concern, it could take weeks before we responded to any attack on this pier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. G2milMarch 9, 2024 at 8:20 PM

    The big question is "Where the hell are the amphibs?" The US Navy has 30 amphibs designed to off-load cargo directly to beaches and some are in the Med right now! Even just LCUs themselves can deliver cargo from any port in the Med to the beach in Gaza. The Marines have been trying to justify the value of amphibs the past few years and this could show their value on the world stage. One can only speculate why this option is not even discussed in public since aid could be delivered ashore tomorrow and not in weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CDR ChipMarch 9, 2024 at 11:05 PM

      Except our amphibs can't deliver stuff to the shore. They can move stuff--a lot of it--to 25-50 miles offshore. But getting it from there to the shore is problematic. Boats are too slow, helos and V-22s are severely weight limited, and LCACs are not reliable enough to use in an opposed environment. The LHAs/LHDs and LPD-17s aren't really ampibs. They are freighters, designed to haul a lot of men and equipment from Point A to Point B, but not to get them ashore.

      Delete
    2. ComNavOpsMarch 10, 2024 at 7:58 AM

      Just to clarify, the LHA/LHD/LPD classes cannot off-load directly across a beach. They have to use helos or connectors. Helos cannot carry any useful load of cargo and the main connector, the AAV cannot carry cargo. LCACs can carry cargo but we lack numbers to sustain any useful supply operation. A Wasp class carries 3 LCAC, for example, or 2 LCU.

      The Army has some LCU type vessels that can carry cargo and land directly on a beach.

      I'm guessing that one of the reasons the US doesn't want to use direct off-load is that they don't want landing craft and crews on Gaza as that would exponentially increased the chance for an unwanted combat incident. A pier/causeway keeps our involvement/presence at a bit of a distance. Just speculation on my part.

      To deliver any useful quantity of supplies really requires a true cargo ship which, in turn, requires a pier of some sort for unloading. Of course, simply unloading supplies is the easy part. The supplies need to be broken down, sorted, re-packaged for distribution, and then transported to the final distribution locations. The distribution mechanism is a mammoth undertaking when trying to support millions of people. No such support mechanism currently exists and it would have to be organized from scratch.

      The distribution effort will be further complicated by the need for high end security which, again, does not currently exist.

      The probability of food riots, deaths, storming the distribution assets, and storming the causeway is very high. We won't be able to deliver enough supplies, we won't have control over the distribution mechanism, and we'll be accused of causing riots and deaths while favoring one side or the other. This is almost a no-win situation for the US.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousMarch 10, 2024 at 8:00 AM

    This is crazy. Who defends this "Port" from the inevitable Hamas/Hezbollah attacks? What are the ROE? Is this a partnership with the Israelis (who control the water it is being built on)? Suicide bomber/Missile attack inbound in 3-2-1...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 10, 2024 at 8:10 AM

      The challenges and risks are obvious and the wisdom is dubious. Now, perhaps you'd like to share some thoughts on how this could be successfully accomplished?

      Delete
    2. LarryMarch 10, 2024 at 4:26 PM

      Sadly, I can't think of anything that doesn't involve Arc Light strikes and other, lesser lethal measures to keep people at a distance -- the further, the better. What are the odds that Hamas, in their insanity, tries to seize the ship building the pier like Somalian pirates. No doubt while we keep armed force over the horizon to keep from "provoking conflict". No, I have no faith in the wisdom of our so-called leadership.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 10, 2024 at 4:31 PM

      Well, I think one would require a secure land footprint as well as a rigorously enforced restricted area around the "Port". How you do this is problematical. For example, who gives authority to establish and maintain the land footprint? Hamas? The PLO? Israel?. The same questions pertain to the sea restricted area Assuming you can work all that out, who is providing security and with what ROE for the land and sea areas?

      The JLOTS COO is basically to go in after an amphibious landing is secure and provide logistics over the shore in the absence of an established port. This presupposes a relatively safe operating area. Unless we are going to turn the Marines loose to create such(fat chance) or ally with the Israelis to do the same, I don't see it happening in a safe way. Can't seem to figure out how to put my moniker in this system but I am Captain Mongo on other media.

      Delete
    4. ComNavOpsMarch 10, 2024 at 5:36 PM

      "Can't seem to figure out how to put my moniker in this system but I am Captain Mongo on other media."

      The comments do allow a sign in via Google and other methods, however, the success of that is spotty. Many people employ the simple expedient of adding an unofficial username to the end of their comment. That works just fine and doesn't require a sign in. I encourage that to avoid multiple, confusing anonymous entries.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousMarch 11, 2024 at 8:00 AM

      Captain Mongo rogers all :-)

      Delete
    6. ComNavOpsMarch 11, 2024 at 8:08 AM

      "I think one would require a secure land footprint"

      This is an aspect that has, thus far, been overlooked in the public domain. Without a doubt, a causeway/port must have personnel on the beach both during construction of the causeway and during operation. If not, supplies would just accumulate in a giant pile at the end of the causeway! Security will be a challenge but mandatory. There's no way to avoid a sizeable ground troop/worker component. The only question is who's going to supply the ground personnel? The US? Israel? Some UN unit? Someone else? Whoever supplies the ground personnel had better have a robust ROE prepared because it's hard to imagine this working without some sort of confrontation.

      Delete
    7. lpnam9114March 11, 2024 at 11:39 AM

      Didn't the UNWRA in Gaza got suspended a few weeks back because people suspect Hamas operatives infiltrated the organization?

      I have looked up some information and I'm guessing Israel, the Red Cross, Egypt and Qatar will be responsible for the ground part. Seems like Israel will be doing the inspecting, Red Cross will do the distributing and Egypt + Qatar will do the transporting.

      Related "a first U.S. Army vessel, the General Frank S. Besson, left a base in Virginia on Saturday and was on its way to the Eastern Mediterranean with equipment for construction."

      Seems like the timeline cited for several weeks seems to be a direct measurement for the building part and not even the planning part. The pier is starting construction this Sunday.

      Delete
    8. JjabatieMarch 11, 2024 at 8:34 PM

      "Captain Mongo rogers all :-)"

      Captain Mongo from the Porch??

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMarch 12, 2024 at 7:20 AM

      That's me

      Delete
  6. Son of a SailorMarch 10, 2024 at 8:44 AM

    This reminds me of a related topic: It feels like we could learn a lesson from the Russians here. They don't like to throw away anything. And while we laughed at them for keeping 50 year old equipment in storage, they've found ways to use that equipment in Ukraine.

    Is there some equivalent option for the Navy? I get that it's different from the Army and Air Force: We can't park ships in a desert boneyard or soak them in grease to preserve them from the elements. But is there a way to preserve ships in some kind of "3 month out" readiness status?

    The amount of capability we have lost since the Cold War is tragic. We had better equipment for this kind of logistical challenge 50 years ago. The new replacements of often less capable. Keeping more of the "old" stuff around seems like a prudent, inexpensive insurance policy. One year into a war with China, having some "obsolescent" hulls around (especially ship-to-shore logistics) might be a godsend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NICOMarch 10, 2024 at 9:32 AM

    From I understand from Threads, there's no road route open from Isreal. Not sure about the Egypt road is open? About 500 trucks are needed a day, they are getting about 120. There's 2 civilian NGOs that have kitchens sets up and a small ship that has or will bring in some supplies. If I get it right, that lack of a pier is what is really missing here. The part that is confusing is there are local ports, my guess no one wants to assume security? Seems like we could ask UAE or Jordan's to assume the security of the food convoys but maybe it has been asked? So we trying to do this at arms length?!? It does send a bad look that the US Army is trying to do this and not USN/USMC, I'm pretty sure the first thought is: isn't this their job and capability???

    ReplyDelete
  8. SRBMarch 10, 2024 at 3:42 PM

    From Breitbart news feed. An Army LSV (logistics support vessel) Frank S Besson just left port in Virginia, headed to Gaza with construction equipment to help build a port facility. Where is the Navy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 10, 2024 at 5:53 PM

      This kind of JLOTS logistics effort is not exclusively a Navy capability or responsibility. The Army has extensive JLOTS equipment and expertise (more so than the Navy, I suspect). Over the last decade or so, the Navy seemed to want to move to the Sea Base concept as opposed to the causeway approach. Perhaps this is why the Army was chosen to lead this operation? Just speculating.

      Delete
    2. AskerOrDumbQuestionsMarch 11, 2024 at 6:26 AM

      I wonder if part of the reason is that among the big military branches, the Army delegates the least work to contractors and still does it with actual soldier. Just speculating, I admit to having no data. I have just observed how much maintenance has been shoved over to contractors across the board in the Navy and Air Force.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOpsMarch 11, 2024 at 7:53 AM

      "I wonder if part of the reason"

      That's an interesting bit of speculation. If true, what would be the advantage to that, in this case?

      Delete
  9. AnonymousMarch 11, 2024 at 2:28 AM

    Two comments.
    1. If the army is sending a ship it will look embarrassing for the Marines?
    2. This is what the Marines should be all about. ie Taking a port or holding a port and if there isn't one making one. If they had they been practicing this (instead of doing fixed computer simulations) it would look really impressive as the President would say "I need a port" and then next week there is a port. Come next year Marines go to congress etc and say "look how good we are, if you give us some more cash we can do x, y z".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMarch 11, 2024 at 9:09 AM

      The Marines have Landing Support Battalions.. you can recognize them on a beach by the "red patch" they wear on their covers and uniforms. However, they do not transport supplies to the beach, they control the flow of supplies once a beachhead has been established. The Navy, Army or civilian contractors are going to get the goods to the area offshore so it can be sent "over the shore" to the staging area.

      The Army has LOTS "logistics over the shore" capability, and almost universally designed "JLOTS" because everything has to be "Joint" (ok... that was a little bit of snark and I apologize) to transport supplies and equipment from a staging area (CONUS, or in this case perhaps Cyprus?) and using their their LSV (the big boat) or LCM (Landing Craft Mechanized) much smaller and being replaced by the MSV (Maneuver Support Vessel) get the goods to the causeway to go "over the shore" or go directly to the shore (think large Higgins boats from WWII ish.)

      The Navy had two Amphibious Construction Battalions which were able to build "elevated causeways" but disbanded the East Coast unit last year.

      Just a few years ago the Army was debating divestiture of their watercraft.... so this is an opportunity to demonstrate "relevance" and you can bet they will take advantage of it. As they should. This capability should not go the way of the Dodo.

      All that said.... I'm glad I am not in the business of planning this. The force protection requirements alone are going to be legendary in the exceptions to policy that are going to have to be signed off by Commanders to "accept risk".

      v/r

      PS. this is an opportunity for TRANSCOM and MARAD to activate the Ready Reserve Fleet. Even if it fails miserably, it will dramatically demonstrate the requirement to update the RRF.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMarch 11, 2024 at 9:33 AM

      Thank you. I didn't realize the Marines needed the Army so much!

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMarch 11, 2024 at 9:46 AM

      Most don't understand how reliant the Marines are on Army Logistics. Especially Marines!! Two fast examples: CULT (aka Common User Land Transport) and distribution of fuel (and bulk water) once it crosses the (high?) tide line. Both Army Title Ten requirements. (i.e. the Army is required by law to do this mission.) Once you get past... the 30 day mark(ish), the Marines, if still engaged, need Army Logistics. Who do you think supplied the Marines with what they required when the Marines were responsible for Anbar Provence deep in the desert of western Iraq in 2007/08 far far away from the ports in Kuwait.

      v/r

      Delete
  10. greywolfMarch 11, 2024 at 2:17 PM

    The port will solve the access problem for the operation and whioe it has some technical risks it looks good from the political standpoint. The factor that has been completly ingnored till now is onshore storage and the distribution of the goods, which will be difficult in a combat zone and it's not clear who will be responsible for it. The risk of ammassing supplies onshore without the means to delivery them safely and efficiently is very high. It could render the whole port operation pointless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsMarch 11, 2024 at 2:38 PM

      "could render the whole port operation pointless."

      Worse than that, it could trigger food riots with people swarming the area trying to get food. Alternatively, it could trigger a violent Hamas attempt to seize the food. Yet another possibility is that Hamas might attempt to capture the ship(s) and causeway and hold the food distribution hostage for political and military gain.

      There's one potentially good outcome to this and many potentially bad outcomes.

      Delete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)