DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustaining the Fight Resilient Maritime Logistics for a New Era

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustaining the Fight Resilient Maritime Logistics for a New Era SUSTAINING THE FIGHT RESILIENT MARITIME LOGISTICS FOR A NEW ERA TIMOTHY A. WALTON RYAN BOONE HARRISON SCHRAMM SUSTAINING THE FIGHT RESILIENT MARITIME LOGISTICS FOR A NEW ERA TIMOTHY A. WALTON RYAN BOONE HARRISON SCHRAMM 2019 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Timothy A. Walton is a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Walton focuses his research and analysis on the development of new operational concepts, trends in future warfare, and Asia-Pacific security dynamics. Mr. Walton has authored a number of publications on Chinese military doctrine and capabilities, regional security dynamics, and U.S. force planning. Prior to joining CSBA, he was a Principal of Alios Consulting Group and an Associate of Delex Systems. He has a Bachelor’s in International Politics with a concentration in Security Studies from the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Master’s degree in Security Studies from the same institution. Ryan Boone is an Analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. In addition to research, he assists in the design and analysis of CSBA’s operational-level wargames and concept development workshops. Ryan’s work examines competitive strategies, operational planning, trends in U.S. and foreign military force structure and capabilities, and operations research. Prior to joining CSBA, Mr. Boone interned in the office of the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. He was a Robertson Scholar at Duke University. Harrison Schramm is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He has been a leader in the Operations Research community for the past decade. Prior to joining CSBA, he had a successful career in the U.S. Navy, where he served as a Helicopter Pilot, Military Assistant Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, and as a lead Operations Research Analyst in the Pentagon. Mr. Schramm enjoys professional accreditation from the Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (CAP, INFORMS), the American Statistical Association (PStat, ASA) and the Royal (UK) Statistical Society (CStat, RSS). He is a recipient of the Richard H. Barchi Prize, Steinmetz Prize, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, and the Naval Helicopter Association’s Aircrew of the Year. He is the 2018 recipient of the Clayton Thomas award for distinguished service to the profession of Operations Research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank all those in the defense and broader maritime community whose insights enriched this report. Additionally, George P. Los of the shipbroker and marine consultancy Charles R. Weber Company aided with commercial ship market data. Furthermore, the authors would like to thank Dr. Daniel Kaniewski and Mr. Peter Swartz for their support of an earlier analysis that informed this study. The independent reviews of Dr. Frank Hoffman, Dr. Craig Hooper, and Mr. Jonathan Kaskin greatly benefited this work. The authors would like to thank the CSBA staff for their assistance with this report. Special thanks go to Thomas G. Mahnken, Evan Montgomery, Bryan Clark, and Jan van Tol for their thoughtful suggestions and assistance, to Adam Lemon for his work on graphics, and to Kamilla Gunzinger for managing the publication of this report. CSBA receives funding from a broad and diverse group of contributors, including private founda- tions, government agencies, and corporations. A complete list of these organizations can be found on our website at www.csbaonline.org/about/contributors. Cover: Military Sealift Command Photo by Garrett Long. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. i Study Recommendations ................................................. iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT U.S. MARITIME LOGISTICS ............................................ 5 CHAPTER 3: CHALLENGES TO THE CURRENT STRATEGIC APPROACH ............................. 9 Implications for Maritime Logistics from U.S. Strategy ............................ 9 Scenarios for U.S. Maritime Logistics ....................................... 11 Shifting Operational Environment for Logistics. 14 Conclusion .......................................................... 19 CHAPTER 4: THE EVOLUTION OF U.S. MARITIME LOGISTICS .................................. 21 Historical Evolution of the U.S. Maritime Logistics Force .......................... 21 Observations on the Evolution of the Force ................................... 24 CHAPTER 5: NEW OPERATING CONCEPTS & IMPLICATIONS FOR LOGISTICS ..................... 29 Changing Assumptions .................................................. 29 New Operational Concepts ............................................... 32 Observations ......................................................... 37 CHAPTER 6: A NEW MARITIME LOGISTICS ARCHITECTURE ................................... 39 Navy Fleet Fuel Logistics ................................................ 39 Navy Fleet Cargo and Munitions Replenishment ................................ 51 Towing and Salvage .................................................... 61 Expeditionary Maintenance and Repair . 64 SAR (to include CSAR) and Medical Support Afloat .............................. 70 Joint Force Maritime Logistics: Sealift. 76 Hardening of Maritime Logistics ........................................... 93 Incorporating Logistics into Navy System Design ............................... 97 Organizing for Sustainment Success. 98 CHAPTER 7: BUILDING THE FUTURE FLEET ............................................... 101 The FY 2019 and FY 2020 Shipbuilding Plans & the Maritime Logistics Baseline ....... 101 Requirements for a Fully-Supported Maritime Logistics Force ..................... 103 Implementation Scenarios .............................................. 104 Observations on Requirements and Implementation ............................ 110 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ............................................................ 111 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF NEAR-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS BY U.S. GOVERNMENT ENTITY ...... 117 APPENDIX B: QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS .............................................. 120 APPENDIX C: COST METHODOLOGY .................................................... 122 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................. 123 FIGURES FIGURE 1: COMBINED WARTIME LAYDOWN OF PROPOSED MARITIME LOGISTICS FORCE .......IX FIGURE 2: SUMMARY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MARITIME LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE ..................................................... 5 FIGURE 3: MODERN U.S. MARITIME LOGISTICS NETWORK, FROM SHORE TO SHIP ........... 6 FIGURE 4: CHINESE ANTI-ACCESS/AREA-DENIAL COMPLEX ........................... 16 FIGURE 5: GLOBAL PORTS WITH MAJOR INVESTMENT OR CONTROL BY CHINESE COMPANIES .. 17 FIGURE 6: SOME POTENTIAL THREATS TO SEALIFT SHIPS IN A RUSSIA SCENARIO .......... 18 FIGURE 7: ERAS OF U.S. NAVY FLEET SUPPORT LOGISTICS ........................... 22 FIGURE 8: COMPARISON OF DISTANCES IN ARABIAN GULF AND PACIFIC .................. 30 FIGURE 9: NEW REFUELING CAPABILITIES MIX .................................... 40 FIGURE 10: CONSOL TANKER AND FAST COMBAT SUPPORT SHIP CONDUCT CONSOL TRANSFER OF FUEL ....................................................... 41 FIGURE 11: CONSOL AOTS IMPROVE REFUELING ARCHITECTURE EFFICIENCY .............. 42 FIGURE 12: T-AOL BASED ON OSV WITH STREAM GEAR REFUELING DDG-51 ............... 44 FIGURE 13: “GO FAST” OILER PROCUREMENT STRATEGY ............................ 46 FIGURE 14: TUG TOWING A DRACONE .......................................... 47 FIGURE 15: PROPOSED REFUELING FLEET. 50 FIGURE 16: DISTRIBUTED, SCALABLE, AND RESPONSIVE AVIATION LOGISTICS SUPPORT ...... 53 FIGURE 17: POTENTIAL MODIFIED-COMMERCIAL T-AKER DESIGN ....................... 54 FIGURE 18: ILLUSTRATIVE CONTAINERSHIP SUITABLE FOR VLS RAS. 58 FIGURE 19: LUSV OFFBOARD MAGAZINES ....................................... 59 FIGURE 20: PROPOSED CARGO AND MUNITIONS FLEET ............................. 60 FIGURE 21: FORMER USS BELLEAU WOOD TOWED BY USNS NAVAJO ................... 61 FIGURE 22: ESTIMATED FY19 WARTIME TOWING AND SALVAGE REQUIREMENT ............. 63 FIGURE 23: PROPOSED TOWING AND SALVAGE FLEET ............................... 64 FIGURE 24: SIZE OF NAVY TENDER AND REPAIR SHIP FORCE OVER TIME ................. 66 FIGURE 25: ARLEIGH-BURKE-CLASS DDGS LOADED ABOARD FLO/FLO ................... 67 FIGURE 26: FLO/FLO SHIPS IN GLOBAL MARKET .................................. 69 FIGURE 27: POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR LIGHT TENDERS .............................. 70 FIGURE 28: PROPOSED EXPEDITIONARY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FLEET ............... 70 FIGURE 29: COMPARISON OF CSAR AVIATION OPTIONS .............................. 73 FIGURE 30: EPF-BASED SMALL HOSPITAL SHIP DESIGN
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Richard J
    Naval War College Review Volume 58 Article 6 Number 1 Winter 2005 Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Richard J. Grunawalt Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Grunawalt, Richard J. (2005) "Hospital Ships in the War on Terror," Naval War College Review: Vol. 58 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol58/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grunawalt: Hospital Ships in the War on Terror Professor Grunawalt, professor emeritus of the Naval War College, is the former director of the Oceans Law and Policy Department of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies. His publications include (with John E. King and Ronald S. McClain) Protection of the Environ- ment during Armed Conflict (1996) and Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping (1993)—volumes 69 and 65 of the Naval War College International Law Studies Series. Naval War College Review, Winter 2005, Vol. 58, No. 1 Published by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2005 1 Naval War College Review, Vol. 58 [2005], No. 1, Art. 6 HOSPITAL SHIPS IN THE WAR ON TERROR Sanctuaries or Targets? Richard J. Grunawalt mployment of military hospital ships in support of the war on terror is mili- Etarily, politically, and morally appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Naval Force Structure
    Alternative Naval Force Structure A compendium by CIMSEC Articles By Steve Wills · Javier Gonzalez · Tom Meyer · Bob Hein · Eric Beaty Chuck Hill · Jan Musil · Wayne P. Hughes Jr. Edited By Dmitry Filipoff · David Van Dyk · John Stryker 1 Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................ 3 The Perils of Alternative Force Structure ................................................... 4 By Steve Wills Unmanned­Centric Force Structure ............................................................... 8 By Javier Gonzalez Proposing A Modern High Speed Transport – The Long Range Patrol Vessel ................................................................................................... 11 By Tom Meyer No Time To Spare: Drawing on History to Inspire Capability Innovation in Today’s Navy ................................................................................. 15 By Bob Hein Enhancing Existing Force Structure by Optimizing Maritime Service Specialization .............................................................................................. 18 By Eric Beaty Augment Naval Force Structure By Upgunning The Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 21 By Chuck Hill A Fleet Plan for 2045: The Navy the U.S. Ought to be Building ..... 25 By Jan Musil Closing Remarks on Changing Naval Force Structure ....................... 31 By Wayne P. Hughes Jr. CIMSEC 22 www.cimsec.org
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress
    Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Naval Affairs December 13, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RS22478 Navy Ship Names: Background for Congress Summary Names for Navy ships traditionally have been chosen and announced by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President and in accordance with rules prescribed by Congress. Rules for giving certain types of names to certain types of Navy ships have evolved over time. There have been exceptions to the Navy’s ship-naming rules, particularly for the purpose of naming a ship for a person when the rule for that type of ship would have called for it to be named for something else. Some observers have perceived a breakdown in, or corruption of, the rules for naming Navy ships. On July 13, 2012, the Navy submitted to Congress a 73-page report on the Navy’s policies and practices for naming ships. For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows: The first Ohio replacement ballistic missile submarine (SBNX) has been named Columbia in honor of the District of Columbia, but the Navy has not stated what the naming rule for these ships will be. Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states. Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the past 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress. Destroyers are being named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs August 18, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43546 Navy John Lewis (TAO-205) Class Oiler Shipbuilding Program Summary The John Lewis (TAO-205) class oiler shipbuilding program, previously known as the TAO(X) program, is a program to build a new class of 17 fleet oilers for the Navy. The primary role of Navy fleet oilers is to transfer fuel to Navy surface ships that are operating at sea, so as to extend the operating endurance of these surface ships and their embarked aircraft. The first ship in the TAO-205 program was funded in FY2016 at a cost of $674.2 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2017 budget requests $73.1 million in advance procurement (AP) funding for the second ship, which the Navy wants to procure in FY2018. As part of its acquisition strategy for the TAO-205 program, the Navy issued a combined solicitation consisting of separate Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the detailed design and construction of the first six ships in the TAO-205 class, and for an amphibious assault ship called LHA-8 that the Navy wants to procure in FY2017. The Navy limited bidding in this combined solicitation to two bidders— General Dynamics’ National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (GD/NASSCO) and Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls)—on the grounds that these are the only two shipbuilders that have the capability to build both TAO-205s and LHA-8.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Navy Hospital Corpsman
    HOSPITAL CORPSMAN “Health is necessary in war and cannot be replaced by anything else. Napoleon The primary mission of the Medical Department of the United States Navy, of which the Hospital Corps is a part, is s To keep as many men at as many guns as many days as possible As a member of the Hospital Corps you can contribute directly to the job of keeping our guns firing. There is no better way to serve your country and your fellow man. If you can qualify for admission to the Hospital Corps, the Navy will train you for your duties. Prepared for the Occupational information and Guidance Service, Vocational Division, U. S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Federal Security Agency, by the Hospital Corps Section, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, UNITED STATES NAVY . December 1, 1943 INTRODUCTION From its very beginning as an established Corps in 1898 the Hospital Corps of the United States Navy has been devoted to humanitarian service. It has administered first aid and nursing care to the sick and injured of the Navy and Marine Corps during three of the Nation’s wars, and through the many years of intervening peace. For more than a century prior to its organization by act of Congress* the pioneers of the Hospital Corps—the Hospital Mates, the Hospital Stewards, the Surgeon’s Stewards, the Apothecaries, the Nurses and the Bay men—served faithfully and energetically in the Medical Department of the Navy. On numerous occasions of the past members of the Hospital Corps have been assigned to civilian areas for first-aid and relief work in times of disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Hospital Ships That Docked in Southampton
    D-Day: Hospital Ships that Stories Docked in from Southampton the Walls During the Maritime Archaeology Trust’s National Lottery Heritage Funded D-Day Stories from the Walls project, volunteers undertook online research into topics and themes linked to D-Day, Southampton, ships and people during the Second World War. Their findings were used to support project outreach and dissemination. This Research Article was undertaken by one of our volunteers and represents many hours of hard and diligent work. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all our amazing volunteers. Every effort has been made to trace the copyright hold- ers and obtain permission to reproduce this material. Please do get in touch with any enquiries or any information relating to any images or the rights holder. D-Day Stories from the Walls: Hospital Ships that Docked at Southampton ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Notes on a Selection of Hospital Ships which Docked at Southampton Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 HMHS Dinard ...................................................................................................................................... 3 USAHS Frances Y. Slanger ex USAT Saturnia ..................................................................................... 4 USAHS Jarrett M. Huddleston ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China's Logistics Capabilities for Expeditionary Operations
    China’s Logistics Capabilities for Expeditionary Operations The modular transfer system between a Type 054A frigate and a COSCO container ship during China’s first military-civil UNREP. Source: “重大突破！民船为海军水面舰艇实施干货补给 [Breakthrough! Civil Ships Implement Dry Cargo Supply for Naval Surface Ships],” Guancha, November 15, 2019 Primary author: Chad Peltier Supporting analysts: Tate Nurkin and Sean O’Connor Disclaimer: This research report was prepared at the request of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to support its deliberations. Posting of the report to the Commission's website is intended to promote greater public understanding of the issues addressed by the Commission in its ongoing assessment of U.S.-China economic relations and their implications for U.S. security, as mandated by Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 113-291. However, it does not necessarily imply an endorsement by the Commission or any individual Commissioner of the views or conclusions expressed in this commissioned research report. 1 Contents Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology, Scope, and Study Limitations ........................................................................................................ 6 1. China’s Expeditionary Operations
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress September 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32665 Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The current and planned size and composition of the Navy, the annual rate of Navy ship procurement, the prospective affordability of the Navy’s shipbuilding plans, and the capacity of the U.S. shipbuilding industry to execute the Navy’s shipbuilding plans have been oversight matters for the congressional defense committees for many years. In December 2016, the Navy released a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made U.S. policy by Section 1025 of the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810/P.L. 115- 91 of December 12, 2017). The Navy and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been working since 2019 to develop a successor for the 355-ship force-level goal. The new goal is expected to introduce a new, more distributed fleet architecture featuring a smaller proportion of larger ships, a larger proportion of smaller ships, and a new third tier of large unmanned vehicles (UVs). On June 17, 2021, the Navy released a long-range Navy shipbuilding document that presents the Biden Administration’s emerging successor to the 355-ship force-level goal. The document calls for a Navy with a more distributed fleet architecture, including 321 to 372 manned ships and 77 to 140 large UVs. A September 2021 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the fleet envisioned in the document would cost an average of between $25.3 billion and $32.7 billion per year in constant FY2021 dollars to procure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of the Navy's New Frigate
    OCTOBER 2020 The Cost of the Navy’s New Frigate On April 30, 2020, the Navy awarded Fincantieri Several factors support the Navy’s estimate: Marinette Marine a contract to build the Navy’s new sur- face combatant, a guided missile frigate long designated • The FFG(X) is based on a design that has been in as FFG(X).1 The contract guarantees that Fincantieri will production for many years. build the lead ship (the first ship designed for a class) and gives the Navy options to build as many as nine addi- • Little if any new technology is being developed for it. tional ships. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office examines the potential costs if the Navy exercises • The contractor is an experienced builder of small all of those options. surface combatants. • CBO estimates the cost of the 10 FFG(X) ships • An independent estimate within the Department of would be $12.3 billion in 2020 (inflation-adjusted) Defense (DoD) was lower than the Navy’s estimate. dollars, about $1.2 billion per ship, on the basis of its own weight-based cost model. That amount is Other factors suggest the Navy’s estimate is too low: 40 percent more than the Navy’s estimate. • The costs of all surface combatants since 1970, as • The Navy estimates that the 10 ships would measured per thousand tons, were higher. cost $8.7 billion in 2020 dollars, an average of $870 million per ship. • Historically the Navy has almost always underestimated the cost of the lead ship, and a more • If the Navy’s estimate turns out to be accurate, expensive lead ship generally results in higher costs the FFG(X) would be the least expensive surface for the follow-on ships.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Unclassified 1 Nato Unclassified .0
    NATO UNCLASSIFIED .0 HEADQUARTERS, ALLIED MARITIME COMMAND Atlantic Building, Northwood Headquarters, Sandy Lane Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 3HP United Kingdom Our Ref: Tel: +44 (0)1923 956577 NCN: 57+ 56577 Date: 12 March 2019 Email: [email protected] IAW distribution MONTHLY NEWSLETTER NATO MARCOM MARCH 2019. During the eventful month of February, NATO’s Standing Naval Forces (SNFs) were reinforced to face new challenges in the NATO Area of Responsibility (AOR), NATO Anti-Submarine Warfare platforms participated in DYNAMIC MANTA 19, and Operation Sea Guardian (OSG) executed the first Focus Operation of 2019 (FOCOPS 19-1). Additionally, several key engagement activities took place with NATO partners from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea. Maritime Security Operations In the last month, 76 warships from NATO Nations took part in OSG, providing support in different roles to this critical Maritime Security Operation in the Mediterranean. Additionally, 72 sorties of NATO Airborne Early Warning (AEW) and Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) were flown in direct support of the operation. The AEW flights were provided by NATO’s own assets while the MPA flights were provided by Greece, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, France, and USA. Submarines under NATO and national operational command also operated in support of OSG, providing inputs from the important sub-surface dimension. From 7-24 February, FOCOPS 19-1 took place in the Eastern Mediterranean led by the Hellenic Navy Captain Spyridon Lagaras onboard the frigate HS Limnos, and supported by submarines and air assets. OSG remains a crucial operation to enhance NATO Maritime Situational Awareness (MSA) in the Mediterranean, increasing the Alliance’ understanding of the Maritime Pattern of Life (MPoL) as the basis for detecting anomalies, and supporting the fight against crime at sea as a means to counter terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • You Can Count on the SIU!
    26225_P001.qxd 1/28/2005 9:07 PM Page 1 New MSP Fleet Expands to 60 Vessels Page 3 Volume 67, Number 2 February 2005 : ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ou Can Count on the SIU! ✩Y ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ Seafarers Still Deliver in Operation Iraqi Freedom Seafarers continue to back U.S. troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom by deliv- ering vital materiel at key locations in the Middle East. Dozens of SIU- crewed ships are engaged in OIF3, the latest sealift component of the war. Pictured here are Seafarers and troops aboard the Cape Island in Kuwait. They are (clockwise, from upper left) AB Alfred Martin; AB Mickey Earhart and a U.S. Navy master at arms; crew members and officers including GVA Shaun Castain, 3rd Mate Bobby Boone, AB Andy Martinez, Bosun Stephen Castle, Chief Cook Tracy Stewart and a Navy instructor participating in The hospital ship USNS Mercy, crewed small arms practice; and GVA Abdo “Otto” Saleh, suiting up for hazmat by members of the SIU’s Government training. Pages 6-8. Services Division, was one of 14 ships initially mobilized to help with relief fol- lowing the devastating tsunami that struck coastal communities in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, India and other Indian Ocean nations. Pictured at right is some of the damage in Phuket. Page 2. Union, Seafarers-Crewed Ships Aid in Tsunami Relief Efforts SIU Election Results Navy League President Tax Tips for Mariners Page 3 Notes RRF’s Value Pages 12-13 Page 4 Pg2,22,23.qxd 1/27/2005 4:49 PM Page 2 President’s Report Union Donates for Tsunami Relief SIU-Crewed Ships Mobilize for Humanitarian Mission More Job Growth The SIU is actively supporting Last month’s news from the Maritime Administration announcing humanitarian relief efforts for sur- the operating contract awards for the new U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated July 22, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46374 SUMMARY R46374 Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) July 22, 2020 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Navy’s new Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program envisions procuring a class of 28 to Specialist in Naval Affairs 30 new amphibious ships to support the Marine Corps, particularly in implementing a new Marine Corps operational concept called Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO). The Navy’s proposed FY2021 budget requests $30 million in research and development funding for initial industry studies and concept design work on the ship. The Navy envisions procuring the ships on an expedited schedule, with the first LAWs potentially being procured in FY2023 and a total of 28 notionally being procured by FY2026. The EABO concept was developed with an eye toward potential conflict scenarios with China in the Western Pacific. Under the concept, the Marine Corps envisions, among other things, having reinforced-platoon-sized Marine Corps units maneuver around the theater, moving from island to island, to fire anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and perform other missions so as to contribute, alongside Navy and other U.S. military forces, to U.S. operations to counter and deny sea control to Chinese forces. The LAW ships would be instrumental to these operations, with LAWs embarking, transporting, landing, and subsequently reembarking these small Marine Corps units. As conceived by the Navy and Marine Corps, LAWs would be much smaller and individually much less expensive to procure and operate than the Navy’s current amphibious ships.
    [Show full text]