Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
more weapons.
Putin is trying to flex his muscles, he just threatened Finland
against more NATO support, but it backfired, which
his support of Assad is sure to do also.
>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>more weapons.
You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
> You use helicopters.
We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in 2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or at least very few, helicopters used.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:10:55 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<paul.j.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>> You use helicopters.
>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in >2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or >at least very few, helicopters used.
My understanding was that Operation HIGHBROW used helicopters ferrying
people out to ships and other helicopters for onwards transportation
to Cyprus.
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:10:55 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul.j.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
>> 2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
>> at least very few, helicopters used.
> My understanding was that Operation HIGHBROW used helicopters ferrying
> people out to ships and other helicopters for onwards transportation
> to Cyprus.
Nope: GLOUCESTER did the initial recce into Beirut and first lift out, and then ILLUSTRIOUS came in (covered by GLOUCESTER) for the main extraction followed by a quick dash out to Cyprus.
All fairly exciting at the time, although in the end nobody shot anything at anybody near our units while they were doing this.
>>Amphibious landing vessels???
>>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>>more weapons.
> You use helicopters. (( for evacuation of civilians)
Certainly that is often done.
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
I do not necessarily agree.
If I had to get 1,000 people quickly out of an environment
where projectiles are haphazzardly flying around,
using a LCU or LCM8 (or the more modern equivalents)
would be a very valid option.
>>>Amphibious landing vessels???
>>>Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
>>>from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
>>>on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
>>>Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
>>>more weapons.
>> You use helicopters. (( for evacuation of civilians)
> Certainly that is often done.
>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
> I do not necessarily agree.
> If I had to get 1,000 people quickly out of an environment
> where projectiles are haphazzardly flying around,
> using a LCU or LCM8 or LCM6 (or the more modern equivalents)
> would be a very valid option.
Or, to expand a bit more,
A long time ago, in a land far away, I was deeply involved
in a large number of military ship to shore, and shore to ship
operations (and separately some prior to, and some after that year).
The only non-hostile fatality that I know of was during
a bad storm, where the dangers were known, and accepted
by much higher authority (at, or close to Joint Chiefs of Staff).
It was decided that the risk, was overcome by benifit ratio.
And somewhat related to general subject, recently aboard
cruise ships I've seen a fair number of quite sizable
numbers of persons going ashore & returning using either
ship carried 'lighterage', or local venders.
With proper planning & staffing, IMHO, large numbers of
just average citizens can be 'fairly' safely moved.
And, just saying, helicopters can be vulnerable.
(Can one trouble maker with a RPG take a helo out
with all crew & passengers? Certainly - fair number have.
Can one troublemaker with a RPG take out a LCM6?
It seems less likely.)
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> "Paul J. Adam" <paul.j.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
>>> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
>>> You use helicopters.
>>We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in >>2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. >>No, or at least very few, helicopters used.
> True, but do you generally send a 12 ship flotilla (the largest you've
> had in the area in, well, pretty much forever) merely to evacuate a
> few people that could just as easily get on airplanes and fly out?
Valid point Fred, as regards Russia.
For the USA, it is very valid to have a MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit, with it's BLT+, Helo Squadron, & LSU) on it's ARG ships.
That gives a great variety of options for what ever contingency could come up.
But, just instucting a large number of citizens to fly out on 'normally schedulled' airlines, could take many days, and that movement could trigger an onslaught of others trying also to bail at same time.
If the "shit hits the fan", it is nice to have ample 'security' personnel with you along with plenty of short range transports and very high emergency capacity ships.
So, I'm open to the possibility, that Russia (so far) might be thinking the same. (Does anybody have a guess at the number of people that Russia might feel 'responsible for' in Syria?)
> So, I'm open to the possibility, that Russia (so far) might be thinking > the same. (Does anybody have a guess at the number of people that Russia > might feel 'responsible for' in Syria?)
According to the Russian Navy webpage.
As for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, about
100,000 Russian citizens currently reside in Syria."
> >Various newspaper accounts say their sending 5 landing ships
> >from two different fleets. I guess the Russians are planning
> >on either dropping off or loading a lot of cargo.
> >Let's hope they're evacuating, not sending Assad
> >more weapons.
> You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
> You use helicopters.
Um, not always. I recall some news reel film from the Korean War of a
long line of Korean civilians being evac''d right off the beach on an
LST, walking up the bow ramp. I strongly suspect thay also used
smaller landing craft when we pulled back from the north after the
Chinese came in. I'll admit that a brief search didn't turn up
specific examples, and I'm too pooped from putting the generator back
into my little camper to devote much effort to it. But I did find
this one _really_ interesting example:
" Normally, LSTs had berthing and mess facilities for up to 250troops,
with a capacity of 550 for short voyages. But they were
essentiallylarge hollow boxes, and so in an emergency, could squeeze
in much largernumbers. One LST, for example, embarked over 10,000
refugees duringthe Heungnam evacuation."
Dunno if this was a USN, ROK, or leased Japanese merchie LST. Not that
it matters, but it'd be interesting to know.
>>>>>"Fred J. McCoward" <d...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>>>>>>"Fred J. McCoward" <d...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Fred J. McCall boasted:
>>>>>>>>>>I'm no coward, anybody can verify I use my real name.
>>>>>>>>>Please post your address so we can verify.
>>>>>>>>Fwed's tag "you are what you do when it counts", but he is afraid to
>>>>>>>>post his address, so if it ever really counted he would be running.
>>>>>>>>Fwed can *talk* big on usenet...but he is *only* a talker.
>>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>Why don't you come see, Quiff?
>>>>>>Sure, what's the address.
>>>>>If you're too stupid to find it you're not mentally mature enough to
>>>>>travel without adult supervision, anyway.
>>>>keep hiding you pissing-in-your-pants big mouth coward
>>>>;-)
>>>So you're not just a nymskull; you're an out and out raving loony.
>>>Again, if you're too stupid to find me you're not mentally mature
>>>enough to travel without adult supervision, anyway.
>>Son, if you believe that then I don't blame you for being afraid of me.
> Dr Quim, Medicated Pussy, continues to natter on. Poor boy.
>>keep hiding you coward
>>;-)
> Yeah, I'm 'hiding' by waving my arms and saying, "I'm right here". You
> being too stupid to find me doesn't mean I'm 'hiding'. It means
> you're stupid.
Post your address, you coward.
In all my years on usenet I've never seen anyone so afraid as McCall, and
the little coward is afraid of harmless little ol me.
On Jul 11, 2:10 pm, "Paul J. Adam" <paul.j.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 11:11, Bill wrote:
> > You don't do an evacuation of civilians using amphibious landing
> > ships, it's far too dangerous for them.
> > You use helicopters.
> We used GLOUCESTER and ILLUSTRIOUS to lift civilians out of Beirut in
> 2006 (Op HIGHBROW) and the US did indeed use a LPD - the TRENTON. No, or
> at least very few, helicopters used.
The Landing ships tend to support this theory, unless the Russians
embarked troops and were keeping it quiet. (They could fly them on
aircraft if needed.)
If they wanted to do a stronger Naval Escort they would use destroyers
and cruisers.
It sounds from this fleet line up like a "Show the Flag" mission as
well as a chance to place evacuation assets if needed down the road.
