| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Mother Ship For Coastal Combat |
| 2007-05-20 |
| The U.S. Navy is spending $8 million to charter a 220 foot long offshore supply vessel (for the oil industry) to serve as a "mother ship" for its small patrol boats. The supply vessel MV (motor vessel) C-Courageous will have accommodations for 30 patrol boat sailors, a helicopter pad and repair and maintenance facilities for the 39 foot patrol boats the navy uses in its offshore and river patrol squadrons. The ship will carry supplies for 30 days of operations. During the Vietnam, the navy used World War II era LSTs as mother ships for patrol boats. These LSTs were larger, 350 foot long, ships, but basically did the same job that C-Courageous will perform, probably in Iraq. The company that built the C-Courageous, Edison Chouest, has previously built support ships for navy SEAL operations. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #7 When I look at those few high priced littoral ships they're developing, it makes me wonder if they've lost touch with reality. Your problem is that you are thinking about the Navy, the country and the future. That's the wrong way to look at it. If you think about Trent Lott, Mississippi and shipbuilding, it will all make sense. Sad, but true. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-05-20 17:35 |
| #6 Don't take this story littorally. *ducks tomatoes* |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-05-20 14:28 |
| #5 what? They couldn't deploy it to Afghanistan? Excellent reporting....Jeebus |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-05-20 13:23 |
| #4 Pappy: I know. But has the philosophy been lost in the USN? When I look at those few high priced littoral ships they're developing, it makes me wonder if they've lost touch with reality. I still hold to the WWII principal that everything destroyer or smaller is an "expendable" vessel. Granted we would *prefer* not to lose them, but the realities of naval war don't care what we would prefer. In a major naval conflict, numbers balance off quality a lot, as the Japanese learned the hard way. And what with everybody and their brother floating fleets of submarines, I would much prefer, if we are going to lose five ships, that they be five replaceable ships. To make matters worse, our ships may have to contend with cheap air armadas of drone UAVs, nothing more than flying 1000lb bombs with GPS. Half the countries in the world could crank out such weapons as fast as cars and only twice as expensive. The next century is going to be interesting. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-20 12:50 |
| #3 This is nothing new, 'moose. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-20 11:51 |
| #2 This will be a very interesting experiment to see if such a technique would pay off on a much larger scale for littoral conflict. That is, having mother ships with PBs able to patrol a lot of coastline and waterways. On a wider scale, several such mother ships would be supported by a second echelon of supply ships and oilers, part of a blue water fleet providing them with rear area security and fire support. I can also imagine another layer of small multipurpose platform ships, just outside of the PB patrol area, that could provide quick local support to the PBs, such as artillery, AAA, mine sweeping or evac. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-05-20 11:37 |
| #1 basically did the same job that C-Courageous will perform, probably in Iraq. Of course! Iraq has such a LONG coastline. *sigh* |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-05-20 11:37 |