Article

2004-12-31 Southeast Asia

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by God Save The World 2004-12-31 2:06:58 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The helicopters, and maybe any hovercraft they have if smaller than the monster LCACs, will be crucial. Good call and best of luck, folks.

Posted by .com 2004-12-31 2:00:49 AM|| 2004-12-31 2:00:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 What does it cost to deploy this carrier group for six months? half a billion $$?

Posted by lex 2004-12-31 2:04:09 AM|| 2004-12-31 2:04:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I have no idea - you mean being on a mission as opposed to portside or a training cruise?

If I locate any numbers I'll post for you, but I doubt it's going to be a simple thing to find out for those not plugged in.

I'll bet rkb and OldSpook, being current, would know where to find that info.

Posted by .com 2004-12-31 2:08:04 AM|| 2004-12-31 2:08:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Right on Lex!
I can't understand for the life of me, why the US doesn't just contribute up to the UN 'all nations pledge' of 1% of GDP, and leave it at that. The other 200+ nations will have to pony up or shut up! Like I said before...NOT A DIME from me, until China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia contributes 1% of their GDP!

Posted by smn 2004-12-31 3:08:46 AM|| 2004-12-31 3:08:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 lex - I just ran across this ballpark info in a discussion comparing Russian and USN Carriers:

"The yearly operating costs of a carrier can be like $150 mil a year. But each carrier has a carrier group, which comes out to about $1.5 bil a year to maintain."

So $125M / month for a group. Sounds like a ballpark figure.

Posted by .com 2004-12-31 3:41:24 AM|| 2004-12-31 3:41:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The key is the variable cost of moving them from the Indian Ocean to Indonesia and the cost of any consumables delivered. Much of the operating costs are fixed.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-31 7:58:47 AM|| 2004-12-31 7:58:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I don't have current figures, but here are some of the variable costs to consider:

- fuel for deployment
- the costs of getting that fuel to them along with any additional costs to supply food etc. to the crews at that location
- hospital / medical supplies they will provide
- cost of running the desalinization plants to provide the maximum amount of fresh water possible (much more than the ships would provide for themselves)
- additional wear and tear on equipment and crew (note: this can be substantial over time, enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq took a huge toll on our airframes and pilots over the long time they were maintained)
- opportunity costs, i.e. what it takes to make up for the mission they aren't doing instead

Posted by rkb 2004-12-31 8:27:53 AM|| 2004-12-31 8:27:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Remember, this CSG and ESG aren't being sent to a disaster, they were en route CENTCOM AOR and are being sent to another mission along the way. Additional operating costs will be minimal in the big picture. The sacrifice is being paid by the sailors and marines who aren't getting the scheduled port visits, but who are going straight to work bettering the world. Somehow, I doubt any of them see it as a sacrifice.

Posted by longtime lurker 2004-12-31 9:50:43 AM|| 2004-12-31 9:50:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 smn: I can't understand for the life of me, why the US doesn't just contribute up to the UN 'all nations pledge' of 1% of GDP, and leave it at that. The other 200+ nations will have to pony up or shut up! Like I said before...NOT A DIME from me, until China, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia contributes 1% of their GDP!

The US contributed $360m to the UN for 2004. A 1% of GDP contribution number would come to $110b, or about a quarter of the defense budget. I don't think so.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-31 9:58:43 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-31 9:58:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'd suggest that the other nations raise their GDP. Then there'd be more money for everyone.

But that would require them to give up their socialist ways - not gonna happen. They'd rather bitch and pretend their governments are "giving" them everything.

And who the hell do these UN clowns think they are, telling us how much we have to fork over (it's not giving if it's forced)? They don't produce a goddam thing - they only leech off the backs of others.

They can go to hell, along with the dictators and mass murderers they love so much.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-12-31 11:52:22 AM|| 2004-12-31 11:52:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 The argument that"we'd be spending the money anyway" is only partially valid. We would be spending, but not on this mission, so it is a contribution to the relief efforts.

Direct personnel costs for the 12,000 or so people in the two groups is probably on the order of $2,500,000 to $3,000,000 per DAY. The 2-3,000 marines will be doing a LOT of valuable work, and even the LACs will be really sueful since they can move heavy equipment (whether ours or that of any of other relief organizations) into lcoations that can't be reached by road. Being able to tackle the blockage on the roads from more than one point with GREATLY improve the speed of clearing the debris as opposed to haviing to just dig through it from one end.

Light choppers (like UH-1s) have operating costs in commmercial service in the States of $200 to $300 per hour. The big Marine Amphibious choppers, like CH-46s and Ch-53s are more expensive. They'll all be worth their weight in gold in this operation.

The presence of the two groups is a VERY real contribution to the rescue and recovery efforts regardless of the fact that we could have spent those assets somewhere else. The reocvery effort is going to be far better off for their presence.

Even things like the communications capabilities that the MEU will bring will be a major plus and will act as a "force multiplier" for all of the other efforts underway.

Posted by Ralph Tacoma 2004-12-31 11:56:27 AM|| 2004-12-31 11:56:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 I heard on the news lastnight that the crew (or at least cooks) on the Abraham Lincoln have started baking bread 24/7 in order to be able to provide food....

The Carrier group will indeed be a force multiplier -- cool.

So.... where's the french carrier group? (not to play the one's up with those assholes...).

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-12-31 12:19:05 PM|| 2004-12-31 12:19:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Yep, the opportunity cost is the major expense. Loss of training time especially.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-31 1:19:42 PM|| 2004-12-31 1:19:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 A 1% of GDP contribution number would come to $110b, or about a quarter of the defense budget.

The only people that would whine about our percentage of GDP spent on diaster relief are either America-haters or people consumed by class envy.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-31 1:38:39 PM|| 2004-12-31 1:38:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I agree with lex. We should send the absolute minimum assistence in line but certainly not above the other "great powers." Let the Muslim "deep pockets" display their generosity. And what is China doing to help? Yes, China who occupies a UN Security Council seat as a representative of Asia? Zilch, zero, as usual I bet.

When we put out the call for help in Iraq to join the coalition of the willing, how many troops did Indonesia and Sri Lanka send to stand by our side?

I resent GWB and Congress acting like Daddy Warbucks with our cash to buy themselves momentary fleeting glory. Whereas our citizens are unable to travel anywhere in those Third World Muslim countries without looking at our backs because of the contempt and hatred they feel to America when there is no tsunami wreckage to be cleared and dead buried.

Posted by joeblow 2004-12-31 1:40:19 PM|| 2004-12-31 1:40:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Interesting POV, joe.

Posted by .com 2004-12-31 2:03:56 PM|| 2004-12-31 2:03:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 So.... where's the french carrier group?

CF - If it's in Toulon (the De Gaulle's home port) then I make it to be about 14000 nm away. I'm pretty sure it can't use the Suez Canal. At the 27 knots they're supposedly capable of, that would take about a month, assuming they don't get lost, spring a leak, run aground, avoid pirates....

If they end up needing a tow (like they did on their shakedown cruise), they could be there by spring, if they leave today.

Posted by Darth VAda 2004-12-31 2:43:54 PM|| 2004-12-31 2:43:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ralph Tacoma, Shipman--I'm not saying that sending the groups isn't a valuable donation, merely that ships cost money in-port or underway, troops get paid in-port or underway. You're right about additional JP-8 costs, but to the helo aviators it's a great deal, who otherwise would be stuck flying starboard delta until they reached the NAG. Fixed wing guys, well, let them load pallets. If there's TARPS in the wing, let them start runs up and down the coast.

Charts will all be off, undersea obstacles a prominent risk, given the shift in the tectonic plate. I've heard Sumatra moved 100 feet, who know what effect that had elsewhere in SE Asia, so all the magnetic variances and GPS data is off now. Could be a lot of fun for the navigators.

Posted by longtime lurker 2004-12-31 2:49:25 PM|| 2004-12-31 2:49:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Thanks Zhang Fei (#9),
I needed to be slapped for that one. I guess I was just trying to say that the nations should be equitable across the board (according to a fair share % of GDP they all could agree to). $110 billion is too much during a time of war! Appreciate the smelling salts!

Posted by smn 2004-12-31 3:10:40 PM|| 2004-12-31 3:10:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Longtime Lurker. You mean to tell us our Navy doe not have deep sounding lead lines anymore ?
Heh.

Posted by crazyhorse 2004-12-31 3:21:15 PM|| 2004-12-31 3:21:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 So it seems my estimate is in the ballpark. Which means that if the current trajectory of private aid continues, we will have contributed ~900M in military+govt aid PLUS ~600M in private individual and charitable group aid PLUS ~300m in US corporate aid would bring the total to ~$1.8B.

Yes, we're generous great-spirited etc. And we're also doing nearly all the heavy lifting not only here but also with regards to bringing down the terrormasters and containing China. So we damn well better get some diplomatic and political mileage out of that carrier group-- in SE Asia at a minimum. We're incurring a huge opportunity cost here, given our massive global responsibilities.

Posted by lex 2004-12-31 5:42:25 PM|| 2004-12-31 5:42:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 No military expert here but assuming that our military force readiness is relatively efficient, then there must be a very significant opportunity cost to diverting an entire carrier group from military operations, a cost that goes beyond consumables and transport expenses.

If this is not so, then our tax dollars are being wasted on superfluous military spending. So either the sole superpower is incurring an ENORMOUS cost here, or else the US taxpayers have been hoaxed. Which is it?

Posted by lex 2004-12-31 5:49:09 PM|| 2004-12-31 5:49:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Anytime, Master. I live to serve.

Posted by .com 2004-12-31 6:58:42 PM|| 2004-12-31 6:58:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 ? you talkin' to me?

Posted by lex 2004-12-31 11:15:29 PM|| 2004-12-31 11:15:29 PM|| Front Page Top

18:53 cingold
18:53 cingold
18:52 cingold
18:52 cingold
01:00 .com
00:00 Crereper Thomble7221
23:42 Aris Katsaris
23:37 lex
23:36 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:36 Me
23:15 lex
23:07 lex
22:46 Lone Ranger
22:30 Chuck Simmins
22:29 Chuck Simmins
22:27 Glenmore
21:58 .com
21:55 Frank G
21:51 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:50 Stephen
21:48 Sock Puppet of Doom
21:37 Dave D.
21:32 Edward Yee
21:24 Frank G