Iraq exit poses daunting logistics

WASHINGTON - For years, US military planners have worried about the risks of maintaining a large force in Iraq. Now, they are worrying about how to get it out.

In what is shaping up to be the biggest logistical challenge since the Vietnam War, the Pentagon is grappling with how to transfer out what a top official calls “mountains of equipment,’’ along with 143,000 troops and a similar number of civilians, amid the continuing threat of roadside bombs, ambushes, and suicide attacks from insurgents and terrorists.

There are worries, too, that arms will fall into the wrong hands, or that the complex withdrawal will drain resources needed for the buildup of the war effort in Afghanistan.

Concerns about the difficulty of the endeavor, which is set to be in full swing next year, have prompted a flurry of new government reviews and closed-door briefings for members of Congress who believe the process needs greater oversight.

Top officials say a big focus of the planning is ensuring adequate protection from a possible spike in attacks with improvised explosive devices - or IEDs - as troops pull out of relatively secure, fortified bases.

“We anticipate [attacks] possibly going up as we start moving these large units and convoys,’’ Army Major General Kenneth S. Dowd, the director of logistics for the US Central Command, said last week by telephone from Kuwait, where he was huddling with the logistics chiefs of each branch of the military. “If that keys up again we may have to slow down.’’

President Obama has set a timetable of removing the bulk of US forces by the middle of next year, and the rest by the end of 2011. A recent internal Army report laid out the sheer enormity of the task: 31 million items must be moved, including 100,000 pieces of “rolling stock,’’ 120,000 containers, 34,000 tons of ammunition, and 618 aircraft.

The job will require an estimated 240,000 truckloads, which translates to 8,000 convoys. Much of that material will contribute to 119 shiploads. Nearly 300,000 American personnel, military and civilian, will withdraw, and 350 bases large and small across the country will be shuttered or handed over to Iraqi forces.

At the Pentagon, top officials are working overtime to manage the process.

“When you get down in the boiler room and look at moving mountains of equipment that is accumulated over six years of war in Iraq and either bringing it home, or donating it to the Iraqi security forces, or taking it to Afghanistan, it is a huge logistical challenge,’’ Ashton B. Carter, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, said in a recent interview.

Carter, who recently traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to see the logistics effort firsthand, added: “We need to do all this as we complete the mission and make sure there is still stability in Iraq.’

US military officials are identifying what types of equipment, such as Humvees, could be donated or sold to the Iraqi Security Forces, Dowd said. But there is the question of what to do with the rest.

The most sensitive items, such as intelligence gear, will be flown out of the country. A major challenge remains identifying the safest and most effective ground routes for the bulk of the supplies, most likely through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, where a large share of the equipment will be loaded onto ships for ultimate transport to the United States or Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, in addition to the primary travel routes, military planners are also identifying backup routes in case of disruptions, officials said.

Another major task will be to keep track of everything in transit - a notorious failure after the 1991 Persian Gulf War when the Pentagon had thousands of containers sitting in Kuwait but had no idea what was in them.

“One of the biggest challenges,’’ Dowd said, is “accountability and [knowing] what’s in the containers.’’

Unlike the first war in Iraq, when hostilities ended with a cease-fire, there are still armed groups attacking US and Iraqi troops so there is a higher risk in losing track of weapons, said retired General Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff who is now a partner at SCP Partners, an investment company.

“There is an obligation to know what we have, where it is, and where it winds up,’’ Keane said.
There are also environmental concerns about abandoning hundreds of bases and camps that have been established since 2003.

Dowd said environmental experts have begun assessments of the first group of bases that will be abandoned or handed over to the Iraqis to ensure they are cleaned up.

All this is drawing increasing scrutiny from government auditors and congressional oversight committees. A team from the Government Accountability Office was in Iraq reviewing the situation last week, while the House Of Representatives recently passed legislation requiring the Pentagon to provide periodic reports on the progress of the effort.

One pressing concern is that the withdrawal from Iraq could at least temporarily deprive the war effort in Afghanistan - and possibly other military missions - of critical resources, such as cargo planes, ships, logistics personnel, and security teams.

“The redeployment of forces and equipment is an enormous undertaking which will affect Iraq and the countries in the region, and which will also affect the ability of the US to conduct war in Afghanistan and be ready to respond to other threats,’’ Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement last week after receiving a classified Pentagon briefing on the redeployment.

Skelton said he also worries about too much equipment being left behind. He cited the Vietnam experience as a cautionary tale. “When I visited Vietnam years later,’’ he said, “I remember seeing rows and rows of US equipment that we left behind. We must do a better job managing the redeployment from Iraq.’’

Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com

Bender.B, 28 July 2009, Iraq exit poses daunting logistics. The Boston Globe [online] boston.com, Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 2 September 2009]

USS Cole Recovery

October 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suspected terrorist group Al-Qaeda. A 40 foot by 40 foot hole was blasted into the portside, killing 17 U.S Sailors.

After a two year long operation, the five hundred and fifty foot long Aegis equipped destroyer returned to its fleet in April 2002.

From my perspective, the logistics involved in between were to say the least an amazing effort.

Owners at the time, Offshore Heavy Transport of Oslo, contracted the heavy lift ship to the Navy to quiet literally carry the wounded destroyer from Yemen back to the United States.

The Norwegian MV Blue Marlin was chosen because it was conveniently located close by in the Persian gulf after dropping a pair of specialized Mine hunting ships from Texas.

The Blue Marlin remains one of the world's largest heavy lift ships. Later on in 2004 it went on to move a 60,000 tonne Oil platform, followed by a massive sea-based X band Radar in 2005.

Once the Norwegian lift ship was selected and dispatched, the race was on for the Navy to work alongside the recovery team to design custom made mounting blocks and gigantic restraining straps to secure the load. When the drawings were complete construction was off sourced to a local Dubai Ship builder; whom installed the components on the Blue Marlin before it left for Yemen.

On Arrival, Blue Marlin opened its Ballast Tanks, submerging the entire deck so that the Aft towers and house were only visible above sea level. Tug boats then maneuvered the USS Cole in a position above the Marlins underwater deck.

Once everything was in place the Ballast tanks were emptied slowly so the deck would rise and meet the hull of the destroyer placing it gently in the custom built mounting blocks. The entire lift procedure took approximately 24 hours.

Like me if you were wondering why the USS Cole was stowed on an Angle, the purpose was to protect the Sonar Dome mounted on the very front of the destroyer’s bow, by letting it overhang the Marlins deck.

The contract cost the Navy US$4.5 Million dollars, a skeleton crew aboard the destroyer remained on board for the long voyage home to the United States.

One key issue that may draw attention, is the fact the world’s most advanced military force, does not have its own heavy lift ship of this size and capability, could having to outsource internationally pose a problem in the future ?

-Matt

Photo courtesy of US Navy (31 October 2000). NAVSEA [online] dcfp.navy.mil, Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 22 July 2009].

Heavy Lift Helicopter Comparison

Today I've been reading up on heavy lifting helicopters, and based on my research so far, there have been three particular stand outs.

I have downloaded the side on specification images for each chopper, they are of public domain copyright; available for anybody to use. I have then done my best to replicate them on a scale (1cm = 2.5m) in photoshop to depict there comparative size.

Introducing the first pick, the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane. The smaller of the bunch, however it was specifically designed to save lives as opposed to dispatching soldiers or military equipment much like the latter. The S-64 is an American twin engine heavy lifting helicopter, it has gained notorious fame over here in Australia as a very valuable bush fire fighting behemoth.

During December 2001 "Elvis" the sky crane, having only arrived in Melbourne, was immediately dispatched to New South Whales to assist with fighting the onslaught of fire surrounding Sydney. During its time, its been accredited helping save nearly 300 homes, and saving the lives of 14 firemen in the Burragorang Valley. I found this nice closeup footage on you tube of the sky crane in action.



Second in line the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, was chosen because of its distinctive look. The twin engine tandem rotor heavy lift chopper is a Vietnam war icon. Even with its aging retro appearance, it was faster than many attack helicopters in its era, and many choppers this day and age. Rated number 7 on Discovery Channels Top 10: Helicopters documentary, please watch the clip below for further detail.



The third helicopter I found stood out with good reason. The Soviet / Russian Mil Mi-26 heavy transport helicopter is the biggest and most powerful helicopter in service fulfilling both military and civilian roles. -Matt




Unknown Author (Febuary 12th, 2007). Biggest Helicopter. Unknown [online] Youtube; courtesy of user: abhikaushikin. Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 14 July 2009].

Unknown Author (April 17th, 2007). Erickson Skycrane. Unknown [online] Youtube; courtesy of user: applepiemac. Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 14 July 2009].

Discovery Channel (April 11th, 2007). Top 10: Helicopters - CH-47 Chinook(No.7) Discovery Channel [online] Youtube; courtesy of user: 7dc. Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 14 July 2009].

Moving our Abrams

$500m Abrams tanks in the wars

THE army's newest frontline weapon, the Abrams battle tank, arrived in Australia yesterday and immediately encountered problems, with no rail transport available to carry the tank to the Northern Territory. Its deployment will be further hampered because, at 68 tonnes, the Abrams is too heavy to travel across road bridges in the Northern Territory.

As the first 18 of the tanks were delivered to Port Melbourne, the operators of the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway said they lacked the equipment to carry them. Adelaide-based Freightlink said the tanks were too big.

"Freightlink has participated in a rail study with the implication for new rolling stock to be acquired," the company said.

It did not say when or if it intended to acquire the required rolling stock and suggested it was waiting for contracts to be signed with the Defence Department before going ahead with the purchase. A total of 59 refurbished tanks were bought from the US for $500 million.

Transporting them north by road is likely to be problematic.

A senior Northern Territory shire engineer said road bridges in the Katherine Shire had a maximum capacity of 50 tonnes, 18 tonnes less than the weight of one Abrams tank. Road trains weighing up to 50 tonnes are able to use the bridges by disconnecting a trailer, he said.

The tanks, described by federal Defence Minister Brendan Nelson as the best in the world, have a fuel economy as low as 200m alitre.

While the US-made tank provides unmatched protection for its crew of four, experts claim its jet turbine engine is three times more expensive to run than the diesel engines in the army's ageing Leopard 1s. A Defence spokesman said the Abrams's 2200-litre fuel tanks ensured they had a similar range to the Leopards and that an additional eight refuelling trucks would be provided to the army's 1st Armoured Regiment in Darwin.

Critics also claim the Abrams's high heat emission will constrict its ability to work with infantry in urban areas.

But a Defence Department spokesman said the Australian Abrams had been designed to minimise their heat emission to a level comparable to diesel-powered tanks.

Army mechanics will be kept busy if the US army experience is any guide. It allocates 25 per cent of its maintenance budget for ground combat systems to fixing Abrams gas turbine engines.

But Dr Nelson says the Abrams still offers the best value. "These tanks are the most advanced and capable in the world. This capability will be increasingly important as widespread proliferation of cheap, high-tech and lethal anti-armour, anti-personnel weapons could pose an increasing threat in any future conflict," he said.

Federal Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland questioned the need for such a large tank.

"The wisdom of the Abrams acquisition has to be questioned in the light of the limited use they are going to have in our region," he said.

"And specifically, in the light of the logistical issues they are going to present to the ADF simply within Australia."

The Abrams contract forms part of the Defence Department's new "hardened and networked" initiative to beef up the army's hardware.

Dodd, M., (September 23rd, 2006). $500m Abrams tanks in the wars. The Australian [online] News.com.au. Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 8 July 2009].

Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag

Photographer Unknown (Nov 2001 - April 2009). Varyagworld, Gallery [online image] Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 4 July 2009].

Quickpost these images to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

In Iraq withdrawal, equipment poses a key logistical challenge

U.S. commanders are deciding what to take, and what to leave behind. Some of the material will go to replenish military warehouses in the Persian Gulf region, and some to Afghanistan.

By Julian E. Barnes
March 16, 2009

Reporting from Washington — The American withdrawal from Iraq marks the beginning of one of the largest relocations of military hardware and manpower in recent years. But much of the equipment will not be returning to the United States.

Instead, some will remain with the Iraqi security forces and some will be shipped to Afghanistan. But as important, millions of tons of armor and weaponry will be used to restock huge U.S.-run warehouses across the Middle East -- in case it is needed in the future.

The plans follow a pattern set by the military for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and again for the military troop buildup in 2007, when the Defense Department drew on equipment stored around the Persian Gulf region, including in massive facilities in Kuwait and Qatar.

Equipment removed from Iraq will be sent to those warehouses, officials said, to ensure that the military is able to respond to a variety of contingencies, including possible Iranian aggression or renewed violence in Iraq.

But other countries in the Middle East are watching warily as the U.S. plans unfold. Many foreign officials want to ensure the U.S. drawdown in Iraq does not leave them unprotected. But the U.S. remains unpopular in the region, and citizens in most Arab countries do not want a large U.S. presence on their territory.

Military experts believe that stockpiling weaponry is a good solution, avoiding the provocation posed by having troops on the ground, but giving the U.S. a head start in case military intervention is needed.

"The materiel is not that big a deal," said Andrew M. Exum, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security. "When people in the Middle East think about the American presence, they think about bodies on the ground, not materiel."

Other experts said the United States must reassure its allies that the equipment stored in the area is for defensive purposes.

"What nobody wants to do is see the U.S. posture for an attack on Iran," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The rhetoric here is, 'We would love for you to stay but we don't want to be the springboard for some sort of idiotic exercise in Iran.' "

Even just replenishing the warehouses can be sensitive. Seeking to downscale the U.S. presence in its country, the Kuwaiti government has said the military may only store equipment that would be used for the defense of Kuwait.

The Pentagon said it is adhering to those rules, but U.S. officials also believe the Kuwaiti position is open to negotiation. Historically, Kuwaitis have been tolerant of American military activities in their country because of the successful U.S.-led campaign that drove invading Iraqi troops out of their emirate in 1991. But many there no longer view Iraq as a critical threat. Military officials declined to say exactly how much equipment would be repositioned in Kuwait or elsewhere. In the past, the military has stored enough equipment for a heavy brigade each in Kuwait, Qatar and South Korea and for three in Europe. Both the Army and Marine Corps also maintain stores of equipment on ships.

To avoid expanding the warehouses, U.S. officials must choose carefully what to store.

"You are going to have make very hard choices about what equipment you leave behind," Cordesman said. "The force mix you put into the Gulf is not going to be the one designed to defeat the Iraqi army. But you do face a series of major challenges from Iran."

Gone from the stocks will be most of the soft-skinned Humvees and unarmored trucks. In their place will be the heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, said Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dowd, the director of logistics for U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in the Middle East.

"It will be primarily the big gear, stuff like MRAPs, tanks," Dowd said. "So we don't have to move and lift all this heavy stuff."

Central Command is working on its drawdown plan for Iraq and has run some tabletop exercises, or "rock drills," to test plans to pull out of Iraq.

"We are working six, seven days a week putting this plan together," Dowd said. "We've done a couple of rock drills, laid out all the units, when they would move. . . . It is a good plan."

The pace of the withdrawal of equipment is beginning to increase. The bulk is likely to come out through Kuwait, although the military has also stepped up its use of the Iraqi port of Umm al Qasr. Last year 8,500 containers were shipped out of Umm al Qasr. In the first two months of this year, 3,000 containers have been removed, a sharply increased rate.

Although Central Command is not giving exact timetables or cost figures on the logistics mission, military officials acknowledge the challenge before them.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William "Gus" Pagonis, who oversaw the logistics effort in the 1991 Gulf War, said it would take a long time to get the equipment out.

"The bottom line is it is going to take a good 18 months to get out, but you can expedite that by dumping it all into Kuwait," Pagonis said. "And a lot of stuff can be left for Iraqi forces."

The military has begun identifying equipment that will be either sold or given to the Iraqis. That includes armored Humvees that are needed by the Iraqi military and generators that would be too costly to ship back to the U.S.

"If it doesn't make sense to bring it home, we are looking at opportunities to help the Iraqis stand up their units," Dowd said.

The military is also going through its equipment to determine what stocks should be diverted to Afghanistan, where an increase in the number of U.S. forces will require additional hardware. Equipment chosen for that war will be sent to Kuwait, repaired, then shipped directly to Afghanistan, Defense officials said.

julian.barnes@latimes.com

Barnes, J., (2009). In Iraq withdrawal, equipment poses a key logistical challenge. [online] Los Angeles Times. Available from: SOURCE [Accessed 3 July 2009].