The US and China both operate a fleet of Hospital Ships as part of their soft power approach. It is a sensible strategy and whilst the benefits might be difficult to quantify and analyse there is a general feeling that for many reasons, medical diplomacy is the right thing to do.
Both nations also deploy their military capabilities in support of humanitarian disasters, Haiti being a particularly recent example of US commitment. I think that the US does not get enough credit for its disaster responses but perhaps this ambivalence is exactly the reason it does so.
For the UK, I am not suggesting a capability on the scale of USNS Comfort and Mercy, but recognition that military capability can be used for soft power, far removed from the normal combat missions. Of course we contribute as well, RAF flights to Pakistan or an RFA Largs Bay LSD(A) to Haiti are modest yet still solid examples.
The Department for International Development or UK Aid is the UK Government Department charged with administering the considerable UK public sector contribution to overseas development and relief. Purists will no doubt draw the distinction between aid and development and try and place clear blue water between the military and aid but we must be clear that even 1 penny that the UK government spends on other nations is in our gift and at our discretion.
The government made it quite clear that the left leaning DFiD organisation would be changed but inexplicably ring fenced its budget. I have blogged a few times about this, especially in relation to the UK armed forces losing capabilities whilst facilitating other nations to acquire similar capabilities by displacing their spend on their own welfare but that is not the main argument here.
Hopefully, the National Security Council and Foreign Office primacy will reign in some of DFiD’s excesses and align their projects more closely with UK national interest. It might be noble to support poorer nations and the UK is in the top 5 of nations for both public and voluntary giving but we have to set sensible limits and impose achievable goals that deliver tangible security benefits. One of the great justifications for spending nearly £8 billion per year on overseas development is that it prevents conflict, DFiD cannot object therefore to funding a dual use capability.
The maritime afloat component will be resourced by a large and adaptable ship, one of the about to be decommissioned Bay Class LSD(A)
A recent Parliamentary Answer indicated that the running costs of a Bay Class LSD(A) were in the order of £20m per annum and yet despite this very modest sum, the SDSR indicated one will be decommissioned. The HSG represents an opportunity to retain the 4th Bay Class for military contingencies yet create a permanent Humanitarian Support capability to be used by DFiD, FCO and potentially, charities and other NGO’s
The vessels would have utility across many areas governmental business but the cost burden, for a change, would fall outside the MoD. Much as the MoD is expected to bear the costs save for a limited chargeback mechanism for civil resilience and response activities the HSG will similarly be available to the MoD with appropriate cross charging.
We need cross governmental joined up thinking and should not be afraid to sully our pure overseas aid/development credentials, I suspect those in receipt of the HSG’s services would neither know nor care about the principle.
Some might say this is a transparent means of transferring some of the DFiD’s substantial budget into a dual use capability that means we don’t have to sell off one of the most useful ships the UK has.
Perish the thought!
Contents
Operating Concept
Given that this is a maritime capability the operating scope or nations/people we can assist is self evidently limited by access to the sea but as we know from the many carrier strike discussions we have had, the majority of the world’s population lies relatively close to a shoreline so this is a limitation we must accept. Other capabilities might be deployed for those inland locations.
There would be a published visit schedule but the ship might converge on a location in response to a large scale natural disaster. The scheduled activities would include medical, engineering and training activities and the reactive activities would largely be the same but with a slightly different focus.
There is some overlap and duplication with the Forward Presence Squadrons, this is intentional.
The HSG will supplement and enhance the presence squadrons on both a scheduled and reactive basis, it is important that there exists a link, not only for operational and organisational reasons but also because one will reinforce the other, the sum being greater than the parts. In the description of the Forward Presence Squadrons I suggested they should be multi-agency and multi-national in composition, this could extend to voluntary groups like the Voluntary Service Organisation and NGO’s.
Capabilities may be deployed independently of the main vessel or split between it and the Forward Prsence Squadrons, hence, its a group!
Making sure the interaction between the Royal Navy, RFA, DFiD, FCO and other contributory organisations must be addressed in the command and control structure, all organisations have to pull in the same direction.
Capabilities – Medical
One of the greatest gifts we can give to people in developing nations or those afflicted by natural disasters is medical assistance. Whether it is for emergency life saving intervention or elective but life changing operations for conditions such as cataracts, cleft palates or obstetric fistula, the effect is far reaching.
One of the operating experiences of the US hospital ships is that their deep draught prevents them from operating at many locations which results in a need for expensive helicopter or slow surface transport of patients.
In general, the Bay class has a relatively shallow draught but it is still unable to berth at shallow and/or austere locations so the simple answer is to separate the medical facilities from the ship. I think most readers of Think Defence know where I am going with this!
Either working aboard or detached and transported to shore/inland the medical facilities should be fully containerised. There is some loss of space efficiency but the flexibility afforded by a transportable facility provides many more deployment options and ultimately a greater reach.
A modular medical capability may be split between multiple locations or combined and different treatment facilities also increase flexibility. A simple first line medical container for example could be transferred to shore and driven to site or carried on a landing craft to enable access to isolated coastal or riverine communities.
Crewing of the medical facilities should be independent of the ships crew and might include volunteers, secondees from the NHS, NGO’s or the Defence Medical Service. There is also a valuable training opportunity to realised in continual operations of the medical facility.
The medical capacity has to be modest and/or complimentary because a visit may have a destabilising impact on local healthcare provision or burden it with extensive post operative obligations. Again, the Forward Presence Squadron multi agency ashore component can coordinate visits with local providers and the system as a whole could be used not only to provide but also to teach and develop local capacity.
Capabilities – Disaster Response and Regional Development
The ships will routinely carry a range of disaster response supplies and suitably trained personnel. Even though they will be forward located they might not be on scene until some days after the disaster so capabilities must reflect this.
In the days following the acute phase of any disaster response the most likely use need will be medical (covered above), shelter, transport, communications and potable water.
The Bay class has a great deal of vehicle and cargo space so substantial stocks of roofing sheet, shelter materials, water containers and similar supplies would be routinely carried.
A particularly brilliant concept has been pioneered by the UK charity, Shelterbox. The pre packed box has a range of tools, shelter and cooking materials. Have a look at some images of the Shelterbox being used worldwide here. Again, the HRG could link up with organisations such as Shelterbox and simply carry 3 or 4 containers worth on board at all times.
In addition to supplies and materials the next greatest need is for construction and all wheel drive vehicles. Instead of disposing of ex MoD vehicles and construction plant to the open market they might simply be transferred to the HSG and used on operations, gifted to the target nation after the response.
I looked at containerised water purification a few months ago, here, again, carrying three or four systems would not be overly expensive but make a significant contribution.
Other disaster response capabilities might include portable power generation equipment and perhaps even radio broadcast or other communication systems.
When the ship is not being used for disaster response the focus would be on development and training, reinforcing and building local capabilities.
Capabilities – Aviation
The utility of helicopters in a disaster response is obvious so at least a single government owned and operated medium helicopter should always be carried. Military helicopters are scarce and this should not take away from existing capabilities but the ship should still be able to operate military helicopters in a surge capacity.
Obtaining decent aerial imagery of a disaster area should be seen as a critical need so the helicopter should be equipped with a suitable electro optical sensor and the ship, a image analysis and dissemination system. An off the shelf UAV might even be carried.
Capabilities – Ship to Shore
The well deck provides multiple options; first it allows a sheltered and safer transfer of patients, personnel, vehicles and stores to and from the vessel. Secondly, it provides the ability to carry a number of smaller craft for transfer of materials, personnel and vehicles between ship and shore.
It would fill the well deck but a large LCU Mk10 would provide a tremendous and flexible capability. The LCU Mk10 would allow a decent amount of stores to be transported and because of its extended endurance it could also operate semi independently with a containerised medical facility for riverine or coastal community access.
A well deck does add complexity and cost but for the flexibility on offer and for the dual military use, it is a worthwhile system to retain. A mexeflote would also provide additional capacity but inclusion would depend on cost.
Capabilities – Security
Security is always an issue and for this, a small RMP or RM detachment might be appropriate in some circumstances. The ship is largely non military but security is still a valid concern and again, a valuable training and command opportunity.
Another Option
Another option worth considering is simply to offer Largs Bay to Mercy Ships on a semi permanent basis.
######## OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES ##########
The Future of the Royal Navy 01 – (Context)
The Future of the Royal Navy 02 – (Tasks and General Approach)
The Future of the Royal Navy 03 – (Single Task Group)
The Future of the Royal Navy 04 – (Forward Presence Squadrons)
The Future of the Royal Navy 05 – (Equipment – T26)
The Future of the Royal Navy 06 – (Capability Plus)
The Future of the Royal Navy 07 – (Equipping the Forward Presence Squadron)
The Future of the Royal Navy 08 – (Equipping the Littoral Operations Group)
The Future of the Royal Navy 09 – (Equipping the Disaster Support Group)
The Future of the Royal Navy 10 – (Mine Countermeasures and Survey)
“Purists will no doubt draw the distinction between aid and development and try and place clear blue water between the military and aid but we must be clear that even 1 penny the UK spends on other nations is in our gift and at our discretion.”
I am not one of them, I seek purely to maximise British diplomatic leverage, and agree 100% with the sentiment expressed here.
Any way of saving the fourth Bay class is money well spent, and a dual-use disaster relief ship seems like a good method.
Interesting article thanks, I like the idea of tapping the DFID budget (good luck with that).
There seem to be a large range of modular field hospital kit available, for example:
http://www.johnsonmedical.com/products_Field%20Hospital.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/field/zms/zms3.html
and I’m sure there are many others. In fact I’m sure similar kit is in our inventory already:
http://www.army.mod.uk/army-medical-services/11256.aspx
Dom
Just a question.
Just in th einterrests of commonality
Could not the Influence squadrons, use bay class (in its modified Aqibar Bay form, instead of the Ulsein types reffered too?
<igh tneed less of them, and would be usefull inshooting war
i think that is what Jed and I are driving at.
IXON – help me out. What is a Aqibar Bay form?
Given where disasters tend to happen, perhaps the red cross Bay should be forward deployed? A few days less steaming at 18 knots would be handy.
Also, I would think you’d want to coordinate with the RE 17 Port & Maritime Regiment guys closely? Re-opening the container and bulk terminals was a critical issue in Haiti. Obviously we can’t expect to keep some crane-fitted merchantmen up Falmouth creek in case of need like the US, but “get the port working so everything else can come in bulk” is seriously valuable.
It’s a pity none of the ‘phib fleet is electrically propelled, so they can’t provide significant amounts of power.
Alex, 17 port and maritime Regiment is RLC not RE
Do you mean 65 Wks Group RE, they are a specialist TA unit that deal with railways and port, part of 170 (Infra Sp) Group RE
One assumes that this post has a complementary Army and RAF perspective, and that they would also be expected to deploy some field hospitals around the world as well?
No, 17 Port were the ones I meant. Although if the 65 Works Gp people are more appropriate, who cares.
A Friend of Mr Gladstone
Ixion is referring to a design concept on the web of a Bay Class derivative that the creator called HMS Aboukir Bay (the site of the Battle of the Nile) – see: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/MSR01/Ship%20stuff/S2C2%20-%20C2%20cruiser%20designs/AboukirBay1JeannedArc-MSR.gif
I have a design drawing for a Bay Class / Enforcer Class derivative, simpler than this, but with less cargo / vehicle space and more berthing, hanger and bigger well deck (so similar to the original Dutch amphibs) that I will finish off and submit to Admin with a quick article.
I applaud admin for his creativity in developing the HSG to keep the fourth Bay class vessel in service, but lets not stop there, lets plunder the DfID budget to build some more ! HMG could if it wanted say that it was leaving the supply of condoms to sub-Saharan Africa to other nations, while it would concentrate on providing disaster response from multi-purpose military units (e.g. RN / RFA, the Engieers noted above, and RAF C17′s for “immediate first aid”).
A link to it has been posted before, but it is putative modified Bay class specialy modified to act as mother ship with helectopers more protective armamament.
Just right now I can’t find the link
JED got their before me, and whats more he got the right name as well!
JDBT & JED
I perhaps had nto grasped that, I still think we wil need lots to be the influence squadron. Without playing fantasy fleet we could do with 16 or so of them in total, so thats 3.2 bill or about the cost of the type 26 programme. And half of that could come from development budget!
Jed and Ixion – What on earth is the point of FOUR 76mm on a helicopter support ship? I can just about understand providing CIWS and 16 VLS cells are all very useful if rather expensive, but surely such a major fleet unit would never be allowed out of cover of a decent ASW escort (which would have the 76mm+ sized main gun). Not only that, but the C3I systems needed to target all your proposed armament would be just as expensive as those on a T23. Now I can see the value of a mildly more military Bay (a short of cheap Albion) – but that would involve fitting for (but not with) CIWS and adding a slightly more capable sensor suite + a hanger, but 76mms! Lets keep real and not produce a new HMS Incomparable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Incomparable)
AFOMG
One of the problems with any design of any ship these days, is you have to, if it is to be likely to be shot at, in any way, by anyone likely to want to shoot at it, it has to have an effective CIWS.
You can get into a nice angels on pin head argument about what kind. 360 degree cover, starts with 20mm Phalanx as a minimum, and goes all the way up Aegis and beyond.
The question is at what point you step of the ladder.
The chap who drew the modified bay, thought 4 X 76.2 was enough and they seem from earlier posts to be quite cheap.
They offer a degree of flexibility V “Yahoos in speed boats”. particulalry with guided shells.
It will not be “A major fleet unit”, it will be more expensive than a mass produced Bay, but would still be cheaper than a frigate Possibly a quarter/third the cost the cost. they would be deployed as part of a Forward/influence/ litoral squadron, with significant soft power usage.
With the intention of being used to support the Main fleet, in any way they can in a real shooting war (including submarines. After all if it got really hairy they could act as support for ASW helicopters etc.
C3i for that lot would not be that expensive if, and only if we went with a basic off the peg fit and did not try to create: -
‘The best system in the world to protect our brave boys, developed by British industry yada yada yada’
RE “76.2 was enough and they seem from earlier posts to be quite cheap”
- when I started reading Jane’s xyz, they struggled hugely with the definitions of “weapon” and “control systems”
- they settled for “weapon systems” in order not to mislead readers
-[ it is good practice to call "sensors" that are not directly related to one weapon system by that name]
No, I leave it to you as for how long ago that was … emphasis on “not to mislead” the reader
AFOMG – as per Ixion’s comments – it aint my design !
However, please note that whereas our T45 are “fitted for but not with” 2 x CIWS, the Italian Horizon class air defence ships are fitted with 3 x 76mm Super-rapid as their CIWS !!
Not @ Jed.
RE “3 x 76mm Super-rapid as their CIWS”
- whatever the caliber, 2 of them won’t cover you!
One obvious problem facing disaster relief ships is that the kind of major disasters we’ve been seeing (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and associated tidal waves, major tropical storms) may well render dock facilities unavailable and have frequently destroyed roads and bridges inland. So helos are far more likely to be useful than any other transport carried on board ship, both to transport emergency aid quickly to where it’s needed and to rescue stranded/injured people. Hovercraft could also be useful in low-lying coastal areas (of the sort hit by tidal waves).
To go off at a rather different tangent, there is interest (especially in the USA) in reviving airships for a variety of purposes, one of them being really big ones for heavy long-distance transport. Those could be hugely valuable in disaster relief, since they could go to wherever they were needed.
Yes, in the 08 thread we missed “aerostatics” which are airships not for transportation, but for observation of almost unlimited endurance; a key part of
- USMCs new concept to have surveillance over extended areas and fight in smaller groups as and when a need is detected
- India has also/is beefing up its coastal defences in this way after the Mumbai incident
I am putting this comment here as we are close to closing off the whole thread 1-9?
The cheapest and least radical idea from TD so far; who could argue with that? Great idea, and a great way of spending some of that 8 billion too.
The Bays are a hugely valuable tool for the RN and the UK. It’s already there, so put it to good use – and the more we use it, the more cost effective it becomes; or sell it off for peanuts and lose that capability. Seems like a no brainer.
But before we have this ship bristling with guns, remember the proposal was for a ship that could work with VSOs and NGOs – these organizations may have there own objections to hitching a ride on something too well armed.
-
Any idea that might keep the Bays in service should be seriously considered. I believe we should resist cutting back our logistical capability further.
Maintaining a logistical surplus would enable the UK to support other nations and nation blocs. The African Union, for example, has regularly shown itself to be more than willing to try and solve problems in that continent, but peace keeping and peace making forces are regularly handicapped by a lack of expeditionary capability and a lack of logistical support across air, sea and land.
Empowering other countries to resolve problems in their own regions can only be good for us. let others solve thier own problems in future.
TD
I think there is quite a bit of overlap between DfID funded charity boats and RFA / RN casualty evacuation ships or whatever the need was called, JCTS I think, before the money ran out.
Re-use of the of the No.4 Bay would be a start but I think the DfID could afford a bit more than that. Good for humanitarian works of all kinds – disaster relief and long term medical programmes.
Consequently from the JCTS requirement, 200 bed hospital and appropriate support functions you would be looking at a 2000m2 medical facility which would be well within the capabilites of a Bay class or an extended Transport – LPD version of the colonial sloop.
This however brings into question the efficiency of UK shipbuilding where a cost of £150mill was put against a UK sourced ship in 2003 (Navy Matters). Scary figures to say the least.
The question now has to be what would be the going rate for another Bay class vessel versus an OSV / AHTS vessel both built in the UK. We have a full set of comparator data from existing builders of the OSV / AHTS vessel type so it would be interesting to find out how the figures stack up.
HSG = Great idea.
However the ships have to be MOD / RN spec who-ever pays for them or uses them outwith wartime. The programme will be all the stronger and more useful if it fully engages with the RN at the JCTS level and the Forward Presence squadron at the operational level.
Simples:- Do not build in UK, build in Poland or Korea.
With final fit out in UK. That’s where the containerised modules come in; and if other countries can fill the modules cheaper, they get built there as well.
If that horrifies the ‘Must be built in Britian’ brigade, then fine the Dept of trade and industry (or whatever they are called this week), can stump the additional cost as direct work creation subsidy. From their budget.
DiD can stump up the costs for the unarmed bays to be used as hospitals etc, and some of the cost of the forward squadrons.
“It’s a pity none of the ‘phib fleet is electrically propelled, so they can’t provide significant amounts of power.”
Apart from all of them? Ocean excepted. However, they aren’t fitted to pipe that electrical power ashore. Diligence is(-ish, for submarines).
I thought all the Poles who could weld were over here……
nah, i mets lots of them in poland at xmas.
the pound has devalued too much to be attractive, and our economy was in recession while theirs was growing at 4% non-stop.
go figure, as they say.