Increment 1 – Requirements

Improving ship to shore logistic capabilities. Increment 1 requirements.

Accepting that rehabilitating and/or augmenting an existing port is both the preferred and lowest cost option a set of requirements will need to be defined before means of meeting that requirement investigated.

Existing ports have berthing space for many ships at the same time, facilities for specialist cargo such as fuel, cranes and material handling equipment in abundance, hard standings and covered warehousing, connection to road and rail routes and in some cases, a ready supply of labour. Not all operational scenarios involve direct combat in these port areas, in fact, it would be the very last thing any joint force commander would want.

But there are many scenarios that do not involve direct combat such as responding to a disaster, augmenting a fully working port as part of a force build-up phase or pushing into an existing port to establish a logistics lodgement area much quicker than using a beach where no direct threat exists.

The port may be operated as a small feeder port, in a hub and spoke arrangement, as part of a seabasing capability or as a direct port of entry.

The requirements set out below are modular, apart from survey, they may be no requirement for certain of the component parts, each one is a ‘mix and match’ based on needs.

Survey and Decision Support

The survey phase is arguably the most important as it describes a common recognised picture of the environment and task at hand.

It might at first be imagined that a port survey would simply comprise of a bathymetric survey of approach routes, berths and turning basins but for a port to be of use to a joint force commander or humanitarian response effort it must include much more.

It is this breadth of need that makes it a relatively complex task and the drives the requirement to involve skills and capabilities across the defence spectrum, and possibly beyond defence as well. The baseline for a port survey is bathymetric and sub-surface obstruction information, but it should also include the following;

  • Berthing and mooring facilities; are they damaged, are they in a good enough condition for shipping and what augmentation or repair is needed
  • RORO linkspan’s, ramps and slipways; are they damaged, are any present, can they support the required traffic levels and shipping types
  • Aids to navigation; are they present, in the right place and in what condition, can they support safe navigation for military and civilian shipping
  • Handling equipment; cranes, reach stacker’s, forklift trucks and port tractors could all contribute to cargo handling but are they in a serviceable and safe condition, what spares or repairs do they need and how many of each are present
  • People; harbour pilots, stevedores, security and engineers are all essential and will be needed to supplement military or aid agency personnel, does the port have a functioning team of people, can they be re-employed if not and is it possible to employ additional local staff
  • Warehousing and storage facilities; hard standing, buildings, refrigerated storage and fuel tanks (with their associated pipelines and pumps) allow ships to be cycled through the port quickly, their condition and capacity will form part of the planning calculations
  • Access roads; if stores are to move beyond the port the surrounding access roads will need to be assessed
  • Others; utilities, security, radio systems and helicopter access are additional survey requirements

The simple objective is to create an accurate, georeferenced survey of the port, its facilities and potential for operability at a scale required by operational need. A gap analysis between the ‘As Found’ state and requirements of the joint commander creates a statement of requirements for repair, augmentations and operation.

It is here that a Decision Support Tool would be invaluable.

There might be many moving parts in play, emerging needs, changing situations and information that may be incomplete. Using a bespoke software package will help formulate and manage the response whilst providing accurate work packages and status updates as the operation continues.

The survey team should be able to operate in hazardous environments and at both extremes of the temperature scale.

Explosive Ordnance Clearance and Disposal

Before any work can take place to rehabilitate the port it must be made safe. Deliberate mining and IED’s or unexploded munitions represent difficult challenges in a port environment requiring specialist skills and equipment.

One way of visualising the environment to be cleared is the port above water, the water in the port and the water surrounding the port. As the tide falls and rises there will be places that qualify for the first two categories but the challenge remains.

Shipping must have safe access to the port via a cleared channel and in the case of deliberate mining this requirement may be a significant element.

Some devices can be made safe in-situ, some ignored but others will need to be explosively cleared before operations can commence.

Force Protection and Life Support

The underlying assumption for this proposal is that immediate close combat has ceased or never started but this does not mean there would be no need for force protection measures. Security personnel, perimeter fences, access control and monitoring equipment may be needed, scaled against the threat.

Potable water, rations, accommodation, ablutions and other facilities for maintenance of the embarked force may be replaced by using afloat facilities, but in general, these would be better provided within the port. They may also need to be expanded for locally employed and transiting personnel.

Debris Removal

If the port has been subject to war damage or natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes it may be degraded or completely inoperable. The decision on whether to attempt a restoration or implement other arrangements like a beach landing would be subject to the initial survey findings but in general, a degraded or damaged port is likely to provide much greater potential throughput over the medium term.

There is established practice and good procedures for post disaster zone debris removal; prioritising transport routes, segregation of hazardous waste, de-fuelling vehicles and recycling for example, but the objective of this port opening capability is necessarily focussed on the short to medium term so speed is of the essence and the proper handling of debris traded against it.

It is important to appreciate the difference between civilian maritime salvage, port construction and rehabilitation, and what would be both possible and desirable within this capability. It is not to repair or augment a port in general terms but only to do so to a level that is desired of the operation.

Follow on repair and augmentation is the job of civilian agencies, governments and contractors.

The main focus of debris removal would be to make it safe and push it out of the way, that’s it.

There is a blurred line between the explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) and debris removal tasks because UXO’s can be rendered temporarily safe by simply moving them out of the way for disposal at a later stage. They can be left in-situ and protective berms or other barriers erected around them, it would all depend on the quantity, types and surrounding environment.

Longer term rehabilitation will ensure the safe disposal of waste and debris but in the first few days and weeks the priority will be enabling the port for traffic and increasing that traffic.

Not all of this debris will be hazardous, wood; sediments, green waste, rubble and soil generally comprises the bulk of post disaster waste and can be a valuable resource for the recovery effort. Other debris will be hazardous; unexploded munitions, medical waste, toxic chemicals and human/animal bodies will all pose a risk to those in the area.

Damage to infrastructure and the types and distribution of waste materials will show different characteristics depending on how it was made; an artillery barrage on a port will produce different damage and debris than an earthquake or storm for example.

Sunken ships and barges; these represent the most significant removal challenge because of their sheer size and weight. In most cases removal will beyond the scope of the proposed capability.

Large ships and barges would usually be left in-situ to await disposal using specialist civilian contractors.

[tabs] [tab title = “Libyan ship sunk by the RAF”]
Libyan warship sunk by the RAF
Libyan warship sunk by the RAF
[/tab] [tab title = “Port of Sendai in Japan 2011”]
Port of Sendai Japan 1
Port of Sendai Japan 2011
[/tab] [tab title = “Port of Sendai in Japan 2011”]
Port of Sendai Japan 2011
Port of Sendai Japan 2011
[/tab] [tab title = “Port of Sendai in Japan 2011”]
Port of Sendai Japan 2011
Port of Sendai Japan 2011
[/tab] [/tabs]

Containers and other Sunken or Floating Debris; At a smaller scale than ships and barges the potential for other floating debris to cause port disruption is much greater. As seen in Haiti, Japan and New Orleans, the aftermath of a natural disaster such as a storm very often results in small boats being displaced, inter-modal containers falling into the water, fishing nets coming loose and other general debris.

These can cause hazards in the port turning basins and berths and prevent trafficking of the port.

[tabs] [tab title=”Haiti”]
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, January 13, 2010 container floating in the port area
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, January 13, 2010 container floating in the port area
[/tab] [tab title=”St Barth”]

St-Barth[/tab] [tab title=”Beijing”]

Bejing-container[/tab] [tab title=”Cork”]

Floating-Containers-Cork-e1423779116447[/tab] [/tabs]

General Port Damage; Earthquakes, tsunamis and storms/hurricanes are extremely destructive to the port infrastructure, port contents and surrounding area. Earthquakes are particularly destructive because they not destroy buildings in-situ, they also damage their foundations. These foundations can also include mooring facilities, harbour walls and roadways, infrastructure that even the most intense of storms has trouble with. Container stacks may be toppled and cranes dropped into the water, insulated and reefer containers are insulated with foam so naturally buoyant.

Damage to approach roads, hard standings, concrete piles and container storage areas may also have been caused by longer term neglect and lack of maintenance.

[tabs] [tab title=”Japan”]
Containers - Port of Sendai Japan
Containers – Port of Sendai Japan
[/tab] [tab title=”Chile”]
Talca and Concepcion Chile 2010
Talca and Concepcion Chile 2010
[/tab] [tab title=”Japan”]
Port of Sendai Japan
Port of Sendai Japan
[/tab] [tab title=”Haiti”]

Port-au-Prince-Haiti-port-damage-04-e1423779271754[/tab] [tab title=”Haiti”]

Port-au-Prince-Haiti-port-damage-06-e1423779242263[/tab] [tab title=”Japan”]

Hitachinaka-Port-Earthquake-damage-e1423779345607[/tab] [tab title=”Harwich”]

Harwich Port Storm Damage
Harwich Port Storm Damage
[/tab] [tab title=”Japan”]

Port-of-Sendai-Japan-10-e1423779297398[/tab] [tab title=”Haiti”]

Port-au-Prince, Haiti, port damage 01
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, port damage
[/tab] [tab title=”Haiti”]
Titan salvage Haiti
[/tab] [tab title=”Japan”]

Port-of-Sendai-Japan-9-e1423779443893[/tab] [/tabs]

Organic Matter; not just sewage but trees and vegetation (green waste) that might be obstructing roads, access and storage areas. Floating organic matter may also be present in the water if the port handles timber or is near to timber processing facilities.

Human Remains; there exists a very real possibility of encountering human remains during any clearance activity and they will need to be handled with care and respect, not only because it is the decent thing to do but could be enormously counter productive to relationships with local people and could damage security relationships. Uncleared human remains can be a source of infection so rapid disposal is an additional protection against disease in already, potentially, immune suppressed populations.

Equipment Damage Repair

In parallel with debris and waste removal the repair of existing machinery and systems such as port lighting, lifting equipment, warehouse space, traffic control and navigation equipment should be attempted.

Repair capacity will be finite although may be augmented by local resource who are likely to have excellent knowledge. It is also likely that this local resource, if available, will also be able to operate the repaired equipment.

Repairing equipment in-situ can be a significant ‘throughput multiplier’ and if nothing else, removes the need to transport replacements to site.


The need for dredging will depend on many factors but will generally include the restoration of previously dredged areas that have silted up, rather than cutting new channels into rock or sand. A port may have neglected dredging due to wars or lack of economic activity with its subsequent shipping traffic. Damage to the port may leave a part of the quayside the best option for traffic even though it does not usually have the required depth.

Dredging might imply a long term operation but specialist dredging equipment can be very time efficient and given it would be used for maintenance dredging activity it remains a valid consideration.

To determine the need for dredging two items of information are needed, current depth and required depth. Current depth will be determined from the survey stage but required depth (whether possible or not) will be a function of the kind of ships involved with the operation.

For a short notice operation, ships will need to be part of an established military/civilian organisation like the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Military Sealift Command or available on the market at relatively short notice.

These ship types are…

[tabs] [tab title=”ROPAX Ferry”]

Mixed passenger and vehicles, usually on short sea routes and includes a wide variety of designs. The image below shows the Canadian MS Chi-Cheemaun, a 7,000 tonne vessel with a bow visor vehicle ramp and 650 passenger capacity. It is typical of the type and has a draught of a touch under 4m.

Ro-pax Ferry Chi-Cheemaun powered by 4x Cat C280-6 Marine Engines

[/tab] [tab title=”CONRO”]

This combines container holds with roll on roll off vehicle decks, an example of which was the Atlantic Conveyor owned by the Atlantic Container Line. The Atlantic Compass in the image below is a large G3 Class vessel with a design draught of 9.75m but can carry over 3,000 twenty foot containers and a thousand small vehicles.


[/tab] [tab title=”Feeder”]

It is unlikely that a short term port restoration mission would be hosting the large Maersk E Class type of container ships but there are many smaller feeder container ships, usually between 500 and 3,000 TEU. The image below shows the Samskip Endeavour from Damen. It can carry 804 TEU’s and has a draught of 7.33m


[/tab] [tab title=”Freight RORO”]

Carrying only vehicles and containers these are a common type of vessel and the UK’s Strategic RORO vessels are a good example. The Point class are of a Flensburger CONRO 220 design of 14,200 gross tonnage with capacity of 2,650 lane metres. It has a draught of 7.6m

Point Class Strategic RORO at Mare Harbour Falkland Islands 02
Point Class Strategic RORO at Mare Harbour Falkland Islands 02
[/tab] [tab title=”Tanker”]

Bulk fuel can be landed in ISO Tank Containers, wheeled tankers or pumped ashore using flexible pipelines so refined fuel tankers may not form a large part of the inbound shipping into a rehabilitated port but they are included here for completeness. To distinguish them from crude oil tankers they are called Product Tankers, having stainless steel or coated holds with segregated pumping arrangements. Sizes can vary but the Medium Range and coastal types are most common. The image below shows the Stena Caribbean, built by FKAB, with a gross tonnage of just under 8,600 tonnes and a draught of 6.5m

Stena_caribbean[/tab] [tab title=”Container Barge”]

Coastal and oceanic barges are used extensively for container transport in conjunction with tugs. Sizes vary considerably with the larger types are ocean going with double or triple decks for roll on roll off trailers. The image below shows the Crowley El Morro that has a draught of less than 4m.


[/tab] [tab title=”LMSR”]

The US Military Sealift Command (MSC) RORO/Container ship is a good example of a strategic sea-lift vessel that could be used in a port rehabilitation scenario. The USNS Redcloud shown below is is typical of the type with a draught of 10.4m

USNS Redcloud[/tab] [tab title=”Joint High Speed Vessel”]

The US MSC Joint High Speed Vessel is based on a high speed catamaran ferry used for short distance routes. Besides its high speed, one of the principal selling points for this type of vessel is the shallow draught at 3.8m.


[/tab] [tab title =”LPD(R)”]

Although the whole point of a landing platform type amphibious vessel is to be able to ignore ports it would still be useful if it could make use of a port. The Bay class Landing Platform Dock (Auxiliary) has a draught of 5.8m

RFA Lyme Bay LPD(R)
RFA Lyme Bay LPD(R)
[/tab] [/tabs]

Across these different types of ships there is a wide range of draughts, between 4m and 8m are the majority of small to medium sized vessels. 8m to 12m brings in the really large vessels like the the US LMSR’s and CONRO’s like the ACL G3’s but these would likely be the exception.

4m to 8m is a good working target draught to work to, which means a dredged depth of 8m to 10m.

Although the large Landing Craft Tank (LCT) type vessel has largely fallen out of favour with military forces they are still popular for coastal and island shipping, transporting vehicles, engineering plant, cargo and people. Because of their shallow draught they would be invaluable in the early stages of port rehabilitation, either inside the port boundaries or nearby.

[tabs] [tab title=”LCU Mk10″]

The UK Landing Craft Utility Mk 10 is typical of a vehicular landing craft commonly used during amphibious operations. It has a draught of 1.5m

LCU Mk 10
LCU Mk 10
[/tab] [tab title=”Mexeflote”]

The Mexeflote is also typical of the powered modular pontoon systems commonly used in both civilian and military applications. Unloaded they have a draught of 300mm and are only 1.5m deep.


[/tab] [tab title=”Ramped Craft Logistics”]

The RLC’s Ramped Craft Logistics have now all been disposed of but they are typical of the 30m type able to carry over 90 tonnes of cargo or 3 20ft ISO containers. They have a draught of only 1.5m, the image below shows a former RLC RCL now owned by Ferguson Transport and called the Leslie Ann used to support the MoD/QinetiQ range tracking station at Hirta on St Kilda.

Leslie Ann RCL kilda-2014-236

[/tab] [tab title=”Bahamas Express”]

The Bahamas Express is next up the size ladder at 60m. It was built by St John Shipbuilding and is now owned by Seacor Island Lines. It is a RORO design able to carry up to 26 TEU in RORO mode or double that if stacked and lifted off and on. Draught is 2.1m.


[/tab] [tab title=”Damen Stan Lander”]

The Stan Lander is a standard design in use with many operators that can carry up to 60 vehicles with a draught of 2.1m. The image below shows an illustration of the design used in the Royal Bahamas Defence Force project Sandy Bottom.


[/tab] [tab title=”the Frank S Besson class”]

In service with the US Army is the 83m General Frank S Besson Logistic Support Vessel. They can discharge 900 tonnes over the beach or 2,000 when used in a conventional configuration. They have a draught of 3.7m

RORO Landing Craft[/tab] [/tabs]

Large landing craft can be extremely useful, even when rehabilitating a port. With a draught of between 1.5m and 4m combined with an ability to beach they should be part of equipment matrix.

Mooring Fixtures

Mooring fixtures include fenders, bollards, ship arrestors, berthing/breasting and mooring dolphins.

In general terms there are three types of port mooring configuration.

A conventional quay for RORO, container and cruise ships. The area will have fenders to protect the wall and ship and a series of bollards for securing mooring lines. Ships will be moored on their longitudinal axis parallel and in close proximity to the quay wall. Cargo will be discharged using cranes or side ramps and gangways.

Bulk products like LNG, coal, ore and oil are carried in very large vessels that need deep water when fully loaded. Relatively small loading platforms are connected to shore by long jetties carrying pipes or conveyor belts. Ships are secured against breasting dolphins by lines connected to mooring dolphins, dolphins being sturdy steel and concrete constructions secured to the seabed using steel piles.

RORO ships use a variety of methods; simple slipways, extending and multi-layer linkspan’s or conventional port walls if fitted with suitable slewing ramps.

Because of the large forces they have to withstand dolphins and bollards have a necessarily substantial construction with reinforced concrete and large diameter steel piling being the norm. Various combinations of pneumatic and rubber fixed and mobile fenders are used. Ports are also increasingly implementing suction and other types of automatic mooring systems.

[tabs] [tab title=”Conventional Mooring”]

070518-N-3390M-004[/tab] [tab title=”Bollard and Fender”]

tee-1[/tab] [tab title=”Terminal Mooring”]


[/tab] [tab title=”Oil Terminal”]

Oil Terminal Jetty[/tab] [tab title=”RORO Example”]

Mooring-Diagram[/tab] [tab title=”Mooring dolphin”]

Dolphin-construction[/tab] [tab title=”Bollard Damage”]

Bollard-Damage[/tab] [tab title=”Parallel Movement Fender”]

Parallel-movement-fender[/tab] [tab title=”Cone Fender”]

SuperConeFendersfromTrelleborg-34460[/tab] [/tabs]

This massive construction is both an advantage and disadvantage, not so good because they take time to install, therefore deployable solutions are rather thin on the ground. On the other hand, their heavy construction does make them very resistant to damage, even deliberate explosive demolition would require some time.

A temporary solution may be needed, either to improve or replace existing damaged facilities.

Ship Interface – RORO Linkspan or Ramp

RORO ships have ramps that drop down onto the quayside or dedicated linkspan. Some ports that have a high tidal range may need arrangements that allow ships to load and unload regardless of the tide. RORO ships also have different configurations as shown below.

[tabs] [tab title=”Side and Quarter Ramp”]

RORO Ramps - Copy[/tab] [tab title=”Slewing and Stern Ramp”]

RORO Ramps[/tab] [/tabs]

These different types of RORO ramps place restrictions on how and where they can be used. Conventional quayside’s are only accessible by quarter, slewing or stern ramps. Those ships with rear ramps cannot make use of the quayside unless they are moored stern in or in the ‘Med moor’ arrangement. The difference in height between the quayside and lowered ramp also places many restrictions on how they can be used.

A typical landing craft will be unable to use a normal quayside and thus require different arrangements.

There are two basic methods to address these issues.

The first is to use a ramp or slipway, this is the simplest and lowest cost and therefore most common for smaller and lower volume ports. They can be of earth or concrete construction and fitted with mooring bollards, fenders and connecting roadways.

[tabs] [tab title=”Concrete Ramp 1″]

Concrete RORO Ramp 1[/tab] [tab title=”Concrete Ramp 2″]

Concrete RORO Ramp 2[/tab] [tab title=”Concrete Ramp 3″]

Concrete RORO Ramp 3[/tab] [tab title=”Concrete Ramp 4″]

Concrete RORO Ramp 4

[/tab] [/tabs]

The other method is to make use of a device called a linkspan. A linkspan is an intermediate device that evens out the different heights of the ships cargo deck/ramp and the quayside.

The mechanical support linkspan uses a mechanical system, usually hydraulic, to raise and lower ramp onto which the RORO ships ramp is landed. The support housing is secured to the seabed using piles. Tidal range and different ship deck heights can be compensated by raising and lowering the deck and the more complex types have multiple ramps for fast loading and unloading of vehicles and foot passengers.

[tabs] [tab title=”Mechanical Linkspan 1″]

Mechnical Linkspan 1[/tab] [tab title=”Mechanical Linkspan 2″]

Mechnical Linkspan 2[/tab] [tab title=”Mechanical Linkspan 3″]

Mechnical Linkspan 4[/tab] [tab title=”Mechanical Linkspan 4″]

Linkspan 4[/tab] [/tabs]

A floating linkspan falls and rises with the tide, the main structure being buoyant. Some ramp height variability can be accommodated using tank ballasting and they are usually of single deck construction, although some multi deck floating linkspan’s are in use. The landing area and tank creates a large water-plane resulting in good resistance to traffic loads.

They comprise two main components, the landing platform (usually incorporating the flotation tank) and connecting roadway.

[tabs] [tab title=”Floating Linkspan 1″]

Linkspan 1[/tab] [tab title=”Floating Linkspan 2″]

Linkspan 2[/tab] [tab title=”Floating Linkspan 3″]

Linkspan 3

[/tab] [tab title=”Floating Linkspan 4″]

Floating Linkspan 5[/tab] [tab title=”Floating Linkspan 5″]

Floating Linkspan 6[/tab] [/tabs]

The requirement for RORO interface comes in two parts.

Linkspan; A deployable linkspan that will enable the UK strategic RORO ships (like many other stern ramp types) to load and unload at a conventional quayside where no linkspan or ramp/slipway exists

Ramp; The ability to quickly create a ramp or slipway for use with stern ramp RORO ships and landing craft using expedient materials.

Cargo Handling

The Point class Strategic RORO vessels are often used for ISO containers in addition to vehicles, sometimes these ISO containers are carried on the same vehicles that will transport them to their destinations but when these vehicles are not available there is an obvious need for some means of transferring the containers from the ship and into the port area where they can either be cross-loaded onto other vehicles, stored, repacked or otherwise handled.

The majority of ISO containers arrive at port on dedicated shipping, they are taken from the container ship cells by large port cranes onto the quayside for handling by straddle carriers or directly onto other container handling vehicles or trucks. Container handling in large dedicated ports is increasingly automated and very efficient.

In the scenario envisaged by this requirement there may be a complete absence of dockside handling equipment so bring your own is the order of the day but it would be impossible to match the container move rates of a dedicated port equipment such as straddle carriers.

The Points also have a fairly sturdy deck crane, capable of lifting 40 tonnes at 25m outreach and their container capacity is also impressive, 668 TEU’s on Mafi trailers. Many general cargo ships also have deck cranes that can offload onto a dockside without port infrastructure.

For those non RORO ships without cranes, some means of offloading containers and break bulk cargo will be required. These would allow a rapid turn ship around, the key to throughput rates.

Container handling within the port area is another critical requirement.

Aids to Navigation

In lieu of channel markers pilot boats can be used but for medium term operations aid to navigation will need to be restored. These can include visual, audio and radio beacons on fixed points and buoys.


If the recovered port is to be used at night or during fog there will need to be some provision for lighting.

Modern ports and harbours have computer controlled lighting systems that are designed to minimise electricity use by coordinating crane and ship movements with the hour of day and season, security sensors and access control. The control circuits are often wireless and able to be reprogrammed remotely, all very clever stuff. However, the type of location envisaged for use with this proposal is unlikely to have this type of high technology solution.

With recent legal judgements any port area that is used for UK personnel will likely need to comply with relevant Health and safety legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Dock Regulations 1988 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. This might not be as onerous as imagined because any equipment on the market will be in compliance with current regulation and BS 12464-2007. Light pollution when operating at night may well impact key ships crew and pilots night vision, it is not sufficient to simply flood an area with light (see what I did there!)

For most applications, where accurate colour rendering is not needed Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium are normally used although LED technology is now making headway in the market. Lighting level requirements vary between 5 and 50 Lux depending on area, working or storage for example need differing levels.

The basic requirement will focus on repair of existing lighting but where none exists a temporary lighting solution will enable continuous operation of the port.

Cargo Storage and Forward Loading

When cargo and vehicles have been offloaded from ships it (obviously) needs to go to the point of need, the point of need usually being outside the boundary of the port. In some instances the stores vehicles will simply be driven off the ship or landing craft and directly onward to beyond the port.

A more likely requirement is for a a static area in which they can be offloaded, stockpiled, organised and selectively loaded on to vehicles for transport forward. For most cargo types this can be no more than a flat free draining area with sufficient load bearing capacity for all terrain forklift trucks, telehandler’s and other material handling equipment.

An existing port will usually be well provisioned with covered warehouse space and refrigerated storage but these might not be in suitable state for use.

Again, the requirement would focus on repair of existing facilities but clearance of rubble and damaged equipment/buildings could create sufficient space for storage. Some modest refrigerated storage would be useful in some circumstances.

Locally Employed Civilians

An existing port will have existing port workers and these are a valuable resource in most scenarios. Provision for employing, organising and paying these civilians for the duration of the operation will need an administrative capability and the ability to pay either in cash or other commodities of value.

Power and Fuel Storage & Dispensing

Electrical power is the the lifeblood of port operations and in the absence of grid power it will need to be generated locally. Fuel for vehicles and generators is also an obvious requirement. Portable generators, bunded fuel tanks, collapsible pipeline and dispensing equipment will all be needed to sustain port operations.

Beyond basic operation of the port and its facilities, additional fuel storage and dispensing facilities will support other operations, the fundamental reason for opening the port in the first place.

Timings, Transport and Tonnage


Timings form an important part of the requirement set but they should not be arbitrary and be flexible enough to accommodate the hugely different range of scenarios in which the port rehabilitation and augmentation capability might be used.

In a peace time build up before operations commence, the urgency and need for many of the requirements simply not needed.

In the Kuwaiti port augmentation prior to operations in Iraq and 2003 there was no port damage, no mines and in reality, no massive need for urgency. The task was simply to augment and existing port. Haiti was completely different, the port had been destroyed and needed repair in very short order but there were no mines or explosive ordnance that needed to be cleared. Umm Qasr in 2003 was a degraded port with a significant amount of mine clearance activity needed but although it was time important, it wasn’t time critical.

Across the span of these three examples the timing requirement could be set from ‘yesterday’ to ‘in your own time’

There are many parts of the requirement whose width may be somewhat elastic, a single unexploded mortar bomb or a harbour and approach channel full of mines for example.

One aspect that can have an achievable time requirement is notice to move for the survey team and in this regard, 5 minutes is too long although 12 hours may be more sustainable! For a small survey team in the grand scale of defence capabilities this should not be achievable or disproportionate.

In a non deliberate deployment, all other capabilities should be held at 48-72 hours notice to move, by which time the survey team should be in theatre and reaching back to the planning cell in the UK with their initial findings. Provisional loading onto transport may be possible prior to the full requirement set being fully known (depending on availability of that transport) to claw back some time.


Generally speaking, the usual mode of transport will be ships but deployment by air and road, or combinations of the three may well be required.

Quality information about the current state of the port and surrounding area will be priceless and critical to success in an unplanned deployment scenario. It is here that time is of the essence and this logically dictates certain modes of transport. These modes of transport impose size and weight limitations on equipment.

The survey team equipment must be air portable.

Considering the most likely disaster response scenarios transport to the target port will involve multiple legs by road and air and in the interests of speed, the equipment and personnel might not always be able to utilise their own means of transport. Practically speaking, this places a size constraint on all equipment of the 20ft intermodal container. These may also be broken down into Bicons, Tricons and Quadcons where they can be combined into a single 20 ft intermodal container size.

There may also be a requirement to utilise helicopter transport in the final leg, again, there are practical size and weight limitations imposed by the normally available and common helicopter types in service. Merlin/NH90/Mil 17 top out at around 4-5 tonne sling load and the Chinook, 10 tonnes. A decision on helicopter load constraints would see a choice being made between common medium helicopters and the less common Chinook.

Most survey equipment is relatively lightweight and able to be boxed and palletised, keeping pallet bundles under 4 tonnes should not be a significant challenge. It gets difficult however when we consider survey boats but if inflatable systems are used the weight and size constraints may be met.

EOD systems must specifically comply with low magnetic aspects of STANAG 2895. Because the survey and EOD tasks utilise many common systems the logical extension is fold both into the same requirement.

Therefore, for systems meeting the survey and EOD requirement in the initial stages of a port rehabilitation and/or augmentation operation, they must be able to be broken down into 4 tonnes loads that collectively, occupy a space no larger than a 20ft intermodal container.

All other equipment must be transportable by road

For all the other requirements, low weight and small dimensions are desirable but as a minimum, no component part shall be larger than able to be transported by road. It is also desirable that key individual items may be air transportable by A400M and C17.

Besides road and rail, the LCU Mk10 and Mexeflote may be key to initial equipment deployments and so that equipment must be considered during specification. The A400M and V17 are also obvious considerations.


Tonnage is a misleading name for a requirement, throughput is a better description. The main requirement for port repair and augmentation is to increase the ability of that port to handle more cargo than it either normally does or can currently. More cargo might mean specific types of cargo, explosives or vehicles for example.

Or, it might mean containers.



Table of Contents


Case Studies

The Normandy Landings

The San Carlos Landings

Umm Qasr


Current Capabilities

UK amphibious Doctrine


Mine Countermeasures

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)

Amphibious Assault and Logistics

US Amphibious Logistics

Making a Case for Change

Increment 1


Survey and Initial Operations

Repairing and Augmenting the Port

A Summary and Final Thoughts on Increment 1

Increment 2


Existing Solutions and Studies



Shore Connector

Wave Attenuation

Closing Comments

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x