Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Navy Grows Land Forces

With the Army and Marine Corps stretched to breaking in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy is scrambling for ways to contribute more to inland fights. One result is a new river boat squadron, second of its type, stood up two weeks ago. Riverine Squadron Two and its sister, Ron One, are part of Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, which gathers all the Navy's coastal and land forces under one banner and adds brand new capabilities.

NECC -- based alongside patrol boats (pics!) and amphibious ships at Little Creek, Virginia -- includes construction battalions, logistics troops, harbor patrol units, ordnance disposal teams and the new riverine squadrons, and is the subject of a story in the current issue of Defense Technology International.

"It was definitely the ongoing war that created the idea," says Captain Robert McKenna, NECC's 44-year-old training officer. "We realized that the Army and Marine Corps were nearing capacity and that there was more to be done. We were looking for ways for the Navy to contribute more. Then we started looking out and said, the Navy really is contributing. And the sailors contributing the most in theater are the ones wearing this uniform."

He gestures to his green and brown fatigues, the same ones worn by the Navy's 16,000 Seabees, 3,000 port cargo handlers and hundreds of Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts -- all of whom have been busy abroad in recent years. "They had no type command that took care of their Title X functions: training, equipping, manning."

"We saw a need to put them into a coherent structure and better equip them," adds NECC commander Rear Admiral Donald Bullard, 55. "And then, all of the sudden, we began to look at other capabilities" including Navy civil affairs and riverine.

Riverine forces in nimble, heavily-armed boats played a huge role in the Vietnam War, but were run down after the evacuation of that country as the Navy shifted focus on deterring the Soviet Navy. In Iraq, a country crisscrossed by large rivers, canals and marshes, the U.S. and British militaries (pictured) found themselves chasing down waterborne smugglers and insurgents in jerry-rigged engineer boats until specialized forces could be reconstituted.

The U.S. Marines sent its new boats to patrol Haditha Dam, a major power-generating station in western Iraq, but wasn't happy diverting money and resources to a mission that once belonged to the Navy. By 2005, the Corps was ready to divest itself of the riverine mission. Then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark sensed this.

"Admiral Clark asked, Marines how can I help?" explains Lieutenant Commander Mike Egan, 44-year-old commander of Riverine Squadron One. "One of the ways was, hey, this riverine mission thing. That was the impetus that got the whole riverine thing rolling.”

NECC will have three squadrons, each with 224 sailors and, eventually, a combination of 39-foot Small Unit Riverine Craft, built by Raytheon, and smaller Special Operations Craft-Riverine, built by United States Marine. “The goal is to get 16 boats per squadron," says Ron One's Lieutenant Chris Cowart, 40. The total includes eight SURCs and at least four SOC-Rs. "The balance could be either."

Until enough boats are manufactured, the Navy is borrowing SURCs from the Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for training and plans to fall in on the Corps' boats at Haditha Dam when it first deploys a squadron to Iraq in 2007. Their mission in Iraq will be much like the Marines', patrolling waterways, landing Marines and Masters at Arms for raids or riverbank security, searching small boats to interdict insurgents and illegal weapons.

While the missions and platforms are the same, the Navy is adding high-tech capabilities to its riverine squadrons that the Marines have lacked. In addition to the usual bank of radios, Navy SURCs will feature digital network terminals in order to plug into the Army's command and control architecture. And, according to Lieutenant Christopher Farricker from Riverine Group One, the Navy is shopping for a small UAV that can boost a four-boat patrol's situational awareness. The idea, he says, is to get that "bird's eye view and give it back to the boat operator." The service hasn't down-selected types yet.

--David Axe, cross-posted at War Is Boring

Comments

nike shoes,men's nike shoes,women's nike shoes,
nike football shoes,nike shox shoes, men's nike shox, women's nike shox, nike airmax shoes, nike airmax 180, nike airmax 2003, nike airmax 2009, nike airmax 360, nike airmax 87, nike airmax 88, nike airmax 89, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 91, nike airmax 90, nike airmax 95, nike airmax 97, nike airmax tn, nike air stab shoes, nike air yeezy shoes, nike airmax ltd, Air Jordan 1 , Air Jordan 10 , Air Jordan 11 , Air Jordan 11.5, Air Jordan 12 , Air Jordan 13, Air Jordan 14 , Air Jordan 15.5, Air Jordan 16, Air Jordan 17, Air Jordan 18, Air Jordan 19, Air Jordan 2.5, Air Jordan 20+AF1, Air Jordan 23, Air Jordan 24,Air Jordan 25, Air Jordan 3, Air Jordan 4, Air Jordan 4.5+13 Fusion,Air Jordan 5, Air Jordan 6, Air Jordan 6+AF1 Fusion, Air Jordan 7 , Air Jordan 8 , Air Jordan 9, Air Jordan Embroidery 4.5, Air Jordan Fusion 11+23, Air Jordan Fusion 12, Air Jordan Fusion 23, Air Jordan Fusion 5, Air Jordan Gold, Air Jordan Fusion 9, Air Jordan Six Mixed One, Air Jordan Three Mixed One, Air Jordan+Obama 11.5, Jordan Six Rings+Obama, Air Jordan Six Rings 11, Jordan True Flight

Posted by: any at June 27, 2009 02:38 AM



情趣用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
情趣用品

Posted by: 情趣用品 at September 1, 2008 10:13 AM


徵信社
情趣用品
情趣用品
情趣商品
情趣精品
情趣
情趣
情趣用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
情趣用品
視訊交友
網頁設計
情色論壇
威而柔
自慰套
自慰套
SM
充氣娃娃
潤滑液
飛機杯
按摩棒
跳蛋
性感睡衣
成人視訊

Posted by: 徵信社 at August 7, 2008 02:33 AM


http://geoplaning.com

Posted by: 消費者金融 at June 11, 2008 06:28 PM


http://wocjan.com

Posted by: FX 口座開設 at June 11, 2008 06:27 PM


I think that what they are doing is great for the navy, and why should we think otherwise. They are all on the same side and why should it be just a job for coast guard or army......I support them in everyway possible and hope that they get the job done at gods speed.
Support Riverines as they support our country!!!!!

Posted by: rivrsupport at March 25, 2007 12:48 PM


i think the navy should have never got rid of the riverine force. it's good that they are bringing it back. they should also let Beachmasters crew too.

Posted by: erik at March 17, 2007 11:51 AM


"those mothballed riverine battleships with the rpg cages on them and such" - were but mothballed, but turned over to the Vietnamese Navy. Virtually anything left Stateside is either a razor blade or a safe haven reef. ONE of the "battleships" is part of a Brown Water Navy memorial in Coronado, CA

Posted by: GG at February 20, 2007 01:17 PM


I have to say, this is a great idea, put some Bee's on the boats and let them do the 2nd job they're trained for. After field exercise after field exercise, it's nice to finally do what SeaBee's are trained for. Using Amphibious vessels only makes sense to put the Navy's "land lovers" on it.

Posted by: Andrew Sherman at February 20, 2007 09:42 AM


This mission has to be done, and it's pretty clear that neither the Army nor the Marines want nor need the distraction of keeping armed "holes in the water" afloat, which the Navy has the most experience doing, going back to the Revolutionary War. Defending against attacks from the shore in Iraq will be similar to what it took in Vietnam, and anyone whom has tried to hit a boat/ship moving at any kind of speed on the water will tell you it's just not that easy, especially if the waterway is wider than 100 feet, providing enough maneuvering room. The amount of firepower and ammo that can be carried on even the smallest rigid-hulled boat is a whole lot more than a typical rag-tag group on land only equipped man-served/portable weapons. If you get close enough to accurately target a boat, you're going to be at a severe disadvantage as soon as you fire your first round (which will likely be so much of a miss that it won't even hit the broad side of the boat if your only experience is against Humvees driving down narrow streets). Ask the few Viet Cong still alive after they were stupid enough to shoot at Navy boats what it's like to get .50 caliber, or better, return fire in high quantities from multiple mounts, usually from multiple boats. IEDs are a lot harder to position along waterways against boats than against vehicles on much more constrained roads. Once the waterway is more than a couple of hundred yards wide, range and maneuverability make penetration and targeting just about impossible using man-portable weapons. As for accurately laying mines in water, that's even harder than hitting a moving boat with a gun, especially if the water is moving at any kind of speed, especially if you don't know what you're doing (and the folks in that part of the world are notoriously not very fond of getting out on the water - dhow drivers only do that because they can't figure out how to make a living on land).

As they say, "Go Navy!"

All the Best,
Joe Blow

Posted by: Joe Blow at February 20, 2007 03:06 AM


Wish I did not retire, I would be all over that mission!

Posted by: DanielJRioux at February 19, 2007 11:49 AM


The vessel hides with speed. Even a skilled sniper is going to have real trouble hitting a fast, erratic target on the water at normal sniper engagement range.

Mass AK fire is a problem.

Aircraft hide behind speed as well, but then you have this damn new SAM threat. And the fact that pilots tend to love their schedules. Insurgents love schedules too.

There's no system out there that can survive IED strikes or direct hits from mortars. Even an up-armored humvee will get blown to heck by RPG-7s and 14.7mm.

The thing is, if everyone and their neighbor is throwing ordnance at you, you are not in control of the country. To gain control, you can convince them to stop shooting or you can kill them all. Our forces do not have the resources to do the former, and we can not conscience them doing the latter. And thus things remain.

Posted by: Arcturus at February 18, 2007 04:55 PM


Hey, go for it Navy. Way back when, before SEALS, worked with a UDT team. They did their gig, we did ours. The SeaBees, constuction, did a fantastic job. We were not trained to be carpenters or such. We were trained to demolish things, in a different sort of way.

Semper Fi Navy.

Posted by: H.J. Brewer at February 18, 2007 02:50 PM


These comments are so typical of the uninformed armchair general (or admiral). This is a positive effort by a branch of our armed forces to take the fight to the enemy from another angle. The risks in combat don't change. You come home or you don't, been that way for thousands of years. Waterborne mines are harder to accuratly control than the roadside counterpart. Additionally if the enemy now has to divert resoures to a new threat they will be spread thinner.

Posted by: NVW3Navy at February 18, 2007 12:36 PM


What in the world is he talking about?

Posted by: Mike at February 17, 2007 03:00 PM


SEAL Team Hut ! someone has an interest in brown water recon. draw fire or no fire - geospatial intel collected interfaced with combat information sharing and accessment. some Navy people believe they need to patrol the brown waters. side bar - a whole lot of oil moves thru the straights of hormooz. there was a Japanese WWII design of a slimmed down elongated torpedo bomb to be delivered from flight. the Hoot looks very similar. only the Hoot can be launched from shore mobility , speed boats as well as a submarine. the damn thing has a range of 125 miles. it skims so low - can we say limbo ? over the water at a high speed ( maybe , 240 mph or better.. probably unclassified - better - take ah guess ). sink a few ships in the straights and its blocaded. how all those big wheels will be able to transport their oil is a curiosity. demolition the blcoking tankers out is an option. WWII Imperial Japanese supply lines were hacked off to starve them into submission. could oil suppliers ( 90 percentile ) last without selling their supplies ? is a war really worth it ? do they have due bills to pay ? do they have dependant investments on the sale of their oil ? how long could they last with a shutdown ? could we do better without their supplies ? would it impact the world ecomony ? and how ? would an attack force America to counter strike ? how soon and to what magnitude ? would the battle in the straights of hormooz be worth any of the opposing factions effort ? the greatest meeting of the minds of the world need to rationalise before someone puts the blitz on each other. MONEX has a free DVD on the gold and silver markets. 1 800 804 1933. its th yr of th golden pig. Pax Omnia , Dei Gratia.

Posted by: defen*s/un*intelligence at February 17, 2007 01:18 AM


Sorry I'm not impressed. The Navy is searching for a mission in this "war on terror" and the formation of this new command is it's way of attempting to get a piece of the Army's funding pie. They can't seem to decide between being a brown or blue water force. These missions rightfully belong to either the Army, Coast Guard or the Marine Corps and the Navy is pushing itself into other forces realms of expertise. The argument that the EOD and Seebee crowd didn't have adequate command and control is a lark...Bureaucracy wins again. Talk about preparing for the last war, this takes the cake...

Posted by: Solomon at February 16, 2007 09:57 PM


I think they were all sold to a film crew to shoot attack ads for our last presidential election... My, how history repeats itself.

Posted by: Haninah at February 16, 2007 04:32 PM


Yes I would love to know what they did with those mothballed riverine battleships with the rpg cages on them and such. Why not send those over? Anyone know anything about them?

Posted by: Mike at February 16, 2007 03:54 PM


cripes, no kidding. maybe throw up a really, really big roostertail and then hide behind it?

Posted by: mike at February 16, 2007 01:48 PM


If ground vehicles suffer so much from RPG's, IED's and the lot, then a big patrol boat should be painted with big red letters that say 'shoot here', it's not like nobody will see you come from a hundred miles away.

Better bring those mothballed battleships upriver, because something less resilent (like a PBR) will quickly be renamed to Swiss Cheese.

And i'd rather not be in a small fast boat either: no cover, no armor.. 5 guys in a bush with AK's and some shooting skills will rip it to shreds in no time. And do bring those sniper-detection devices: a guy with a proper sniper rifle can take potshots all day long: where will you hide? Behind the bow wave?

Posted by: Macaca at February 16, 2007 12:29 PM


If we are going to fight insurgency as in Iraq, I hope the boats will have enough armor and active protection system to protect crews from 1)mortar and RPGs 2)IEDs 3)and 14.5mm rounds. In other words, AFV like boats with remote weapon stations that could be controlled from within. Shall we see boats with anti-RPG "cages" any time soon?

Posted by: pedestrian at February 16, 2007 10:44 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.