Flood-Hit Thailand Declines Offer Of Help: US Navy

[bonobo]

The US naval vessels do not have the appropriate equipment for a relief effort. Much of the equipment and supplies such as a mobile water filtration plants and field equipment that are used in foreign relief operations are in the USA. A large part of that inventory was used following the recent large scale flooding and windstorm devastation in some states. This is specialized equipment and has to be reassembled, cleaned and serviced. Yes, there are helicopters attached to the vessels but these are not configured for effficient relief missions. Simply put, the helicopters would have to fly multiple sorties to accomplish what the appropriate equipment would achieve.

I believe the USN was being positioned to show the flag and as a gesture of support. it was also intended to address the need for the evacuation of US nationals. Someone jumped the gun, since the US Secretary fo State did not authorize any relief mission.There has to be an assessment conducted first. Those are the rules. This thread is much ado about a simple miscommunication.

For the sake of fairness, the US government has already positioned personnel in Hong Kong, and Singapore to respond. My understanding is that there is a field assessment team on the ground in Thailand. The EU and Australia have personnel on the ground as well. The USA just doesn't send in its navy for a relief initiative. They do their homework and plan. Then they plan some more. Look at the experience in Haiti. It took over a week for the site and security assessments to be done. By that time, Israel, Canada and France had set up their field hospitals and Canada set up the largest mobile filtration system on the island. If and when foreign equipment and personnel are required, it is highly likely that the US will be first in, but they have to do their prep work first. The USN is not some mighty beast that can just set up for rescue. They need to gear up and be properly equipped. US warships do not take on refugees nor lend their medical facilities to refugees. That is what the hospital ships are used for. Again, in Haiti, the USN deployed a hospital ship and did not use its other vessels for medical relief. To do otherwise breaks the security seal on board a naval vessel.

You are both right and wrong in what you posted above. What you wrote was technically correct, but any US Navy Carrier Group, or any US Navy Amphibious Group, still has immense capabilities, all of which could be used to assist the host government in their actions. I have been on Amphibious Groups which have been diverted on a moment's notice for disaster relief, one being a major flooding situation. We responded as is, and yet the number of sorties was significant. But in those cases, the local governments welcomed any and all assistance.

Once other humanitarian agencies get on scene from other countries, from other US agencies like USAID, and even from other US military resources, the Navy Carrier and Amphibious Groups can leave and get back to their day jobs.

[Buchholz]

The US naval vessels do not have the appropriate equipment for a relief effort. Much of the equipment and supplies such as a mobile water filtration plants and field equipment that are used in foreign relief operations are in the USA. A large part of that inventory was used following the recent large scale flooding and windstorm devastation in some states. This is specialized equipment and has to be reassembled, cleaned and serviced. Yes, there are helicopters attached to the vessels but these are not configured for effficient relief missions. Simply put, the helicopters would have to fly multiple sorties to accomplish what the appropriate equipment would achieve.

I believe the USN was being positioned to show the flag and as a gesture of support. it was also intended to address the need for the evacuation of US nationals. Someone jumped the gun, since the US Secretary fo State did not authorize any relief mission.There has to be an assessment conducted first. Those are the rules. This thread is much ado about a simple miscommunication.

For the sake of fairness, the US government has already positioned personnel in Hong Kong, and Singapore to respond. My understanding is that there is a field assessment team on the ground in Thailand. The EU and Australia have personnel on the ground as well. The USA just doesn't send in its navy for a relief initiative. They do their homework and plan. Then they plan some more. Look at the experience in Haiti. It took over a week for the site and security assessments to be done. By that time, Israel, Canada and France had set up their field hospitals and Canada set up the largest mobile filtration system on the island. If and when foreign equipment and personnel are required, it is highly likely that the US will be first in, but they have to do their prep work first. The USN is not some mighty beast that can just set up for rescue. They need to gear up and be properly equipped. US warships do not take on refugees nor lend their medical facilities to refugees. That is what the hospital ships are used for. Again, in Haiti, the USN deployed a hospital ship and did not use its other vessels for medical relief. To do otherwise breaks the security seal on board a naval vessel.

You are both right and wrong in what you posted above. What you wrote was technically correct, but any US Navy Carrier Group, or any US Navy Amphibious Group, still has immense capabilities, all of which could be used to assist the host government in their actions. I have been on Amphibious Groups which have been diverted on a moment's notice for disaster relief, one being a major flooding situation. We responded as is, and yet the number of sorties was significant. But in those cases, the local governments welcomed any and all assistance.

Once other humanitarian agencies get on scene from other countries, from other US agencies like USAID, and even from other US military resources, the Navy Carrier and Amphibious Groups can leave and get back to their day jobs.

Thank you for your contribution as anyone familiar with an aircraft carrier task force would fully agree.

.

[Scott]

A rather long, but off-topic group of posts concerning the merits of Singapore have been deleted. You were asked by a moderator previously to stay on-topic.

Personally, I wish the Air Craft carrier was here. Whether they are equipped with the right equipment or not, the country is now facing some serious challenges.

Bangkok is a huge city and any concerns about evacuees, relief supplies, health and water will become enormous should things get out of hand.

A lot of people to take care of, if things get bad.

[MaxYakov]

The US naval vessels do not have the appropriate equipment for a relief effort. Much of the equipment and supplies such as a mobile water filtration plants and field equipment that are used in foreign relief operations are in the USA. A large part of that inventory was used following the recent large scale flooding and windstorm devastation in some states. This is specialized equipment and has to be reassembled, cleaned and serviced. Yes, there are helicopters attached to the vessels but these are not configured for effficient relief missions. Simply put, the helicopters would have to fly multiple sorties to accomplish what the appropriate equipment would achieve.

I believe the USN was being positioned to show the flag and as a gesture of support. it was also intended to address the need for the evacuation of US nationals. Someone jumped the gun, since the US Secretary fo State did not authorize any relief mission.There has to be an assessment conducted first. Those are the rules. This thread is much ado about a simple miscommunication.

For the sake of fairness, the US government has already positioned personnel in Hong Kong, and Singapore to respond. My understanding is that there is a field assessment team on the ground in Thailand. The EU and Australia have personnel on the ground as well. The USA just doesn't send in its navy for a relief initiative. They do their homework and plan. Then they plan some more. Look at the experience in Haiti. It took over a week for the site and security assessments to be done. By that time, Israel, Canada and France had set up their field hospitals and Canada set up the largest mobile filtration system on the island. If and when foreign equipment and personnel are required, it is highly likely that the US will be first in, but they have to do their prep work first. The USN is not some mighty beast that can just set up for rescue. They need to gear up and be properly equipped. US warships do not take on refugees nor lend their medical facilities to refugees. That is what the hospital ships are used for. Again, in Haiti, the USN deployed a hospital ship and did not use its other vessels for medical relief. To do otherwise breaks the security seal on board a naval vessel.

You are both right and wrong in what you posted above. What you wrote was technically correct, but any US Navy Carrier Group, or any US Navy Amphibious Group, still has immense capabilities, all of which could be used to assist the host government in their actions. I have been on Amphibious Groups which have been diverted on a moment's notice for disaster relief, one being a major flooding situation. We responded as is, and yet the number of sorties was significant. But in those cases, the local governments welcomed any and all assistance.

Once other humanitarian agencies get on scene from other countries, from other US agencies like USAID, and even from other US military resources, the Navy Carrier and Amphibious Groups can leave and get back to their day jobs.

Thank you for your contribution as anyone familiar with an aircraft carrier task force would fully agree.

.

I think we can safely say that USN Captain Bruce H. Lindsey is familiar with an aircraft carrier task force - NAVY.mil Article about the USS Carl Vinson and Haiti earthquake relief in 2010.

Carl Vinson commanding officer Capt. Bruce H. Lindsey said, "When tasked to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations in Haiti, we immediately headed to Mayport, Fla., at more than 30 knots and loaded 19 helicopters, personnel and support equipment from five different East Coast Navy squadrons in less than eight hours. There is no other platform that can do all of that so quickly."

Edited November 3, 2011 by MaxYakov

[Buchholz]

The US naval vessels do not have the appropriate equipment for a relief effort. Much of the equipment and supplies such as a mobile water filtration plants and field equipment that are used in foreign relief operations are in the USA. A large part of that inventory was used following the recent large scale flooding and windstorm devastation in some states. This is specialized equipment and has to be reassembled, cleaned and serviced. Yes, there are helicopters attached to the vessels but these are not configured for effficient relief missions. Simply put, the helicopters would have to fly multiple sorties to accomplish what the appropriate equipment would achieve.

I believe the USN was being positioned to show the flag and as a gesture of support. it was also intended to address the need for the evacuation of US nationals. Someone jumped the gun, since the US Secretary fo State did not authorize any relief mission.There has to be an assessment conducted first. Those are the rules. This thread is much ado about a simple miscommunication.

For the sake of fairness, the US government has already positioned personnel in Hong Kong, and Singapore to respond. My understanding is that there is a field assessment team on the ground in Thailand. The EU and Australia have personnel on the ground as well. The USA just doesn't send in its navy for a relief initiative. They do their homework and plan. Then they plan some more. Look at the experience in Haiti. It took over a week for the site and security assessments to be done. By that time, Israel, Canada and France had set up their field hospitals and Canada set up the largest mobile filtration system on the island. If and when foreign equipment and personnel are required, it is highly likely that the US will be first in, but they have to do their prep work first. The USN is not some mighty beast that can just set up for rescue. They need to gear up and be properly equipped. US warships do not take on refugees nor lend their medical facilities to refugees. That is what the hospital ships are used for. Again, in Haiti, the USN deployed a hospital ship and did not use its other vessels for medical relief. To do otherwise breaks the security seal on board a naval vessel.

You are both right and wrong in what you posted above. What you wrote was technically correct, but any US Navy Carrier Group, or any US Navy Amphibious Group, still has immense capabilities, all of which could be used to assist the host government in their actions. I have been on Amphibious Groups which have been diverted on a moment's notice for disaster relief, one being a major flooding situation. We responded as is, and yet the number of sorties was significant. But in those cases, the local governments welcomed any and all assistance.

Once other humanitarian agencies get on scene from other countries, from other US agencies like USAID, and even from other US military resources, the Navy Carrier and Amphibious Groups can leave and get back to their day jobs.

Thank you for your contribution as anyone familiar with an aircraft carrier task force would fully agree.

.

I think we can safely say that USN Captain Bruce H. Lindsey is familiar with an aircraft carrier task force - NAVY.mil Article about the USS Carl Vinson and Haiti earthquake relief in 2010.

quote NAVY.mil article re USS Carl Vinson Haiti relief effort dated 1/15/2010 :

Carl Vinson commanding officer Capt. Bruce H. Lindsey said, "When tasked to support humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations in Haiti, we immediately headed to Mayport, Fla., at more than 30 knots and loaded 19 helicopters, personnel and support equipment from five different East Coast Navy squadrons in less than eight hours. There is no other platform that can do all of that so quickly."

unquote

I agree with Captain Lindsey.

It was obviously the right choice in that situation to make a relatively quick jaunt in order to pick up even more supplies from plentiful depots in CONUS than they already had onboard. It's a noteworthy difference than that of USS George Washington's involvement with Thailand.

btw, good to see he continues with the standard disclosure line of, "more than 30 knots"

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[MaxYakov]

I agree with Captain Lindsey.

It was obviously the right choice in that situation to make a relatively quick jaunt in order to pick up even more supplies from plentiful depots in CONUS than they already had onboard. It's a noteworthy difference than that of USS George Washington's involvement with Thailand.

btw, good to see he continues with the standard disclosure line of, "more than 30 knots"

Do you think there is a remote possibility that his use of the 'standard disclosure line' had anything to do with the potential of his being Relieved of Command for displaying 'an exceptional lack of judgment' otherwise?

[Buchholz]

I agree with Captain Lindsey.

It was obviously the right choice in that situation to make a relatively quick jaunt in order to pick up even more supplies from plentiful depots in CONUS than they already had onboard. It's a noteworthy difference than that of USS George Washington's involvement with Thailand.

btw, good to see he continues with the standard disclosure line of, "more than 30 knots"

Do you think there is a remote possibility that his use of the 'standard disclosure line' had anything to do with the potential of his being Relieved of Command for displaying 'an exceptional lack of judgment' otherwise?

I think Captain Lindsey's use of the standard disclosure line has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons that Captain Honors was relieved of command.

My initial remark was made solely to notate that the standard disclosure line has remained unchanged since I was in the Navy.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[Markaew]

A rather long, but off-topic group of posts concerning the merits of Singapore have been deleted. You were asked by a moderator previously to stay on-topic.

Personally, I wish the Air Craft carrier was here. Whether they are equipped with the right equipment or not, the country is now facing some serious challenges.

Bangkok is a huge city and any concerns about evacuees, relief supplies, health and water will become enormous should things get out of hand.

A lot of people to take care of, if things get bad.

"IF things get bad". How many people would you say have to die before it gets bad?

Edited November 4, 2011 by Markaew

[cloudhopper]

Defence Minister Yutthasak:30% of military vehicles damaged by flood water so availability for transport in flooded areas will decline/TAN_Network

[animatic]

Defence Minister Yutthasak:30% of military vehicles damaged by flood water so availability for transport in flooded areas will decline/TAN_Network

More organizational magnificence.

[siampolee]

Thailand is being run by a self serving government of xenophobic inept fools. F.R.O.C. can't keep themselves safe, the military can't be used as no state of emergency can be declared . 30% of its vehicles are damaged.

Well what a wonderful judgement on a " we paid to get in government and all its nepotism.''

Edited November 6, 2011 by siampolee

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

When I read the news report about the DM claiming 30% of the military's vehicles had been damaged by flood water, all I could think about was... Ohh boy.... another procurement bonanza for the military...

The Navy folks want their submarines... So now it's the Army's turn...