Challenge :Create the best disaster relief force.

I don't think having a carrier is completely necessary. It would take the "relief carrier group" days, if not weeks to reach the stricken area, in addition it would be difficult to restock once it arrives at its destination, although it would make a very convenient floating helo-pad/command and control center. It would be very cool, but if we are looking to make the most out of a budget, they could be skipped.

How about a dedicated base with a runway. The US contribution could be to turn over an old USAF base. Plattsburgh AB would fit the bill nicely in my opinion, plenty of land, and access to the Atlantic by the Erie Canal and St. Laurence Seaway to boot!

On this base you would maintain four or five "regiments" of relief workers, divided between doctors, nurses, military engineers, infantrymen, police (former MPs if possible and of course a few chaplains from the world's major religions. Officers with experience in procurement and logistics would also be vital. You might even want to throw in a few lawyers if the relief force is going to be operating in a more civilized part of the world, as outside the Third World work tends to get bogged down in paperwork instead of mud.

Each regiment should be equipped with all terrain vehicles, satellite-linked communications, and the equipment to set up a field hospital within 48 hours of arrival. That is going to involve tents, cots, and of course portable power generators. A solar panel or two would not be bad for a photo op, but for real electrical generation diesel generators cannot be surpassed.

As for getting to the disaster area, I really do not think that you could do much better than a dozen C-130s, or even C-47s. They can carry a good payload, and have the capacity to transport disassembled vehicles and even helicopters. Furthermore, they can land on the most primitive runways likely to be encountered. It does not hurt either than they rather simple machines compared to more modern aircraft, and could be as easily serviced overseas as at home.

The transport aircraft could move our relief force within a reasonable distance of probably 5/6 the inhabited areas on earth. For the truly inaccessible a complement of two dozen Chinooks. They have great lift capability, and can fit disassembled into a C-130, and probably a C-47 as well. After being unloaded at the nearest airport, the Chinooks could transport the relief regiments to their destination, as well as the necessary supplies, most likely by shipping crates.

Bulldozers, tractors and trucks would probably be best acquired near the scene of the disaster. It would be absurdly difficult to airlift them, the cost in fuel would probably just about equal the cost of renting them on the ground.

Did I miss anything?
 
As for getting to the disaster area, I really do not think that you could do much better than a dozen C-130s, or even C-47s.
C-47s are a terrible idea, no rear-loading capability and a payload of under 3 tons, unless you were meaning CH-47s (all helicopters in US service have an 'H' after their role-designation), and even then, they've got barely more than half the payload capacity of C-130.

They can carry a good payload, and have the capacity to transport disassembled vehicles and even helicopters.
Wouldn't it be better to deliver the vehicles complete?

Bulldozers, tractors and trucks would probably be best acquired near the scene of the disaster. It would be absurdly difficult to airlift them, the cost in fuel would probably just about equal the cost of renting them on the ground.
If there even are any such vehicles near the scene they'll probably be half-buried in rubble, so the ability to move and drop them will be essential.
 
C-47s are a terrible idea, no rear-loading capability and a payload of under 3 tons, unless you were meaning CH-47s (all helicopters in US service have an 'H' after their role-designation), and even then, they've got barely more than half the payload capacity of C-130.

I actually did mean the old C-47. Not as a substitute for the C-130, mind you, as an air transport. It would be more suited to transporting people than equipment, and it may not be the fastest or most fuel efficient craft, but they have a marvelous capacity to land on anything better than a dirt road, in addition to being durable and easily repaired.

They would be less costly to repair between operations, and would require less extensive overhauls when damaged. In older aircraft the mechanical systems are far less integrated, meaning that you can actually repair what has broken without having to take the entire system apart.

Wouldn't it be better to deliver the vehicles complete?

Of course it would. However, it would take up far more valuable space to send over vehicles fully assembled. It would be more efficient to have trained personal on site to assemble them.

If there even are any such vehicles near the scene they'll probably be half-buried in rubble, so the ability to move and drop them will be essential.

True. But the cost of flying trucks and heavy equipment is absurd. And if the damage is so bad that planes cannot even land, then it is a moot point. Whether they are flown in, or purchased nearer to the site of the disaster, the trucks would still have to be airlifted in by CH-47 Chinooks from the staging area.

If our relief force is going to be based on one continent or island (an assumption I am making here) then buying any indigenous truck so long as it happens to be on the same continent is more cost efficient. The only time this would not be feasible would be with the smaller and/or remote islands. In that case, the trucks and the like would have to be sealifted, but such cases would be rather rare.

Here is an example: an earthquake devastates Mali, and the ancient city of Timbuktu is in ruins. Our relief force is going go spend far less money buying up every heavy vehicle it can find in Dakar and moving them into Mali overland than it would if it had to book an entire C-130 for every pair of tractors or four trucks. In any case, excepting the islands again, an overland logistics route has to be established in any case for any sustained effort.
 
Of course it would. However, it would take up far more valuable space to send over vehicles fully assembled. It would be more efficient to have trained personal on site to assemble them.
But more time-consuming as well.

True. But the cost of flying trucks and heavy equipment is absurd. And if the damage is so bad that planes cannot even land, then it is a moot point.
Low-Velocity Airdrops would work well enough probably (they certainly did for M-155 tanks). the only issue with airdrops is if your disaster is in a place where

Whether they are flown in, or purchased nearer to the site of the disaster, the trucks would still have to be airlifted in by CH-47 Chinooks from the staging area.
If they're flown in you can drop them from the back of a C-130 without even having to land. Also a CH-47 has a lift capacity of about 12 1/2 tons, much less than the C-130.

If our relief force is going to be based on one continent or island (an assumption I am making here) then buying any indigenous truck so long as it happens to be on the same continent is more cost efficient.
But if its more than a few hundred kms, you'll still want to look for faster ways of getting there.

Here is an example: an earthquake devastates Mali, and the ancient city of Timbuktu is in ruins. Our relief force is going go spend far less money buying up every heavy vehicle it can find in Dakar and moving them into Mali overland than it would if it had to book an entire C-130 for every pair of tractors or four trucks. In any case, excepting the islands again, an overland logistics route has to be established in any case for any sustained effort.
Dakar to Timbuktu is about 1750 km as the crow flies. Assuming you can make a constant speed of 20 km/h and are travelling 10 hours per day, it's still going to take you more than a week to get there. A much faster option would be to airlift it from Dakar to Niamey (Niger), truck it to Gao (Mali), and then let it go from there, at which point you've cut your journey from about 1750 km to below 700 km, and so your time to arrival from about nine days to about four.
 
Hm.... Will they be like the UN where they are only invited to nations? Since that's a lot of time lost, or at worst case the regime in charge refuses help or denies the disaster. Will they get their own passports? What degree of cooperation will they have with major militaries that sometimes also engage in disaster relief?

They probably will have to have interpreters, preferably non-western ones to soothe "sensibilities". Shouldn't be a problem getting local recruits once they get the ball rolling.

Here's a rough sketch of most likely areas.
li_natural_disasters_map.jpg


Propositioned equipment should be stationed in South Africa, Azores ,St.Helena, and somewhere in the South Pacific if possible. It should cover most events. The Caribbean has the United States to its north so no worries there.
 
Last edited:
Bring in the air droppable bulldozers/frontend loaders, dump trucks operators and support people in to open an airstrip. You could then start flying in medical/sanitation/security people and food into the area until your heavy equipment catches up to get something started on the ground. The first 24 hours are when you need the help the most. waiting 4 days to get things there is to long of a time in a disaster the people need the help as soon as you can get there. Using Timbuktu as an example that is in the Sahara, imgine having housing, food and water unavailable for 4 days or more while you wait for equipment to get there, you need boots on the ground with their stuff to get working.
What I was thinking with the gliders is they are able to be self contained for medical, communications and support and can be repurposed after you leave. Strip the wings and tails off of the CG20 and bring them out and leave the rest for long term support.
 
Once you have a viable air-strip though, you can start air-evacuating the medical cases, I mean a C-130 can take 74 litters (I presume they meant stretchers) at a time. Besides, a glider with any payload is going to be huge (the Me 323 could carry only 10-12 tons of cargo for only 800 miles, and yet had a bigger wingspan than the C-130). Really, gliders just aren't that useful any more.
 
First, can it be a REAL disaster relief force, and there may not be political-tactical etc interests.. meddling? Not a tool for some nations to act up and gain interest, AT LEAST not biaised neutral? it would be better.

Since you're talking about taking swift action in the territory of sovereign nations worldwide...probably not.

If the team is going to do any sort of peacekeeping operations, not just natural disaster relief--most certainly not.

Plus who's going to fund this, if not a nation-state or consortium of nation-states? Sounds like more than an eccentric billionaire or benevolent corporation could fund. Anyway, *whoever* funds this, they are going to have other concerns, which will influence their funding decisions.
 
The older Lego Res Q sets would be right up your ally when it comes to well-equipped and highly competent DRFs. :D Seriously, these guys had privately-owned cargo hovercraft for amphibious landings, carrying excavators and cranes with all sorts of wicked accessories (incl. chainsaws as basic equipment) for cleaning up a mess or rescuing people. IIRC, the choppers were pretty awesome too. :D

Well, to answer your question, it depends what you want the DRF to focus on and whether you are willing to put it under the crushing restraints of current everyday reality.
 
Nice cheap floating bases ? Use converted / old oil tankers. Lots of room, space to put a flightdeck on top. Use containers for storage / hangars. Cheap enough to put some in the main problem areas.

Helos - CH-53E or Mil-26 Halo if you want max lift. Air transports - C-17A, C-130, and whatever smaller twin-props you prefer. The big planes can't get into many planes after a quake. Some of the smaller planes also come in floatplane versions.

For planes away from the coast, use C-5 or An-124 planes for the long distance, and the mentioned C-130 / C-17A for local.

Perhaps have some of those big 18-wheel trucks / trailers with gear / supplies pre-positioned in places, far enough from the quake / flood, but near enough to drive in 2 or 3 days.

We're looking mainly Carribean / Pacific / Africa here. Deep inside China is simply too far for sea help, and China has the heavy resources itself.

Basically, do everything like the USMC / UN / major NGO's do it. They've got the decades of experience, and just use their best ideas.


Regards,
Gerard
 
Top