Comments on: Designing The Next Hospital Ship: Lessons From Haiti

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:47:13 +0000

leesea has given a very good description of what I would expect for the next gen capabilities for a hospital ship. Also, correct, on not using LPD 17 as a basis. LPD 17 has a number of undesirable features. For one, it’s armed — that is why it fails convention requirements. It was also designed to have a low radar cross section — not a feature that is needed in a hospital ship. It is important to remember that when we speak of LPD type capabilities we are not referring to a particular class of ships (San Antonio).

One other fact about hospital ships that should be emphasized — they can not be dependent upon local infrastructure. This factor is invaluable in their operations. In fact, the more dependent they are the less capable of making a difference.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:30:47 +0000

Buy up one or more old cruise ships, convert them into hospital ships.

A) They are often designed to stop at undeveloped areas; last I heard, in fact, they were still stopping by in Haiti.

B) They are designed, by definition, with human habitation in mind. Passenger rooms can be converted to hospital rooms. Storerooms for luxury items can be used to store medical supplies. Amenities that aren’t convertible to use healing people can be converted into ORs and other specialized rooms–on top of the medical facilities that are already available for passenger and crew care.

C) Between construction of new ships and a slowdown of the cruise industry, you can probably pick up some sweet deals.

By: TEJ

TEJ — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:27:14 +0000

Is this the high water mark for War & Health / Conflict Health comments? Reminds me of Information Dissemination’s ‘Design your own fleet’ thread. Lotsa fun, let’s do another soon!

By: Trevor Pyle

Trevor Pyle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:39:05 +0000

I know this may sound like overkill, but would it make sense to convert one of the old fossil-fueled carriers into a hospital ship? I think the Kitty hawk is still in pretty good shape, you could put a lot of hospital beds on that hangar deck… Just an idea.

By: Christopher Albon

Christopher Albon — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:42:32 +0000

Hi Lee,

I have seen nothing in the Geneva convention regarding hospital ships as to ban basing a hospital ship on a warship design (there are other good reasons, like cost, but that is a different point). I’d love to hear where you think the convention bans such practice.

Cheers

Chris

By: leesea

leesea — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:32:03 +0000

there is absolutely NO reason to base a hosptial ship replacement on ANY warship design and certainly not the ridiculously expensive LPD17 class. Hospital ships are naval auxilaries not warshhips. Go read the Geneva convention on hospital ships.

By: leesea

leesea — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:30:07 +0000

Multi-Mission Support Ship Concept:
There is an apparent need for ships to support several missions falling in between the sealift transport and fleet auxiliary ship types. The missions that such ships could perform include: humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, Station Ship, or forward afloat logistics support (to include LCS support). These ships can supplant or augment the large wet well amphibious assault ships or big hospital ships which are often used for such missions currently. They should be called “handy size” multi-mission support ships. I believe that civilian mariners can quite adequately crew them.
Proposal: The US Navy can acquire this type of ship economically by converting existing ships. There are two partially converted T-LKAs, the ex-USNS El Paso and ex-USNS Mobile in NISMF at Philadelphia which are possible platforms for the T-MSS concept. Estimated cost to finish the El Paso is $35 million while the Mobile may cost as much as $50 million.

Ship requirements: Based on current mission descriptions and prior knowledge of prepositioning ships, the following functions appear needed necessary across several support missions:
- A large superstructure to provide messing and berthing spaces not only for the ships’ crew, but also for embarked military teams and NGOs.
- A significant organic medical treatment facility (MTF) with employment ashore by carrying additional emergency modular facilities (EMF).
- A large helo facility including hanger space for operation and maintenance of at least two H-60 type helicopter with adequate fuel tankage. Flight deck large enough to land up to CH-53/CH-47 helos
- Organic lighterage of at least two LCM-8 type landing craft as well as at least two utility boats for personnel transfer (MPF lighter preferred).
- Organic cargo gear to discharge any cargo and lighters in a seaway.
- Multiple accessible cargo holds to stow reconstruction and relief materials to include SeaBee equipment.
- Convertible cargo spaces suitable for stowing, supporting and accessing Modular Facilities for a medical treatment facility i.e. container cells.
- Additional large capacity water making systems with some equipment to pump ashore.
- Increased auxiliary generator capacity for internal and external power distribution (inport).

By: leesea

leesea — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:27:05 +0000

Cross posted from USNI Blog:
Speaking as someone involved in introducing the TAH19 class to the fleet back in the mid-’80s, I think this is not the right approach. As always one needs to define the actual ship rqmts. So I ask:
What it the world does high speed add to the medical capabilities? They still have to get the ship crewed, the MTF staff assembled, all perishables onboard and the ship fueled before it departs its homeport.
Since when is small a good feature? Go ask the medicos in the Comfort’s MTF if they want a smaller hospital?
How do you justify having 250 to 1000 medical personnel assigned to a hospital in resevre status?
Or maybe you think the small shallow draft hospital ship should sail up the Potomac River?
that was sort of a rant my next post is a more serious proposal

By: Christopher Albon

Christopher Albon — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:41:10 +0000

Hm. The rare valid point from TEJ. :)

Ideas?

By: TEJ

TEJ — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:38:12 +0000

Chris

I know sailors belong on ships and ships belong at sea, but nothing and nobody steams 365 days a year! Every 4 – 6 month deployment will be followed by, say, a 2 – 3 month dockside availablity. Boatswain’s mates will be scraping paint, what will the dental techs be doing? Just to make the point that there’s a lot of doctrine yet to be developed here, though the “If you could build your own . . .” mental exercise is fun.