Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM
From: ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US sealift capability (was: Re: Are A/C Carriers Obsolete?)
Summary: Comment on the ships that are available
Message-ID: <3462@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:31 GMT
References: <3335@cbnews.ATT.COM> <3418@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3418@cbnews.ATT.COM>, ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu writes:
> In article <3335@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbralick%dragonlady@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) writes:
> >Which brings up a point.  What is the status of our merchant marine?
> >I seem to recall (hazily) comments to the effect that our sealift
> >capability is a far cry from what it would have to be to support a
> >protracted conflict.  Comments?
> The US Merchant fleet number ~5000 ships at the end of WWII.  That
> number has since dwindled to ~500 due to foreign competition and a lack
> of the US realization of the necessity for a merchant fleet that is
> US registered.

'Insight' magazine had an article on the state of the merchant marine today.
I don't remember which issue but it was in the last six months or so.
One point mentioned in the article which no one has brought up is that
most cargo ships today are of the 'ro-ro' (sp?)  type.  The cargo is
in containers which attach to semi-trailers and are handled on the ship
:y automated systems.  This makes such a ship pretty close to useless,
according to the article, for such things as military equipment and troops.
I don't recall if any figures were given for how many available ships
were of this type but if this article is accurate 500 ships might be
too optimistic.


[mod. note:  As I'm sure many of you are aware, "ro-ro" is short for
"roll-on, roll-off", the manner in which these ships are loaded and
unloaded. - Bill ]