Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Gaza pier breaks up 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

GregLocock

Automotive
Apr 10, 2001
23,766

They claim it was a "severe" storm. But, this storm didn't make the news.

The US military said it has suspended use of its temporary pier off the coast of Gaza because it was damaged during severe storms, the latest setback in the US effort to deliver humanitarian aid by sea to the embattled enclave.

It will take at least a week for the US to repair the pier after part of its causeway broke off the Gazan shore, the Pentagon said Tuesday. The US military said it would move the pier from the Gaza coast to the Israeli port of Ashdod to conduct those repairs.

The $320 million effort – involving 1,000 US military personnel – was operational for less than two weeks before Tuesday’s shutdown.


Here's wave height in the med, have a play.
Late edit here's a much better site. It looks like the 25th was a sea state 4

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
This dock system is intended for sheltered harbors and is at its limit at sea state 3, that is, 2 foot high waves and limited wind; the Mediterranean has been at or above 3 foot waves.

It was chosen because it does not require a beach-side force, a response to the problem when the demand is that no US troops touch soil in Gaza. There are far better/more resilient systems available but they require putting a landing force on the beach.

The parts are essentially fine; they need to be repaired and towed back to their position.

 
Put it back, and it will happen again. Just acknowledge that taking stuff ashore requires manpower ashore. Use LST's or the modern equivalent
 
Apparently Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore, or JLOTS, pier, which seems to cover the entire operation; getting exact components from reports? I'm looking at hundreds of pages of acronyms.

I did find this:

The most difficult operating situation is in heavy weather when wave height,
length, and period along with accompanying ground swell are classified as greater than sea state
2. JLOTS operations cease or are severely limited in conditions above sea state 2 plus.

from (281 pages, sigh.)
 
I've always said that acronyms are used to exclude, not inform.

Anyways, it's not clear whether Fog Bow is running this Blue Beach operation or a parallel operation in the same location.

I see they're using one of the C8 LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) ships built in the early 70's.
 
See CHAPTER IV of the previously linked document.
 
OK, got a better website for sea conditions sea state 4, waves to 1.6 m at the weekend.

And was this predictable?

Previous year's wave heights in May

image_2024-05-29_143514919_i6aic3.png


Every year SS4 was reached.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
UGH. Just reading a few pages of that JLOTS doc and I want to puke. If this is a typical doc, and no reason to think it isn’t, then our military has devolved into a mess of goobledy-gook babbling nonsense where no one is apparently responsible or accountable nor capable.

How the **** did we sprnd $320M on this fiasco without one sane person in the chain of command standing up and stating, “this is the stupidest idea since ____, and it won’t work as a simple 3 ft sea state will blow it to pieces”. Dear god they must be ROTFL in Beijing.
 
3DDave, Chapter 4 did not clarify anything about why a private firm consisting of hedge fund managers and ex-CIA agents called FogBow is running the surprisingly expensive operation.
 
The glossary and, terms and conditions sections are clear . . .
 
"... a person familiar with the plan told the BBC that the Fogbow operation - known internally as Blue Beach Plan - is primarily to organise the movement of aid after it arrives on the Gaza shore."


Here's the real problem -

"Fogbow is led by retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Sam Mundy and Mick Mulroy, a former Pentagon and CIA official and now an ABC News contributor, as well as by Chris Hylslop, a retired United Nations humanitarian official."

Obviously a communist plot by ABC and Disney to get their dirty liberal hands on Gaza; probably to turn them all gay.

Other than that, has Alex Jones got any other information vital to this mission?

It is a stupid plan. There are other methods that would be faster than waiting for the Palestinians to starve to death over the coming months. Maybe take the hint from Syria and handling their problems. <-this is dark sarcasm

Beijing is watching the Russians getting their teeth kicked in with only a tiny fragment of US support and are likely thinking about how far their sailors will have to swim if they make a try on Taiwan. What might concern them is their fake islands have been sinking and how difficult it is to rebuild a pile of sand after they have built military bases on them. They also build entire cities the same way. They have problems of their own and little patience for squabbles between essentially pagan religious groups.
 
I don't understand why everyone assumes these are communist plots to turn populations gay. More likely, it's low quality individuals with governments connections or access to grants taking advantage of these situations and swindling us all. If you want to go there, I wonder how many Fog Bows are on that letter of 51 intelligence officers?
 
Learning from the past isn't the problem. Being straight-jacketed by directly opposed political participants in the face of a humanitarian crisis is the problem.

The US trying to send food and medical care to people displaced by the bombs the US pays for is the root of the issue.
 
If famine is truly the threat, maybe someone needs to develop a nutritional slurry that can be pumped to shore. Much less risk of weapons beings hidden in the slurry vs. boxes on trucks.

Minimizing the impact of war on the enemy sounds like a great way to ensure that the war becomes endless. Has anybody noticed that the more precise our weapons become the longer the wars last?
 
So, the Syrian option? Will that reach the leaders of Hamas residing in Qatar and Tehran?
 
I guess that is the real question, if Hamas is the enemy why are we not targeting their leaders?

But the other question is, who are these companies with zero capital and short history getting hundreds of million dollar projects with zero expectation of success and no repercussions for failure?
 
Let's keep this forum focused on ENGINEERING please.

There are plenty of posts and forums for people's views on the politics of this.

But Tug does raise an interesting point out who is supplying these clearly inadequate floating piers. For a large sum of money....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor