Cavalry

[Stan]

BBC NEWS | World | US forces to deliver Georgia aid

Now, what I would be interesting in knowing is what kind of ships are likely to be heading to Georgia for this.

Will they have any kind of combat aircraft in the area, can they even send carriers into the Black sea?

This could get very interesting.

[Silent Hunter]

I guess this will mostly be an aircraft job.

[zraver]

I guess this will mostly be an aircraft job.

The US is sending naval forces and has demanded Russia keep the ports open. While a Nimitz class is ideal for relief ops for its ability to make unlimited freshwater. The US will probably send a LHA/LHD with helos and hospital ship and plus prudent escorts. And yes the US navy can get into the black sea as long as Turkey says yes.

[kato]

And yes the US navy can get into the black sea as long as Turkey says yes.

Not with a LHD. Too big. The Montreux Convention is pretty clear on that: no warships of non-Black-Sea-powers above 10,000 tons, except auxiliaries.

Permission "at Turkish discretion" only works if:
a) Turkey is at war (Article 20)
b) Turkey feels in imminent danger of war (Article 21)

Besides which, a LHD/LHA pretty likely would be classified an aircraft carrier under the relevant Second London Naval Treaty. Oh, they could designate one an auxiliary (complete with reregistration), but they would need to remove all armament save for the two Phalanx pretty much. Shore all troops. And add fuel bunkers.

[zraver]

Not with a LHD. Too big. The Montreux Convention is pretty clear on that: no warships of non-Black-Sea-powers above 10,000 tons, except auxiliaries.

Permission "at Turkish discretion" only works if:
a) Turkey is at war (Article 20)
b) Turkey feels in imminent danger of war (Article 21)

Besides which, a LHD/LHA pretty likely would be classified an aircraft carrier under the relevant Second London Naval Treaty. Oh, they could designate one an auxiliary (complete with reregistration), but they would need to remove all armament save for the two Phalanx pretty much. Shore all troops. And add fuel bunkers.

The LHA doesn't have offensive armament aside from harriers. It's easy enough to ditch the armed aircraft except for a couple of sea cobras for secuirty and excess marines and call it a rescue ship. The 30+ helicopters can move a lot of freight and people.

As for its classification as an aircraft carrier under the now dead 2LNT-nope its not.

1. For the purposes of the Washington Treaty, the definition of an aircraft carrier given in Chapter II, Part 4, of the said Treaty is hereby replaced by the following definition:

The expression "aircraft carrier" includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.

2. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carried

Legally, its not a carrier. A loophole the Soviets and Russian federation have exploited. Since an LHA cannot attack sea or land targets without jets Turkey may buy its an auxillery argument it does carry a lot of fuel 5900 tons. The text of the treaty only says designed to carry liquid, not carry it exclusively. They are not happy with Russia right now. Turkey has also stated that missiles are not guns and so ships armed with missiles bigger than 155mm don't count as guns. The only remaining limit is the 15,000 ton weight limit.

[gunnut]

The LHA doesn't have offensive armament aside from harriers. It's easy enough to ditch the armed aircraft except for a couple of sea cobras for secuirty and excess marines and call it a rescue ship. The 30+ helicopters can move a lot of freight and people.

As for its classification as an aircraft carrier under the now dead 2LNT-nope its not.

1. For the purposes of the Washington Treaty, the definition of an aircraft carrier given in Chapter II, Part 4, of the said Treaty is hereby replaced by the following definition:

The expression "aircraft carrier" includes any surface vessel of war, whatever its displacement, designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carrying aircraft and so constructed that aircraft can be launched therefrom and landed thereon.

2. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off platform or deck on a capital ship, cruiser or destroyer, provided such vessel was not designed or adapted exclusively as an aircraft carrier, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be charged against or classified in the category of aircraft carried

Legally, its not a carrier. A loophole the Soviets and Russian federation have exploited. Since an LHA cannot attack sea or land targets without jets Turkey may buy its an auxillery argument it does carry a lot of fuel 5900 tons. The text of the treaty only says designed to carry liquid, not carry it exclusively. They are not happy with Russia right now. Turkey has also stated that missiles are not guns and so ships armed with missiles bigger than 155mm don't count as guns. The only remaining limit is the 15,000 ton weight limit.

Aha...did the word say "weight" or "mass?"

An LHA weighs only 6500 tons on the moon. The treaty never said anything about WHERE the LHA is weighed.

[zraver]

Aha...did the word say "weight" or "mass?"

An LHA weighs only 6500 tons on the moon. The treaty never said anything about WHERE the LHA is weighed.

lol, the aux ships may be immune to the weight limit, not sure.

[kato]

The LHA doesn't have offensive armament aside from harriers.

The armament does not matter. At most we could somewhat reasonably classify it as a troop transport, which would raise the limit to 15,000 tons.

There's simply no way you can make the standard displacement of a LHA/LHD go under 15,000 tons even.

Fuel transport auxiliaries ("in fleet duty") do not count against weight limit, as long as "their armament does not include: for use against floating targets, more than two guns of a maximum calibre of 105 millimetres: for use against aerial targets, more than two guns of a maximum calibre of 75 millimetres".
And that's clearly defined that way, ie. no cheating by saying missiles aren't guns. A LHA carries 2 AA and 3 ASu guns in addition to missiles btw, pity. Oh, and they may not be escorted on their way through the straits.

[zraver]

The armament does not matter. At most we could somewhat reasonably classify it as a troop transport, which would raise the limit to 15,000 tons.

There's simply no way you can make the standard displacement of a LHA/LHD go under 15,000 tons even.

Fuel transport auxiliaries ("in fleet duty") do not count against weight limit, as long as "their armament does not include: for use against floating targets, more than two guns of a maximum calibre of 105 millimetres: for use against aerial targets, more than two guns of a maximum calibre of 75 millimetres".
And that's clearly defined that way, ie. no cheating by saying missiles aren't guns. A LHA carries 2 AA and 3 ASu guns in addition to missiles

You should study legal jargon and how it doesn't always mean what the layman thinks it means.

Turkey already said that it does not recognize missiles as guns. They did this in the cold war when they let US GC's into the black Sea. The USSR complained that 305mmm missiles violated the convention. Turkey said missiles are not addressed by the convention. This supported by the absolute allowance in the convention of the self propelled weapon of the day: the torpedo. Subs, patrol bots, destroyers and some cruisers carried the weapon when the convention was drafted. These weapons exceed 500mm in size.

The wording of the convention is important. As shown by the wording for aircraft carrier when they mean to prohibit something they use strong language. The part about guns only addressed guns of 105mm and 75mm respectively. technically a ship could have 2x 105mm and 100x 100mm and it would be legal if Turkey says it is. Same goes for the AAA, the US ships mount zero guns of 75mm so are in full compliance with the convention.

This type of purely legalistic view on the convention was as far as I have found so far first taken by turkey when it let the US cruisers in. But the Soviet union and later Russian Federation signed onto this way of viewing the convention as it allowed the passage of the kiev and Kuznetsov

Oh, and they may not be escorted on their way through the straits.

Send the escorts through first and cover them with NATO assets. See that wasn't hard was it.

[Johnny W]

I imagine it would be LPD's, or an LSD or something similar. They have significant cargo and lift capability, and both are allowed to transit the turkish straits.

[The Black Ghost]

the US taking control of port and airport operations should be interesting. If Russia doesnt leave its going to put Russian and US (possibly combat) vessels in close proximity. That just doesnt seem like a good mix.

[kato]

The wording of the convention is important. As shown by the wording for aircraft carrier when they mean to prohibit something they use strong language.

You do know that the wording of the Annex is taken verbatim from the 2nd London Naval Treaty?

The part about guns only addressed guns of 105mm and 75mm respectively.

No. The wording, as you said, is important. It reads:
- for anti-air purposes, a ship's armament may not comprise more than two guns of maximum caliber 75mm
- for anti-surface purposes, a ship's armament may not comprise more than two guns of maximum caliber 105mm
It's - legally - an absolute definition of the entire. It does not state "guns for anti-aircraft purposes may not exceed 75mm, and there may not be more than two such guns" - it gives an exact rundown of what complete armament is allowed. There also isn't a lower bracket for the caliber, meaning anything counts.
A LHD carries an anti-air suite comprised of multiple missile launchers and two CIWS (below the given maximum 75mm caliber), and, for anti-surface purposes, usually three low-angle guns (below the given maximum 105mm).

[snapper]

Urghhh lawyers!

[Dago]

We'll due to the Naval blockade of Georgia might be a little bit more difficult as opposed to air operations. It will be intresting to see when the ships to reach the black sea, just for presense. It will eventually happen.

[zraver]

You do know that the wording of the Annex is taken verbatim from the 2nd London Naval Treaty?

And your point being?

No. The wording, as you said, is important. It reads:
- for anti-air purposes, a ship's armament may not comprise more than two guns of maximum caliber 75mm
- for anti-surface purposes, a ship's armament may not comprise more than two guns of maximum caliber 105mm
It's - legally - an absolute definition of the entire. It does not state "guns for anti-aircraft purposes may not exceed 75mm, and there may not be more than two such guns" - it gives an exact rundown of what complete armament is allowed. There also isn't a lower bracket for the caliber, meaning anything counts.

Thats where we dissagree, and ultimately it is up to the Turks to decide. But if the wording was meant to be just 2 or 3 three guns depending on use then the wording would have been different/

Perhaps- For anti-surface purposes no more than 3 guns, with no caliber bigger than 105mm. But thats not what it says, it says no more than 3 guns of 105mm or bigger claiber. Likewise missiles are not guns both by wording, function, precedent, and the closest examples of the time torpedoes.

A LHD carries an anti-air suite comprised of multiple missile launchers and two CIWS (below the given maximum 75mm caliber), and, for anti-surface purposes, usually three low-angle guns (below the given maximum 105mm).

The missiles do not matter (via precedent), and the guns only matter id Turkey says they do. And the wording is sufficently vauge that they (Turkey) can decide either way and be on firm footing.