1. ERDC Knowledge Core
2. Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
3. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) - (before 9/1981 - present)
4. Technical Report

Title:	Evaluation of potential JHSV port and alternative offload sites in coastal North Carolina
Authors:	Morang, Andrew, 1953- Resio, Donald T.
Keywords:	JHSV (Joint High Speed Vessel) Coastal Inlet JLOTS (Joint Logistics over the Shore) BIS (Geographic Information System) Cape Fear River North Carolina Wave hindcast Masonboro Inlet
Publisher:	Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (U.S.) Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
Series/Report no.:	ERDC/CHL TR ; 06-4.
Description:	Technical report The purpose of this study was to evaluate conventional (port) and nonconventional offload sites for the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) in coastal North Carolina, and compare the potential throughput rates at these sites to throughput rates typical of Joint Logistics over the Shore (JLOTS) operations conducted in exercises in Camp Lejeune. North Carolina was selected as a test site both due to its proximity to Camp Lejeune and also because of its environmental (geomorphic) similarity to many coastal regions in Asia. Another goal was to evaluate the quality and appropriateness of maps, bathymetry data, and aerial photography from various sources to conduct offload alternatives studies with the intent of eventually applying these techniques to other (overseas) sites. The analysis of offload sites demonstrated that the total length of shoreline suitable for the JHSV to unload in North Carolina was surprisingly limited. In the Cape Fear River estuary, the total length accessible either directly or via 180-m causeway was 27.9 km; in Morehead City/Beaufort area, 5.4 km; and in Masonboro Inlet, 1.0 km. The reasons for the limited access are both geological and developmental. On this low-gradient, soft sediment, trailing edge coast, only these three inlets are dredged deep enough to accommodate the JHSV, which requires a channel of 4.6 m. Once within the inlets, the only water deep enough for the JHSV is in the dredged navigation channels and some naturally-deep areas near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Finally, offload sites must be within a suitable distance from paved roads or railroads (in this analysis, 150 m), and these sites, too, proved to be unexpectedly limited. Despite the flexibility of the JHSV, planners considering operations in lesser- developed parts of the world will have to contend with even more limited infrastructure, along with geological and oceanographic constraints. JLOTS exercises are particularly sensitive to wave climate and are restricted to significant wave heights less than 0.9 m, the lower limit of sea state 3. Throughput diminishes rapidly when seas are above 0.6 m. Based on hindcasts of Atlantic waves, the likelihood of the North Carolina coastal waters not experiencing sea state 3 waves in March for 1 day is only 0.31. For a 10-day period, the likelihood drops to only 0.03. Therefore, conventional JLOTS is not a good option for force projection in this area in March. Modeling JLOTS versus JHSV throughput for the three North Carolina entrances demonstrates that as few as one or two JHSVs can potentially provide vehicular throughput comparable to a conventional "bare-beach" JLOTS operation, even at distances between the coastal discharge site and an Intermediate Staging Base (ISB) of up to 400 nautical miles. This is striking when one considers the great differences in the naval assets and personnel required to accomplish each of these operations. Another advantage of the JHSV is that it has the potential to continue up to sea state 6; whereas, conventional JLOTS continues only up to sea state 3. Therefore, the JHSV operations are potentially much less susceptible to weather disruptions.
Rights:	Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/11681/7601
Appears in Collections:	Technical Report