CROSSING OVER
D
uring the rainy months of February, March, and April, the Helmand River’s normal crossing width of 330 feet can
more than double to 836 feet; the depth and current also increase dramatically.
When fording is unsafe, Soldiers have relied on an Improved Ribbon Bridge (IRB) to raft vehicles and personnel safely across the river. Why raft a few vehicles at a time when the IRB could be connected to span the entire width (full closure) of the Helmand River?
A great idea, except that some type of anchorage is needed to hold the IRB in place so it does not float down the river.
The Bridge Erection Boat (BEB) serves two purposes: it positions the IRB bays to make a continuous float bridge and pro- vides propulsion when IRB bays are used as a ferry, the latter of which was imple- mented at the Helmand River Crossing. The BEB can also anchor the IRB in place, with one BEB for every six IRB bays.
The problem with this scenario is that the 814th Multi-Role Bridge Company
STAYING ABOVE WATER
814th MRBC Soldiers ready the tower of the OCS to be erected by the Bridging Team. The towers of the Overhead Cable System (OCS) help keep the main cables above the Helmand River. (U.S. Army photo by 1LT Dylan Benfield, 814th MRBC.)
Upon completing the design, the calcula- tions were sent to the units in Afghanistan for their review, and to former bridge operators in MFT NET and MSCoE. Concerns were discussed regarding the river encroachment where the OCS towers were to be erected. With ERDC’s assistance, an embankment platform was designed, putting the towers up and out of the way of the ever-widening river. TARDEC BT engineers suggested using all possible resources to keep the embankment dry by channeling the water away. When the design was finalized and agreed upon by all parties, it was time to move on to the next hurdle: resurrecting the OCS.
120 Army AL&T Magazine
(MRBC) did not have enough BEBs. Furthermore, it did not have enough manpower to keep the BEBs in the water the entire time the IRB was needed.
Fortunately, an urgent request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Reachback Operations Center (UROC) found its way to the right mailbox.
GATHERING THE EXPERTS When the Soldiers realized that their mis- sions would be compromised because of raging waters, they contacted UROC for assistance. UROC in turn contacted the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC) Bridging Team (BT) in November. TARDEC BT members began working with the Soldiers, setting up weekly teleconferences that included:
• TARDEC • Product Manager (PM) Bridging, within Program Executive Office Combat Sup- port and Combat Service Support
• Materiel Fielding and Training (MFT) New Equipment Training (NET), within the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC)
• U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence (MSCoE)
• USACE Engineer Research and Devel- opment Center (ERDC)
• 864th Engineer Battalion • 814th MRBC • U.S. Navy 3rd Naval Construction Regiment
In brainstorming, TARDEC BT members discussed the pros and cons for several methods of anchoring the IRB and, after careful deliberation, determined that the legacy Overhead Cable System (OCS) was the best option due to the river’s width, current velocity, bank heights on both shores, and depth.
IMPERFECT BUT WORKABLE Several issues were understood when deal- ing with the OCS:
• Numerous system components were obsolete.
• Not all Soldiers were well-trained for the legacy OCS.
• Seasonal floods were nearing.
The TARDEC IRB Lead Engineer designed an OCS for the worst-case sce- nario, in light of the Helmand River’s potentially unforgiving power.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
