US Navy Details Sea Base Strategy - Good, Bad, or Waste?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

interestedamateur RE:US Navy Details Sea Base Strategy - Good, Bad, or Waste? 3/6/2006 1:48:49 PM

Sounds good Galrahn. If the concept has a weakness, perhaps its that a full three brigade MEF cannot be landed in one go. But then as you'd need 16 ARG's to do that, no doubt the expense would be overwhelming. Still, it's a more cost effective way of getting a MEF to where it needs to be.

Quote Reply

Galrahn RE:US Navy Details Sea Base Strategy - Good, Bad, or Waste? 3/6/2006 3:33:35 PM

In order to land the 3 MEB force, they would need 3 Sea Base squadrons. From the testimony of Hugee and Winter, it did not sound like they were ready to pursue the 3 MEB requirement as it is an enormous expense to create 3x the capability, particularly given this is their low budget first shot. Personally I like the idea, I have seen the MV Mighty Servant in action and that is by far one of the most impressive ships I have ever seen in my life. I was part of an IT crew that spent a week in Mobile, AL setting up a telecommunications hub for a ship maintenance company in the Bay, the Mighty Servant picked up and moved a large offshore oil rig in Mobile Bay, and took it out to sea. I was impressed. It took about 2 days to do it, but it was pretty amazing to see it done. Those ships are very resourceful for many things besides the roles described for sea basing. In theory they would be able to remove a damaged vessel from the theater in sea state 3 or less, allowing the US to recover a damaged ship instead of sinking it like Britain had to do with HMS Sheffield in the Falklands War. I still have questions though, like whether they would use Navy or Civilian crews (will the ships be armed?), what the fast long range connector will ultimately be, and whether integration will be possible for other countries to build into the capability. Also, it has me wondering what future variations of the Mobile Loading Platform type ship could be. The reason you would want a large flat stable adjustable depth platform is so you can load air cushion style vehicles to move heavy equipment, but what if a country wanted to have Sea Base capability that could integrate with the US Sea Base, but have inherit capability to deploy a light infantry battalion by air, and not by sea? Using commercial standards it seems like a variant of the HMS Ocean or the Spanish built Chakri Naruebet Thailand aircraft carrier variant could be a potential air driven mobile loading platform with a similar cost. You wouldn't need simi-submersable technology, just a big flight deck for assault and lift helicopters. Integration through partnerships with other countries could also enable countries that have expressed concerns over force projection over long distances to become more agile and available. A few examples would be Britain, Canada, Japan, and Germany, all of which are looking for low budget alternatives to traditional deployment of large amounts of materials at sea. In a humanitarian crisis or during war, if several countries integrated Sea Base technologies, interoperability could sustain large numbers of troops from sea for an extended period of time. Example, Britain might choose to build a 3 ship flight for the Sea Base centered around a variant of the HMS Ocean instead of a Mobile Loading Platform, choosing to use their Sea Base concept for light infantry insertion and sustained operations using helicopter support. Canada on the other hand might choose instead to build a few long range fast sea connectors, which would enable them to increase their contribution in humanitarian assistance missions, something their country has expressed interest in. Germany might opt for the model the US is using, allowing them to forward deploy a heavy battalion without an air component, and other NATO countries might build ships at various levels from the connector to the basing platforms. Either way, I could see where even a 1 ship contribution per country to the Sea Base design at either the connector or sea base platform level from allies could expand the Sea Base capability well beyond the US Marine Corp, and actually enable division sized units to be deployed to an operational theater based and supported from the sea. By reducing costs in the multi-ship model, I think it adds more potential for that idea. To compare costs, if you decided to build a 3 ship flight without an air assault component, just a few helicopters for heavy lift on your 3 ships, you would basically spend around 1.8 billion dollars US for your battalion sized sea base. By contrast, a US MEU ESG, which is a bit smaller than a battalion, but has a marine air component, costs the US roughly 5-6 billion to build 1 LHD/LHAx, 1 LPD-17, and 1 LSD. That is a low cost alternative for smaller countries for a high cost operational capability.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:US Navy Details Sea Base Strategy - Good, Bad, or Waste? Galrahn 3/6/2006 8:05:07 PM

Sorry not to get back to you - have been very busy and want to be able to contemplate what you've posted. Will get back to you, as this is an interesting and important topic.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:A European Sea Base Strategy? 3/7/2006 8:26:29 AM

Your ideas are interesting Galrahn especially from the costs point of view! I don't think any European country will actively use it though for several reasons: - lack of mony for even this idea (Italy's military spending is 0.8% GDP / The Neths 0.9%, Belgium even less. Only the UK and France are spending "big"). - It can be done informally anyway. For example, in the Falklands, troops and supplies were routinely transferred from the STUFT merchantmen either direct to shore or RN Amphibious shipping using Helicopters and LCU's. If it can be done informally why invest scarce resources needed to purchase permnent assets? - Recent investment in amphibious capapbilities anyway. Marine assets are one area where the Europeans have invested some money, so how much more will be made available is debateable. Are you aware of current UK capabilities (which ARE the most advanced in Europe whatever FS may claim)? By 2008 the RN will be able to lift and supply 3 Cdo Brigade (3 - 4 battalions) without resorting to STUFT. With regard to seabasing, it does not appear that the RN aims to lift more troops than this, although 3 "Joint Logistic seabase ships" will be purchased in the 2017 timeframe under the MARS programme. Its slightly unclear as to what these ships will do, although my gut feeling is that they will simply carry supplies needed for 3 Brigade.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:The JHSS 3/7/2006 8:35:02 AM

"The JHSS is being evaluated, but there are options. The first option is a ship capable of a speed of at least 40 knots, with a range of 10,000 nautical miles carrying a payload of 5,000 short tons and able to on-load and offload cargo in undeveloped ports and at sea. Another option is a 3,000 ton cargo catamaran with 50 knot service speed and a range of 3,000 nm. Austal believes they can build a 5,000-10,000 ton cargo catamaran able to sustain 40 knots over a range of 35,000 nm..." Galrahn, this is quite interesting as Austal are currently only producing 127m long Catamarans capable of lifting 1,000 tons. Their yard is only 130m long so they would no doubt need considerable investment to produce the larger Cats you mentioned. I reckon they have to do this though as their current designs have inadequate lift, and thus only have niche capability.

Quote Reply

Galrahn RE:The JHSS 3/7/2006 12:33:53 PM

You are correct, General Dynamics would be the main contractor, but Austal was mentioned in the analysis I was quoting from. I read it as Austal doing the talking but it was actually General Dynamics. The analysis I read pointed out that the LCS has Austal thinking bigger, because catamaran design for larger, high speed ships are going to become a lucrative business in the US Navy over the next decade+, and Austal intends to work with General Dynamics in being apart of that process. Notably, the United States shipbuilding industry hasn't built many float-on/float-off ships nor any fast catamaran cargo ships, those ships are usually built overseas. Considering nobody in the world has ever built either type of ship specifically for military purposes, it makes the contracts for these ships as part of the Sea Base very valuable contracts to the US shipbuilding industry. That last opinion wasn't my own, but I thought it was an interesting observation.

Quote Reply

Galrahn RE:A European Sea Base Strategy? 3/7/2006 1:01:19 PM

Keep in mind the Sea Base ships wouldn't replace MHS Ocean or the Albion class ships, they would replace RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Sir Galahad, and RFA Sir Tristram, as well as potentially replacing the role played by RFA Sea Crusader and RFA Sea Centurion which are both actually owned by other countries. As far as I know, RFA Sir Tristram was decommissioned with no replacement, and RFA Sir Bedivere is around 30 years old, so these Auxilliary ships will be needing a replacement soon anyway. It seems to me that rebuilding another ship like the RFA Sir Galahad might work, but considering MoD had to lease 8 ships from other countries to move 2 brigades (7th armored and 16th air) for Telic, a good case for Sea Basing could be made. Since the Sea Basing concept is not only designed around supporting Marines in the assault role, but also moving the main Army into position in the follow-up role without a major port, I think the RFA would become more efficent in replacing older ships about to retire anyway with ships that fit into the Sea Base design.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:The JHSS 3/7/2006 1:14:35 PM

"Notably, the United States shipbuilding industry hasn't built many float-on/float-off ships nor any fast catamaran cargo ships, those ships are usually built overseas. Considering nobody in the world has ever built either type of ship specifically for military purposes, it makes the contracts for these ships as part of the Sea Base very valuable contracts to the US shipbuilding industry." Definitely. It would be interesting to see the designs and the specs of these larger vessels that Austal are talking about.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:A European Sea Base Strategy? 3/7/2006 1:25:16 PM

By 2008 the RN Amphibious and sealift fleet will consist of: 1 x Ocean LPH 2 x Albion LPD 4 x Bay ALSL (replacing the Sir Class LSLs with 3 times the lift) 1 x Sir Class LSL 6 x Point Class Transports (these are basically military ferries) 2 x Fort Class Stores ships. It isn't perfect (we'd like a 2nd LPH for instance) but it's still quite a significant capability - the UK will be able to fully lift 3 Cdo Brigade, and the 6 Point ships can lift the vehicles of an armoured brigade. I don't know whether the Point ships could be used as a 2nd echelon for an amphibious assualt - my gut feeling is that they will need a port to unload. As I mentioned the whole of Europe is renewing their amphibious fleets. By 2010 you are looking at: France; 2 x LPH, 2 X LPD (can lift 2 btns) Neths; 1 x LPH, 2 X LPD (can lift 2 btns at a squeeze) Italy; 1 x LPH, 3 x LSL (can lift 2 btns at a squeeze) Spain, 1 x LPH, 2 X LPD, 2 X LSL (can lift 3 btns at a squeeze) Alot of this shipping is new or is in the process of being built. Put it together and Europe can probably lift (although not sustain) a full light division.

Quote Reply

interestedamateur RE:Is the RN also developing its own (small) seabase? 3/7/2006 1:48:41 PM

Galrahn This link is for the Point Class ro-ro?s: link Basically these six ships can lift a full UK armoured brigade. I don't know whether it would be possible to transfer vehicles and equipment from these to 1st echelon amphibious ships at sea - maybe you could tell me. The three Joint Seabased logistics ships I mentioned in an earlier post will complement the Point Class by carrying stores and ammunition. They will replace the two Fort Grange ships currently being used. Scroll three-quarters of the way down this page and there is a graphic of what I think is a Joint Seabased logistics ship unloading at sea: link If the Point Class can also transfer vehicles at sea (let me know what you think), then you could argue that with all of this capability, the UK does indeed have its own mini-seabase. The only thing we lack is shipping that can carry personnel. By the way, something I didn't mention in my original reply to the USMCs plans (since we should get back to the original topic!) was that I like the flexibility they are showing in having lots of different types of shipping that can do different things.

Quote Reply

1 2