"Can the Marine Corps get an Expeditionary Brigade afloat? Can it get more than one Expeditionary Brigade afloat? I'm asking seriously, I really don't know the answer." Isn't that what Sea Basing in Seapower 21 is all about though? The ability to move multiple marine brigades to a country with only a sea based support structure to provide established land facilities to bring in the US Army? I think you ask a good question, but with Sea Basing a priority of the Navy, the Marine Corp, even the Army and Airforce who are designing their MP ship loads to be compatible with Sea Basing, not to mention Congress, it would appear the direction of the Marine Corp for the future is clear. I am just curious what they are going to do. Replace a main Navy Carrier with a Sea Base? Build commercial vessels for module based runway systems? Tow rig platforms with connectors? Airships? Underwater pipelines? The buzz words surrounding sea basing trigger the imagination, but still leave many questions unanswered. I guess we will know in 2008 when the USS George HW Bush comes online, if they turn the Enterprise into a Sea Base then the picture might clear up a bit, or not. :) The V-22 is more an extension of Sea Basing than anything imo, it is a perfect vehicle for that model being a rapid transport with vertical lift. After all, it leaves several other questions unanswered when used as an air platform on current marine vessels where hanger space is at a premium and the V-22 appears to take up a lot of room relative to capability.

The short answer is a MEF can be landed. It would take up to two months to assemble the ships ect... roughly the same ammount of time it took to put together the Inchon or Guadacannal landings. A multi divsion size assualt, such as at Iwo Jima. Would require some serious reaching for the ships. Not real sure where they would come from. The US Navy/Mairnes still rehearse MEF size landings, to keep the planning skills. Of course no one can point to a likely scenario where we would need to do so. But, then back in 1990s very few thought amything like Desert Storm was likely. Wern't we suprised. : )

Last time I checked my USMC TOE, there was a battalion sized MEU-SOC on each ARG and/or ESG. Each of the 3 MPSRONs support a brigade and 3 brigades make up a MEF. Pls correct a swabby if I am wrong. Galrahn, You need to read more about SeaBasing since you have not quite got it purpose. To the Marines, it allows OMFTsea and serves as a major home base (complementing the MPF-Future) as well as transhipment point. It is NOT analgous to a carrier. The V22 as well as the new heavy lift helo and high speed connector ship are key components of the sea base. What we all have to grasp is that land bases will NOT be available to the US in its next conflict, hence a need for a SeaBase to support any service going inland.

Pardon me!!! MPS ships landed the essential materials for a MEF during Desert Storm in 10 days, thats 100,000 tons of gear. The Marines married up with their gear and headed inland in one week. BTW there were TWO MPFs put ashore and that doesn't count another 100,000 tons of prepositioned supplies for the Army and Airforce. Total 300,000 tons in a little over one month!

"Galrahn, You need to read more about SeaBasing since you have not quite got it purpose" I am not sure the idea has been developed enough to make any conclusion what the final purpose is. If you notice, Robert Work's discussions about Sea Basing is different than the traditional Navy descriptions, and I tend to follow his presentations more than the Navy’s simply because as of late, the House tends to give more credibility to his suggestions than they do the Navy's. Until that trend changes, I’ll stick with my opinions. The QDR will tell us more, but even the new MPF is not guaranteed. Many in Congress believe Sea Basing is a strategy being undertaken by the Navy/Marine Corp similar to how the DD(X) and Osprey programs were developed, not enough research to support a final design which leads to higher cost, meaning more R&D required in Congresses opinion. That is why I point out that there is a real discussion taking place regarding the conversion of the USS Enterprise to a Sea Base after 2008 to develop doctrine and strategy for Sea Basing before the Congress approves any funding for a final design. By changing the USS Enterprise into a Sea Base, that would allow the Navy to run a 11 Carrier Fleet, 10 Nimitz class and the JFK, with 1 Sea Base in the USS Enterprise. The Navy can then replace the USS Enterprise in 2013 with CVN-78 after 5 years of developing the Sea Basing Concept. CVN-79 will replace the JFK in 2018, and by 2015 the final Sea Base platform will be fully developed and funded. If you add in a timeline for LHA(R) production over that period of time, you end up with 4 LHA(R) ships as well, which is why it all seems to be following Robert Works recommendations from the congressional research requested for future alternative fleet designs for the 21st century. He proposes the LHA(R)s be air platforms, 50,000 ton CVs for the Marine Corp, which due to lack of funding for FY2006, the LHA(R) very well could be. My Sources: http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy/B.20050301.AlterFleetStdy.pdf That is congressionally funded research. The Navy War College’s congressional funded research as apart of the same project can be found here. http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/Def_Tech/DTP%2019%20Alternative%20Fleet%20Architecture%20Design.pdf Both are very interesting. The House tends to be following the first one though, while the Senate always tends to do their own thing, which might be why a final FY2006 defense budget has not been passed yet.

The Desert Shield build up of I MEF went through ports and a very large portion came on cargo ships. My earlier post was confined to amphibious ops with a cross beach buildup & limited use of docks. Combine the two, an amphibious landing of MEF size to sieze a port, then reinforcing with a US Army and remaining USMC units carried on regular sea transports. That can bring one up to a reinforced corps as quickly as any large scale operation of WWII. The Sea Basing configuration now floating though Congress is one of the more likely outcomes. There are inevitable changes in every plan, & the big carrier conversion may not come off. Either way the many other components that are accquired will take the idea to reality.

you forgot about korea, grenada.....

we have the lift ability to put at least 3 meb-1 from each division...

one simple answer where there is a marine corps while people discuss the purpose/ability/time.... Its law....and unless congress changes it, the will always be a min. of 3 mardiv and 3 airwings(dont know about res.)

I don't think Robert Work is a good source to quote (and have said so in a ltr to editor of AFJ). He seems to connect dots in strange ways to get to his view of what our Navy should be. Anyway the concept of SeaBasing has flowed from the good results the Marines have had with the MPF. MPF-Future is funded (alought I think they have another screwy ship design). The problem with buying a SeaBase is that it is now a "joint" program and the Navy has a very hard time taking diverse rqmts and putting them all into one group of hulls. (eg USAF want BOQ standards for shipboard accomdations) What the analysts like Work and congressional staffers DON'T understand is that the seabase MUST be a logistics platform not a civilian aircraft carrier. What is needed is a design with cargo holds and the means to tranship cargo to/from ships, not necessarily a flight deck big enough for a C130. An aircraft carrier while big is not configured to move cargo and personnel ashore in large numbers except by flying them and then. The MPF-F rqmts are the starting point for a seabase. The CMC has defined what he wants, but seabase is being debated by those who don't know sea transportation, logistics and prepositioning, all element of srategic sealift which even NAVSEA has a problem understanding. The seaabase should NOT be an alternate airfield afloat. If the USAF wants an airfield let them build one ashore IF they can find a place & means to do it!