Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Mobile Offshore Base concept
jbwill2    6/17/2003 8:47:58 AM
I am sure that everyone has read something about the MOB concept. I suppose there is research going on right now into the practicality and cost of developing some version of this idea. I don't know too much about the plan, but I know that it involves building several modules that can transit on their own to a place of interest, and then be combined to form a floating air and amphibious base of variable size, depending on the number and kind of modules assembled together. What does everyone think of the MOB concept? Is it even a possibility, or are there too many negatives associated with the MOB? Finally, let us assume that it is going to be built and used by the US. What service would operate the MOB's and what impact would they have on America's warfighting abilities?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Penta    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept   12/1/2003 1:19:37 AM
Looking at this: I see no specific MILITARY function. However, as a test of concept, it deserves to be pursued.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept   12/7/2003 11:05:56 PM
The concepts of mob that I have read about are vessels of approx. 1000 feet which can joined together to produce runways as long as desired. In addition to being long, they are also very deep and vey wide. They can be configured to choice, so that they can carry massive fire power, massive fuel and supplies storage capacity, massive personnel quarters or any combination that the builder chooses. Individual vessels could be built to specialise in a particular characteristic. Once assembled they would combine to provide a mobile base in every sense of the word, air wing, anti submarine squadron, heavy naval gunfire support, missile delivery system, troop facility to at least brigade strength with associated equipment, ability to supply and be supplied by air and ship, and best of all stay on station permanently if so desired. They no more have need to get in to legal proximity to the littoral than Diego Garcia does. Unlike a carrier, they can be built to be so robust that it would take a massive hit to inflict significant damage. Again, unlike a carrier there a plenty of non threatening reasons to have a mobile base in the area. It could be used for relief efforts to such an extent that it would soon be considered as a humanitarian purpose built vessel rather than an aircraft carrier. The brigade stationed on board could be a civil reconstruction crew just as much as an attack force. Because of the ability to preposition supplies on board and supply by air the decision to participate in a war or provide relief for the aftermath of a war could be left to the last moment. Because of it's utility as a relief ship it could well be financed out of the foreign aid budget. (Try that with a nuclear powered battle carrier). Such a mobile base would have all the offensive capacity of a carrier, plus all the defensive ability of a carrier, plus it could carry it's own fast attack craft screening fleet internally designed to work with helo antisub sqaudrons. As mentioned previously it could carry as many missiles of as many types for whatever purpose as desired. If (that's _if_) such interlocking is technically feasible there is no need to limit yourself to only two or three ships in the interlock nor does it necessarily have to be linear. When assembled they drift rather than use their own propulsion so you could assemble them in the classic triangle shape of an airport, or conversely in the shape of square to facilitate major refits of other ships on the inside of the unit. Since they raise and lower their depth substantially as needed, it would be a simple matter to design drydock capacity into one of the units. As you can see these are not dumb aircraft carriers but something else entirely. They involve considerably different purposes, strategies and tactics. They could and perhaps should be built with humanitarian purposes in mind with the ability to rapidly shift to a military function built in. In military uses they would be especially useful in asymetric warfare. You don't need France's permission to set up one or more of the bases, 2 or 3 hundred miles offshore from your troublemaker. Nor do you need anyone's permission to put a third of your airforce and a quarter of your army on it. Knowing such resources are just offshore but beyond any thing but a very sophisticated attack is a very intimidating thing for the average enemy military regardless of how loony the target country's leadership is. In a more symetrical situation, say China, I don't see how else you could launch a sustained conventional attack on the mainland. As far as threat factor, with a symetric opponent they are even more intimidating. Put two such bases just off the Sprattly islands and tell whoever cares that if they do manage to get enough missiles through to destroy our mobile bases with it's complement of hundreds of strike aircraft, dozens of 747's, and fifty thousand troops, they can kiss their ass goodbye because they sure as hell know what's going to happen next. What's not to like? Well, they sure are slow to get on station, slow to assemble and most worryingly, it's an unproven techology that may not work well in heavy seas, either locking into position or staying locked. They go against the grain of modern naval strategy with it's emphasis on the littoral and highly adaptable, high speed response. Although mob's give you lot's of flexibility once they get on station they certainly take a while to get there and even longer to leave. They are cheaper by far than carriers but then the taxpayers are likely to more impressed by what a carrier does than what mob's might do. While they are so large they may be made to be unsinkable by any reasonble amount of force, they can still be rendered unusable for at least a short period. That means in a symetric situation, self defense or escort defense has to be pretty extensive. But of course that's what war is all about; balancing your bases' de
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities   12/8/2003 6:11:25 AM
Theres a couple of things that make me tense up about this concept: Singularly large asset Unless absolute anti-sub and enemy aid defence is in place tehn its a big floating target. Its not a carrier, so it doesn't have a CVN's capacity to lift its skirts up and run like crazy if the bogies (subs, surface, SSM's, ASM's etc...) draw a bead on it It would require significant protection (CAP) or similar to ensure its survival HTF do you build the sucker in a hostile environment? HTF do you tow a prebuilt one into place without the substantial investment of an approp battle group? To me the cost of protecting it, the logistics to shift it, the cost in loss of useful assets to baby sit it make it pretty unattractive. Happy to be convinced otherwise, but I reckon its a floating gunnery/missile/torpedo target. You could probably get 500-1000 cruise missiles for the same price and not have to worry about dead assets in the loop playing mother hen as well. :)
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...gfoo12-aus...   12/9/2003 12:02:24 AM
gfoo12-aus poses some questions about the mob concept. Since there is no functioning example of a mob it's easy to postulate any number of features that such a vessel would have. Having said that, the concept that I understand to be what is meant by current usage of mobile offshore base refers to a very, very large ship which can be connected to other similar vessels in a lego style arrangement. Such ships have their own propulsion and massive carrying capacity. With a typical speed of 15 knots (when not connected to each other) they would indeed be a slow moving target. When connected they would move at drift speed. In terms of air defense against a symetric opponent the speed differential between a carrier and a virtually stationary target is irrelevant. A carrier battle group will not be able to hide it's presence from such an opponent nor will they be able to outrun his attack. A carrier's speed is not a significant factor in defeating a modern air attack. Because of the massive size of these kinds of vessels it is quite feasible for the base to carry it's own squadron of fast sub chasers internally which would be deployed as the vessels approached a threat area. With modern materials and design such a ship would be unsinkable in the short term. All the arguments for the need to provide escort apply even more to a carrier which is quite delicate in comparison. And, since the base has the capacity of a couple of dozen fleet supply ships, the airwings of a couple of dozen carriers, the missile complement of a dozen or more missile cruisers, a brigade or two of troops plus all their equipment, the medical facilities of a half dozen hospital ships plus sea/air supply facilities etc. why wouldn't you provide it with the escort equivalent to say..three carrier battle groups? All this assumes the basic premise of building ships of this size that will actually be able to join up in the prescribed manner. That is something which strikes me as debatable but seems to regarded as feasible even by those who question the concept on other grounds. Since I have no experience in ship building I take the lack of serious objection to the building part of the idea to mean that it is in fact doable. In my last post on this thread I did raise some issues which I believe negatively impact on the mob vessel notion.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...northernguy   12/9/2003 12:24:11 AM
Using 3 Carrier battle groups is a quarter of the USA's current CVN capability and associated assets. Thats a lot of committment, a lot of redundancy for questionable worth. If you are going to commit 3 CVN's to it I'd be filling it up with long range VLAUNCH capability. You could protect it with significant air cap, but what percentage of the CVN's air assets are you willing to task to it to the detriment of the CVN's safety? If you want an asset to vlaunch weapons then you could impress container ships into service with modular weapons delivery packets. cheaper, faster and not as singularly vulnerable as they can be absorbed into the protective components of the battle group. If you are going to place defensive air assets on the platform then the issue is distance from an opfors threat systems. I'm playing devils advocate here, not just trying to criticise to shut off the post. :) So far, the concept looks to be a floating version of Diego Garcia... Any singularly large platform, by association is a singularly large target, the cost to protect it has to be weighed against the tactical advantage it provides. If its designed to be a force multiplier, then whatever assets are used to protect it have to be factored in as whether they would be more useful applying force elsewhere. If its meant to be used like the Zulu's closing horns (compliments to Shaka), then maybe it is useful. It would scare the crap out of any nation without subs and a decent air wing, but then again, a CVN BatGrp could do the same. Work out how far you are from anywhere in the world if you wish to vlaunch a missile to dry land targets. Spend the money on longer range air to surface, ship to surface and space based capabilities. Finally (whew), if you can see it from space, you will eventually have a capability to target it from space, and you will eventually be able to shoot at it from space. - spend the money on space based weapons control and assisted delivery. (like was done in some areas for 1999)
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...northernguy   12/9/2003 8:11:45 AM
On concept technical feasability..... The general wisdom is that deep water oil drilling platform tech is sufficently close to this in concept that there is little risk of failure to be able to build a workable structure.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...northernguy   12/9/2003 2:53:24 PM
Salde, thats fine. But I assume thats some bright spark has worked on an the construction "site" to build an oil platform if they threw this idea into the mix. Logistically this means: Entire complex built on the mainland either: Platform units towed out by approp vessel or : Modules floated out : modules barged out any of the above requires vessels travelling in concert to assist in "sheperding" it also means that the utility vessels, anchor boats etc also require naval escort anchor boats are huuuge. they themselves are a standout and desirable target. think about the size and scope of what is proposed and then look at the timeframe to erect one of these. all of this I assume is happening during war time conditions. that means that you either have persistent and absolute mastery of the environment en route and at location unlike Lego, you can't throw this into the water and watch it grow like a weed. It requires more complex and intrixtae manouvering to start building it - all in an exnvironment which must be consistently protected and is drawing significant resources to defend it not only from physical attacks but also requires a capability to counter anti-shipping missiles etc.. I still think that when you weigh this up (and it gets back to the location and the level of location mastery that the "allies" have of the region, then its better to spend money and allocate resources elsewhere. In a non lethal environment its a no-brainer.
 
Quote    Reply

Slade    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...gf0012-aus   12/9/2003 6:31:47 PM
There is a difference between believing a MOB is buildable vs if it should be built. I could argue both sides of the issue but I've cooled on it over the years. Assemblying it under fire seems to me to be conceptually similar, but on a much larger scale, to bulding a pontoon bridge under fire. And that tends to be very costly both in blood and equipment.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities...gf0012-aus   12/9/2003 6:43:57 PM
I've got no doubt that it can be built. My reservations are about practicality for a given theatre or environment.
 
Quote    Reply

northernguy    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept - vulnerabilities..   12/10/2003 8:08:58 PM
Some comments on this thread assume that the mobile base has to be assembled under fire. Why is this so? Carriers typically position themselves so that they are not continually under fire. Why must a mobile base with (potentially) much longer range weapons and air craft deliberately expose themselves to greater risk than carriers? There is no absolute physical, logitical, tactical or strategic requirement for mobs to assembled any closer than command considers desirable. Again, I take no position on whether the idea of joining thousand foot ships together lego style in the belief that they will be so stable that you can build runways for major aircraft is actually feasible. In fact, I'm a little surprised that everyone seems to agree that it's not a problem.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics