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
Rubicon    RE:Mobile Offshore Base concept Northern Guy   4/9/2004 4:54:35 PM
Uh. Russian carrier killer torps, lanuched by subs would sink or severely damage your platform to the point of unusability. Not only it wold be a great morale dampener, but losses, would be great. And that does not even include protection patrol costs, and anti-sabotage patrol costs. I agree with dudley, much easier to grab and hold a piece of land, while having otherwise useless escort forces accomplish combat support, and various littoral warfare missions.
 
Quote    Reply

OPFOR    RE: gf0012-aus - not just those...   4/9/2004 11:48:47 PM
Add the whole range of ballistic missiles to that list. And surely the nukes. Nuking a large offshore asset with a low-yield warhead is not unacceptable. Still, it would be an AD/ASW/ABM sugar momma, so I expect at least some support ;)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    gf0012-aus - not just those...   4/10/2004 12:58:15 AM
Especially if you consider the fact that Russia and Chinas access to more sophisticated electronics has just made their missile strike capability far more lethal. The Russians were already ahead of the game in missile capability, their access to western electronics makes the capacity to precision strike a low yield nuke on a cruise missile a reality. Nations such as China (and heaven forbid) India are just as committed to autonomous and sophisticated guidance weapons . I'm not suggesting that India is a country of potential conflict, what I'm reinforcing is their capability at the electronics and scientific level. A nuke yielding supersonic Yakhont or Brahmos that has been sub launched is not a very attractive proposition to a slow moving overgrown barge.
 
Quote    Reply

OPFOR    RE:gf0012-aus - not just those...   4/12/2004 12:01:37 AM
Yep, a nuke-tipped Brahmos from a slow silent diesel sub is the answer to the question 2b or not 2b for this thing :)
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:gf0012-aus - not just those...   4/12/2004 12:44:55 AM
Jesus, a nuclear first strike is hardly an acceptable or realistic answer to this thing. It would leave inevitably to strategic nuclear engagement. The American counterattack (governed my measureability and justifiability) would be an unconvetional attack against the source countries remaining nuclear strike capability. So threatened, said country would retaliate with a pre emptive strike of its own against American strategic interests. MADness..
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:gf0012-aus - not just those...   4/12/2004 12:45:30 AM
Leave should be "lead.""
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    gf0012-aus - not just those... blank   4/12/2004 1:02:12 AM
The issue is one of assuming that logic will prevail. What if the striker assumes that its worth tagging the MOB? The US then has multiple choice issues at hand: was it a russian yakhont? was it a chinese yakhont was it an Indian Brahmos? they have to know who topped the mob before responding in kind. That's not necessarily a quick and easy decision making process. Without wanting to go into SciFi scenarios, what if Fundamentalists manage to successfully build a mini sub (like the 3 built and found in Colombia). It's an underwater cargo truck, What is there to say that they can't get a 21st century version of the XT-20A in place? I realise that this is a long shot, but long shots have to be planned for just as much as wargaming a theatre event.
 
Quote    Reply

OPFOR    RE:gf0012-aus - not just those... blank   4/12/2004 2:13:20 AM
Wow, hold on guys! As it's assumed (1) the sub is close enough to launch a weapon and, we must to assume (2) the sub was not detected. For a diesel to get undetected to 300km mark from a target (about a Brahmos range), is not a problem. The situation would be like that: 1. What was that?! 2. Who was that? 3. What do we do now? q1.1 would remain unanswered as the nuke will destroy the weapon and all useful radar data picked up by the target. Answer to q1.2 is obvious - it's a nuke, with approximate yield quickly determined. There would be no sufficient clues on what kind of a weapon that was. There would be material samples that could be used to TRY to identify the source of the fissile material. But that would take some time. q2. No way to say for the same reasons. Intell would be a better source, but considering recent performance, hardly of a quality sufficient for making hard decisions. 3. Good luck to those decision makers, and all of us, eventually. - Some other things. Only export mods of Yahont must have a range limited to 300km. - Russia has much cooler missiles than that one. - Loss of such an asset is an ultimate pain, but it does not threaten the population. A stupid red button hit absolutely will.
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:gf0012-aus   4/12/2004 2:59:43 AM
Good scenarios gf - but they operate on the assumption that it was neither the Russians, Chinese, or Indians responsible for the attack, which was the condition painted by the original posters. Determining the source of the nuke is an important piece of the puzzle. However, if it was a known source weapon (i.e. Russian, Chinese, Indian), we'd have the answer in relatively good order (or so I imagine). The procedures are there for the analysis of the surviving nuclear material, and for the detecting of ballistic missile launches. And American strategic posture is quite clear on this point: in the event of a nuclear attack, tactical or otherwise, on American assets, the use of unconvetional weapons to deter and/or prevent further such attacks is the next step. This is why the totality of our ballistic weapons systems are (today) designed for killing hard targets, namely hardened missile silos.. If a terrorist or unconventional force got their hands on a self-mobile nuclear weapon and the means to deploy it, the scenario complicates itself. Needless to say, "The Sum of All Fears" paints this rather bleak picture fairly well (despite the lousy film adaptation) - absent a fiction-bound hero, the United States could very well find itself escalating the situation to full-scale nuclear war with the assumed guilty party, however unintentionally. Our doctrine is built on the basic premise that terrorist entities lack the capacity to deploy nuclear weapons OF THIS KIND - we'd expect a dirty bomb or at best a back-pack, man portable weapon. However, assume they've beaten the odds, and our intelligence services have missed the play. I would imagine in such a case that they would be limited in their supply (a single warhead and launch vehicle). Given that, why waste the effort on an MOB? This kind of sci-fi would be more plausible if painted as an attack on Washington, New York, etc. It doesn't fit the bill as a design centerpiece for this platform..
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    gf0012-aus - blank   4/12/2004 5:47:48 PM
Assuming that these undesirables have managed to secure an XT-20 type solution, I'd actually bet on a symbolic strike rather than a MOB - as you say it's a waste of effort in a psychological strategic sense. More likely to be under a carrier in dock, or in the middle of SFrancisco harbour, or timed on a large vessel exit as it transits the golden gate bridge. but, i'm deviating substantially from the original post now, so I'll pull my head back in..
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics