Carriers able to launch and recover C-130s, that would be something.
It's been done once in the past, but the one (successfull!) test with a C-130 proved the plane would block the entire deck. HALSS would've had enough room, and then some.
I love that "corrugated sheet metal roofing" on page 8.
this concept has been around for sometime. Briefed at High Performance Vessels Symposium in 2009. Basically it suffers from the "where's the beef" problem. Without significant cago capacity, this is just a big expensive lily pad. The Tyranny of Tonnage applies. Seabasing metricsa are in tens of thousands of tons NOT 100s.
Sol I have done seabasing and MY concept of a seabase is a multi ship intermodal transhipment station at sea. Cargo and troops etc come in and then are dispersed to the warships attacking or directely to bases ashore. Therein lies the Tyranny of Tonnage. We don't need intermediate conduits, we need many heavy haulers whose cargo can be broken down to useable package for redistribution by "connectors". We don't need gas guzzzling airlifters coming from thousands of miles away. We need connectors that can haul 100 to say 500 tons quickly ashore or over to another task group.
Seabase is a hub not a desitination. The more ships and connectors that can interoperate with the seabase the better (something the Marines did NOT understand when designing the service-unique MPF-F). Like Bob Work has written think of how to support and sustain scaleable Theater Entry Operations as well as amphib assaults.
Too bad the Maersk S-class ships will never be reflagged for USN use (Congress said no)
Carriers able to launch and recover C-130s, that would be something.
ReplyDeleteIt's been done once in the past, but the one (successfull!) test with a C-130 proved the plane would block the entire deck. HALSS would've had enough room, and then some.
I love that "corrugated sheet metal roofing" on page 8.
(correction, page 10).
ReplyDeleteI've read no shortage of praise for trimarans, but if the platform is damn good, why isn't it more widely used?
ReplyDeletethis concept has been around for sometime. Briefed at High Performance Vessels Symposium in 2009. Basically it suffers from the "where's the beef" problem. Without significant cago capacity, this is just a big expensive lily pad. The Tyranny of Tonnage applies. Seabasing metricsa are in tens of thousands of tons NOT 100s.
ReplyDeletebut leesea...
ReplyDeleteif we're doing a proper sea base then this will just serve as a conduit to a high capacity ship that has the tonnage that you're talking about.
more importantly it gets the USAF into the game by giving them an at sea landing strip that their aircraft can use.
two words: jeep carriers
ReplyDeletethe original LPH's were jeep carrier sized...these are to be on the scale of almost twice a super carrier and able to land C-130s with ease...
ReplyDeletealmost a movable airfield...if we're going to prepare for a pacific campaign then i don't see why these aren't getting more attention.
Sol I have done seabasing and MY concept of a seabase is a multi ship intermodal transhipment station at sea. Cargo and troops etc come in and then are dispersed to the warships attacking or directely to bases ashore. Therein lies the Tyranny of Tonnage.
ReplyDeleteWe don't need intermediate conduits, we need many heavy haulers whose cargo can be broken down to useable package for redistribution by "connectors".
We don't need gas guzzzling airlifters coming from thousands of miles away. We need connectors that can haul 100 to say 500 tons quickly ashore or over to another task group.
Seabase is a hub not a desitination. The more ships and connectors that can interoperate with the seabase the better (something the Marines did NOT understand when designing the service-unique MPF-F). Like Bob Work has written think of how to support and sustain scaleable Theater Entry Operations as well as amphib assaults.
Too bad the Maersk S-class ships will never be reflagged for USN use (Congress said no)