Since sea basing has been a news item lately, I wanted to remind readers that I was able to save the vids put out by the Marine Corps "Sea Basing Think Tank" before they hid all documents behind the military firewall. These are all legacy documents and thinking might have changed but you can check it out by clicking on the tab at the top of the page.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
SNAFU Sea Basing Docs....the Maersk option.
Since sea basing has been a news item lately, I wanted to remind readers that I was able to save the vids put out by the Marine Corps "Sea Basing Think Tank" before they hid all documents behind the military firewall. These are all legacy documents and thinking might have changed but you can check it out by clicking on the tab at the top of the page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
This is an really interesting concept. Similiar to what the Royal Navy did during the Falkland War.
ReplyDeleteexactly right. wow. i never put that together.
ReplyDeleteand i've been down on there use of supply ships against pirates but properly equipped its a combat multiplier.
you just gave me food for thought.
Except the Atlantic Conveyor was sunk before she could transport off all the aircraft she was carrying. Using commercial ships is a trade off in survivability. Also it might be worth considering how Congress reacts to cheap commercial ships that basically can replace an LHD.
ReplyDeleteSea basing always sounds good unless the other guy happens to have any decent submarines in which case it's a lot eggs in one vulnerable basket.
As an aside exactly what's the max sea state where vehicles can be transferred between ships at sea as shown in the video? Even with one ramp stabilized that looks extremely dangerous.
i understand its dangerous Lane and may not be as survivable but the LHD-17s havent been declared survivable in a contested environment either, and so is the LCS less survivable. In the era of budget cuts its solutions like this that are simple, already exist, and the Maresk ships give extraordinary flexibility, it can easily be a troop transport, hospital ship, or even the possibility of an aircraft carrier, imagine having some 35 B's taking up from just infront of the of the bridge, add a ski jump to give extra lift, you can deploy half a dozen to a dozen 35B's along with helos or landing craft, we may not need these capabilities right now, but if we ever got into a shooting war where we need capability fast, these options must be there.
ReplyDeleteyou're confusing the issue.
ReplyDeletethe seabase would operate behind the shield of the assault force on land, the LHA and the carriers supporting the op.
if a seabase is deployed you can bet subs and antisub aircraft will be around also.
the issue with the Atlantic Conveyor was an issue of the radar picket not being properly constructed, bad weather and much much luck on the Argentinians side. a ship decoyed the missile away from it (a destroyer) and that missile struck the Atlantic Conveyor.
oh and read up on sea basing. that cheap commercial ship is in no way a replacement for an LHD. and LHD is built to combat standards and is designed to go with the assault wave.
the ASSAULT WAVE.
seabase comes after the assault wave, after the follow on assault wave and arrives after a secure beachhead has been establish and supports ongoing operations on land.
If the bottom three tiers of containers were filled with sealed ordinary containers filled with oil barrels filled with foam I dare say the ship would continue to float after multiple ASM hits. As for fire fighting well there wouldn't be the space constraints as within a warhship. The innards of say 10 domestic fire appliances could be purchased for about $3million. There capacity easily outstrips the equipment found in most ships. (Same could be said for pumps for flooding.) The size of the vessel would allow teams to get around fires from both sides. And if the modularity was done with thought smoke wouldn't be able to travel to far within the ship. If the modules were constructed to ISO container dimensions so that they didn't touch the frames there would be a great reduction in heat being conducting through metal to start other fires. This Maersk concept is far beyond what the RN did with the poor Atlantic Conveyor.
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff, this is indeed far beyond anything attempted by the RN. However, if you are interested in container ship conversions carried out for the RFA that go beyond Atlantic Conveyor, both successful and flawed, just google RFA Reliant (A131) and RFA Argus (A135).
ReplyDeleteI apologise for the absence of links but I am a computer neanderthal. Anyway, they are interesting ships and may highlight some of the difficulties with these conversions.
Exactly both successful and flawed!
DeleteThe problem with ARAPAHO was trying to work from containers. And not building modules within container ship bays to ISO container dimensions; say 48ft (American standard) in length and multiples of 8ft for width and multiples of 8ft 6in for height. No reason why these modules can't be fitted out in the same manner as cruise liners. That is the cabin is built elsewhere and then slid into position through the open module sides.
This concept isn't the traditional "Sea Base" (i.e. an engine for sealift logistics throughput).
ReplyDeleteIt's an Afloat Forward Staging Base. It's meant to enable distributed ops in more areas for less than buying traditional amphibious ships and warships.