Charles Gray said:How are you supposed to defend those things? They probably have the stealth qualities of the death star and given the profusion of anti-ship missiles, SSK style subs and even ballestic anti-ship missiles, they seem a bit..vulnerable.
TomS said:No worse than defending a fixed port on shore; probably less, given that it can move at least a little. Even a few knots is enough to throw off time-late targeting data for missiles and force subs to work much harder to get into position.
Sea Skimmer said:Concepts for giant floating platforms don't seem to have ever carried much weight because they are just too slow. Most of those big mobile oil drilling rigs, floating cranes and the Sea Bases X-band radar can only make 7-8 knots in the open sea.
Colonial-Marine said:Sea Skimmer, how would these sea base ships be different from current dseigns? Some sort of multi-role possibly modular LHD type vessel?
ouroboros said:Of course, this assumes some if not all major modules do not have a nuclear reactor for power/propulsion. Considering the value of the base when fully assembled, it would probably behoove people to increase both transit speed and reduce logistics(fuel/power) for base operation. Considering the aviation focus, you would want to commit as much onboard fuel storage to aircraft as you could get away with. While something like a single power barge/module is the simple solution, it may not necessarily be the best.
I suppose it's also question of whether the typical MoB is a 3 to 5 megablock module strip operated as a single entity, or if you start going to small module size and increasing the module number. There is also the possibility of different sized blocks/modules as well, perhaps a minimum block size, and a 4x quadruple block sized module, maybe going up 9x nonuple. The quadruple or nonuple size would be ideal for hangars and other large contiguous space needs. An example configuration could be 12 base blocks long and 4 wide, consisting of a core strip of 6 quadruple size blocks flanked by 12 base blocks on each side, to give the impression of a typical 3 megablock MoB while being reconfigurable (such as substituting pairs of edge blocks to make up for quadruple blocks that must be abandoned due to damage to repair flight deck length or to simply make the core strip flight deck even longer)
Sea Skimmer said:ouroboros said:I suppose it's also question of whether the typical MoB is a 3 to 5 megablock module strip operated as a single entity, or if you start going to small module size and increasing the module number. There is also the possibility of different sized blocks/modules as well, perhaps a minimum block size, and a 4x quadruple block sized module, maybe going up 9x nonuple. The quadruple or nonuple size would be ideal for hangars and other large contiguous space needs. An example configuration could be 12 base blocks long and 4 wide, consisting of a core strip of 6 quadruple size blocks flanked by 12 base blocks on each side, to give the impression of a typical 3 megablock MoB while being reconfigurable (such as substituting pairs of edge blocks to make up for quadruple blocks that must be abandoned due to damage to repair flight deck length or to simply make the core strip flight deck even longer)
More blocks will mean much higher total cost and less stability in rough seas. That's why they want three huge blocks. That way the runway is only moving three ways... which is bad enough. Can you imagine how harsh and dangerous it would be to land a C-17 or even a C-130 on a runway which is moving five or six or more ways?
ouroboros said:Most of the proposals show during flight deck operations (and sometimes transit) either direct fixed linkages so the combined structure is monolithic, or use a flight deck edge transverse linkage/hinge, which would restrict movement to a single pitch axis per linkage traverse line. Admittedly, that would result in a worst case of a variably humped runway if the sea state and wave period were unfavorable. All other undesirable flight deck movements are common with existing aircraft carriers (transverse slide, yaw, vertical translation, pitch, roll), though to a certain extent that could be managed via ballasting of the semisubmersible pontoon and extant dynamic positioning thrusters.
While increased block count implies a higher component cost for the complete solution, the MoB is fundamentally designed in a modular fashion from the outset, and taking advantage of economies of scale (production run) rather than economies of scale (size) I would argue the solution cost would actually go down by increasing the number of common components in total rather than as a percentage.
Though the design could end up being substantially different if it wasn't fully intended to hold most of the equipment ahead of time. Megafloat demonstrated (in protected waters at least) that a raw airstrip is feasible with what many would consider a minimal structure. One could easily imagine a heavy lift ship carrying stacks of Megafloat modules as a quick deployment airstrip and as a transfer point for SeaBase assets, where other shore connector options such as LCACS can roll up and collect cargo easily.
For decades the United States has used small landing craft in combination with heavy-tonnage
offshore ships to land mobile units of soldiers and armor support on foreign soil. This proven
strategy has led to a current logistics concept known as seabasing, in which equipment and
personnel are transported from an offshore base to shore. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps now
seek to improve the transport of equipment and logistical support through the use of a flexible
transport ship capable of moving equipment from the continental United States (CONUS) to the
seabase, and then from seabase to shore. The goal of the Advanced Expeditionary Support Vessel
(AESV) concept is to create a potential design for a multi-mission capable vessel that can
travel from CONUS to seabase and to shoreline under a variety of load and mission conditions.
9.1. Design Summary
The final AEV design is a trimaran hullform that has the following characteristics and
• Overall length and width: 181 m x 48.8 m
• 10,700 MT displacement
• 5,000 nm Range at 24 kts
• 1360 Passenger Seats
• Carries 1/5 of MEB
• 1200 sq m of Cargo/Flex Space
• Operates in SS 4
• Unloads using an inflatable causeway
• Multi-mission capable
Though it cannot move an entire MEB in one trip, the design team feels that the design is
a significant improvement over the current ship-to-shore connectors used today. The ship is both
robust and flexible in its cargo carrying and beaching capabilities, and fulfills the requirements
laid out for it at the beginning of the design process.
Grey Havoc said:A Carderock Division Technical Report from 2004 titled 'Use of Seaplanes and Integration within a Sea Base'.
An impervious MOB would need enough Marines, Air Force and Army assets to attain theater dominance since the strategic sealift seems to be non strategy so far. A MOB would need Vertical Gun Systems (VGSs) of sufficient size and barrel numbers, enough large, deep magazine PBWs and other large DEWs as well as enough:
T-AGOS/SURTASS has nothing to do with sea-basing.
I would appreciate if you would explain what surtass is, and why seabasing is not happening. Is the military not fully invested in it. Do they think it is disadvantaged. Just a friendly person asking who ha little knowledge on these topics.This is just stringing words together without understanding anything about how these things all work.
SURTASS isn't related to sea-basing at all. As you can tell by the fact that they are looking at the SURTASS despite the fact that sea-basing pretty much isn't happening.