A single ship sea base. Make sure to check out ThinkDefence's take on the "original" AFSB, the Atlantic Conveyor.
This from their website...
Afloat Forward Staging BaseMSC, through the CNO’s SeaPower 21 and sea-basing initiative, is developing the concept of the afloat forward staging base to rapidly and efficiently meet the U.S. Marine Corps’ future requirements and to support joint forces’ ability to launch combat power from the sea. MSC is exploring a commercial approach to the AFSB, taking advantage of our experience with the maritime community and industry’s research and development capabilities.The proposed AFSB concept uses a 1,140-foot commercial container ship with a 140-foot beam, puts a flight deck on top to launch and recover helicopters and, potentially, short take-off and landing, fixed-wing aircraft. The ship would use modular berthing, feeding, medical and administrative spaces and would incorporate a selective cargo discharge system, automating supply selection and distribution.
Just finished a post on the Atlantic Conveyor
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/01/the-story-of-the-atlantic-conveyor/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI hope that if this idea is ever put into action that it has plenty of point-defence capability, excellent damage control capability, and numerous escorts around it and alert at all times.
ReplyDeletePresumably an operation would not rely on just one of these ships, but, regardless, is it worth the risk to put so much capability into just one ship? If it's for launching combat power from sea, prudence demands one to expect that combat power, whether from traditional or irregular forces, might be launched at such a ship. What would it mean for an operation if such a ship, with such a concentration of capability, was damaged, disabled, or sunk?
well as far as i know the sea base isn't in the assault echelon so it wouldn't actually be in any danger.
ReplyDeleteLPDs, LHA/LHDs and their escorts would go into the teeth of the danger, these would be used to support operations ashore once the situation was stabilized.
think about Afghanistan if we had one of these off the coast...logistics might be a bit easier.
Using commercial shipbuilding techniques is all very well and good. It certainly has numerous advantages in terms of cost, speed and cross commonality.
ReplyDeleteHowever commercial shipbuilding techniques often tend to be far less economical with space than military building techniques (larger berth spaces in commercial than military vessels, larger gangways, etc) - resulting in larger vessels for the same capability (not that crews mind bigger berths).
There are however genuine reasons behind different specifications for commercial and military vessels. The most crucial of these is armour. Commercial built ships may well be cheaper and quicker to build but they inevitably lack the armour protection of ships built to military specifications.
In many respects the Atlantic Conveyor is the perfect example of the successes and pitfalls of commercial shipbuilding for the military. It performed its function admirably, right up until it was sunk, with loss of life and much vital equipment - highlighting the risks of relying upon unarmoured vessels for logistical capability.
If one is building vessels for which in part ones logistical capability depends then it is prudent to armour them. Simply stating that it won't get in harms way is as dangerous a mindset as the 'we don't do COIN' mindset the US Army adopted.
First off let's get some accuracy in reporting. The AFSB has already been done! The USNS Gysgt Fred Stockham (an LMSR converted under the MPF-E project) was additional modified to be an AFSB years ago. As I understand it, the same mods are down to other LMSRs being put into the MPF.
ReplyDeleteSecondly MSC does not promote specific ship designs, they deal with what OPNAV funds for better or worse. News Flash - the USN has NOT funded one new construction sealift ship in years! and they are forbidden from buying foreign ships such as the Maersk S-Class discussed elewhere on this blog.
The AFSB is is a joint sealfit asset so by definition is not dedicated to USMC as AFOE.
The Atlanic Conveyor is not representative of current specialized sealift ships. I was a jurg rigged, hastely loaded, STUFT ship put togehter on short order for an emergent operation. It was struck by an errant missile aimed at another ship.
In addition, many merchant ships can take significant damage. Any ship will suffer significant damage when deck caro with POL containers are struck. Hazardous cargo stowed in cargo holds on MPS ships for instance have the lastest fire fighting systems avaiable. Armor offers not much help for deck cargo and topside systems. What is key is the damaged stability standards used during construction. Typically merchant ships are built to one compartment while warships are built and crewed to two compt stability. What makes the BIG difference is size of crew and therefore personnel to fight fires and control damage.
IMHO its USN lawyers who are the folks preventing MSC/USNS ships from being fitted with defensive weapons systems as the RFA already are. It can be done if senior naval leaders tell the lawyers to get out of the way.
IMHO amphib warshps are seriously under equipped with weapons but the details I will post on the other SNAFU thread.
Sorry I forgot to say that the USNS Stockham did not get full flight deck mods as the design did notr permit it. Her flight was enlarged for larger helos and V-22.
ReplyDeleteSelective cargo systems is a Marine dream best accomplished in those exquisite warships ($$),
I have just learned that the MPF mods to LMSRs include troop accomodations of up to 200, NAVAIR certified flight deck for up to CH-53 and added container (TEU) spots, as well as provision for INLS pontoons.
ReplyDeleteThere will be on modified LMSR in each MPSron.