The USMC Sea Basing Site is back up...but unfortunately its been scaled back to obscene proportions. What drove this is beyond me but they did put up 3 new documents. A Why, How and What in regards to the Sea Base.
What is Seabasing
Why We Seabase
How We Seabase
The beauty of the Sea Base is that it codifies the turn toward the Pacific and away from Europe/Middle East. The bad thing about the Sea Base is that its still being promoted to allies that bring nothing to the table and will allow those same 'allies' to continue to sit on the sidelines with token forces...in this instance Naval Forces...while the US and its real partners will be engaging in real work---be it humanitarian assistance (Remember the Japanese Nuclear Crisis? Who didn't you see there? Many European countries!) to peace keeping and of course war.
UPDATE:
USMC Seabasing Website.
can you post a link to the USMC website?
ReplyDeleteWhat must be understood is that Seabasing is an overarching concept the components of which are Amphbious LIFT (Gators plus MSC plus MARAD), using connectors (better term lighterage!) to move cargo from origin to destination. That meanss ALL types of vessels from JHSV down to LCM-8 and includes most importantly INLS pontoons.
The missiong feature in most amphibs is INTEROPERABILITY with almost any other LIFT platform. In point of fact amphib warships only connect to NFAF ships by UNREP and Vertrep. When was the last time anyone saw a tank be passed between the two types? How about a skin to skin transfer? Answer it was done a few years ago by USNS Bobo, and LSD and HSV-2 Swift using an INLS RRDF. NOT done since, the Gator Navy is myopic!
Amphib ships lack essential feature such as cranes and dynamic ramps. FIX the amphibs before building more LPD17 failures.
why do we want our combat ships to be compatible with cargo vessels? if anything it should be the other way around.
ReplyDeletethe MSC is their to serve the amphibs not the other way around. besides USNS Bobo and its brothers have more room for the types of modifications that you seek.
what is MLP ship for if not to facilitate the type of work you're talking aobut? and its going into production soon.
Where do you think the materials needed for a landing come from the sky? Do you really think your almighty amphibs have all the "beans, bullets and black oil" the Marines need to fight their way ashore and stay there or move inland? IF so then you need to do some more research.
ReplyDeleteMSC does NOT exist to "serve". As I said sealift ships and amphibs BOTH makeup necessary complimentary parts of the amphibious LIFT equation. The MPS ships have the gear the amphibs are defective in their designs.
There are NO more sealift ships being built and few modified partly because of the enormous cost of those glorified cargo ships aka transports you call amphibs. Why do billion dollar plus ships NOT have cranes and davits and how about another means of getting the troops ashore when their wet well docks BREAK as they always do.
MLP is very poor designed to get tactical equipment off sealift ships because the LPD/LSD type amphibs refuse to go skin to skin for such transfers.
Take the $900 mil for MLPs and buy cranes and davits for amphibs. MLPs are years away from IOC, they just got the contract, check your facts.
assault echelon
ReplyDeleteassault follow on echelon
then MSC.
an MEU is capable of sustaining itself for 15 days.
an MEB is capable of sustaining itself for 30 days.
an MEF is capable of sustaining itself for 45 days.
that means that MSC has (in the case of a large assault) 45 days to get to the area. amphibs are hardly without resources and the Marines they carry can stay in the fight for days and weeks before MSC is required.
that doesn't even factor USAF resupply or reinforcement from Army units like the 82nd or 101st.
my facts are straight. well decks work and cranes would mess up the flight line which is far more important for amphibs than skin to skin operations ever will be.