 |
| Elevated Causeway System-Modular. |
Since this is in essence a Marine Corps centric attempt to solve the ship to shore logistics problem, it can be forgiven for seeing this as a connector problem for use during an amphibious assault.
But lets be honest.
Even a large scale assault will bring resources to bear that will render the need for a sea base redundant.
Of course that is during the assault phase. But what about the more obvious issues. What about the need to provide port facilities during a time of natural disaster? What about humanitarian assistance?
Those will be the times when the sea base will be used most often. And the optimum solution isn't a group of ships, the optimum solution will be to further develop the Elevated Causeway System-Modular and get it to be easier to setup, quicker to deploy and if necessary have enough in storage to allow them to be left behind when the "first responders" leave/redeploy.
If necessary, Navy Research should be turned loose to tackle this issue AND money dedicated to building MLP's and other sea basing ships should be reprogrammed toward amphibious lift. Money is tight and money should be spent for essentials. Sea Base as its currently planned can wait.
The Elevated Causeway System is a nice, cheaper workaround.
*Note*
My friend over at Think Defence has a couple of articles that point out the history of the elevated causeway AND offer another fascinating work around for the problem of unloading our MPS ships without the high cost of LCACs...the MEXEFLOTE. Check out the articles here and here .
The main point of all this is simple. Our allies have solved parts of the ship to shore problem, perhaps we need to rethink the sea base. Maybe we should simplify it by saying that its an assemblage of ships (anything from an aircraft carrier, amphibs, logistics ships...heck even LCS's) that have transitioned from an assault to providing logistics ashore. If "kinetic" activity is absent from the equation then that same assembly is by essence of its arrival at the scene of aid, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief etc, properly named a sea base.
IIRC, ELCAS-M can take up to a week to assemble and requires favorable conditions. It's a useful piece of the puzzle, but not an end-all/be-all.
ReplyDeleteWe already have a system superior to MEXEFLOTE in service. It's the Improved Navy Lighterage System (INLS).
And at best the Navy can muster, what, a couple brigade's worth of amphibious lift with limited resupply. The Sea Base is meant to handle the massive volume of troops, gear and supplies that would come after. (e.g. pre-positioned BCT sets on LMSRs)
yeah you're right on the INLS ... but as far as the follow on force you're really talking 6 in one half a dozen in the other. i mean seriously do you think the Army will be able to mobilize and deploy a Brigade team other than the 82nd or the 101st in a short time period?
ReplyDeletehmmm. you just gave me an idea for a new post.
Does it have to be in a short time? The buildup for an amphibious/sea base assault could start well before the actual event. It would take a while to assemble MEBs, airpower, and everything else.
ReplyDeletewell thats part of my issue with the whole thing.
ReplyDeletemy thinking of a large scale amphibious assault is now based around an MEU...maybe an MEU plus. anything larger than that and you're talking about IWO JIMA 2.
and if you have the luxury of assembling something larger then you're going to bringing to bear a couple of carriers, bomber squadrons etc....
i guess i'm thinking Grenada 2 with the need to bring in a stabilizing force after the initial forces are disposed of by the amphib assault and after the stabilizing force you're talking about NGO's without having them push the military around. meaning they're on there own and we get the hell outta dodge.
Interestingly, in both Grenada and Panama, the Marines only landed an MEU, even though many more US forces were involved. (8,000 in Grenada and over 27,000 in Panama)
ReplyDeleteThe Sea Base concept has always been less about amphibious assaults than enabling follow on forces and logistics.
We can't always count on a large, modern, friendly port to dock LMSRs. And there will be plenty of situations that ultimately require more than a battalion of Marines to resolve.
I do think we can simplify things though, and save a lot of money.
totally agree. i don't know how to pull my thinking on this subject together though. it really goes against my grain to rule out large scale amphibious assaults but thats where this is heading. if thats the case then it might be good thing. i just don't know. i still think that we need to probably get the sea bees more on board this sea basing concept. it seems like they have the skills necessary to make this work the right way.
ReplyDelete