related articles:
NAVSEA: Distance Support to be Key Enabler of Future Navy
Air Force MAgazine: Sea Basing
Posted on 03/08/2005 12:23:06 PM PST by Stand Watch Listen
WASHINGTON — A war averted more than a decade ago may be pointing the way toward 21st-century warfare for the U.S. Navy.
In September 1994, a U.S. flotilla positioned itself off the coast of Haiti to help restore a democratically elected president to power. The flagship, the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, was stripped of its fighter planes and turned into a landing hub for Army helicopters and barracks for 2,000 soldiers.
Operation Uphold Democracy, as it was called, ended in a few weeks and the Norfolk-based Eisenhower headed to the Mediterranean for a more conventional deployment. But Navy leaders say the successful use of the Ike as a floating base, duplicated in 2001 when Marines operated from the carrier Kitty Hawk in the early stages of America’s invasion of Afghanistan, foreshadows a new naval era.
They contend that the “sea base” – a network of ships providing offshore artillery fire, air support, food, ammunition and even a place to sleep for ground troops – is about to replace the carrier as the centerpiece of the fleet.
The Navy always has been part of the supply chain for U.S. ground troops fighting overseas. Most of the tanks and heavy equipment used in Operation Iraqi Freedom were delivered by sea, for example.
But the sea base concept makes ships the end of the supply line. Soldiers and Marines accustomed to building and defending bases inland operate from the sea, going ashore only to fight.
“This is a revolution,” said Adm. Vern Clark, the outgoing chief of naval operations.
Within a decade, if it can find the money and win over skeptics in Congress – both tall orders – the service may deploy the first sea base.
It may have a dozen or more ships and be spread over hundreds of square miles of ocean to protect itself against terrorist attacks like those bedeviling U.S. troops in Iraq. But it also will be close enough to shore and have weapons to directly support those troops fighting hundreds of miles inland.
A typical base could include:
- A next-generation carrier, now called CVN-21, armed with 80 warplanes and manned by a crew one-third smaller than the 3,000 needed to run today’s flattops.
- An amphibious assault ship, the LHA-R, essentially a mini-carrier carrying attack helicopters, 20 or more fighters and bunks for 1,800 Marines. It will replace an assault ship that can accommodate only six fighters.
- Several newly designed destroyers, the DDX class, each packing 80 Tomahawk cruise missiles and new satellite-guided artillery with a range of 100 miles or more.
- A collection of “littoral combat ships,” high-speed floating trucks able to ferry troops and equipment ashore, clear mines, hunt enemy submarines and intercept potential suicide-boat attackers.
- Two or more nearly carrier-sized cargo vessels, loaded with supplies, including tanks and heavy trucks, and topped with a flat deck that could serve as a landing strip for aircraft that would lift them ashore.>BR> - One or more attack submarines.
Except for the submarines, none of those ships now exist. The Navy’s bid to develop so many new or radically redesigned vessels simultaneously is the broadest such effort since World War II.
It largely grows out of Clark’s conviction, shared by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other Pentagon leaders, that future enemies are likely to be the kind of hit-and-run insurgents U.S. troops are now battling in Iraq and that Americans must become quicker and less predictable to defeat them.
“We have to provide this nation with a raiding-party kind of capability, ... without that great big footprint” that goes with major installations and large troop concentrations ashore, Clark said. And, he added, “We have to provide land forces with real precision.”
Officials say two of the new ships, the DDX destroyer and the MPF-F cargo ship, are especially critical to those goals. The destroyer will be manned by one-third as many sailors as are on today’s destroyers. They will be outfitted with rapid-fire, satellite-aimed guns that will let a Marine or soldier far inland target and destroy individual enemy tanks, artillery, even foxholes, through protracted battles.
The 5-inch guns on today’s destroyers are far less accurate and have a range of only about 10 miles. That means troops inland must depend on Navy and Air Force planes, which must fly so high that they often have trouble distinguishing between friendly and enemy troops in close combat.
“It’s been awhile since we have built a single ship that is going to have such a dramatic impact on the total force as DDX will have,” said Vice Adm. Phil Balisle, who heads the Naval Sea Systems Command headquartered at the Washington Navy Yard.
The cargo vessel will be sort of a floating Wal-Mart, carrying almost anything troops might need and able to send it ashore within hours. It would replace ships that must pull into port to unload and are packed so tightly that longshoremen must remove – and expose to attack – tons of gear to reach the supplies that troops really need.
Engineering a ship that can be stocked and then unloaded at sea, even in rough weather, is an enormous challenge, said Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, the Navy’s top warfare requirements officer. And it’s expensive, with an estimated cost of $2.2 billion.
Though Navy officials insist that they’re committed to the sea base, skeptics abound on Capitol Hill and among military intellectuals.
Lawmakers last year slowed development of the new destroyers amid warnings that the DDX relies too heavily on unproven technologies, and they froze spending on the cargo ship program until the Navy provides a “detailed report” on the craft, its mission and possible alternatives.
related articles:
NAVSEA: Distance Support to be Key Enabler of Future Navy
Air Force MAgazine: Sea Basing
Would now be a good time to bring up the idea of giant wing-in-ground-effect aircraft? Aircraft-carrier-sized planes that fly at several hundred knots just above the water and carry millions of pounds of payload are possible, and lots quicker and in many ways more survivable than ships.
How about some Ice Bases made of Pykrete
http://www.combinedops.com/Pykrete.htm
once again, we may be preparing for the previous war. We have to ask ourselves whether future wars will be limited to small scale engagements, rather then major battle. If its the latter then our naval ships must be design primarilly to protect a vast armada of logistical and cargo support. The capacity to house a few troops, or a handful of missiles would be near meaninglesss.
Those first 2 ships kindof look like a modern day USS Monitor.
You know, if you could make a ship out of pykrete, you could make it out of a lightweight blown concrete, that is lighter-than-water. Imagine a hugh artificial floating island of concrete. When you need a base, just tow it into position, and drop anchor. The enemy could fire 500# torpedoes at it for a month and barely scratch the surface!
Wimp
I was part of a group that received a pretty detailed briefing on this concept last year from some very senior Marine Corps officers. This will be the future of the USMC.
Semper fi!
AND it WILL NOT be the Osprey operating from these platforms. The need is for a much, much larger man/logistics capability.
Rumsfeld's land troops and occupy is 'old warfare'. Build the Navy with long range missles. We can control any country from off shore.
Well, a lot's going to depend on how many congressional districts the procurement can be spread across.
Hmmm...Maybe Long Beach CA will release the 'Spruce Goose ' to be 'commissioned'... ;)
Of course the millions of pounds of payload for the "Spruce Goose...errrr..""never mind""
Seems many are already posting from sources that were somewhat obscure and not readily available. But for now I will not be presenting my prior posting of 35-50 articles/day.
Do you have any particular service/particular weapons platform you're interested in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.