USN Considers Sea-Based Platform For SOFs

Jane's Defence Weekly | January 23, 2002 | Andrew Koch

[Stand Watch Listen]

The US Navy (USN) is considering options for fielding a dedicated sea-based platform for forward-basing special operations forces (SOFs). The move follows the successful deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk with SOFs during Operation 'Enduring Freedom'.

The new platform, dubbed the Afloat Forward Staging Base, would be used to accommodate SOFs and their equipment, and rotary-wing aircraft when regional basing arrangements are inadequate.

According to navy officials, options under consideration for the platform include reactivation of a decommissioned aircraft carriers - either the USS Independence or the USS Ranger - delaying retirement of the carrier USS Constellation, or modifying a medium roll-on/roll-off ship operated by Military Sealift Command.

Also being considered is the possible conversion of a merchant vessel such as a container ship or super tanker, or a modified navy amphibious ship. US Marine Corps Maj Gen William Whitlow, the USN's director of expeditionary warfare, said on 16 January that the USA needs some form of dedicated sea-based platform for basing SOFs and other ground forces, saying the ship could resemble the next-generation amphibious assault ship replacement.

The idea is said to have first surfaced during the finalisation of the navy part of the US Quadrennial Defense Review, but has gained support and impetus following the USS Kitty Hawk's success in Operation 'Enduring Freedom' in Afghanistan. Navy planners now say they expect to have to conduct similar missions in the future, and are exploring technical and cost options for such operations. The navy said that no decisions or recommendations have yet been made.

[RightWhale]

Large motorized barge.

[DWSUWF]

In an age when offense is king wouldn't something like this, even with round the clock air cover, be a sitting duck that dangerously concentrated our forces into a relatively small and vulnerable target?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Only IF you can find it and then only IF you have the means of hitting it with a fairly sophisticated weapon. An anti ship missile comes to mind but even that would not be enough to sink something as large as an aircraft carrier. A large combat ship can survive even a nearby nuclear blast.

BTW, isn't a land base stationary and an even bigger target?

[too-taxed]

Should consider a high-speed InCAT, under testing now with the Army. large stable platform that can cruise at 30 plus knots and make high speed runs in excess of 40 KTS. Search Army LINK news for Joint Venture HSV-1 (High Speed Vessel)

[DWSUWF]

"...BTW, isn't a land base stationary and an even bigger target?..."

I was thinking of those ultra high speed 'rocket' torpedoes, one right after another in a coordinated attack.

[RightWhale]

If the large self-powered barge were also submersible, it would be well-protected against nukes. Excepting the specialized nukes that are designed to explode deep subsurface, which are a small portion of the arsenal. The large barge wouldn't have to go deep, just enough to get below the surface. Targeting the large self-powered barge would be difficult even in a first-strike, and nearly impossible in later stages of war.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

If all of the LPH class of boats hasn't been scrapped yet, they can use one of them. Seems redundant though since all deployed MEU's are SOC capable and there is usually one under sail in most areas of the world year round. The delay in deploying a MEU to a hot spot is reduced compared to a SF one, unless this platform is going to be manned and underway year round. The money could be better spent on something else.

[rmlew]

The US navy already has ships built to support troops, air craft, helicoptors, and SOFs. These are the LHD and LHA's like the Tarawa and Wasp class. These support Marine Brigades with decks for aircraft, and well-deks for landing equipment.

I have nothing against keeping a few more super carriers in the fleet, but they should be kept as Supercariers. I believe that we need 5 carrier task forces at sea all the time. This requires 15 carriers.

The navy should build an extra Wasp class carrier.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And what terrorist country has them?

[Magnum44]

Your both correct. This proposal is by someone who either does not understand the existing force and the numbers required to maintain forward deployed forces OR it is an army SOF advocate trying to find organizational funding justification after, once again, having to rely on a Navy asset to operate in places in the world where no friendly bases exist.

Before I get flamed by Army, this is no disrespect for the outstanding job the in country SOF are doing. But the idea that the NAVY/USMC should have to cut funds to allow the army to take their roles over is just budget panhandling.

[Semper]

How about something like THIS .

A large floating Island Logistic/Operations Base and Airport could be constructed from this technology. It could be moved to wherever needed; even though that would be a slow process it would still add great flexibility to our military presence without relying on other countries.

[DWSUWF]

"...And what terrorist country has them?..."

I don't believe that any of the world's military powers, large or small, first, second or third world, will currently even admit doing R&D with them...

But they've got them, the evidence is unambiguous on this score.

Remember… What a superpower barely has today, countries like France will have tomorrow. And as soon as the feckless Frogs have it, so will the terrorists.

The world, and our defense problems, will still be here when you and I are gone, BoT.

[NormsRevenge]

Or this :-)

Freedom Ship

[Blood of Tyrants]

And as soon as the feckless Frogs have it, so will the terrorists.

Ain't that the truth.