# SeaBasing



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2008)

I think we first used a seabase was during Operation Uphold Democracy when the Eisenhower was used and again in 2001-2002 by special ops forces in OEF.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49206

International War Game Explores Seabasing Concept
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008 – More than 200 representatives from militaries and other agencies from around the world came to Maryland this week to discuss the U.S. military’s seabasing concept and how it can be developed as a joint, multinational means of rendering aid and military support.

The group came together for the annual Expeditionary Warrior '08 wargaming program held at the William F. Bolger Leadership Facility in Potomac, Md. The Marine Corps commandant chooses a topic for the war game each year related to organizing, training and equipping Marines. 

Seabasing is the idea of using ships to place expeditionary airfields and ports at sea in regions where it may not be geographically or politically feasible to have a large contingent of forces ashore. 

Described as having “the teeth ashore and the tail afloat,” the seabasing joint integrated concept was approved by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in October 2005. Since then, military officials have been working on assessing its capabilities and looking at how to integrate the concept across the force, and how to employ it in conjunction with multinational agencies. It is planned to be implemented by 2023. 

“It’s one of our bread-and-butter issues,” said Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Tom Murray, commanding general of the Marine’s Warfighting Laboratory at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. 

The U.S. military has a history of projecting combat power from seas and waterways, but has relied on cooperation on host nations to build up power. Political and regional instability in countries around the world has reduced the number of airfields and ports available to U.S. forces, he said. This, combined with the reduction of the U.S. forces “footprint” across Europe and the Pacific, has forced the military to look at other ways to assemble, project and sustain operations in a way that optimizes the number of troops and support facilities required on the ground. 

“As you look into the future and you (ask), ‘What is our enemy like? Who is it going to be?’ we really don’t know. It could be all over the place,” Murray said. “Without all of that stuff ashore, we’ve got to put it at sea.” 

Proponents of the concept suggest that using the sea as a maneuver space creates uncertainty for enemy forces. The offshore position and easy maneuverability provide U.S. forces with multiple strike options. Also, seabasing makes it easier to protect forces and provide operational security in hostile environments, officials said. The rapid build-up of combat power in a specific location can also serve as a deterrent. 

The concept is applicable across a range of operations, officials said. It also includes operations for rendering humanitarian aid and disaster relief. In some regions, ports, airfields and roads may not be accessible following a disaster. Seabasing could provide initial and sustained support for those contingencies. 

The size of the seabase would vary depending on the mission. It could range from one ship to multiple task groups to international strike groups. 

“It’s what it needs to be. It’s scaleable. It’s built for the situation, the mission, the location and what we need to do with it,” Murray said. 

The seabase concept is designed to leverage U.S. Navy forces already in a region to join together in a tailored force able to deliver troops, tanks, aviation support, and other combat power and then sustain those forces logistically and recover them when the mission is finished. It would not necessarily eliminate the need for land-based security and logistics facilities in all instances. 

U.S. forces already have worked together in operations that resemble seabasing for disaster relief and special operations, officials said. 

“Seabasing is not something new. We’ve been doing it. We’ve been doing it jointly. But basically it’s been ad hoc,” said retired Marine Brig. Gen. Bruce Byrum of the Navy’s expeditionary warfare division. His office is responsible for working with the other services and combatant commanders to hash out the seabasing concept. 

“Our forces are not necessarily organized or designed to work efficiently together, and we’re trying to work on that efficiency,” he said. 

Difficulties with implementing the concept include making the services’ varied equipment interoperable and training forces that are not used to seabased operations, as well as integrating international military and civilian watercraft and equipment. It would also call for rewriting doctrine to some extent across the services, and could call for revisions in programmed equipment purchases. 

Byrum said that this forum gives his office the opportunity to talk directly with other services and agencies about the concept and to see what capabilities seabasing could provide. 

The group was broken down into seminar-style classrooms, each with a moderator. Forty international guests from 11 countries as well as all U.S. military services and the Coast Guard worked through three different scenarios in which a seabase was used. The scenarios included combat operations, counterterrorism and disaster relief. 

Byrum said the sessions are allowing them to concentrate on the capability gaps and where his office should progress in the future. 

“Even though we have tried to integrate many of the service concepts into the joint integrated concept, we still need to get a better understanding of … what are the implications to the services,” Byrum said. “What this exercise is allowing us to do is work with the other services to get a better focus and vision of what their requirements might be for seabasing.”


----------



## CougarKing (7 Mar 2008)

Wasn't there an article on the magazine _Popular Science_ or _Popular Mechanics_ that featured this topic not too long ago, IIRC?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Mar 2008)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/1289186.html?page=1

Perhaps this is the conceptual idea?


----------



## CougarKing (7 Mar 2008)

Panzer Grenadier said:
			
		

> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/1289186.html?page=1
> 
> Perhaps this is the conceptual idea?



I think I saw that article too before, but it's not the same idea. The issue article I saw featured large, pretty much stationary sea-bases made out of gigantic platforms connected to together, which are even capable of handling four-engined, heavy-lift aircraft, IIRC.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Mar 2008)

An aircraft carrier makes the best floating seabase IMO,unless you create the WW2 floating ice carrier.

http://www.thewarillustrated.info/230/strange-story-of-hms-habbakuk.asp


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (7 Mar 2008)

http://www.combatreform.com/MOB2.jpg

It does show what appears to be C5 Galaxies next to the runway - so it should be quite large.

Retrieved from this website http://www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver/ (there is more near the bottom in relation to SeaBasing)


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Mar 2008)

Sea Base is a concept (or capability) rather than individual pieces of kit, however new equipment requirements (flying, floating and logistics handling) have been identified in order to make sea basing work.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/seabase.htm


> *Seabase is a loosely defined term that refers to a collection of ships at sea conducting operations that enable forces to operate ashore without a large logistics footprint.* Such an operation may require a wide variety of ships to transfer cargo such as pallets, containers, and vehicles to one another. Seabasing is a potential avenue toward the joint development of the Army Afloat Strategic Flotilla and the MPF(F) as well as the Army Austere Access High Speed Sealift and the Navy's Rapid Strategic Lift Ship in a similar manner as the services are proceeding with the JHSV. The costs and benefits of joint seabasing must be compared with the costs and benefits of other parallel developments, particularly SDHSS and HLVTOL, that also address joint force projection and sustainment requirements.



US seabasing - special delivery 
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw060327_2_n.shtml


> By Scott Truver
> 
> The concept of seabasing expands on the US Navy's long history of sustained operations from the sea and today's method of prepositioned materiel preloaded aboard ships and staged forward to provide near-instantaneous logistical support to emerging needs.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (7 Sep 2014)

Related: a design for a trimaran aircraft carrier that has an air complement of 6 C-130Js.

Foils.org link (pdf file)


----------



## cupper (8 Sep 2014)

Didn't the Brits essentially use this concept during the Falklands War?

With Ascension Island being the closest support base at 3,700 miles away, the British fleet needed to be fully self sustaining.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2014)

Sea basing might be roughly analogous to having an airborne or airmobile formation, just on a larger scale. The critical issue, and the one thing that will be needed to make it work, is to ruthlessly strip down the size and weight of the fighting force and the munitions and commodities needed to operate.

Given that there will be a limited number of ships/barges/floating platforms or even aircraft carriers available, there is going to be a finite amount of "stuff" that they can carry. If each unit can be designed to use less "stuff", then the sea base can either be made smaller, or the force can achieve more with the given amount of "stuff" the sea base can carry.

The other issue is that a sea base is vulnerable, both to enemy action and to natural events (try operating a sea base in the middle of a typhoon or if a volcano is erupting nearby). The British operated a proto "sea base" in the Falklands, but skirted disaster several times (especially when the Atlantic Conveyor was struck by a missile, destroying valuable stores and most of the heavy lift helicopters). Since much of the British Force was composed of "light" troops (Royal Marine Commandos, The Parachute Regiment, and the  Gurkhas), this was a difficult blow, but if the invading force was mechanized, the loss of so many supplies and helicopters may have been much more serious.

One can only imagine a modern "sea base" will be the focus of much enemy attention, from air, surface and submarine units, as well as cyber and even Special Operations Forces should they be available and the opportunity presents itself. I am really seeing this concept as being more like a WWII era convoy at sea, and will need naval assets on a similar scale (a resurrected Flower class Corvette or River class Frigate to bring the sea base into the AO and provide the piquet surrounding it during operations?)

Not to say the concept is invalid, but I'm thinking that there will have to be a huge amount of resources invested to make this idea workable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Related: a design for a trimaran aircraft carrier that has an air complement of 6 C-130Js.
> 
> Foils.org link (pdf file)



To give the author credit he tried to see the design through all stages, include building and repair.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2014)

If we are on the topic of sea basing and the sorts of ships we need, then perhaps this idea should be examined:

http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm

While the basic design is for an "Arsenal Ship", the idea that the bow and stern sections are mated to a modular centre section during construction means that you could potentially have a "Liberty ship" like assembly line of production, with the bow (crew and command) section and stern (engine and systems) sections being mated to centre sections of various types for the roles needed for a sea base (or a normal naval task force for that matter). Some ships would carry weapons, while others would be AOR's, troop transports or even container ships. since the same basic structure is being used there should be large economies of scale and the ability to ramp up production so you could put a large number of ships to sea in relatively short order.

The potential downside is the fighting ships would be larger than the Halifax class frigates, while the transports would be somewhat smaller than usual, there is enough modularity that transports could be built with extra sections in the middle, while warships would maybe only have one or two sections inserted in the middle during construction.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Sep 2014)

Sea-basing on the US Marine Corps' agenda:



> Source:Defense News
> 
> *Marines Emphasize Advantage of Sea Basing*
> Sep. 24, 2014 - 06:32PM   |  By JOE GOULD
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we are on the topic of sea basing and the sorts of ships we need, then perhaps this idea should be examined:
> 
> http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm
> 
> ...



We don't build enough to get the benefits and you end up with a bunch of ships that cannot do their main task well because they are constrained to stay into the design constraints. Keep in mind there was about 2800 Liberty, Parks and Victory ships built. A better idea is to have set designs in each class across NATO, so ships can be built faster and training is reduced and crossdecking can also work better.


----------

