A guest post from Gareth…
There has been much discussion on these pages about the size and roles of the Royal Navy, with I believe a general consensus that there is a deficit in hull numbers required for the many tasks asked of the fleet, and to maintain the UK ‘s influence in the world. I believe I have come across a concept, actually a number of related concepts, which not only helps with the numbers game but may also add new roles and capabilities for our armed forces and improve the influence we are able to exert globally.
These are some of the roles the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary perform in “peace-time”:
Another role I wish to add to the list is Medical Diplomacy.
I believe these roles may be performed by a containership, suitably modified to become a modern version of the auxiliary cruiser.
The major difference between the old and new Auxiliary Cruiser concept is the where’s the old one was intended to boost fleet numbers in wartime, the new is intended to boost fleet numbers in so called peace time, performing the duties outlined above. That does not mean the vessels couldn’t perform these and other roles during war-time, as is explored below. Although I have been considering this idea for some time, as usual people have also had similar ideas and are better at presenting them so this post will consist of an examination of the different ideas I’ve come across with some of my own observations and ideas thrown in.
Modularised Auxiliary Cruisers with stand-alone containers/modules.
“We have many objectives at sea. Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers could provide the numbers we need to achieve our maritime objectives. The tyranny of numbers matters to the United States Navy.”
I believe that statement goes double, if not triple, for the Royal Navy.
“The system modules for Modularized Auxiliary Cruisers would have to be self-contained because they would not be installed on a ship designed to incorporate the modules”.
This is the difference with Think Defence’s own ideas below, and why I call it a basic concept, although as you can see the concept is quite thought-out.
“We would build Containerized Modules using shipping containers that include missiles (surface-to-air and surface-to-surface) as well as modules with gun turrets for smaller weapons, up to 57mm. Other modules could support helicopters for anti-submarine (ASW), mine counter measures (MCM), or anti-ship missiles, as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USV) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV). Still others would contain power supplies and the command and communications systems to plug a ship into the Navy network.”
“Containerized Modules would be the building blocks for Mission Packages installed on a container ship’s deck to create a Modularized Auxiliary Cruiser tailored for the specific mission. One or more Mission Packages would be fixed to the deck of a container ship and connected to each other for power and communications.” (Links and emphasis added by me.)
It isn’t just Americans thinking along these lines, as the link below shows.
Both the concepts above highlight that stand-alone modules are “Hull borne, not hull dependent”. CDR Atkinson envisages three types of vessels using them; the containership, the fast Catamaran “Ferry”, and the heavy-lift vessel. TD looked at the FLO-FLO/barge combo for the OMAR requirement here. For an example of a more active role for the barges, read this interesting history:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0629.pdf
The uses of weapon, accommodation and logistic support modules in such circumstances are obvious.
So you chose the most suitable “mission package(s)” and the most suitable hull; Catamaran for speed, containership “Cruiser” for range/size, and the barge for (semi-)permanent presence.
For the sake of simplicity I will concentrate on the option of containerships but it should be bared in mind that different platforms can carry the modules, including possibly RO-RO vessels, and of course being intermodal containers they can be transported by air and used on land.
Think Defence – SIMMS concept.
I will not spend too much time discussing this concept, because it’s already been covered it in some detail. The obvious points to highlight are TD’s evolution of the module idea from stand-alone to plug in to a “service keel”, providing them with power, water, waste removal, etc. This of course adds to the individual modules capability and a “service keel” could be built in to part of a containership (many already have connections to power refrigerated containers) or a barge. It could be possible to have either two types of modules (stand-alone and serviced) or one that could be adapted to both. Inter-changeability would also go some way to allowing both concepts (Auxiliary cruiser and SIMMS) to be pursued.
Brickmuppet’s modern Flower class sloop for medical diplomacy.
“Let’s take a standard American containership design, the Philadelphia Class, and assume the aft deck is used for helicopter operation and the aft holds are used as a flex deck for small craft and Littoral combat ship modules (or TD’s serviced modules – Gareth). The holds forward of the bridge have ample room for containers that can contain everything from food to hospital or war supplies. I’d use the midships below decks space (where pitching would be minimized ) for a big hospital and a secondary helipad (if only to directly service the hospital). This would not have the capability of the Mercy or Comfort but it could conceivably approach that of the LHAs and could do a LOT of good on mercy missions.”
“The large helideck would give a decent helicopter borne ASW and possibly even minesweeping capability in wartime especially if during a major war something like SCADS or the old ARAPAHO concept were put into place…” Here we come to two points; possible war –time roles and another possible evolution of the concept, using what I’m calling Pre-Manufactured Units or PMU’s.
Two of the concepts – Modular Auxiliary Cruiser and Versatile Modular Ship™ – envisage the vessels performing their roles during war-time. I am more cautious and view them as being more on the security level of Think Defence’s spectrum of “Fightiness”™, being part of the “lo” part of a Hi-lo mix. The advantages of the containership for these roles are they are designed for long range cruising, are resilient (some have double-hulls), relatively cheap, and spacious. They do have downsides; there may be issues with damage control, they only have one propeller, etc. However, the main weaknesses of old Auxiliary Cruisers – lack of both armour and a centralised command/fire-control centre – do not apply to warships today or is solved by the modular container system. The other defects may also be mitigated during the design/build phase of purpose built ships, although probably increasing the cost. However, a more aggressive role cannot be ruled out; I shall discuss it below.
Although I do not believe the future Auxiliary Cruiser to be a battleship, the auxiliary cruiser can perform support roles in a time of war.
Possible war-time roles I envisage are:
- Escort Carrier (Sorry, sorry – “Flight Deck Auxiliary Escort Cruiser.”*)
- Depot ship
- Primary Casualty Receiving Ship
- Auxiliary L.P.H.
- Auxiliary logistics ship
They would be able to perform these roles due to modules larger than a shipping container. These PMU’s would range from helicopter landing pads and hangars to hospital modules like RFA Argus’s, although I separate them in to above deck and cargo hold categories. The SCADS concept is probably the most well-known example, combining ISO containers, modularised weapon systems and other structures to turn a containership into a small aircraft carrier, a modern version of the MAC.
* I should stress here I am putting this idea forward for helicopters and possibly other VTOL aircraft; however, it doesn’t take much imagination to see the flexible basing capability offered by STOVL combing with modular containers/PMU’s in a modern version of the SCADS idea.
Modules creating a large flight deck with hangar/flex deck beneath are possible above decks while hospital and accommodation “blocks” could slip in to the cargo bays. Perhaps a RAS module(s) could be built with fuel below decks and RAS equipment above? A more aggressive “block” could be a VLS module; it might allow larger than usual missiles as well as the standard VLS systems. Obviously, the more complicated and complex the PMU’s (and the Modular containers) become the more expensive they are. For that reason, and to avoid creating unnecessary opposition from the “battleship” supporters, I believe the war-time roles of the Auxiliary Cruisers should be of a support role.
The ultimate example of the use of PMU’s is the AFSB:
Maesrk AFSB S-class conversion concept.
Although based upon a very large containership the AFSB concept above could, I believe, be scaled down and turn the containership into a modest “carrier of large objects”. It also indicates what other roles the Auxiliary Cruiser could perform in war-time. There is obviously some collation between some of the peace and war-time roles, for example Medical diplomacy and PCRS, ASS and Escort carrier. The use of PMU’s would not be limited to war-time.
Conclusion
Modularising the mission equipment and separating it from the carrying platform not only enables a more flexible, versatile response but allows you to spread the cost of purchasing the platform and capabilities, even of making gradual upgrades easier, helping the budget.
The modern modular auxiliary cruiser would not only relieve pressure on the escort and support fleet but even enhance the capabilities and global influence of the UK government. It would also be a physical manifestation of joined up government and the new National Security Council.
The RFA is the obvious “owner” of the hulls but different departments may pay for different modules/capabilities; DfID may be willing to purchase Humanitarian Assistance, Disaster Relief, and clinic modules while the Navy purchases the military/security mission packages.
There are a number of ownership options – government ownership, lease, or simply traditional STUFT. The stand-alone and even serviced modules to a lesser extent can in theory be operated from any containership but the larger, more complex PMU’s such as above deck flight deck/hangar below and cargo hold Hospital module would require a standardised fitting. Personally I would like to see a RFA fleet of about eight medium sized containerships (3,000 TEU, roughly 30,000 tons displacement), with enough modular container mission packages for up to 16 ships, the rest being leased or STUFT’ed in an emergency.
The basic concept would be easy to trail – the MOD could lease a containership, shoe-horn some old weapons/sensors/equipment in to ISO containers, throw in a helicopter, and send to the Horn of Africa to hunt pirates. The Malaysian navy have already done something similar. DARPA appears to be thinking along these lines but as usual they want to go a little further.
Using different mission packages and the various PMU’S one ship could be performing medical diplomacy tours around the coast of Africa coast whilst another is used for aviation training. Others could be conducting MSO off the Horn of Africa, or patrolling the Caribbean with US Coast Guard modules, a modular field hospital and a large amount of emergency supplies, or conducting diplomatic, show the flag visits around SE Asia. Perhaps they could even be used as cargo vessels and earn a little profit along the way. Hmmm… Government sanctioned trading, armed merchantmen, fighting pirates… perhaps I should have called them something else…
Good stuff Gareth, some cracking links
I like the idea of modularising payloads, even though there are one or two downsides.
Interesting that there exists no common standard, NATO or otherwise, for payload module connectivity
http://www.dnv.com/resources/publications/dnv_forum/2010/forum_1_2010/quantumleap.asp
Twin propellers (plus bow thrusters) will give you options in smaller ports. For all this talk of modularity and containers I think the modern fast ferry would be a better route take over container vessels.
It
Sounds like a great Idea; however it will never happen. It is not fast pointy or sexy. The
‘We could have another t26 for the price of one of these crowd’
Will be out in force; explaining how a T26 could do all this, and fight proper wars. Square jawed sons of Nelson will fight to the death against it.
On a more practical note I suggest STUFT unrealistic, as finding the right kind of hull size for a particular job in time might be difficult. I would suggest a point class type solution more realistic.
Or this……
.bp.blogspot.com/_-YDiiddG3gY/TUdYZ6X7tJI/AAAAAAAACFI/5NdW4fBIR_4/s1600/polar_supply_and_research_vessel_hi-res-cropp
South Africa’s new Antarctic research vessel. Twin screw only does 14kts. Cost £90m. But stretched and given slightly bigger engines would be useful.
http://www.motorship.com/__data/assets/image/0010/650818/polar_supply_and_research_vessel_hi-res.jpg
Better……..
Pick your preferred hull, container or ro-ro ferry, doesn’t matter as long as it’s “commercial” and thus cheap. RFA run it, fund it from DfID, and for god sake don’t call it a “cruiser” whatever you do.
If you really want it to have a war role, base it on the Dutch JSS / Karel Doorman, with radar, CIWS and soft-kill / countermeasures dispensers.
We quite arguably do need more ships to cover all the tasks that the government wishes to lay upon the navy; and I don’t think we should be concerned about routinely filling some tasks with auxillaries only.
It’s just a shame that we don’t make more use of what we already have. The Royal Navy seems to struggle to deliver frigates and destroyers for basic tasks, but we were quick to sell off RFA Largs Bay; and the very capable RFA Fort Austin with its huge helicopter hangar and two spot flight deck has been doing bugger all since 2009. Both those ships would be more than capable of carrying out the anti-piracy mission, for example.
In general, I’d tend to agree that a larger number of cheaper hulls for low-end missions is important.
However, I worry about modular designs that attempt to create a platform that can switch between a wide variety of more complex missions beyond basic presence, security, and relief missions. I’m skeptical of the ability of our defense industrial base to produce a vessel capable of competently executing more complex traditional combat missions (ASuW, ASW, MCM, etc.) in an affordable, modular way. In the end, it ends up sounding a lot like the LCS program, and (whatever you think of the LCS program) I think we can all agree that there is no reason to re-make that particular wheel.
On the other hand, if we’re talking about a vessel that is designed primarily to perform humanitarian, presence, and security missions, then I’m not sure what a modular vessel brings to the table that a traditional long-range patrol boat does not. Lower-end missions are far more about people and skills than weapons and gear – the necessary equipment for accomplishing basic sea control missions in a relatively permissive environment ought to be able to be incorporated into a vessel without requiring the inclusion of modular systems.
The problem with the LCS seems to be that they’re simply confused about the strategic concept – it’s meant to be a low-intensity littoral thing, and also the forward screening network for the whole of the US Navy, it’s meant to be relatively light and dependent on “networking” (i.e. air support) but it’s also meant to operate way in front of the carrier group, it’s (as they say) a dessert topping and a floor wax but it comes in an artifically intelligent robot styled by Apple.
As a result, it’s meant to do MCM and ASW and security patrol and intelligence gathering, all things that need lots of persistence, but it’s also meant to do 40 knots and be tiny, so it needs to meet an AOR every five minutes to fill up – are they going to deploy their fleet tankers ahead of the warships?
as for the modules, perhaps they should just have bought the Danish ones because it’s the same kit inside them!
@ TD – Thank you. A common module/container interface would be an interesting idea; like having allied aircraft cross-decking you could have allied modules on different ships. One example I mentioned in the post was USCG in the Caribbean.
@ x – as I said, with the payload separated from the platform you can pick and choose which platform bests fits the mission/theatre. Take the new tankers; they can carry up to 20 containers. I did have a link to a NGO suggestion for a fleet of catamaran ferries for fast disaster response but as usual can’t find it now :s
@ IXION – Personally I don’t see this as a replacement for “full” warships, just a useful way to boost MSO/HA/DR numbers. If they are to be dual use and have a war role then support roles would probably fit better. Since I first wrote this TD has suggested making more use of the civilian transport system for moving military vehicles, etc. Add a self-defence mission package and it could be self-escorting in certain environments; assist the “full” escorts in others.
@ Jed – call them sloops?
@ Brian – Do you have any links/info about Fort Austin’s inactivity? Wiki says she’s been decommissioned but is also getting a re-fit?
@ Adun – I get your point about the LCS; as I said the more complex the module, the more costly it is and the less of a benefit the module is.
However, having a long range patrol vessel that can not only conduct MSO in the Caribbean but also deploy a modular field hospital and containerised power plants/water bottle plants, etc, if a natural disaster hits would I believe not only save lives but boost our reputation globally.
@ Alex – It really does seem like they tried to combine two vessels and came out with… something. As for the modules; late, getting costier, and will only have 65(?) for 55 (planned) hulls. Noty a lot of flexability.
@ Gareth Jones
For open ocean work you can separate the hull from the mission. But the closer you get to land then ship handling has to be a consideration. Especially when these ships will be working out of less developed or smaller ports. That is why I said fast ferry over container ship as starting point.
@ x – agreed, shallow draft and good handling important in less developed ports, littorals, etc. I recall a US study which suggested a two-ship solution to the USN concept of Global fleet stations, a RO-RO and a catamaran ferry. Could use a similar combo, Containership for transport, ferry for going back and forth to port?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/hsv-mod.htm
Fort Austin was laid up without crew as an economy measure, replacing Fort Victoria at extended readiness. With Fort George having decommissioned for disposal, Fort Austin is being ‘regenerated’ (major refit/SLEP) at Cammell Laird.
Fort Victoria is currently carrying out the counter-piracy mission and has been for some time.
@Gareth – I agree that both MSO and humanitarian aid are valuable missions for any naval force, especially one with global responsibilities. I just wonder whether persistent MSO and large-scale humanitarian assistance are really the best missions to combine on a single platform.
Since large-scale humanitarian missions are likely to remain a low-volume endeavor relative to the total force size, it seems that it’d be easier to build a larger number of smaller vessels aimed at MSO, presence, and small-scale humanitarian operations and a smaller number of larger vessels aimed at larger-scale humanitarian operations, which could then focus full-time on these sorts of missions. Although some modularity then might aid the large humanitarian vessels in conducting a variety of missions (medical, food, power, etc.), it still might be easier (given the commonality of equipment across these missions) just to build large multipurpose humanitarian aid vessel.
Which as suggested recently on another thread could have an alternative wartime role as an Amphib
>it still might be easier (given the commonality of >equipment across these missions) just to build >large multipurpose humanitarian aid vessel.
Weren’t the earlier Forts a bit expensive in terms of maintenance?
@ Gareth J
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Spearhead_(JHSV-1)
@Peter – In general, I think it would be hard to argue against maximal flexibility in naval procurement; certainly, any large naval platform would probably have some war-time use in logistics, amphibious operations, etc. (the key is making sure that this flexibility does not come at the expense of significantly driving up the ship’s cost).
However, even if a relatively cheap large humanitarian ship had a limited role in a war-time scenario, it would still serve to boost war-time readiness by allowing vessels (specifically, the crews) that actually are capable of performing wartime roles to spend their peace-time preparing for war, rather than performing important but time-consuming humanitarian relief operations. Thus, I’d probably seek to procure a cheap, high-volume humanitarian aid vessel more as a replacement for amphibs in certain peace-time missions rather than a supplement to them in certain war-time missions.
@x
New Forts are the expensive ones. 40% of the 16 ship maintenance budget swallowed by two ships.
@ Anixtu
Wow. That’s a lot.
Gareth
I am on side with you mostly. I see the way forward generally in military matters as COTS technology.
Trucks
Off road vehicles,
Wheeled armoured vehicles,
Transport and support aircraft,
Ship hulls and machinery
Etc etc
Including commercial containers across the board.
It’s just that I am not convinced that ARAPAHO style interchangeability is actually that useful.
For the basis of ease of manufacture, instillation removal and repair and maintenance, great. In practice people like the Danes (flex 300) and the many interchangeable modular bodyworks on trucks have tended to stay on the same vehicle / vessel throughout it’s life. IT has significantly reduced costs and increased availability, but not a lot of swapping around has been done.
So I do support your idea, but I just see a class of say 8, 30,000 ton vessels being pretty much permanently rolled one way or another.
The other thing about containers in container ships is that are designed to be access onboard. Containers are away of managing broken stowage as much as being intermodal. You would have to design a special ship where containers could be access. I suppose ideally that would look like, or actually be a RORO. That is why a lot of stuff the RFA handles is done in pallet sized loads.
@ IXION – a good point. but as I said the modules could be used on other platforms (the PMU’s less so but still possible), such as Catamarans, smaller conatinerships, Ro-Ro’s, etc. Unless on a deployment or training (which could partly be done on land?) the modules and ships could be kept seperate.
re: RFA and pallets
Apart from RASing and VERTREPing. I know what I meant…….
RE: access. Some gaps can be left between “blocks” of containers, with ladders for the higher modules, like with this Chinese container hospital ship:
http://blog.usni.org/2009/06/18/china%E2%80%99s-hospital-ship-in-a-box/
Gareth, great article. I’m very much in favour of the auxiliary LHP / escort carrier – with the CVFs taking the lion share of the budget having additional platforms to launch helicopters / UAVs is key.
One from left field, we have been considering how the good guys may us merchant auxillaries. How much value could the otherside get out of merchant hulls.
Consider the following, there is likely action brewing up between Iran and the West. That action will certainly involve attempts at disrupting shipping between the gulf and user nations. At the moment swarms of small vessels and mining seem to be he flavour of the month.
What if the black hats were to equip a number of small non descript, flag of convenience container ships with say 4 120mm field guns built into containers and several twin 23mm AA guns concealed on the superstructure and deploy them well clear of the Gulf. How hard would they be to counter.
P.S. The aim of the vessels would not be to sink vessels`but to disable them, set them on fire, kill as many of the crew as possible as move on..
AJ, don’t think those Q-ships would last long. The main reason pirates are so hard to counter is because of the small size of their ships, once they seize a cargo vessel, it becomes easily tracked from orbit, there are usually other reasons why the vessel isn’t targetted by heavy ordinance (i.e hostages and the need to get the ship back intact). In fact, most container ships are tracked to the pirate home port.
An auxillary cruiser built on a merchant hull works, until they hit their 1st target. After that, they become target practice.
Observer, a lot of merchant ships have a GPS transponder so you can follow their progress in real time, something to do with IMO rules to stop far eastern pirates who were making entire ships and cargo’s vanish. However, if the aim was disruption it comes down to how many VLCC’s could you leave imobilises and burning before you get caught. It could seem like a good investment if you don’t have other options.
Just remember how many western warships were tied down by the Gulf tanker wars of 20 years ago and we have considerably fewer ships now.
All vessels greater than 500 tonnes on an International voyage must display their data on AIS, position, course, speed, LPC, NPOC, name, owner etc. Vessels that do not tend to stick out.
True, but it is easy to complicate the picture by transmitting false AIS data.
@ Gareth J
Great link. I am just working through the problem with you. A serious logistical effort though requires sophisticated systems (ie forklift trucks or as I would call them counterbalance) to handle cargo. And space to operate those machines in too.
I don’t know if many people here already saw this, but RAND just put out a pretty good piece on Maritime Irregular Warfare that covers a lot of the missions that this sort of vessel might undertake:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1127.pdf
I’ve only had time to read the opening Summary, thus far, but it looks like an interesting read.
@ ADUN – Nice find. Will have to find time to read it.
What about expanding the concept? We’ve discussed container ships and catamarans, what about the flo/flo barage as floating base? Using the different mission packages and certain PMU’s (Helipad, hangar, etc) you could have a diasater relief centre/dock, or a repair depot (like the OMAR suggestion) or even a floating fortress to secure a SLOC or strait.
Another idea is to use the modules/mission packages/certain PMU’s on land. TD has covered military and humanitarian uses of ISO containers in many different posts; if the concept could be used by the army and RAF then costs could be reduced due to the scale of manufacture, while increasing the flexibility of all the services.
Following on from Gareth, how about disaster support, with a sneaky second use for STUFT amphibious ops: modify the stern ramps of UK merchant RO-RO’s to accept an add on attachment to allow LCU/PASCAT to dock at low sea states?
Personally, I wouldn’t go for a container ship, too immobile, and also just not ideally suited for multi-role use. They are pretty huge (even scaled down), and there are better options if you want a truly flexible ship.
I would be tempted to go for the JHSV path, i.e. one of the wonderful Austal designs. These have the speed to get in and out fast, plenty of space internally for most roles, yet are still cheap. They are ideal for MCM roles, humanitarian aid, and a multitude of other roles.
The benefit is that by using this sort of hull, they could dock almost anywhere, and with their built in ramp, could offload via landing craft as well. In contrast, the container ship would be restricted to fewer ports, and ironically could be less flexible due to its size.
For modules, I am a real fan of the Standard Flex modules, and would love to see the RN adopting these. By taking this route, we could finally build the sort of RN holy grail, i.e. a cheap warship to be bought in numbers, but one which can be rapidly turned into a highly capable ship in minimal time.
@ Ed said “I would be tempted to go for the JHSV path, i.e. one of the wonderful Austal designs. These have the speed to get in and out fast,”
No. A conventional hull is better. They don’t carry much. And are vomit comets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead_class_Joint_High_Speed_Vessel
They have their uses. But I think Gareth J will want a go anywhere at any time ship. But these aluminium ferries aren’t go anywhere any time vessels.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t interesting or bad ships.
Well I’d start with the fort replacements. 4 large stores ships like the fort 1s with a 4 a/c helo capability and hospital added. You could use 4 Rfa jshv to support these 4 larger vessels for disaster relief emergency evac and fast transit. These could be tied to a more mobile fwd deployed far east troops or carribean disaster relief and patrol. When you move to the mcm fleet and patrol vessels it in my view becomes more problematic. Can the mine hunting gear be put in non specialist hulls the us are having big problems doing it. But having some capability ISo containered between these boats and the mission bay in type 26 possibly. These small vessels should stay in the navy gd command development. The bigger the vessel close to shore the more defensive capability it needs
@Gareth – Although I find sea-basing concepts interesting from a technical perspective, I think your “modules on land” concept is probably more sound from a strategic perspective. In general, I think, sea-basing is going to prove a lot more expensive than just finding a local land base for your operations. Therefore, in my mind, sea-basing needs to find some justification for its greater cost than traditional land bases.
As far as I’ve heard, the basic justifications for the cost of sea-basing are three-fold:
1) Sea-basing allows us to have a ready base of operations in regions where the infrastructure is too limited to support our operational plan.
2) Sea-basing allows us to have a reduced logistical footprint in regions where political sensitivities limit our basing options.
3) Sea-basing allows us to have a secure base in regions where hostile actors will seek to disrupt our logistical operations.
I think these are all potentially good justifications in theory, but in practice I still wonder whether the added cost of sea-basing is worth it. How many operations do we envision undertaking in regions that lack the logistical facilities to support even modest humanitarian efforts, especially in an increasingly-globalized world economy? How many operations do we envision undertaking in regions where the political footprint of a humanitarian mission is unacceptable? Again, I think these justifications could be made, but they probably first require a return to bigger strategic questions about what missions the combined force is expected to perform in the service of national strategy, and where. (As a side note: I think that the US military’s recent push to expand basing options in the Western Pacific – Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, etc. – reflects a realization that cultivating traditional land bases is probably more effective than attempting to procure a full-on sea-basing option).
On the other hand, if the desire is to deploy ISO containers tailored for humanitarian aid missions to temporary or permanent bases in foreign territories, then one might not even need to procure one’s own ships – the deployment of the containers to their operating location, at least, could probably be handled more easily by private contractors.
@ Adun – Good points. The UN often hires ships for operations such as food deliveries; wouldn’t be to different to hire out ships to deliver Humanitarian containers.
A “sea Base” has pro’s and con’s, like you say; what about having a small number of FLO-FLO barges for the OMAR requirement and experiment with different modules/mission packages to see if its practical to re-role them if need be?
http://www.barges.com/fleet/
@Adun
The Pacific Rim bases are not American bases, but borrowed facilities. This avoids the unpleasentness of a US base in the area. After the Tailhook scandal, the Okinawan rape incident, the playing up of American bad behaviour pre-Subic Bay closure and the report of the wild party in Iraq?/Afganistan? ‘s US Embassy (I know, PMCs, but the US hired them), the Americans are seen as not someone you want staying in your neighbourhood.
Anyone seen the pics of the Chinese Type-71 LPD yet? It really looks sleek, and the carrying capacity is on the high side. For US$300M. Of course, buying Chinese has it’s problems too. Like different standard measure. But still, that is how I’d like an LPD to look like.
Hi Observer,
Singapore selling off its old LPDs and getting the ’160s’ for the proceeds (well, not quite) to replace them?
Still looks ugly though
And it’s not the proceeds, it’s the bloody USD 12 billion budget.
I’m starting to think rumours of a serious increase in naval strength is true, been a lot of recruitment posters going up.
From what I heard, and it’s starting to fit:
12 LO interceptors (think gunboats with 76mm)
12 LO OPVs (8 AShMs, 76mm, 1 helo)
Trade 2 LSTs for 2 “160″ LHDs (total of 2LSTs/2LHDs)
On the Air Force side, 4x new AAR tankers and possible Viper upgrades to the F-16s.
Makes me wonder if they’re worried about something… or someone…
On the other hand, it could be an indirect attempt to counter China, if all these new toys are coming online, the old stuff has to go somewhere, right? I have a sneaky suspicion Philipines or Vietnam could suddenly “find the money” for some refitted second hand ships. “No, definately NOT an attempt to supply arms against China, just massive coincidence that we had to get rid of old stuff, just when you were getting clingy about the Spratleys, no siree!!”…I suspect some leaning on people in ASEAN meetings.
Damn, I went off topic…
LDHs might be a good piece of kit to do modules on, they have the volume and the deckspace if something has to be set up on deck. The most useful I can think of would be a sea control ship, the welldock to launch USVs, with radar/sonar, 0.5cal gun and a torpedo, the topdeck for helos and UAVs. Given enough modular control stations, a single ship can patrol quite a large area effectively from ships and subs, limited only by how many USV/Stations you can pack in. Aircraft would be a worry though.
Add ski jump and fly Harriers off it. You could call it a ‘through decks’ cruiser
>Aircraft would be a worry though.
Now I’m going to have to worry if the enemy aircraft is going to be the bigger threat or my own.
Actually, that is workable, ala “escort carriers” WWII. Aircraft takes up a hell lot of space for fuel and parts and ammo though. So I guess it’s the age old problem of tradeoffs. Aircraft for USVs.
Hi Observer,
No leaning required! ”…I suspect some leaning on people in ASEAN meetings.”
And check out the 20 CB90s Malaysia is using; the LCSs and everything that is modelled after them don’t get everywhere where the baddies hide, or the pirates escape to