SeaBasing 21 v3.0


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SeaBasing 21 v3.0

  1. 1. SeaBasing 21
  2. 2. The Army Science Board 1999 report; "Enabling Rapid and DecisiveStrategic Maneuver for the Army After 2010" states:"DOD shipping is too slow, takes too long to load and off-load, and requires too muchwater. Commercial shipping, useful to the Army, is too slow, takes too long to load andoff-load, but does have more potential port access. Neither DOD nor commercialshipping has fast, austere port off-load capabilities. Lack of consistent packaging andmodularization standards in military is at odds with increased commercial utilization…Sea lift has been and will continue to be the primary transportation means for large armyforces, equipment, and supplies VISA is decreasing in utility due to dwindling U.S.shipping sector Army has an opportunity to improve the port-to-port time by 40% andload/unload time by 75%. Time window to influence High Speed Ships (HSS) opportunityis short and issues are complex. Recommendations [is] Forward to the Navy revisedArmy requirements for strategic sea lift to include HSS. Enter into partnership with theNavy and DOT to pursue Title XI support for HSS and support the immediateincorporation of National Defense Features (NDF) to support military cargo and austereport operations. Work with DARPA and Navy to develop technology alternatives to off-load ships rapidly in austere ports and across the shore. Advocate (Army ExecutiveAgent) DoD-wide packaging standards consistent with best commercial industrialpractices and have TRADOC develop and promulgate the associated TTPs to decreaseloading time using containers, flat racks and other intermodal devices(Equally applicable to air)"
  3. 3. Container Assault ShipM113 AmphiGavinsCH-53E Sky/SpeedCranesRO-RO ramp/LCAC interfaceISO Container BattleBoxes
  4. 4. ContainerAssaultShip 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne) 2004
  5. 5. Container Assault Ship ISO Container “BattleBoxes”Ski jump RO-RO ramp Flight deck Berthing and Ship’s Crew LCAC interface areas Cargo hold for tactical vehicles Ability to reach any spot in the world within 10 days
  6. 6. BattleBoxes Fortified ISO containers replace vulnerable tents and living in former dictator palaces which fail to protect troops and inflame locals to rebellion. Earth-filled they become hardened check points to control supply routes. Army is always loaded and ready to deploy.
  7. 7. Amphigavins
  8. 8. Flight Deck
  9. 9. CH-53E SkyCrane
  10. 10. CH-53E SpeedCrane
  11. 11. RO-RO Ramp/LCAC interface
  12. 12. Armored Tracked Resupply Vehicles
  13. 13. Ski Jump
  14. 14. Feedback!SCADS & SKYHOOK: ideas for Container Assault ShipsDai JONES <>Hi, I am a regular reader of your site(s) now for a while but this is the first time I have contacted you concerningyour innovative (yet often common sense) ideas. The idea(s) in question are the ISO "battle box" and the container assault ship. In parallel (and before I sawyour idea) my self and a friend discussed your "battle boxes" and arrived at a similar concept but being British we focused on the SCADS (Sea-borneContainerised Air-defence System) concept developed in the wake of the Falklands essentially turns cargo ships into v/stovl carriers. All elements to operate a small number of Harriers and helicopters can be modularised withinISO containers including a lightweight 4-cell seawolf anti-aircraft/missile missile launcher, reloads and control/aiming radars. If this weapon system can becontainerised, couldnt others? CIWS is one ides, but what about offensive weapons?Being containerised and modular means the systems and aircraft can easily be moved from one ship to another but what about other options...If SCADSand Battle Boxes could be combined then not only could vehicles and equipment be moved by ship/aircraft/tracked vehicle but so could containerisedweapon systems - go any where air defence? mobile cruise missiles? Battle-field CIWS? I believe this idea has a lot more room for growth, and hope tohear back from you regarding these simple ideas,Gareth JonesWales, UK
  15. 15. Feedback!SCADS & SKYHOOK: ideas for Container Assault ShipsHeres an excerpt from the excellent Greg Goebell Vector web site, Keith pointed out to us on SCADS/[3.5] FOOTNOTES: SCADS & SKYHOOK / VAAC HARRIER* Several ingenious ideas were promoted by Harrier enthusiasts in the post-Falklands period to use the Harrier as a naval "force multiplier", based onunconventional replacements for a traditional aircraft carrier. One was called the "shipborne containerized air-defense system (SCADS)". This was a cleveridea by which all the equipment needed to put together the operational apparatus of a small ski-jump Harrier carrier -- including living quarters, fuel andmunitions storage, maintenance facilities, missile and decoy launchers, antisubmarine helicopter facilities, and of course a ski-jump deck -- would be built ina modular fashion, based on the standard container sizes used on container ships, and put in storage. The entire kit could be assembled in about two dayson a container ship when needed, with provisions for 30 days of operation without resupply. The kit would be removed and stored again when the emergencywas even cleverer idea was the "Skyhook". This concept was to use a crane that could be mounted on a small ship, such as a helicopter frigate, to lift Harriersoff the deck and allow them to fly off, and then recover them later. On recovery, they could be returned to their deck hangar, or refueled while they dangled onthe crane, and released to continue operations. The crane would be "smart", with stabilization capabilities and a panel indicator mounted to give the Harrierpilot location information. With such a system, even a helicopter frigate could operate four Harriers as a kind of "mini-carrier".While British Aerospace experimented with the Skyhook on land using their G-VTOL demonstrator, neither SCADS nor the Skyhook became realities. Criticssuggested that they implied a dispersal of forces that made logistics impractically difficult. Nonetheless, they remain interesting ideas to be kept in mind forthe future of STOVL combat aircraft.