Is "Seabasing" a viable option for maritime staging?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 May 2015 13:01:21 -0400

I ran across the below article and the concept seems valid, viable, and easy to field using current platforms. So the question I ask of the maritime experts out there is how feasible or applicable does this really seem?

https://news.vice.com/article/figuring-out-the-future-of-war-in-the-pacific-or-what-the-hell-is-seabasing?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Figuring Out the Future of War in the Pacific — Or, What the Hell is Seabasing? | VICE News

Two military events taking place in Hawaii this week — one an exercise, the other a symposium — will explore the future of warfare, and VICE News is there for an inside look.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 25 at 2015 1:12 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 25 May 2015 13:12:37 -0400

The Marines have been doing that for years ...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 25 at 2015 1:23 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 25 May 2015 13:23:12 -0400

It's like Global Pre-Positioning but on water.

We already do it with certain things.

For example each MEU has a Map-pack (sealed) with a variety of contingencies that are pre-loaded. We hand them off to the next MEU in rotation rather than having dozens of these.

That's a VERY simple concept of it, but it works just as well for equipment.

Keep in mind, that all that really matters is getting the right number of "bodies" to the same place that the equipment will be at the same time. It doesn't matter if it is "your" equipment or not.

When you have things like Aircraft Carrier Groups, adding a transport ship, or a Transport Group which can be anywhere in 3-7 days, as you mobilize a BDE-Div element becomes more and more feasible.

Just think big container ships, with HUNDREDS of containers with everything from HMMWV's to whatever. Hell, use "reassigned" Aircraft Carriers (rather than decommission them), and park tanks on them.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made May 25 at 2015 1:39 PM

1LT William Clardy — Mon, 25 May 2015 13:39:31 -0400

Pretty darned feasible. The Army has maintained APS-3 (or its predecessors) floating off Diego Garcia for quite a while now.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made May 30 at 2015 11:16 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 30 May 2015 11:16:05 -0400

Joint Seabasing has the potential to be successful in the near to mid-term:
It may work well in littoral regions of the world at times when sea motion is tolerable and there are a variety of areas to flow material to and from shore. Joint Seabasing expands on the Seabasing concept by incorporating Army, SOF, into the Navy/USMC Seabasing capability. Joint Seabasing is a potential "location" for everything from billeting, sustainment and launch platform for helicopter assault forces; maintenance and limited fabrication for repair of major ground and air equipment; sustainment storage and distribution capability, and providing potable water through desalinization in areas where the supply is limited, etc.
In hostile areas, seabasing requires protection against sub, surface and air launched stuff [kinetic, shrapnel producing, bunker busting, energy, etc.] as well as against divers, etc. This would require protection out to whatever acceptable missile standoff would be - probably at least 60 miles for ground based and at least 100 for air launched stuff. FYI this is all off the top of my head and not tied to any specific ...
GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, 1LT L S, Col Private RallyPoint Member, LTC Private RallyPoint Member, COL Ted Mc, SPC Joseph Peet, COL Michael Weaver, MG Peter Bosse, COL Jeffrey Carra, COL Private RallyPoint Member, MAJ John S. DeJesus, MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, LTC Gavin Heater, COL David James

Response by COL Ted Mc made May 30 at 2015 12:40 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 30 May 2015 12:40:34 -0400

At first blush "Sea-Basing" would appear to be an extremely viable concept just as long as "the other side" doesn't have any "off shore" naval (or anti-naval) capacity whatsoever.

Personally, I've never been a great fan of making your plans based on the premise that your forces are completely invulnerable and your opponents totally ineffectual.

To me it sounds like the proper designation for a Large, Medium-Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off ship would be a Logistical Sea Transport ship.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made May 30 at 2015 2:27 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Sat, 30 May 2015 14:27:04 -0400

Steve we already have variations of this from APS to this:http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/uss-ponce-afsbi-15-afloat-forward-staging-base-interim/