Maersk's Afloat Forward Sea Base proposal.
Over at the USNI Blog, Galrahn posted a link to a marketing article by the shipping company Maersk Line. Galrahn calls it “A Potential Plan B for Seabasing“. The article discusses converting Maersk commercial container ships into Afloat Forward Staging Bases, complete with everything from a 14 V-22 Osprey-capable flight deck to the ability to load LCACs at sea. Watch the video, it’s really interesting.
This may be a “Plan B” for the U.S. Navy, but it’s also a compelling “Plan A” for other countries, in this case the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces. A converted shipping vessel would plug a lot of holes in Japan’s limited power-projection capability. The ships would still have a fundamentally defensive function, and would accommodate the following roles:
- Support of amphibious operations. Japan has a need for dedicated amphibious ships, particularly in the Senkaku Islands. A ship like this could provide command and control and act as mother ship to a number of smaller ships, particularly Joint High Speed Vehicle-type ships. Another vessel would have to carry LCACs into theater, but that’s where the Osumi-class LSTs come in.
- Disaster relief. A 1,140 foot ship with a 140 foot beam could pack a lot of disaster relief supplies. Build in extra water desalination, electricity generation, and an extensive medical suite on par with the Wasp-class amphibious ships and you’d have a capable platform for responding to natural disasters of the 3/11 variety.
- Sea control. Due to their size, most of the islands in the Senkaku chain are incapable of basing warplanes, meaning that air power has to be projected from Okinawa and the mainland. This could be a compelling and affordable first step for Japan in the direction of fixed-wing naval aviation. Modifying the Hyuga-class helicopter destroyers for fixed-wing is not a good solution: American big-deck amphibious ships such as Wasp and Makin Island can only accommodate 13-15 F-35Bs in a sea control mission. Hyuga and her sister ship Ise are only half as large in displacement, with a flight deck 50 meters shorter than the Wasp-class, which doesn’t bode as well for F-35 accommodations. Afloat Forward Staging Base has lots of flight deck.
Such a ship would be very useful in defending Japan’s far-flung archipelago, carrying a small F-35 complement, ground troops, transport helicopters, medical services, command and control–the whole package, or some mix of it. Offload the helicopters to Hyuga to increase deck space for F-35s. Even better, have more than one AFSB.
There are downsides. Having the bridge 2/3 of the way down the flight deck is not ideal for aircraft, especially fixed-wing. A converted shipping vessel is not built to take damage the way purpose-built naval vessels are. The ship would need to be strongly defended. But you can’t have everything.
Can’t buy a big amphibious vessel outright? The Diet can’t decide to fund a disaster relief ship? Don’t have $8-13 billion dollars to fund a supercarrier? AFSB can sort of do all of these things, for less money! It’s not a perfect solution to everything, but it’s a far more affordable one.
loading...
Related posts:
A contributor and editor at the blog War Is Boring, Kyle Mizokami started Japan Security Watch in 2010 to further understand Japan's defenses and security policy.
Kyle Mizokami has 596 post(s) on Japan Security Watch
10 comments
arkhangelsk says:
Jan 26, 2012
Can't watch the video yet, but the idea seems similar to http://www.atrinaflot.narod.ru/81_publications/20…
(Russian but translates well in Google Translate)
The difference being that the Russian plan intends to leave its merchantmen carriers as free of electronics as possible, and rely on the electronics of the carrier, while this plan seems more self-contained.
The weak point being that electronics are a large proportion of the price for any new ship, which brings up the point how much money will really be saved in the end.
loading...
Alejandro says:
Jan 26, 2012
Although the concept is sound, the addition of any jet aircraft to any sea platform makes the role and costs associated with the platform far more complex than many would be lead to believe. Propeller driven fixed wing aircraft would be far better suited for the platform as the sea base concept was first created with Project Habakkuk in WW2 where a island size carrier made of ice was to be capable of carrying heavy bombers.
This conversation reinforces the need of either escort carriers dedicated to operating propeller driven aircraft in a support role, or more fixed wing aircraft to fill in the gaps in the current American Carrier Air Wing.
From the Japanese perspective this is quite contrary to the design and manufacture of the Kawasaki P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft and the ShinMaywa US-2 Air Sea Rescue Amphibious Plane which are both designed too meet the needs specified in the noted Japanese Territory's.
Rather I would like to see additional Sea Plane squadrens, ASW Frigates/Destroyers, and a new generation of Minesweepers/layers from the Japanese as all three are cheaper options than a Sea-Base, are in dire need for the JSDF, are defense oriented, and can be produced in Japan without public outcry.
The Sea Base is basically an Aircraft Carrier (without fighters) which the public much less the diet will never support.
Also it cant be Nuclear Powered (which the American one will be) and and must be more useful than the Hyuga Class which is another tough sell.
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Jan 27, 2012
I agree that politics will make any kind of carrier-rish thing for the MSDF tricky, but not really with everything else.
One does have to remember that the V-22 is not exactly a piston-propeller aircraft in the WWII sense. It is a turboshaft and has a reputation for melting flight decks. Thus, it would seem that operating it would not be greatly more complex than operating a F-35B. In any case, if we are going to splurge money at all, might as well get a useful capability.
The US-2 is basically a SAR plane and the P-1 is basically a newer P-3. Both provide improved capabilities over their predecessors but neither they or more destroyers or minesweepers will solve the MSDF's problems. In fact, they have too many destroyers and minesweepers in relation to their manpower anyway – it is a open secret that the manning their older ships is only Category B.
I'll go further and argue that if any marginally affordable plan comes up, the MSDF must grit its teeth and break through the "glass wall", which is thinner than at any other time in its history with the new fleet of carrier-shaped "escort ships" and China working on its own carrier (which puts her in a bad spot to complain). 12 V/STOL fighters, to a rational mind, cannot be called offensive.
Otherwise, it'll be left treading its feet in-place and devoid of organic air defense ability. Depending on the ASDF's shore based cover just doesn't cut it. The RN and RAF already showed the limitations of that doctrine. In fact, from what I can make out the ASDF doesn't even practice defending the fleet in exercises – only simulate airstrikes on them for mutual practice. It might be reasonable considering South Korea's dilemma with Dokdo (all its fighters have a on-top endurance measured in minutes; change Dokdo to JSMDF Flotilla and you see the analogy.) Maybe the situation improved recently, but I heard no news of that.
Finally, for the nuclear powered thing, I doubt it. Even the American large amphibious ships are conventionally propelled. Further, to change to nuclear propulsion would require substantial changes and defeat the purpose of using a merchant hull. No, if the US actually buys Maersk's plan, it'll be conventional.
loading...
Alejandro says:
Jan 27, 2012
Although current U.S. amphibious ships are conventionally powered (with the notable exception of the U.S.S. Makin Island mentioned in the article)it has been researched by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that it would be cheaper if they were nuclear powered as a result of their size and extensive use. The newer America Class will use the Makin Island's hybrid drive engine to improve fuel consumption but a new power plant would be needed for the Maersk concept.
There is no reason to use V-22's if the Sea Base is actually the size described in the article. With modification C-130 Hercules can land and take off of the U.S.S. Enterprise Super Carrier but it is too risky for regular use. A sea base could be built to operate even standard Air Force fighters such as the F-16 and Saab Gripin much less V/TOVL aircraft such as the F-35 and AV8 Harriers.
If the reasoning behind the Airbase is to extend the Japanese Air Defense Umbrella then all that is needed is the E-2D Hawkeye, a Heavy Fighter (such as the F-15, Dassault Rafael, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22) and HC-130P's which can launch from said airbase.
As far as I can tell the American's wish for a base to launch B-52's and C-17's from.
loading...
Mark says:
Jan 27, 2012
Terrible concept design for military use.
loading...
Robert says:
Jan 29, 2012
I still stand by my statement that Japan will have to bite the bullet and build or buy some sort of fixed wing carrying ship sooner rather than later.This is not it I'm afraid.
loading...
Mark says:
Jan 30, 2012
What about increasing the length and displacement of the 22DDH project and make it a full-fledged, fixed-wing aircraft carrier? They already have the design plan, just need to modify it.
loading...
Robert says:
Jan 30, 2012
I qualify my statement by saying should current trends continue. I think the next gen(after the 22ddh) platform will be a fixed wing platform.
loading...
Mark says:
Jan 31, 2012
Which service that are going to operate fixed-wing aircraft on the "next generation aircraft carriers"? We don't even know which F-35 variant they are planning to purchase.
loading...
Robert says:
Feb 2, 2012
Assuming Japan operates FWA (I think they will have to if current trends continue) then MSDF seems to me to be the most likely candidate.
loading...