March 8, 2005
ONE NATION IS AN ISLAND:
The Navy's Changing Tide: Service floats ''sea base'' concept (DALE EISMAN, 3/08/05, The Virginian-Pilot)
A war averted more than a decade ago may be pointing the way toward 21st-century warfare for the U.S. Navy.In September 1994, a U.S. flotilla positioned itself off the coast of Haiti to help restore a democratically elected president to power. The flagship, the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, was stripped of its fighter planes and turned into a landing hub for Army helicopters and barracks for 2,000 soldiers.
Operation Uphold Democracy, as it was called, ended in a few weeks and the Norfolk-based Eisenhower headed to the Mediterranean for a more conventional deployment. But Navy leaders say the successful use of the Ike as a floating base, duplicated in 2001 when Marines operated from the carrier Kitty Hawk in the early stages of America’s invasion of Afghanistan, foreshadows a new naval era.
They contend that the “sea base” – a network of ships providing offshore artillery fire, air support, food, ammunition and even a place to sleep for ground troops – is about to replace the carrier as the centerpiece of the fleet.
The Navy always has been part of the supply chain for U.S. ground troops fighting overseas. Most of the tanks and heavy equipment used in Operation Iraqi Freedom were delivered by sea, for example.
But the sea base concept makes ships the end of the supply line. Soldiers and Marines accustomed to building and defending bases inland operate from the sea, going ashore only to fight.
“This is a revolution,” said Adm. Vern Clark, the outgoing chief of naval operations.
The Empire diverges ever farther from history as it no longer even needs foreign bases for troop deployment purposes. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 8, 2005 8:02 PM
What happens in bad seas or bad weather? This sounds like a good supplementary strategy but hardly a replacement for permanent bases or staging areas on land.
Posted by: Bart at March 9, 2005 11:48 AMThey float.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2005 11:56 AMThey pitch. You can't take off from them. You can't land on them. They become useless.
Posted by: Bart at March 9, 2005 12:31 PMBart;
That's what hovercraft are for.
Mr. Judd;
This presumes complete domination in the air, and on and under the water, the water which is yet another other nations can't do this to us.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 9, 2005 3:41 PMAOG,
And we have hovercraft that can replace a C-130? Other nations don't need 'dominance' just a couple of lucky shots.
Posted by: Bart at March 9, 2005 6:37 PMExocets.
The essence of sea power is mobility. American admirals in World War II hated tying their fast carriers to landing zones, tho' they had to do so at times.
It was very costly.
I'm a big fan and student of sea power, which I think is widely misunderstood. The 'sea base' concept appears to be one of those aberrations of basic strategical principles that recur in the history of navies.
At any rate, even if it works, it can't be of much benefit beyond one or two hours flight time from wherever the carrier lies. That puts a lot of interesting country out of reach.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 10, 2005 6:08 PM