|
|
|
Sea Basing and Alternatives for Deploying and Sustaining Ground Combat Forces |
|
July 2007 |
|
![Cover Graphic](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090112095204im_/http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8284/838400.gif)
Notes
All costs in this study are presented in constant fiscal year 2008 dollars.
The cover illustrates an early U.S. Navy conceptual drawing of a sea base operating in support of ground forces. A large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ship (top) and an intratheater high-speed vessel (bottom) are shown alongside a notional mobile landing platform (center) with two air-cushion landing craft parked on its stern.
|
T he United States Marine Corps and Army have long maintained expeditionary forces organized and equipped to be rapidly moved and inserted into combat with little reliance on access to local bases or infrastructure. Recognizing the vulnerability of forces that are dependent on local access (as U.S. forces have been in Afghanistan and Iraq), the Department of Defense (DoD) is improving its expeditionary capabilities across all of the military services. Prominent among those efforts is the Navy's plan to field a 14-ship squadron—the Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future), or MPF(F)—that would be capable of deploying, employing, and sustaining a Marine expeditionary brigade with little or no need for access to local bases or other infrastructure.
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study—prepared at the request of the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and Expeditionary Forces of the House Committee on Armed Services—looks at the capabilities and costs associated with MPF(F) and sea basing in general as well as other approaches that DoD might take to improve its expeditionary capabilities. The study compares the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of eight alternative systems—five that would involve the sea basing of ground forces and three that would use aircraft to directly deliver forces and supplies. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this study makes no recommendations.
David Arthur of CBO's National Security Division prepared the study under the supervision of J. Michael Gilmore. Raymond Hall and David Newman of CBO's Budget Analysis Division prepared most of the cost estimates under the supervision of Sarah Jennings. Donald Marron and David Moore of CBO, and Robert Work of the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments, provided thoughtful comments. (The assistance of an outside reviewer implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.)
Christine Bogusz edited the study, and Kate Kelly proofread it. Cynthia Cleveland produced drafts of the study. Maureen Costantino designed the cover and prepared the study for publication. Lenny Skutnik printed copies of the study, Linda Schimmel coordinated the print
distribution, and Simone Thomas prepared the electronic version for CBO's Web site.
Peter R. Orszag
Director
July 2007
Tables |
|
|
S-1. |
Capabilities and Costs of Alternative Systems Examined by CBO |
S-2. |
Composition of Alternative Systems Examined by CBO |
1-1. |
Ship Types in the Planned Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) Sea Base |
2-1. |
Approximate Size and Sustainment Requirements for Ground Units |
2-2. |
Composition of the Alternative Systems Examined by CBO |
2-3. |
Costs of the Alternative Systems Examined by CBO |
|
|
Figures |
|
|
S-1. |
Responsiveness and Capacity of Existing Systems and Selected Alternatives |
1-1. |
Experimental Mobile Landing Platform and Cargo Ship |
1-2. |
Closure Times for Sealift Missions |
2-1. |
Number of Aircraft Needed for Cargo Throughput of 1,000 Tons per Day |
2-2. |
Sizes and Potential Placement of Rotorcraft on Large-Deck Amphibious Ships |
3-1. |
Worldwide Proximity of Land Area and Population to the Seas |
3-2. |
Areas of Operation Supportable by Sea-Based Aircraft |
3-3. |
Responsiveness and Capacity of Existing Systems and Selected Alternatives |
|