how about a mobile underwater base?

how do you onload and off load and launch airplanes? Any of these scenarios is, i guess, possible. But they aren't any more likely than an attack on any other American base. What if terrorists sneak a nuke into gitmo or the chinese launch a nuclear cruise missile at Diego Garcia? We can be attacked. It's true. It's a dangerous world. That doesn't make the MOB a bad idea. In fact, I think it's great idea. Your objections are like saying we should build tanks because they can be blown up, or build aircraft because they be shot down.

should read: "Shouldn't build tanks..."

The ideas for MOB's already outlined in this thread seem pretty ambitious and of dubious utility, but I think a more limited MOB could be useful, to defend offshore assets like oil wells. You could use an existing oil rig design, tow it out amongst the wells with existing tugs and stick a bunch of defensive armament on it. Systems like ESSM and Nulka come to mind, for defence against anti-ship missiles, with tethered balloon mounted radars detecting low-flying targets. A helepad for a flight of ASW helecopters, supported by a ring of fixed sonar bouys and remotely-operated CAPTOR mines, at a safe distance around the rigs, would counter the sub-threat. Naturally the helos would have the option of carrying Penguin or the like, to deal with surface threats. You might even fit a pair of half-fueled up F-35's or Harrier's on the deck, to launch a quick vertical intercept, assuming you don't get a bit more ambitious and stick a couple of rigs together for a full- length V/STOL ski jump runway. I reckon that for a purely defensive role, this type of arrangement would be very economical. Why tie up your fighters and major surface combatants, defending stationary targets, when fitting their weapons to a rig would in all likelihood be a lot cheaper?

Hey Aussie, the British used a similar concept in WW2, as AA/anti-raider towers along the Thames and other estuaries. I'm surprised that in such a hostile environment as the Persian Gulf, there isn't some kind of dedicated rapid reaction force launching off some of the less-productive offshore platforms. I figure it shouldn't take too much modification to do so, but then the concept of who would man it comes into view, and would that make it a military asset, or civilian/corporate property?

the engineering hurdles and cost may stop the MOB from getting very far, but "of dubious utility" it's not. Look at all of the sktechy regimes the US makes friends with just to secure basing rights. Look at all of the places like Okinawa or Gitmo where the locals (I should say 'some of the locals' to avoid getting my head bitten off) don't like us and our presence makes life uncomfortable for the host government. It would offer great flexibility, independance and new capabilities to the military. It's a good idea..

Interesting to see the latest version of Proceedings mag, the discussion is revolving around 86,000 tonne trimarans, LHA's, HSV's and air cushioned transports. Its seen as a more flexible approach to MOBs.

While I understand why they are interested in flexibility, I think that they will ultimately be dissapointed with anything less than the full MOB. There's just such a reduction in capability when you go down to the smaller platform. We already have ships -- what we need are bases..

One problem in this discussion of M.O.B.s is a tendency for those who object to the concept to define a M.O.B. in such a manner that their objection is clearly valid. Of course, this means that many of these ships aren't m.o.b.s but are just large purpose built ships. Its true that if you define a m.o.b. as not having it's own propulsion system then yes, it has to be towed and then anchored all of which is a very large complication in something that big. But of course if the component vessels have their own power then that's not an objection at all. There are probably many objections to the concept. I have even advanced a few myself in a couple of posts on this subject. But saying that a system that provides a couple of heavy brigades and their armour, a hundred defensive aircraft, a hundred strike aircraft, a hundred long range bombers, the logistic and support facilities for those assets plus large land forces, a large seaport facility, a larger airport facility, a very large medical and recreational facility, unlimited c4 capacity, has no tactical or strategic value is absurd. There are surely some objections but lack of military value isn't one of them. Neither is saying that there is little utility compared to other systems. Whatever you might say about a m.o.b. they certainly have more utility and versatility than any other comparable delivery system. I have previously outlined what many people are referring to when they use the term m.o.b. Others may say there definition is equally valid but then they usually follow up their differing definition with evidence that their notion won't work. I have described what is commonly meant by m.o.b and the clarified it for the benefit of people who objections seemed to relate to other concepts entirely. Those interested in what a conventional notion of what a m.o.b. would be can refer to my posts on 12/7/2003 1105:56, 12/9/2003 12:02:24, 12/01/2003 8:08:59, 12/10/2003 9:53:28, 4/9/2004 3:01:33. Others are free to redefine the concept if they wish. But if the only reason you are redefining it is so you then shoot down your own argument then you are being a little bit disingenuous. There are objections to the concept. I even raised some possible ones myself. I'm surprised that no one has engaged them other than to dismiss them. And yes, they certainly would be vulnerable to a successful nuclear attack. I'm working on something that can withstand a hydrogen bomb as we speak. I'll let you know when I get it figured out and then we can dispense with all the world's existing military assets. In the meantime, in the real world, faced with real strategic challenges in hostile parts of the world often not only not symetric combat but not even full scale combat but deadly nonetheless this is a concept that if it is workable offers some advantages no other current system has. Northernguy