JMOB: Joint Mobile Offshore Base

Ran across this a while back but never got around do doing a thread/topic on it.
The idea for this is sound and its implications would be awesome. No more basing in foreign nations, etc.
They would also enable "jump points" around the world to virtually any hot-spot or zone.
Here's a concept picture of it:

external image

or the link:
xtreme.eng.hawaii.edu...


The link detailing this is very informative and covers the almost everything from geo-strategic explanations to technical information to economic information to financial, as well as details of this idea and/or innovation.

"Joint Mobile Offshore Base"
Link:
www.bwxt.com...

Excerpt:

"As the largest floating structure ever built, its size will be unprecedented. But its straightforward concept uses proven technology. And its mobility and flexibility could offer worldwide logistic support of unequaled proportions — in military, humanitarian, and nonmilitary (commercial) uses."


So, do you think it is a workable idea or concept?
Does such a program merit feasibility?
Do you think the US Navy Aircraft Carrier Captain's have the ability to not tear it apart when docking, etc.?
Mind you, an interesting note, a aircraft carrier captain is one of the most powerful 'entities' besides the President. I'm sure some Navy folks will tell you some stories concerning this....

I think the idea and concept is worth further study and looking into....awesome idea.




regards
seekerof

Deffinately will help increase AirMob. Aircraft mobility, that was the first thing that poped into my head when I saw that header, JMOB.

What an awsome idea, but I see a draw back. Notice the three air traffic control towers. Yes, ok good. Now imagine trying to keep that air space safe...man I would not want that responsibility.

I don't really see it as a workable concept, for the reasons I stated above.

As for the program merit of "feasibility", I have learned any is possible.

Your last question, I don't know, it's they navy we are talking about here.

Yes, I would have to agree Advisor....I, too, would also hate to be in charge of air operations...in and out.

What I found interesting is that the floating platform is built in floatable sections that could be detached if a section say, was attacked and destroyed or severely damaged, preventing the floating platform from moving, etc.

I'm wondering if they have envisioned this as a weapons platform, in a sense. Throw about 500 VLS and other cruise missile systems on this and WHAM. Envision about 2 Goalkeeper CIWS's and 2 SeaRam CIWS's per section and wow....



regards
seekerof

now would u like 2 come across this if u were in a small patrol boat
smart idea
not very discreet though

Sounds like a great idea.

Wonder what its cost if a B-2 spirit pushes 2 billion.

maybe 2 trillion?

How much does one of the new US aircraft carriers cost?
Anyone know?

i have a pdf file on carrier cost effectiveness (conventional vs. nuclear)

looks like they cost 4.059 billion dollars each.

kind of funny....... and a B-2 spirit runs at about 2 billion.....

(2) B-2 Spirits = (1) Nimitz class Nuclear powered Super Carriers.

seems to me there is alot more work involved in a carrier than 2 stealth bombers.


link

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by REASON]

One idea about having a carrier-like ocean base is that the U.S. could close off military bases in other countries, such as Germany, Japan, The Philippines, so on. I do not totally agree with this plan, which was laid out in Popular Mechanics a while back.

Ok my take on all this huge floating base of bridge is that it is not a very good idea from military purposes.

It will be extremly hard to defend.

Also it would be very costly to maintain.

And remember this is only what I think.

Out,
Russian

>looks like they cost 4.059 billion dollars each.

kind of funny....... and a B-2 spirit runs at about 2 billion.....

(2) B-2 Spirits = (1) Nimitz class Nuclear powered Super Carriers.

seems to me there is alot more work involved in a carrier than 2 stealth bombers.


True but you're forgetting one key element, LEAD time (which in turn has respect to R&D and Contracts).

In the case of the aircraft carriers we had a lot of lead time coming out of WWII in regards to how to build them, so researching totally new technologies and building techniques wasn't as hard or as costly, yet a carrier still costs approximately 8 billion bucks.

In the case of the B-2 we have a research and development cost PLUS a contract with the airforce for over 120 B-2s. However Congress nullified that need for more aircraft due to maintenance expenses and the fall of the Soviet Union, thereby turning their request for only 21 B-2s. Unfortunately the cost of the entire contract (I believe it was somewhere around 220-248 billion dollars) still is paid so thats how you end up with the cost of the B-2 ending up being something costing almost 2 billion per plane.


As far as JMOBs go, these are offshore bases THOUSANDS of kilometers to hundreds of kilometers away from the enemies seashore. When you throw in the fact that each will have at least a CBG plus whatever additional escorts are necessary then it actually becomes less a worry about defense and more one of how much does it help logistics.

The real cost includes the investment in the carrier, operational costs, upgrades, and disposal.

Over the life of a carrier this will be as much as 22 Billion.

Source: Federation of American Scientists

www.fas.org...



The super carrier shown would cost far more, and be a much bigger target. Better to not put so many eggs in a floating basket.

Interesting idea but can't see it getting anywhere fast. 5 knotts maybe! Still one nuke would see it dead.

As for air control, it wouldn't be anywhere near as busy as say Heathrow or JFK and they manage. Just because there's 3 towers doesn't mean each is a control tower. Runway look long enough for there to be section for say fighters, choppers and support planes, that might explain the 3 towers.

Still it will never be built.

thats totally #ing awsome