| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
159122
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Countering antiaccess warfare as a peacetime strategy requires an intragovernmental approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
115003
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Sea basing is a strategic concept that has been defined in a variety of often contradictory ways. It is officially a joint concept, but it is widely perceived as a parochial tool to justify budget increases for the Department of the Navy. As an
activity, sea basing has been described as both traditional and transformational.
1
Many proponents consider it a specific set of hardware-future platforms, such
as the mobile offshore base or additional ships for the Maritime Prepositioning
Force (MPF), like the proposed Mobile Landing Platform, which would allow
for selective off-load of prepositioned material while still at sea.
2
A misperceived
exclusive association with amphibious warfare, not currently a priority in the
Pentagon, has largely driven sea basing out of policy discussions at the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level. Ironically, sea basing came to prominence
in the past decade under a Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) determined to cut
capabilities from the amphibious fleet so as to fund future surface combatants.
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
183281
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the end, the debate over aircraft carriers always boils down to cost; their acquisition costs are much higher than for any other single-item defense program, making them a natural target for criticism. Combined with a simplistic perception of vulnerability, high costs tend to cause critics to declare aircraft carriers unaffordable—but “compared to what?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|