April 1, 1998

Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology • Gaithersburg MD 20899

Submitted By:

Intelligent Systems Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

To:

Office of Naval Research (ONR)

800 N. Quincy St.

Arlington, VA 22217-5666

Cargo Container Transfer 

Requirements for the 

Mobile Offshore Base

Requirements 
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 1

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

Responsible Person / Organization

Gene M. Remmers, Code 334

Office of Naval Research (ONR)

800 N. Quincy St.

Arlington, VA 22217-5666

Performing Organization

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Intelligent Systems Division

Building 220/ Office B-127

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Point of Contact

Mr. Roger Bostelman Phone: 301-975-3426

Email: rbostelman@nist.gov

Principal Investigators

Mr. Ken Goodwin Phone: 301-975-3421

Email: kgoodwin@nist.gov

Mr. Roger Bostelman Phone: 301-975-3426

Email: rbostelman@nist.gov
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

2 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURPOSE ........................................................................................3

MOB MISSIONS AND CONCEPTS OF OPERATION .............4

SCOPE ..............................................................................................5

ASSUMPTIONS ..............................................................................6

REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................8

Reach..............................................................................8

Height...........................................................................11

Crane Lift Capacity......................................................14

Airspace Restrictions ...................................................14

Structural Crane Support..............................................15

Operational Sea States..................................................16

Lighter Loading............................................................18

DESIRABLE FEATURES ...........................................................19

Crane Throughput ........................................................19

Cargo Placement, Storage, and Retrieval.....................20

Stowage ........................................................................21

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS AND EFFORTS ............23

REFERENCES ..............................................................................25
Purpose 3

PURPOSE

The purpose of this requirements statement is to serve as a guideline to 

Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) concept developers, so that cargo handling 

requirements are fully considered and addressed in the development of 

concepts and preliminary designs. These requirements have evolved from 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratory work 

to develop cargo crane concepts for the MOB program, as well as from 

several preliminary concepts of the MOB concept developers under contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and 

the Office of Naval Research (ONR). [1]
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

4 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

MOB MISSIONS AND CONCEPTS OF OPERATION

There are a wide variety of possible missions for the MOB. The Mission 

Needs Statement calls for a broad range of capabilities, including: support of loading and unloading of naval craft, including roll-on/roll-off 

(RO/RO), large medium-speed RO/RO (LMSR), oiler, container, multipurpose, logistics support vehicle (LSV), landing craft utility (LCU), 

landing craft mechanized (LCM), and landing craft air cushion (LCAC) 

vessels. [2]

Concepts of operations, under development by Syntek for the Office of 

Naval Research, include: Special Operations Force, Logistics, Prepositioning, and Operation Maneuver from the Sea (OMFTS), and Tactical 

Aviation. [3]

Development of the MOB could meet many of the long recognized needs 

for Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) operations. [4], [5]

Viewed in conjunction with the proposed next generation aircraft carrier, 

CVX, the MOB could also serve as a tender, tanker, aircraft repair facility, unmanned air vehicle (UAV) operations and support base, or Vertical 

Launch System (VLS) replenishment base. The MOB cranes could even 

be used to reconfigure the CVX by changing out modules. [6]
SCOPE 5

SCOPE 

The scope of this requirements statement will include the lift on/lift 

off (LO/LO) transfer of cargo that is normally handled by cranes.

This will include containers and break bulk cargo, such as tanks and 

causeway sections. Emphasis will be primarily upon the transfer of containers between the MOB and cargo container ships, landing craft, and 

lighters. 

This report will not deal with loading and unloading cargo brought by 

aircraft to the flight deck. Such cargo will be handled by specialized forklifts, rolling equipment, ramps, and elevators. Also, it will not address 

Roll On/Roll Off (RO/RO) cargo (such as trucks), nor bulk liquids transfer.
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

6 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

ASSUMPTIONS

Cranes will be used to perform LO/LO operations

Military Sealift Command and commercial cargo container ships will 

deliver containers to the MOB. Although other container transfer 

mechanisms have been proposed, the current design of container ships 

requires a capability to retrieve containers from cells deep in the ship. 

Ships are loaded at ports by port cranes because cranes are the most cost 

effective mechanism available.

Cranes will unload cargo from container ships onto a platform that is 

extended from the lower cargo deck of the MOB.

On this loading platform, similar to a loading dock of a warehouse, there 

will be container transfer mechanisms (possibly rails and carts, monorails 

or automatic guided vehicles) that move containers along the side and 

into and out of the MOB as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. Load Shuttle Platform outside of MOB

MOB

Load Shuttle Load Shuttles

Platform
ASSUMPTIONS 7

Cost, power, reliability and other design factors will be considered 

later in the detailed design stage.

Cost, power, reliability, maintenance, etc. will be important factors in the 

selection and design of cranes for the MOB. These factors will be 

considered in conjunction with each crane’s capability to meet missionderived performance throughput requirements. Power requirements for 

crane operations are a direct function of the throughput and motion 

compensation design requirements. Preliminary examination of several 

crane designs indicates that crane power requirements must be addressed 

but will not be a major driver of MOB power requirements.
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

8 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

REQUIREMENTS

The following requirements are generic cargo handling system 

performance and design requirements, developed before specific mission 

scenarios are developed. 

Two types of requirements are discussed below. The first set are similar to 

what a port crane needs for loading container ships. They include crane 

reach, height, and lift capacity.

The second set of requirements are specific to the MOB because of its 

special operating characteristics. The requirements include operating 

without intruding into aircraft operations space, structural support on the 

side of a MOB, operating in high sea states, and lighter loading.

Reach

Cranes must be able to reach the far side of the largest container 

ships currently in use (Panamax class ships). 

This requires almost a 50 m reach when fenders are considered. The 

reach required will depend upon the size of the container ships used, 

many of which are not Panamax size. However we assume that Panamax 

class ships will be used at times to support the MOB and the cranes must 

provide reach adequate to span them. The distance from the outer edge of 

the MOB to the ship wall berthed against the MOB will depend upon the 

design of the MOB and the amount of fendering required to keep the container ship clear of the flight deck overhang (if any). For the McDermott 

design, the distance between the MOB and a ship is about 3 m (e.g. com-
Requirements 9

pressed fender) to 4.5 m (e.g., non-compressed fender). Figure 2 shows a 

Panamax ship berthed against the MOB with a compressed fender.

FIGURE 2. Cut-away view of a Panamax ship berthed against the MOB with a compressed fender

Cranes must access container cells at various positions along the 

length of container ships. 

Fixed cranes would not be able to reach many cells of container ships 

moored alongside the MOB without warping the ship along the MOB. 

While moving the ship is technically possible, it is difficult and time 

consuming. Port cranes typically move on rails along the length of container ships. Similarly, it will be necessary for MOB cranes to move 

along the length of container ships (see figure 3). 

However, if a container ship is longer than a MOB section, it may be 

necessary to warp the ship so that cranes can reach more cells. Some 

preliminary studies have shown that mooring lines can withstand the 

dynamic loads of container ships moored to the MOB in sea state 4. [7]

waterline

MOB flight deck

MPS AMSEA Class Ship

(cross section)

containers

crane boom
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

10 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

However, no designs have yet been developed for automatically warping 

container ships to move them along the MOB.

FIGURE 3. MOB top view showing crane traversal along MOB edge.

MOB flight deck crane boom

containers

MPS AMSEA Class Ship

fender

trolley/spreader bars
Requirements 11

Height

Cranes must clear the superstructure of the ship and all shipboard 

obstacles.

This means that the crane booms must be luffed or hinged so that they 

can be raised while container ships are docking (see Figure 4).

FIGURE 4. Crane boom being luffed to clear shipboard obstacles (units are in meters).

The crane must have sufficient hook height to handle normal shipboard stacking of containers.

For the Mc Dermott design, shown in Figure 5, the MOB flight deck will 

only be 36.5 m above the waterline during typical operations. The top 

container on a large, fully loaded container ship may sit 23.2 m or more 

crane at 70°

raised position

waterline

MOB flight deck crane boom

compressed fender

MPS AMSEA Class Ship

(cross section)

containers

57.2

41.8
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

12 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

above the waterline (not considering vertical wave motion). This leaves 

only 13.3 m (= 36.5 m - 23.2 m) from the MOB flight deck to the top of 

the highest container. This means that the crane boom must be thin vertically to allow the highest possible hook height. 

FIGURE 5. Rail crane height (in meters) restrictions for large ships (MPS AMSEA Class ship)

Minimum crane hook height is approximated at 25.8 m above the 

waterline (see Figure 6). This allows retrieval of cargo containers stacked 

only 2 high or less on the top deck of an MPS AMSEA Class Ship (see 

Figure 7).

To unload containers that are stacked 3 high on this ship, the crane must 

retrieve the top containers in sequence from closest to farthest from the 

MOB. This is assumed to be an acceptable operation constraint since an 

additional 2.5 m hook height would be required to lift a container over 

the top stacked container. 

Container ships often carry containers stacked six or seven levels above 

the deck. To load, or unload, containers stacked higher than three levels, 

the MOB would have to be ballasted up to a higher level. Or an alternative crane design, such as a luffing boom crane, would be required.

MOB

36.5

23.2 28.2

waterline

crane height

top ship deck container stack

flight deck height above waterline
Requirements 13

FIGURE 6. Minimum Hook Height (in meters) for the Crane

FIGURE 7. Crane Clearance (in meters) over Containers Stacked on an MPS AMS

4.4

2.5

25.8

waterline

2.3

waterline

28.3

MOB flight deck crane boom

MPS AMSEA Class Ship

(cross section)

containers

25.8
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

14 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

Crane Lift Capacity

Cranes must lift 23 tonne (25 long tons) containers from the far beam 

of Panamax class ships.

Cargo is mainly containerized in 6 m to 16 m long x 2.5 m wide x 2.5 m 

high (20’ to 52’ long x 8’ wide x 8.5’ high) standard ISO containers. 

LO/LO operations may also include break bulk and palletized cargo. 

Estimated maximum cargo weight positioned at a distance of 40 m (130’) 

from the MOB edge is 23 tonnes (25 long tons).

Cranes should be capable of lifting break bulk cargo, vehicles, and 

barge sections.

This will provide lift of a 70 tonne tank at the center of a Panamax class 

ship (22 m) and lift of a 102 tonne causeway section at the near side of a 

ship (11 m).

Cranes may be required to lift disabled RO/RO vehicles from ramps.

In the event that RO/RO vehicles or other equipment becomes 

immobilized, cranes may be required to remove such items (up to the 

maximum crane lift capacity) from ramps to continue cargo retrieval/

loading operations.

Airspace Restrictions

Cranes should not interfere with airspace above the flight deck.

Cranes must not protrude into the airspace directly above the flight deck 

during air operations (see Figure 8). The vertical support tower that is 

commonly used to support and luff typical port rail cranes is not feasible 

for the MOB, at least not on both sides of the flight deck. It might be 

feasible on one side where there are air control towers. 

However, there are examples of low profile rolling boom cranes currently 

being used in ports. These low profile booms suggest a similar rail crane 

design. They have larger rail cross sections than the high profile cranesbecause they must support the weight of the boom and cargo as a 

cantilevered load.

Cranes should only rarely protrude above the plane of the flight 

deck.

Air operations may require parking of aircraft with wings or tails overhanging the edge of the flight deck. Figure 8 shows “potential aircraft 

parking” extending 12 m beyond the MOB edge. This would interfere 
Requirements 15

with luffing crane booms or their longitudinal movement along the length 

of container ships during crane operations. For larger aircraft, such as the 

C-17 transport, takeoffs and landings may be made with one wingtip 

beyond the edge of the flight deck. The degree of interference between 

aircraft operations and crane operations depends upon the aircraft 

employed and the width of the flight deck. In some flight operations, it 

may be necessary to suspend crane operations on one side of the MOB.

FIGURE 8. Assumed Restricted Airspace Over the MOB Flight Deck

Structural Crane Support

The MOB structure should support cranes mounted on the side of 

the MOB. 

To avoid interference with aircraft operations above the flight deck, 

cranes must mount on the side of the MOB (see example in Figure 9). 

Therefore, the MOB structure must provide hardpoints which can 

support the load of the crane boom, the crane trolley, and a variety of cargos that are lifted at specified reaches. NIST has serious concerns about 

the forces that a fully loaded rail crane would exert on the MOB. A fully 

loaded luffing boom crane would generate much lower forces on the 

MOB than a rail crane, but would require the lowest deck to extend out 

beyond the flight deck. Some current MOB designs do not provide this 

feature.

waterline

MOB flight deck

crane boom

crane at 70° raised

position to allow 

ship docking

Assumed Restricted Airspace

12.0

Potential Aircraft

Parking

MOB end view
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

16 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

FIGURE 9. Crane boom attachment to the MOB showing traversing rails and support structure.

Operational Sea States

The MOB must be able to perform lift-on and lift-off (LO/LO) 

operations under weather conditions up to sea state 3, and preferably in sea state 4.

The Mission Need Statement For the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) calls 

for an operational capability in sea state 3. [2] It would be highly desirable to conduct cargo handling operations in sea state 4 because in some 

areas of interest this would allow operations a greater portion of the time. 

The maximum operational sea state in which cargo loading or unloading 

operations are to be performed is estimated at sea state 4, and these 

would be done only with large cargo container ships, since lighters would 

not be able to operate in sea state 4. We assume then that a reasonable 

design goal for cranes is to be able to perform lift-on and lift-off (LO/LO) 

operations under sea state conditions up to sea state 4. 

crane boom

trolley

spreader bars

MOB

flight deck

02 1/2 deck

02 deck

boom luff hinge

crane traversing rails

transition structure
Requirements 17

The MOB must have a capability of docking and mooring container 

ships.

Container ships usually do not have sufficient dynamic positioning capability to dock with a MOB without assistance. In harbors, container ships 

are assisted by tugs. It will be necessary for the MOB to have its own 

tugs, or some automated docking system to achieve docking and mooring.

The MOB crane must compensate for longitudinal, lateral, and 

vertical ship motions relative to the MOB in high seas 

Maximum motions for a Tactical Auxiliary Crane Ship (T-ACS) 4 relative 

to the MOB in sea state 4 are estimated to be: [8]

Displacement Acceleration

Longitudinal: 0.51 m (1.67 ft) 0.94 g x 100

Lateral: 1.12 m (3.69 ft) 2.16 g x 100

Vertical: 1.12 m (3.66 ft) 3.21 g x 100

Shipboard cargo motion compensation could be achieved by using 

automated rigging control as with the NIST RoboCrane technology. [9]

This advanced technology would allow crane operators to retrieve cargo 

rapidly, even while at high sea states, by using an Intelligent Spreader 

Bar, with sensors and computer-assisted control that follows the cargo 

motion. [10]
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

18 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

Lighter Loading

Loading containers from the MOB to lighters will be necessary.

The U. S. Marine Corps vision of Operational Maneuver from the Sea 

(OMFTS), if implemented, would eliminate the need for displacement 

hull lighterage by bypassing the beach and moving cargo using aircraft 

from the seabase. [11]

However, the Army will continue to require lighterage. The larger Army 

lighterage (LSV, LCU2000) are most likely to be used for lighterage 

operations from the MOB. The proposed Joint Modular Lighter System 

(JMLS) will be designed to have a sea state 3 operating capability.[12] 

Smaller lighters could potentially be used, depending upon how far offshore the MOB is located and weather conditions.

Motions of smaller ships at sea state 4 are expected to be considerably 

larger than motions of container ships. Wave motion compensation will 

require more horsepower because the smaller ships have greater relative 

motion than larger vessels. 

It may be feasible for the MOB to replenish the Vertical Launch System 

(VLS) of AEGIS Class Cruiser (DDG 51) ships, a capability that does not 

currently exist in the fleet.[6]
DESIRABLE FEATURES 19

DESIRABLE FEATURES

Several desirable but not required features have been derived from 

preliminary design studies, model building, simulation and design 

development, as well as by concept developers Brown and Root and 

McDermott.

Crane Throughput 

Operational cargo container throughput requirements are mission 

dependent, but could be set as high as 30 containers per hour per 

crane.

Different organizations have estimated desired crane throughput rates in 

a variety of ways. The following cargo retrieval rate estimates represent 

different views of what may be required of a MOB.

• The current Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Advanced Crane 

Technology Demonstration goal is to unload 300 containers in one 

day. Current capabilities are to make one lift about every 7 min.

• Brown and Root estimated that it would take 120 hours to load 1720 

containers, at a rate of 8 min per container, to support an Army Division.

• McDermott estimated that,with more cranes, it would take only 24 

hours to load 720 containers, at a rate of 6 minutes per container to 

support a Marine Expeditionary Force.

• The Center for Naval Analyses has estimated that support of a 

Maritime Prepositioning Force for 2010 (MPF 2010) will require off 

loading of 4,166 containers. [13], [14]

Approximate maximum port crane throughput for containerized cargo is 

about 30 containers per hour. Although some port cranes are capable of 

unloading a maximum of 60 containers per hour, crane operation does 

not typically achieve this rate due to delays associated with ground transportation of cargo.

We believe that it is technically possible for MOB LO/LO operations to 

match port crane LO/LO rates of 2 min per container. under conditions of 

sea state 4. This can occur, provided that an advanced control system is 

developed and used in the MOB. If so, then a minimum of seven cranes, 
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

20 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

operating 20 hours per day, would be required for a MOB to meet the 

most stringent off load requirement, for the MPF 2010, in one day.

Cargo Placement, Storage and Retreival

The MOB should have the capability to store and retreive individual 

containers, remove pallets, and repackage containers on demand.

Although containerized cargo is simple and efficient for moving high 

volumes of cargo, Special Forces operations, OMFTS operations, and 

“marrying up” of MPF equipment with troops aboard the MOB will typically need cargo moved in smaller quantities, typically pallet sized loads. 

Therefore, an area for break-out , marshalling, and staging will be 

required. A capability to access multiple containers and load pallets and/

or containers is needed.

A cargo “buffer” area should allow convenient crane access and 

allow cargo transport along the MOB.

As an example, in the current McDermott design, the internal decks of 

the MOB are recessed 15.5 m from the side edges of the MOB forming a 

covered external cargo handling area. Cranes would unload cargo from 

container ships to the covered cargo area that is attached to the lower 

deck of the MOB. On this platform, there would be conveyers or container shuttle mechanisms (possibly rails and carts) that would move containers along the side of the MOB as shown in Figure 1. The crane puts 

down and picks up containers from the outermost track (closest to the 

ship). 

Two or more parallel tracks would be available so that containers or carts 

can pass while moving in opposite directions. This would permit simultaneous load and unload operations. There would be switching mechanisms 

that permit containers or carts to switch tracks. This enables a rapid and 

complex flow of traffic into and out of several doors to the storage areas. 

Cargo doors should be located at convenient points through which 

containers can be stored and retrieved.

During LO/LO operations, a cargo transport system moves containers 

from the point where the crane puts them down and through one of 

several doors in the side of the MOB. These doors open to internal storage areas. Inside the MOB’s entrance doors, overhead cranes/containermovers pick up containers and move them to their storage locations.
DESIRABLE FEATURES 21

Stowage

The cargo cranes should be stowed for travel and excessive sea states.

When in transit and during storms, the crane should be stowed, preferably in a location that provides for convenient servicing. The preferred 

method of stowing the crane is to move it to a home position where it can 

be retracted into a compartment that is internal to the MOB. Such an 

arrangement is illustrated in the McDermott design (see Figure 10). This 

option places the crane inside where it can be easily serviced.

FIGURE 10. Crane Stow by Retracting the Minimum Length (units shown are in meters) of Crane 

Boom on Rails and into the MOB

waterline

MOB flight deck crane boom

1.0

3.1

crane rails

fender

38.3 trolley
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

22 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

An alternative stowage concept is to rotate the crane into a position 

beside the MOB, as shown in Figure 11. This method can be used for 

either rail or luffing cranes.

FIGURE 11. Alternative Stowage concept. The top view of a luffing crane is shown.

top view groove including crane

traversing rails

crane support structure rotary joint

Crane in LO/LO Operational State

Crane Stow Position

MOB Flight Deck
Recommended Action Items and Efforts 23

RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS AND EFFORTS 

The following recommendations are suggested to concept developers.

Consider the concept of an artificial beach for landing LCACs and for 

loading lighters.

As discussed in the requirements section, the containers need to be transferred from the MOB to lighters. The preliminary MOB design of 

McDermott Shipbuilding Inc. includes the concept of an artificial beach, 

a sloping shelf, for landing and loading LCACs and lighters, and for 

stowing causeway sections. 

Other concept designers should consider this concept or alternative features to accomplish the same functions. For some concepts, a sheltered 

area or well deck, similar to those included in amphibious dock, assault, 

transport, and dock landing ships (LHD,LHA, LPD, and LSD, respectively), might fulfill this function.

Design the flight deck to be capable of supporting cranes.

For MOB designs with overhanging flight decks, cranes may have to be 

attached to the underside of the flight deck. The majority of the forces are 

located at or near the edge of the deck where some MOB designs 

currently show the thinnest structure. Therefore, because high forces 

from the crane can appear at any point along the deck edge, the crane 

attachment to the MOB must be supported. A rail to support the cranes 

will be needed at the edge of the flight deck and a second rail along the 

side of MOB. Maximum dynamic forces felt by the MOB during typical 

LO/LO operations is on the order of 14 MN (1,550 tons).

Simulate and model the cranes required for cargo handling.

Scale models of a rail crane, luffing crane, triangular crane, and box crane 

have been constructed at NIST. These have provided some insight into 

the crane requirements for the MOB concepts developed by Brown and 

Root and McDermott. For other concept developers, it would be very 

useful to simulate and build a scale model of proposed container cranes 

and their interface to the MOB. The models could be used to verify the 

concept design, such as the pulley and winch locations, the stability of 

the cargo as a two or three stage compensation system is attached to this 

model, actuated boom raise, crane traversal along the MOB, and computer controlled cargo acquisition.
Criteria / Requirements / Recommendations

24 Intelligent Systems Division • National Institute of Standards and Technology

Develop the advanced computer control system necessary to achieve 

wave motion compensation.

Upon construction of a representative rail crane as described in this 

report, the model will demonstrate static control of the spreader bar and 

verify stability requirements. Additionally, the crane model must also 

demonstrate, under computer control, the synchronized winch control 

that will be required of a full-scale version of the crane to achieve relative 

motion compensation. Algorithms must be designed and demonstrated to 

achieve continuous servo control of the trolley and the taglines for full 

operator assisted/monitored six degree-of-freedom spreader bar and 

cargo control during high sea state conditions.

Address specific cargo handling requirements for different MOB 

missions.

As different MOB mission requirements and operational scenarios are 

developed, it will be necessary to look at the proposed cargo handling 

systems to verify that they can meet the mission requirements.
References 25

REFERENCES

1. Mobile Offshore Base Technology Review Conference, Management 

Support Technology, Inc., October 21-23, 1997.

2. JPD, Mission Need Statement For The Mobile Offshore Base (MOB), 

ACAT Level I, September 15,1995.

3. Syntek, Mobile Offshore Base Concept of Operations, (draft), January 

1998.

4. CNO Strategic Sealift Division (N-42), Cargo Offload and Discharge 

System (COLDS), October 1992.

5. T. G. Vaughters, M.F. Mardiros, Joint Logistics Over the Shore Operations in Rough Seas, Naval Engineers Journal, pp. 385-396, May 1997.

6. Donald Bouchoux, Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc. BB, The MOB as 

a Supplement to the CVX, January 29, 1998.

7. Seaworthy Systems, Inc., Preliminary Design Mobile Offshore Base 

Ship Interface, (draft), April 1, 1997.

8. Cooper, Kelly, “Motion Responses for Selected Cargo Location Points 

on a T-ACS Auxiliary Crane Ship in an Open Seaway,” Carderock Naval 

Systems Warfare Center, Sept. 1996: Tables 3 and 4: Ochi-Hubble Spectra Corresponding to Natural Roll.

9. Albus, James; Bostelman, Roger; and Jacoff, Adam; MOB RoboCrane 

Final Report, Mobile Offshore Base Project, Vol. 1, 2, NIST Internal 

Report (draft), 1997.

10. E.J. Dougherty, D.E. Lee, and P.D. Shively, Automated All-weather 

Cargo Transfer System (AACTS), Society of Naval Architects and 

Marine Engineers, STAR Symposium, pp S2-3-1, S2-3-6, April, 1989

11. General Charles Krulak, MPF 2010 and Beyond, December 30, 1998, 

reprinted in Inside the Navy, January 12, 1998.

12. Bob Webb, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, draft RFP for the 

Joint Modular Lighter System (JMLS) Mission Need Statement, Civil 

Engineering Support Office (CESO), http://199.123.61.61

13. John Nance, Jr., Vito R. Milano, Robert M. Souders, and Thomas A. 

Bowditch, Mission Area Analysis (MAA) for Maritime Prepositioning 

force (MPF) Future Seabasing Concepts Phase 1 Summary Report, Center for Naval Analyses, CRM 97-102.09, 26 Sept. 1997.

14. Jack Nance, Dry Cargo and Vehicle Lift Requirements, MPF MAA 

Study Notice #23, Center for Naval Analyses, 29 Sept. 1997.