4.0. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION 
In order to assess the relative feasibility of MOBS versus an al- 
ternative basing system, the analyst would normally first seek to ensure 
the technical: viability of each concept before comparing them for opera- 
tional effectiveness and cost. Since the subject of this investigation 
involves an innovative approach to forward basing in future time frames, 
the matter of technical or physical viability must be addressed. 
4.1.0. Physical Viability 
Physical viability of MOBS (Basing System I) is not a matter of 
exceptional risk if one considers the advanced state of technology for 
off-shore drilling platforms and reinforced concrete marine structures. 
The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory has performed extensive engineer- 
ing analysis including model testing of the MOBS concept as described in 
Appendix C of this report. Notwithstanding their positive conclusions as 
to general technical feasibility of the concept, the investigators were 
able to isolate certain specific problem areas requiring further 
analysis and experimental development. However, these problems appear 
entirely tractable and such as could be readily managed in the normal 
RDT&E process. 
Basing System II, the most likely comparable alternative to MOBS, 
is an extension of the current war-fighting support structure for joint 
multi-service operations as depicted in the Generalized Situation Sce- 
nario. Its credibility as an operationally and technically viable 
system in the year 2000 time frame is established by precedence, assum- 
ing only incremental changes attendant to the attrition of U.S. forward 
basing assets. 
In accordance with the logic of this study as set forth in 
Appendix B, it remains to assess and seek to quantify relative cost- 
effectiveness of the two forward basing systems under consideration. 
29 
