3. Synthesis: (3.0) provides conceptualization of candidate large 
scale systems in response to the needs and the engineering 
problem situation. This part of the study also provides formu- 
lation of a generalized threat scenario within which to 
compare alternative systems. 
4. Evaluation: (4.0) provides physical viability, operational 
performance, limited economic and financial comparisons of 
alternative forward basing systems. 
5. Conclusions: (5.0) offers conclusions reached through this 
investigation bearing on the feasibility of modular ocean 
basing systems as an alternative to currently diminishing U.S. 
foreign basing assets. 
1.5. Project Organization 
The project is organized to enable effective treatment of likely 
alternatives to the U.S. forward basing situation by seeking to incor- 
porate the studied inputs of faculty and officer-students at the Naval 
Postgraduate School, Monterey, along with those of the professional 
research staff of the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme. 
The principal investigator and coordinator for contributed studies 
is John F. Peel Brahtz, Ph.D., P.E., (Consulting Research Professor, 
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, on temporary assignment 
to the staff of the Technical Director, NCEL). The investigation is 
conducted under the joint cognizance of R. N. Storer, Ph.D., P.E., Tech- 
nical Director, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory; and J. J. Tritten, 
Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of National Security Affairs, 
Naval Postgraduate School. 
The investigation is conducted entirely with facilities, personnel, 
and support provided by the Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory and the 
Naval Postgraduate School. 
