New proposed LPD

[Gun Grape]

In addition to what Squirrel said. And he nailed it.

It also gives the MEU the ability to carry more of their stuff.

Two of the biggest decisions has always been "What do we have to leave behind in CLNC?" "What do we need to be airlifted to XXX bas in the AO in case we need it?"

[Tankersteve]

Maybe my English isn't so hot. I am not knocking the LPD's capabilities. But why do we want both the LPD and now the LSD class to be so much bigger than before? LSDs don't have hangars - does this support USMC mission packages? The LSD class seems to specifically support an Amphib Invasion, using LCACs and other water-borne vessels. Its ability to support vertical lift is marginal, except as a platform to park an aircraft temporarily, without a hangar.

Now if this LPD Flight II were to have a hangar, and effectively be a "San Antonio-light", cheaper due to simplified sensors/C2 capabilities, but keeping the ability to embark and maintain aircraft, perhaps with a reduction in welldeck capacity, that would make some sense. But I haven't heard that expressed - just that we already have this good hull - and we can start building them right away, with essentially the same design focus as the Whidby Island-class.

Tankersteve

[TopHatter]

Aging Whidbey Island class? These ships just came into service in the mid to late 80's and early 90's. If that makes them old, then that would mean I'm getting old as well and I just can't accept that hypothesis.

Pretty scary isn't it?

Whidbey Island is 29 years old, and the youngest her class, USS Ashland, is 22 years old.

Here's another revolting thought, the oldest combatant in the fleet is USS Nimitz at 40 years old.

[desertswo]

Maybe my English isn't so hot. I am not knocking the LPD's capabilities. But why do we want both the LPD and now the LSD class to be so much bigger than before? LSDs don't have hangars - does this support USMC mission packages? The LSD class seems to specifically support an Amphib Invasion, using LCACs and other water-borne vessels. Its ability to support vertical lift is marginal, except as a platform to park an aircraft temporarily, without a hangar.

Now if this LPD Flight II were to have a hangar, and effectively be a "San Antonio-light", cheaper due to simplified sensors/C2 capabilities, but keeping the ability to embark and maintain aircraft, perhaps with a reduction in welldeck capacity, that would make some sense. But I haven't heard that expressed - just that we already have this good hull - and we can start building them right away, with essentially the same design focus as the Whidby Island-class.

Tankersteve

OK, now that I've watched this go on, I'll give you my serious answer for what is probably at work here.

All the concern about whether the ship has a helo hangar or not aside, I believe what you are seeing is simply numbers vs. capabilities vs. dollars in the divisible pie. When I first deployed in 1980, there were 67 commissioned amphibious ships of all types, including a couple of classes that no longer exist (probably the LST foremost) intended to move a Marine Corps that was actually smaller than today. There are now 33, a number that will probably remain more or less constant with new ships replacing old, more or less one for one. The Navy and Marine Corps are being forced to do more missions with fewer ships, by jamming more personnel and equipment than were in service in the Corps in 1980 into fewer hulls.

The only thing that a helo hangar and aviation support facilities really do for such a platform is allow it to operate somewhat independently if necessary. Otherwise, an LHA/LHD, or even a CVN can provide the lift platforms to put troops or combat cargo on the beach. Yeah, it's a two step operation, but that's hardly a game changer if flexible and properly organized; something the Corps and Navy sort of pride themselves on being.

Personally, I don't really understand how the Navy justifies the continued existence of Blue Ridge (LCC 19) and Mount Whitney (LCC 20). What they provide in C4ISR hardly makes up for the loss of two other actual combat platforms. Build two more LSD/LPD, decommission the LCCs, and move the amphib operations command to the LHA/LHD types where they belong, and yes, I do realize that might require expanding some aspects of the C4ISR suits in those ships, but that is cheaper in the long run than paying for the fuel, maintenance, and personnel costs associated with the aging LCCs.

[Tankersteve]

desertswo,

So due to size constraints on the gator Navy, building bigger ships is helping close the shortfall? Sorry, not trying to sound argumentative. But others have said that it is so we can haul more of the stuff we left behind. I don't think the new ships being bigger make for more deployable MEU-type elements - just more Marines and their stuff on each ship. I'm not saying that is bad, but were there more ships in a typical MEU back when the Gator Navy was bigger?

Usually, when the services make a material change of this type, they are addressing a stated gap in capability (I know you know this). I am just trying to understand the identified gap to the solution that is the bigger LSD. I appreciate what a San Antonio brings to the fight - new sensors are expensive but amazing capabilities - but since those aren't typically found on the LSD platform, and with the emphasis on distributed/disaggregated operations, it seems a step back to have a ship that appears to be a repeat of the Whidbey Islands, just bigger. If a MEU wanted to truly stretch out it's reach, across a much bigger coastline, and have each ship deal with a space of 200 miles, yet one has to rely on another IOT C2 its forces or effect vertical envelopement/ operational maneuver, does a repeat of WI-class truly meet the requirement?

What if we put our bucks into the LHA, and then buy cheaper LSDs (2-3 per MEU) to really stretch out the coastline an enemy has to deal with. Is that hangar that expensive? Is it the number of airframes available? Nobody owes me an answer - I just don't seem to get the 'proven hull, let's build it' mentality that is being touted. Note that I personally like bigger and build it now. I just wonder if we are optimizing platform capabilities to the direction that operations are heading (with a nod to fiscal constraint!).

Tankersteve

[Tankersteve]

"The LPD can carry 22's, 60's, 53's, and LCAC's. They also have a hangar and welldeck. Not to mention other cool stuff... The LPD's are pretty bad ass, that's why China stole the design."

No issue with the LPD. Curious why we are supporting building larger LSDs, with largely same capabilities (and constraints) as older LSDs, but with much bigger hull. Seems if we felt a very focused amphibious assault was the wave of the future, it makes sense. But distributed operations likely require different capabilities. The LSD class seems to be quite the truck, hauling amphib stuff, without much sexiness. But modern-era tactics may require more of the sexy stuff (aviation and sensors and C2 systems).

Tankersteve

[JA Boomer]

No issue with the LPD. Curious why we are supporting building larger LSDs, with largely same capabilities (and constraints) as older LSDs, but with much bigger hull. Seems if we felt a very focused amphibious assault was the wave of the future, it makes sense. But distributed operations likely require different capabilities. The LSD class seems to be quite the truck, hauling amphib stuff, without much sexiness. But modern-era tactics may require more of the sexy stuff (aviation and sensors and C2 systems).

Tankersteve

Are you sure you're not trying to complicate the matter? Isn't the answer simply .. the evolution of design?

I mean look at the Austin-class ships that the San Antonio-class replaced. That was an even bigger jump in size (and you can make a good case about capability as well) than the Whidbey Island-class / Harpers Ferry-class to LSD(X) will be.

I'm not sure why the USN wouldn't just continue with the LPD-17 building. As I understand it the difference between the LPD and LSD is that the LSD has no dedicated aircraft hanger and it typically has a larger well deck to support more landing craft - as well as being responsible for maintaining those landing craft. The LPD would seem to be the more flexible and balanced design, so why not have say 24 LPD-17's instead of creating LSD(X) by downgrading the capabilities of the LPD? The answer of course could be $$$.

[Tankersteve]

Hey, sorry if I am unnecessarily cluttering up the thread with my rambles.

I agree, the LPD seems to be the better balanced platform. It is also very expensive, and that is not a good thing right now.

However, are we spending even more money on an LSD that is bigger than its predecessor, without any real explanation of why all that extra capacity (=capability) is even necessary? Many things become smaller with evolutionary advances - electronics, cars (capability-wise - we still like big). So, in theory, our smarter naval architects could build a smaller, more efficient (and just as effective) ship, given advanced understanding in what makes the ship work right. I do understand that certain gear, such as MRAPs, are bigger, bulkier, heavier than their predecessors. But has that been touted as the reason to add nearly a third of tonnage to the design? Because we cannot afford to make bigger ships just because it is convenient, in this fiscal era.

I also agree with your explanation of the LSD to LPD difference. Do others with more than my wikipedia knowledge hold that to generally be true? I also believe LPDs have greatly simplified C2 suites.

Tankersteve

[Tankersteve]

Sorry, should have said that LSDs have greatly simplified C2 suites.

[desertswo]

desertswo,

So due to size constraints on the gator Navy, building bigger ships is helping close the shortfall? Sorry, not trying to sound argumentative. But others have said that it is so we can haul more of the stuff we left behind. I don't think the new ships being bigger make for more deployable MEU-type elements - just more Marines and their stuff on each ship. I'm not saying that is bad, but were there more ships in a typical MEU back when the Gator Navy was bigger?

Usually, when the services make a material change of this type, they are addressing a stated gap in capability (I know you know this). I am just trying to understand the identified gap to the solution that is the bigger LSD. I appreciate what a San Antonio brings to the fight - new sensors are expensive but amazing capabilities - but since those aren't typically found on the LSD platform, and with the emphasis on distributed/disaggregated operations, it seems a step back to have a ship that appears to be a repeat of the Whidbey Islands, just bigger. If a MEU wanted to truly stretch out it's reach, across a much bigger coastline, and have each ship deal with a space of 200 miles, yet one has to rely on another IOT C2 its forces or effect vertical envelopement/ operational maneuver, does a repeat of WI-class truly meet the requirement?

What if we put our bucks into the LHA, and then buy cheaper LSDs (2-3 per MEU) to really stretch out the coastline an enemy has to deal with. Is that hangar that expensive? Is it the number of airframes available? Nobody owes me an answer - I just don't seem to get the 'proven hull, let's build it' mentality that is being touted. Note that I personally like bigger and build it now. I just wonder if we are optimizing platform capabilities to the direction that operations are heading (with a nod to fiscal constraint!).

Tankersteve

Hey, sorry if I am unnecessarily cluttering up the thread with my rambles.

I agree, the LPD seems to be the better balanced platform. It is also very expensive, and that is not a good thing right now.

However, are we spending even more money on an LSD that is bigger than its predecessor, without any real explanation of why all that extra capacity (=capability) is even necessary? Many things become smaller with evolutionary advances - electronics, cars (capability-wise - we still like big). So, in theory, our smarter naval architects could build a smaller, more efficient (and just as effective) ship, given advanced understanding in what makes the ship work right. I do understand that certain gear, such as MRAPs, are bigger, bulkier, heavier than their predecessors. But has that been touted as the reason to add nearly a third of tonnage to the design? Because we cannot afford to make bigger ships just because it is convenient, in this fiscal era.

I also agree with your explanation of the LSD to LPD difference. Do others with more than my wikipedia knowledge hold that to generally be true? I also believe LPDs have greatly simplified C2 suites.

Tankersteve

People do not become smaller, nor do things like tracked vehicles, artillery pieces, Harriers, F-35Bs, MV-22s etc. Again, the problem is that with fewer ships, to carry the same number of troops, and as you indicated, more combat cargo, logic dictates that the ships get bigger. I may be a dullard, but I'm not seeing some kind of nefarious scheme in operation here. We have 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups, of three ships each. Even if the Navy were to put every amphibious ship into the fray, it is doubtful that we could lift more than 17K to 25K troops and their stuff. We simply don't have LKAs, and APAs, and LSTs, and LPHs anymore to move troops and cargo, so we have to dance with fewer, but as you have indicated, sexier girls. In a world of diminishing resources, this is probably the best option available to those who really do this stuff for a living . . . which definitely is not me. :red:

[Tankersteve]

swo,

Appreciate the response. And I get it, but it is not being articulated in the articles I am reading espousing running with the same hull.

One interesting use of that extra space - gain back the 100 Marines lost when we went with the San Antonio-class - the LPDs went from 900 embarked to 800. THAT doesn't sound like a smart decision, IMO.

And, no tinfoil hat here :whome:. Disaggragated operations may require a different look/set of capabilities from the old MEU of 1 each LSD, LPD and LHD. You can't dumb down one ship as simply an equipment hauler with a helo deck and large welldeck and expect it to do what is needed when significantly removed from the rest of the float. It worked before and likely saved dollars. Nowadays, that concept may give you a capability gap.

Tankersteve

[desertswo]

And, no tinfoil hat here :whome:. Disaggragated operations may require a different look/set of capabilities from the old MEU of 1 each LSD, LPD and LHD. You can't dumb down one ship as simply an equipment hauler with a helo deck and large welldeck and expect it to do what is needed when significantly removed from the rest of the float. It worked before and likely saved dollars. Nowadays, that concept may give you a capability gap.

Tankersteve

Nope, the old MEU (or rather the ARG . . . the MEU are the troops, the ARG/ESG the ships that move them) and the new Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) are one and the same, only "the names have been changed to protect the innocent."

[JA Boomer]

swo,

Appreciate the response. And I get it, but it is not being articulated in the articles I am reading espousing running with the same hull.

One interesting use of that extra space - gain back the 100 Marines lost when we went with the San Antonio-class - the LPDs went from 900 embarked to 800. THAT doesn't sound like a smart decision, IMO.

And, no tinfoil hat here :whome:. Disaggragated operations may require a different look/set of capabilities from the old MEU of 1 each LSD, LPD and LHD. You can't dumb down one ship as simply an equipment hauler with a helo deck and large welldeck and expect it to do what is needed when significantly removed from the rest of the float. It worked before and likely saved dollars. Nowadays, that concept may give you a capability gap.

Tankersteve

I'm too lazy to check, but are the articles suggesting the LPD-17 hull be transformed into LSD(X), a ballistic missile defense ship, LCC(X), a hospital ship, arsenal ship, littoral warfare command ship, and everything else under the sun related in any way to the ship designer / builder constructing the LPD-17 fleet?

The answer to your question may really be .. the desire to increase revenue.

[blidgepump]

A throwback to the granddaddy of LPD's ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAwXEDrevT8

Discovered this training film while collecting material for another WAB-Naval thread..... this is the granddaddy of LPD's :)

[Gun Grape]

The granddaddy of the LPDs were the AKA/LKAs.

Those are the ships that carried the LCU/LCMs