Tweet
Family tree ...
I must of got off at the wrong branch in the family tree !!!!
I must of got off at the wrong branch in the family tree !!!!
-
-
Like the AKA below. Spent many days aboard this ship over several years picking parts and eating lunch in the engineers office while raining outside. The holds are very big as there were tug boats stored in them by MARAD. Only everything is craned out but the holds have provisions for starting vehicles and venting the exhaust out. Despite being over every inch of this ship the holds were tricky to find their access points from inside the ship in that access was at the very bottom. One of my favorites as it had character.Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostComment
-
I always wondered why the USN built and commissioned the Charleston-class Amphibious Caro Ships in the late 60's when the LSD was a proven concept at the time and the LPD were coming into its own as well. Does the amphibious cargo ship have some advantage that the well deck ships don't?Comment
-
The AKA/LKA was a proven concept at the time as well and an institution that measures time in decades for planning and building a class of ships can be slow to change. The Charleston class was a capable class of ship that could rapidly offload a lot of cargo directly onto it's landing craft and send it ashore. They haven't been scrapped yet, so maybe there is still some potential use to them.Comment
-
Even in the late 90's, 2 of the Charleston's were going to be reactivated as T-LKA's, there's apparently some advantage to having breakbulk capability for some military cargos that make this type of ship still useful. Hence part of the reason the NDRF still contains a bunch of breakbulk cargo ships. El Paso was mostly reactivated but funding was cut and she was remothballed. Mobile was the other one and wasn't as far along in the reactivation. Notice El Paso has the MSC style name on the stern, with US Naval Vessel and the MSC stripes on the stack. So at least up to that point, someone still saw them as useful. The Destroyer Tender Yellowstone was likewise supposed to be reactivated around that time for MSC service, but again funding was cut and it was cancelled.
Comment
-
I like this old dame here:
Not directly named for an ancestor, but it's probably the closest I'll ever get to having a ship named after me.
AK-162 USS BeltramiComment
-
Comment
-
That would be this:
The "USS Reluctant", aka the USS Hewel.Comment
-
By: Rear Adm. Terry McKnight, USN (Retired)
Published: November 7, 2014 8:31 AM • Updated: November 7, 2014 8:32 AM
Over the past several months the Navy’s requirement to replace the Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry-class LSD amphibious warships has been debated. The San Antonio-class LPD-17 hull form was a favorite of many. Gen. James Amos—former Commandant of the Marine Corps—referred to the LPD-17 hull as “the most successful hull we have” at a Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus breakfast in April.
The platform repeatedly has proved the enormous capabilities that it brings to the warfighter. But given tight budgets there were questions about whether the LPD-17 was the best investment of limited resources.
The answer is yes.
Following an in-depth review and analysis, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus signed an internal memorandum stating that the next generation of amphibious warship LX(R), would be based on the San Antonio hull design.
This is not only the right assessment, but Mabus should be given the “Acquisition Professional of the Year” award for making a bold decision at a critical time for the future of the Navy’s shipbuilding account and increased prospects for amphibious warfare.
There are several reasons why that decision is so important for maritime security.
First is cost.
It is projected that the first of this LX(R) class will cost $1.6 billion with the follow-on platforms costing $1.4 billion.
That might sound like an enormous expenditure, but an entirely new hull it would have taken years to design and without a doubt a new hull would have increased the cost of the platform. One of the most expensive factors in ship construction is the expense of non-recurring engineering (NRE).
NRE is the onetime cost for the research, development and design and testing of a platform. NRE costs are always extremely high and in order for any manufacturer to see a return on their initial investment the program needs to be well funded or it will not be worth the capital investment.
A large percentage of the NRE cost for the LPD-17 hull has already been paid and the Navy will be saving money by staying with the same hull form.
Additionally, for years the Navy has been trying to reduce cost with the same “Type–Model–Series.” It is far less expensive for the Navy to continue building the same platform rather than design, manufacture and maintain a completely different ship class or class of ship.
Building the LX(R) class as versions of the current ship class will also significantly reduce life-cycle expenses by maintaining commonality in the mechanical and electrical equipment between the new class of ships and the San Antonios. Because of that commonality, sailors will be able to rotate among ships throughout their careers without time-consuming and expensive retraining.
The decision also sets up a very interesting scenario that would allow for even greater cost savings in the procurement of the LX(R) class. The secretary could ask the Congress for permission to continue to build the LPD-17 class with cost-savings changes that would turn the ship into the LX(R). Under that scenario he could ask the Congress for permission to build the ships in a contract structure termed Multi-Year Procurement (MYP). MYP contracts allow for leveraging the supply industrial base with option-based contracts. Those contracts incentivize suppliers to offer material and equipment at reduced pricing due to quantity. Past MYP contract structures for destroyers and submarines have reduced costs for a flight of ships up to 15 percent per vessel. That could mean over $100 million in savings per ship.
Another driving requirement that makes the San Antonio hull worth the investment is the significant capabilities the platform brings to the warfighter. The current Whidbey Island-class was built in the early 1980s and was designed to support many of the current warfare systems, but it was never envisioned as a platform for extended, independent operations or embarkation for a battle group staff. However, the San Antonio class vessels are survivable warships that support both independent and disaggregated operations and have proved over the past five years that they are more than capable of supporting the operational requirements of today and of the future. The magnificent warships can completely support a Geographic Combatant Commander across the entire spectrum of operations, whether it be a forcible entry in a major combat operation or disaster relief in humanitarian operations.
With concerns growing over the summer that Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, or ISIL) would overrun the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) with her 550 Marines to the Persian Gulf to support a possible evacuation of American citizens.
With her capability to handle the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and on-board medical support facilities, she was an ideal platform for the crisis. With her unique command and control features and ability to embark a detachment of helicopters, the Commander, Fifth Fleet, selected the USS San Antonio (LPD-17) to serve as the first command ship for the counter-piracy task force in the Gulf of Aden—Task Force 151.
The demand for our amphibious forces will only increase in the years to come as our defense strategy shifts to the Asia-Pacific region. Adm. Sam Locklear, commander U.S. Pacific Command, testified before Congress this year the United States doesn’t have enough amphibious warships to carry out a contested amphibious operation in the Asia Pacific region.
“I’m not the only combatant commander that desires amphibious shipping or the Marines that are on them. So there is a global competition among us as the world situation kind of moves around and the global demand signal today is greater than what we can resource,” Locklear said.
To support his testimony, the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and 22d Marine Expeditionary Unit will return to the United States after a nine-month deployment to the 5th and 6th Fleet area of responsibility.
The deployment followed a historic ten-and-half-month deployment in 2012. Because of the shortage of the amphibious platforms, the Marine Corps has established two Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Forces (SP-MAGTF) to support crisis operations in the Middle East and Africa.
Those forces come with a remarkable capability, but limited in scope because they must be transported by air. The task force’s major limitation is host-country support and clearance to launch the mission. As we have seen in the past, our allied partners at times can be hesitating to grant permission for certain missions. For the current Ebola crisis in West Africa, an amphibious task force could provide all the required response capabilities to support the forces ashore and provide a haven for our troops away from the infected areas, but at the current time there is no task force available to support the mission.
With the secretary of the Navy’s latest decision, the future looks brighter for meeting the requirements of our combatant commanders and warfighters for the increased demand of amphibious warships. This is only the first round in a 12-round heavyweight championship fight, but it is extremely critical for our maritime security operations worldwide and the industrial base to keep this program fully funded and on budget.Comment
-
And who can forget this classic scene . . .Originally posted by DonBelt View Post
Not for nothin' but Henry Fonda was a naval officer in WWII, and Jack Lemmon was in Navy ROTC at Harvard during the war, graduating in 1947, and then serving as an officer in the post-WWII Navy. Regardless, they both looked as if there wasn't much acting involved in their work. I would have loved to have seen how all those suds were generated.
Comment
-
So it was unclear to me. Are they planning on continuing LPD-17 building, or modifying the LPD-17 design into LSD(X) or whatever LX(R) might look like and building a new class?Originally posted by surfgun View PostComment
-
I believe they are just referring to the hull form. Just without the bells and whistles to bring the costs down and ( a low end version that is modified) to meet the mission statement.Last edited by surfgun; 08 Nov 14,, 23:44.Comment
-
hmmmm, ....
cost engineered, low tech, simple hull form,,, ;)
AK-601 in living black & whiteLast edited by blidgepump; 09 Nov 14,, 01:30.Comment
-
What the Navy’s Next Generation Amphibious Ship Could Look Like
By: Sam LaGrone
Published: November 21, 2014 2:48 PM • Updated: November 21, 2014 2:50 PM
NORFOLK, VA — Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) has revised its plan to use the hull form of the San Antonio-class amphibious warship (LPD-17) as a candidate for the Navy’s next generation amphibious warship— LX(R), company officials outlined to USNI News on Tuesday.
HII has pitched variants of the LPD-17 hull for at least two years to the Navy for everything from a ballistic missile defense (BMD) platform to a candidate for LX(R) as LPD Flight II.
HII’s new Flight IIA — mocked up by HII earlier this year — modifies the original LPD-17 original design by removing some of the higher end capabilities of the San Antonio and creating a so-called amphibious truck to replace the existing class of aging Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry 16,000-ton landing ship docks (LSD-41/49).
Though the concept isn’t news, last month’s revelation that the San Antonio hull will be the basis for LX(R) — according to a memo from the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus — and HII’s ongoing consultation with the service with the design work for the new ship gives greater credence to the company’s plan.
The largest improvement in capability will be to the ship’s communication and aviation ability.
The current LSDs have a minimal command and control (C2) capability – the ability to communicate with other U.S. military forces and coordinate different types of aircraft and smaller vessel — and no native ability to host and maintain the aircraft of the trio of ships that make up the Navy’s Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs).
At their inception, the LSDs “was really just a truck to always be married up with ARG and never go away from it,” carrying vehicles and landing craft as a compliment for the ARG LPD and big deck amphibious warships, Marine Maj. Gen. Robert S. Walsh, Director Expeditionary Warfare Division (N95), told USNI News on Wednesday.
However, modern operations have required the ARGs to split up and undertake different missions — at times hundreds of miles away from the other ships in the group.
The LSDs are currently the weakest in C2 and aviation maintenance arena of the trio.
HII’s LPD Flight IIA features a hangar smaller than the one on the LPD-17 capable of stowing two MV-22 Ospreys and eliminates the composite masts of the current San Antonio-class design.
The LX(R) will be much bigger than the ships it will be replacing — displacing about 7,000 more than the current LSDs at 23,470 tons, HII officials told USNI News on Tuesday.
Instead of the four Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, HII’s model reduces the prime mover count to two unspecified main propulsion diesel engines (MPDE).
The Flight IIA retains about half of the medical spaces on the LPD. Company officials also said the current iteration would feature two spots for the Navy’s LCAC hovercraft or one utility landing craft (LCU) — which is in line with the Navy’s current thinking for requirements for the LX(R), USNI News understands.
Other changes include reducing the troop capacity from 800 to 500 with a crew of about 400 sailors.
Though HII is original designers and builders of the LPD-17 ships, they are not guaranteed the design and construction contract for the new LX(R) ship class. General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, Calif. has also helped the Navy in its current push to lower the cost at the start of the acquisition process and is considered likely to bid on the final work.
“Both HII and NASSCO were helping with ideas on how to drive cost down,” Walsh said.
“When I say competition, we’d look at anyone who could compete and plan it, but those would certainly be two shipyards that would have the ability to compete in this environment.”
The Navy’s frontend analysis of alternatives process for LX(R) has been described as, “the best ship design conversation we’ve had in a long time inside the government,” NAVSEA chief Vice Adm. William Hilarides said in May.
HII officials didn’t give USNI News a cost estimate for their version, but according to past information from the Navy a San Antonio LX(R) could cost about $1.64 billion for the lead ship with follow-ons costing about $1.4 billion for a total of 11 ships.
However, recently the service has been reluctant to put a cost figure on the LX(R) program.
What the Navy
http://www.huntingtoningalls.com/fli...s/litho_lg.jpgLast edited by surfgun; 22 Nov 14,, 13:54.Comment
-
Well, I finally got my answer - looks like they will enhance the C2 relative to the LSD but way less than the LPD. Also, a smaller hangar, allowing the LPD Flight IIa or whatever it ends up being called, to operate separately from the rest of the ARG.
What the Navy
NORFOLK, VA — Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) has revised its plan to use the hull form of the San Antonio-class amphibious warship (LPD-17) as a candidate for the Navy’s next generation amphibious warship— LX(R), company officials outlined to USNI News on Tuesday.
HII has pitched variants of the LPD-17 hull for at least two years to the Navy for everything from a ballistic missile defense (BMD) platform to a candidate for LX(R) as LPD Flight II.
HII’s new Flight IIA — mocked up by HII earlier this year — modifies the original LPD-17 original design by removing some of the higher end capabilities of the San Antonio and creating a so-called amphibious truck to replace the existing class of aging Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry 16,000-ton landing ship docks (LSD-41/49).
Though the concept isn’t news, last month’s revelation that the San Antonio hull will be the basis for LX(R) — according to a memo from the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus — and HII’s ongoing consultation with the service with the design work for the new ship gives greater credence to the company’s plan.
The largest improvement in capability will be to the ship’s communication and aviation ability.
The current LSDs have a minimal command and control (C2) capability – the ability to communicate with other U.S. military forces and coordinate different types of aircraft and smaller vessel — and no native ability to host and maintain the aircraft of the trio of ships that make up the Navy’s Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs).
A comparison between HII's Flight IIA LPD concept and the current San Antonio-class design. HII Image
A comparison between HII’s Flight IIA LPD concept and the current San Antonio-class design. HII Image
At their inception, the LSDs “was really just a truck to always be married up with ARG and never go away from it,” carrying vehicles and landing craft as a compliment for the ARG LPD and big deck amphibious warships, Marine Maj. Gen. Robert S. Walsh, Director Expeditionary Warfare Division (N95), told USNI News on Wednesday.
However, modern operations have required the ARGs to split up and undertake different missions — at times hundreds of miles away from the other ships in the group.
The LSDs are currently the weakest in C2 and aviation maintenance arena of the trio.
HII’s LPD Flight IIA features a hangar smaller than the one on the LPD-17 capable of stowing two MV-22 Ospreys and eliminates the composite masts of the current San Antonio-class design.
USS Carter Hall (LSD-50), the amphibious transport dock ship USS San Antonio (LPD-17) in 2008. US Navy Photo
USS Carter Hall (LSD-50), the amphibious transport dock ship USS San Antonio (LPD-17) in 2008. US Navy Photo
The LX(R) will be much bigger than the ships it will be replacing — displacing about 7,000 more than the current LSDs at 23,470 tons, HII officials told USNI News on Tuesday.
Instead of the four Colt-Pielstick diesel engines, HII’s model reduces the prime mover count to two unspecified main propulsion diesel engines (MPDE).
The Flight IIA retains about half of the medical spaces on the LPD. Company officials also said the current iteration would feature two spots for the Navy’s LCAC hovercraft or one utility landing craft (LCU) — which is in line with the Navy’s current thinking for requirements for the LX(R), USNI News understands.
Other changes include reducing the troop capacity from 800 to 500 with a crew of about 400 sailors.
Though HII is original designers and builders of the LPD-17 ships, they are not guaranteed the design and construction contract for the new LX(R) ship class. General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego, Calif. has also helped the Navy in its current push to lower the cost at the start of the acquisition process and is considered likely to bid on the final work.
“Both HII and NASSCO were helping with ideas on how to drive cost down,” Walsh said.
“When I say competition, we’d look at anyone who could compete and plan it, but those would certainly be two shipyards that would have the ability to compete in this environment.”
The Navy’s frontend analysis of alternatives process for LX(R) has been described as, “the best ship design conversation we’ve had in a long time inside the government,” NAVSEA chief Vice Adm. William Hilarides said in May.
HII officials didn’t give USNI News a cost estimate for their version, but according to past information from the Navy a San Antonio LX(R) could cost about $1.64 billion for the lead ship with follow-ons costing about $1.4 billion for a total of 11 ships.
However, recently the service has been reluctant to put a cost figure on the LX(R) program.Comment
Comment