early retirement for Wasp class steam warships???

[dundonrl]

I've been wondering recently, if the Navy will think about decommissioning the Wasp class amphibs early, because they are steam powered.

current active duty US Navy ships that are steam powered, in order as commissioned into service.

USS Blue Ridge LCC-19
USS Mount Whitney LCC-20
USS Emory S. Land AS-39
USS Frank Cable AS-40
USS Peleliu LHA-5
USS Wasp LHD-1
USS Essex LHD-2
USS Kearsarge LHD-3
USS Boxer LHD-4
USS Bataan LHD-5
USS BonHomme Richard LHD-6
USS Iwo Jima LHD-7

[surfgun]

LHA 5, will be gone in short order the rest will be around for some time.

[85 gt kid]

While the USN has really been pushing for GTs I wouldn't see them decomm the Wasps'early because they're steam powered. There's too much money tied up in then. Im sure they'll get their pennies worth out of then :).

[TopHatter]

Agreed, I don't think the LHD's are going anywhere until they've wrung the life out of them. Which leads to two more questions:

Will the Wasp-class receive a SLEP like the carriers?

Is there actually anything wrong with USS Wasp herself or is just as the official Navy line says and she's just fine to deploy later?

[85 gt kid]

Aliens, Wasp has been conducting alien experiments on board this whole time :whome:

[desertswo]

I've been wondering recently, if the Navy will think about decommissioning the Wasp class amphibs early, because they are steam powered.

current active duty US Navy ships that are steam powered, in order as commissioned into service.

USS Blue Ridge LCC-19
USS Mount Whitney LCC-20
USS Emory S. Land AS-39
USS Frank Cable AS-40
USS Peleliu LHA-5
USS Wasp LHD-1
USS Essex LHD-2
USS Kearsarge LHD-3
USS Boxer LHD-4
USS Bataan LHD-5
USS BonHomme Richard LHD-6
USS Iwo Jima LHD-7

Throw out the first four, and the "problem" if there is one, becomes much more manageable. The reason is that all of those remaining ships have identical propulsion and power generation plants. In effect, you have a self-sustaining supply of personnel who know how to both maintain and operate those plants. What works in one, works just as well in another. Back when we not only had amphibs, but supply ships, tenders, frigates, guided missile cruisers, and conventional aircraft carriers that were steam powered, we had so many types and designs of steam plants, that no one could truly become "master" of them all. I'm probably as close to that title as any commissioned officer was likely to be, and yet I had not seen them all. So now, you only have one, and a cadre of personnel who will "cross deck" one to the other over the course of their careers.

[ChrisV71]

The general lift requirement is for
11 LHA/LHD's, (currently have 10 active, counting America and Peleliu, but as mentioned, Peleliu is going away next year)
11 LSD (currently have 12 active, to be replaced by LX(R) starting in about 10 years)
11 LPD's (currently have 9 active and 2 under construction and they are talking about building a 12th to preserve the industrial base, till LX(R) starts construction, if built this would probably cause an older LSD to be junked early)

Wasp basically got a beta combat system that wasn't adopted, but then she was dedicated to F-35B testing, so there was no effort to upgrade her combat system as she wasn't in the deployment rotation at the time. This wasn't a big deal when she was yanked from the rotation as all 5 Tarawa's and the first 7 Wasp's were available, so there was plenty of ships available to take up the slack.

In 2012, it got called out that Wasp hadn't deployed in nearly a decade. (because of the extra-long deployments the others were having to bear when it was called out) By that point, only 9 out of the requirement of 11 ships were active and one of those 9 was basically a bench warmer. That was fixed and the ship is back in the rotation cycle.
Wasp Mystery Solved: Deployments Skipped Due to Outdated Combat System | Defense News | defensenews.com

As for the rest of the LHD's, don't really count on them going away early. The Navy is already stuck in a hard spot with the Tarawas being decommissioned before their replacements were ready. This was largely due to block obsolescence. All 5 were built in a 5 year period; the LHD's were spread out over 20+ years. Technically, America is Tarawa's replacement and Tripoli is Nassau's. Peleliu’s is the future LHA-8. We won't have 11 actually active till about 2024... LHA-9 will then replace Wasp at some point after that. The problem was the Tarawa's were built with a 30 year service life in mind and are by most reports mechanically worn out. They would have to be SLEP’ed (or something similar) to keep going, but to do so would take funds away from new construction. A study about a decade ago decided it wasn't cost effective to keep the Tarawa's going as opposed to replacing them. The only reason LHA-1 and LHA-4 are mothballed is to maintain on paper that we have the 11 LHA's/LHD's called for in the Marine’s lift requirements as they can be reactivated (highly unlikely) if something hits the fan.

If you look at the Navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan, it will give you an idea when they plan on scheduling the Wasps and Sub Tenders decommissioning and for the construction of their replacements. The 2 LCC's have been extended out till about 2039 and will be 70ish when they are retired. http://navylive.dodlive.mil/files/20...ding-plan1.pdf
One thing to remember about these 30 year plans though is they are fluid and change from year to year based largely on funding. But it gives you an idea what they are thinking at the moment.

[ChrisV71]

Throw out the first four, and the "problem" if there is one, becomes much more manageable. The reason is that all of those remaining ships have identical propulsion and power generation plants. In effect, you have a self-sustaining supply of personnel who know how to both maintain and operate those plants. What works in one, works just as well in another. Back when we not only had amphibs, but supply ships, tenders, frigates, guided missile cruisers, and conventional aircraft carriers that were steam powered, we had so many types and designs of steam plants, that no one could truly become "master" of them all. I'm probably as close to that title as any commissioned officer was likely to be, and yet I had not seen them all. So now, you only have one, and a cadre of personnel who will "cross deck" one to the other over the course of their careers.

3 of those 4 have civilian MSC mariners manning their steam plants. If you do the same thing to LCC-19 doesn't that remove the training requirement from the Navy just as easily?

I'm wondering if the Navy has looked into re-engining the LCC's with diesels in their SLEP? Since they are planning on keeping them another 25 years or so. I know of several steamships that got that treatment. Most amazingly the Lee A Tregurtha (formerly the USS Chiwawa AO-69) which was re-engined with diesels from her original steam plant in 2006 at the age of 63. The re-enginging only took 8 months to complete

"On January 9, 2006, the classic self-unloader arrived at Bay Shipbuilding, Sturgeon Bay, WI for the removal and replacement of her original steam power plant. Installed were 2 new, extensively automated Rolls Royce Bergen B32-40L6P medium speed 6 cylinder 4,020 b.h.p. (3,000 KW) diesel engines burning heavy fuel oil. The power is fed through a twin input, single output Renk reduction gearbox to a new 5-blade KaMeWa controllable pitch propeller system built to an ABS grade1B ice service rating, each blade being 17' (5.18m) in diameter. On September 29, 2006, the diesel powered Lee A. Tregurtha returned to service sailing to Escanaba, MI for a load of taconite pellets for Indiana Harbor, IN."
Lee A. Tregurtha

[85 gt kid]

Wow thanks for the info Chris!