Are there enough LPD-17 San Antonio Class
- Thread starter harryriedl
- Start date
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Not new to the Danes.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
The yanks have been talking about this since STANFLEX was introduced in the '80s. Looks like it will happen now - also in the LCS.
Though the crewing model for the Flyvefisken class has been screwed up with too few hulls in the water now. But the benefits remain in all the remaining classes and newbuilds. Like Thetis, Absalon, the planned FFG'ss and the new OPVs that are being built. The latter both arctic patrol and light command and support MCM (ASW?) vessels.
I was waiting for someone to say that.
Well, someone had to.
Can't have these Yanks imagining they're in the process of inventing summat new, when you lot have been doing it for 25 years.contedicavour
New Member
Hmm they are still very expensive ships even at 600-800 mn USD, vs for example the French Mistrals (200 mts long) that cost 250 mln Euro so approx 318 mln USD each.
It's the Wasp that are more reasonably priced, approx similar to our Cavour carrier of similar size.
cheers
9 is not enough, and 10, which is the current congressional number, isn't either.
The current plan right now breaks down like this:
7 LHD
2 LHA(R)
9 LPD-17
12 LSD (to be replaced by 9 LSD(X))
LHD-8 and two of the new LHA(R) are for the current Sea Base idea.
The costs listed are also incorrect. The LPD-17 costs 1.4 million new in FY06 dollars. We are in the FY08 cycle, so probably more like 1.6 million each now given inflation in the shipbuilding industry.
I hope the LSD(X) is a varient of the LPD-17, because designing a new class would be extreamly expensive, and taking short cuts on cost should be important. The current LSDs were overused and under maintained in the 90s, they will need serious funding to stay in service longer than another decade.
Here is the problem I have. 7 LHDs, 2 LHA(R)s, 9 LPD-17s, and 12 LSDs only equals 1.9 MEBs worth of lift for vehicle storage, plus 3 MEBs in MPS ships serviced by the Military Sealift Command. That means with no Sea Base the US has 4.9 MEBs worth of lift.
The last stated requirement was in the 2001 QDR of 6.0 MEBs, but because of fiscal reasons the Navy operated with a 5.5 'fiscally constrained' lift footprint. Instead of addressing this in the 2005 QDR, the requirement for a Sea Base was added.
The Sea Base will replace one of the MPS MEBs and makes it a Sea Base MEB. Basically instead of building up a larger L class fleet, the Navy plans to build up a large commercial fleet for troops to load and unload with at sea, for the cost of around 20 billion dollars, plus the cost of additional air and surface connectors that are yet to be invented.
So the answer is, yes, the US Navy needs to quit ignoring the Marine Corp and get its act together. The Sea Base concept is going to be at least as complicated as launching an airplane off a ship, and it took the Navy 20 years to master that skill when it was first tried. Now they are going to selectively offload 600 ISO containers at sea 50 miles offshore and somehow deliver them to troops 100 miles in land with a heavy lift platform that is yet to be invented? If it sounds rediculous, it is because it is. The Defense Science Board recommended at least 5 years of research into various sea base technologies, the Navy took 16 months.
Don't even get me going on logistics. It takes 1 T-AOE and 6 T-AEs to support 1 brigade for 15 days, meaning to support the Sea Base MEB and 1 MEB made up of L class ships for 30 days ashore, the US would need 2 T-AOEs and 12 T-AEs not including any ships in the Sea Base itself (which carries 15 days of supply, like L class ships do). That means under the Sea Base idea, the US is going to need to protect 28 total commerical ships, half of which are oilers, and not including logistics for the Naval ships and 18 L class ships less than 50 miles off a hostile coast. Do the math, that is over half the entire oiler fleet of the US Navy, and that is to support a landing operation for only the first month. How many escorts will those 46 ships need? How safe are the marines on those non hardened commerical hulls?
I would do this instead:
8 LHDs
4 LHA(R)s
24 LPD-17s
That would lift 2.93 MEBs in every catagory. 3 MPS squadrons could handle the 3.0 MEBS of prepositioning the US Marines use today. That would almost meet the 6.0 MEB requirement, and the .07 not listed could be made up easily with a small HSV squadron forward deployed to Asia.
You know what frustrates me the most though? The November issue of Proceedings was the USMC edition, and there was not even a word about the Sea Base in the publication. I find it insane not a single article for or against the Sea Base would be in the USMC dedicated edition of Proceedings, as if a 20+ billion dollar program that could potentially effect all USMC forced entry operations for the next half century using equipment not even invented isn't even worth a mention.
The current plan right now breaks down like this:
7 LHD
2 LHA(R)
9 LPD-17
12 LSD (to be replaced by 9 LSD(X))
LHD-8 and two of the new LHA(R) are for the current Sea Base idea.
The costs listed are also incorrect. The LPD-17 costs 1.4 million new in FY06 dollars. We are in the FY08 cycle, so probably more like 1.6 million each now given inflation in the shipbuilding industry.
I hope the LSD(X) is a varient of the LPD-17, because designing a new class would be extreamly expensive, and taking short cuts on cost should be important. The current LSDs were overused and under maintained in the 90s, they will need serious funding to stay in service longer than another decade.
Here is the problem I have. 7 LHDs, 2 LHA(R)s, 9 LPD-17s, and 12 LSDs only equals 1.9 MEBs worth of lift for vehicle storage, plus 3 MEBs in MPS ships serviced by the Military Sealift Command. That means with no Sea Base the US has 4.9 MEBs worth of lift.
The last stated requirement was in the 2001 QDR of 6.0 MEBs, but because of fiscal reasons the Navy operated with a 5.5 'fiscally constrained' lift footprint. Instead of addressing this in the 2005 QDR, the requirement for a Sea Base was added.
The Sea Base will replace one of the MPS MEBs and makes it a Sea Base MEB. Basically instead of building up a larger L class fleet, the Navy plans to build up a large commercial fleet for troops to load and unload with at sea, for the cost of around 20 billion dollars, plus the cost of additional air and surface connectors that are yet to be invented.
So the answer is, yes, the US Navy needs to quit ignoring the Marine Corp and get its act together. The Sea Base concept is going to be at least as complicated as launching an airplane off a ship, and it took the Navy 20 years to master that skill when it was first tried. Now they are going to selectively offload 600 ISO containers at sea 50 miles offshore and somehow deliver them to troops 100 miles in land with a heavy lift platform that is yet to be invented? If it sounds rediculous, it is because it is. The Defense Science Board recommended at least 5 years of research into various sea base technologies, the Navy took 16 months.
Don't even get me going on logistics. It takes 1 T-AOE and 6 T-AEs to support 1 brigade for 15 days, meaning to support the Sea Base MEB and 1 MEB made up of L class ships for 30 days ashore, the US would need 2 T-AOEs and 12 T-AEs not including any ships in the Sea Base itself (which carries 15 days of supply, like L class ships do). That means under the Sea Base idea, the US is going to need to protect 28 total commerical ships, half of which are oilers, and not including logistics for the Naval ships and 18 L class ships less than 50 miles off a hostile coast. Do the math, that is over half the entire oiler fleet of the US Navy, and that is to support a landing operation for only the first month. How many escorts will those 46 ships need? How safe are the marines on those non hardened commerical hulls?
I would do this instead:
8 LHDs
4 LHA(R)s
24 LPD-17s
That would lift 2.93 MEBs in every catagory. 3 MPS squadrons could handle the 3.0 MEBS of prepositioning the US Marines use today. That would almost meet the 6.0 MEB requirement, and the .07 not listed could be made up easily with a small HSV squadron forward deployed to Asia.
You know what frustrates me the most though? The November issue of Proceedings was the USMC edition, and there was not even a word about the Sea Base in the publication. I find it insane not a single article for or against the Sea Base would be in the USMC dedicated edition of Proceedings, as if a 20+ billion dollar program that could potentially effect all USMC forced entry operations for the next half century using equipment not even invented isn't even worth a mention.
The per unit cost for building 1 LPD-17 in FY06 is $1,298.6 million, so I was slightly incorrect. The Navy did not buy one in FY07 budget, and it is estimated it would cost 1.4 billion to buy one in FY08, so my numbers are slightly off above. At a rate of two per year the cost would be around 1.2 per.
Heh whats a couple of decimal points between friends? On a more serious note however I believe the costs I quoted include development and other production costs. So no dispute from me on your numbers either
As expensive as the LPD-17 is, I think it is well worth the investment and worth future investment. When it is said and done, I predict the LPD-17 class will go down as one of the best Amphibious ships built since WWII, particularly if it ever goes to war.