As for the MLP, Greenert says instead of spending about $2.5 billion for an amphibious ship the Navy can spend a fraction of that for a new kind of ship that appears to be able to support an F-35B “as a lily pad, a shuttle,” with enough water, power and cooling systems to support Special Operations Forces.Thoughts of the MLP have turned to its use to support Special Ops. Its original role to provide sea base support has been lost in the sauce.
These ships will be full time Afloat Forward Staging Bases...pentagon speak for SOCOM only.
The Marine Corps is not only in a procurement funk but also a concept desert. Its obvious to anyone that wants to see that the sea base as a 'real' concept is dead. Anti-ship missiles that are dotting the world have seen to that. 200 - 300 nautical mile ranges make the very idea of NOT having to roll back enemy defenses laughable.
We're back to the future and need to make every dedicated hull count. That means guarding religiously the amphibious ships we do have. Making sure that we have no more clusters like the America class--ships without well decks. We need to get the future LSD right...and not fall for the foolishness of "delays" for years to study the problem (in other words no bullshit ACV study).
We need new, serious, focused and honest leadership.
SOCOM, our allies, fellow services and future enemies are drinking our milkshake.
Its time to bitch slap them all. But first we have to get our house in order.
These could be very useful ships - in a permissive environment (like post disaster recovery.) They are built to commercial standards, not to the more exacting (and damage resistant) military specs. Still, the could support SOCOM ops off Africa where there is little threat from ASMs.
ReplyDeleteThe MLP was a poor design for the mission intended and ANYTHING based on it is even a poorer decision. CNO is very confused as to what the "throwback" design of the MLP can actually do. The MLP is NOTHING more than a repurposed tanker hull.
ReplyDeleteI don't know WHY you continue the MYTH that AFSB is a SOCOM platform? Currently, the USS Ponce support many more missions than NSW with ISR and MIW far outweighing ANY needs NSW has for HUGE freaking ships.
BTW you should have seen elsewhere that the AFSB has been chopped from the Navy's budget.
AND you seem to ignore NSW stated desires for HSV to provide transport and support.
i don't ignore it, what i do is pay attention to concepts put out by leadership. Greenert stated without a doubt that the MLP was perfect for SOCOM (in a number of words) and indicated that it would be supporting SOCOM. everything else is just fluff. additionally the MIW is being taken over by the LCS and ISR is going to UAVs--big and small---so that leaves the MLP.
DeleteYOU seem to IGNORE evidence RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE!
CNO's current plan is to cut one MLP nee AFSB. Which probably means #2 MLP will not get any significant mods.
ReplyDeleteSOCCOM is currently funding one MSC chartered Maritiime Support Vessel for NSW support. That ship could be in service NEXT year.
Go to the NDSF budget to see IF any more MLP build or mod funding is inserted AFTER the next CR/Sequester cuts are agreed to. Wanna be the Navy shipbuilding will take MORE cuts. MLP/AFSB are low hanging fruit. Hell even the JHSV has been cut and NSW has already worked off that ship type~
Follow the money to where it is CURRENTLY not the speeches and press releases.
P.S. Admirals dream about ship capabilitues a lot.