I've got several alerts to a DoD Buzz article about the Amphibious Warfare Industrial Base Coalition writing US Senators about the need to ensure that the Navy-Marine Corps team buys enough amphibs. You can read the story yourself here.
What has my mind zooming is the fact that Loren Thompson wrote an article just a few days earlier that stressed the need for more LPD based LSDs to enter service soon. Check that out here.
I'm a bit disappointed.
I have been a fan of Huntington Ingalls and believed that they were selling a valuable product that would serve the Navy and Marines well.
I also thought that their plan to use the hull of the LPD-17 class as the basis for a new LSD had merit. Using the same hull for a hospital ship, command ship, even anti-ballistic missile ship I thought was ingenious.
But this?
Not cool.
As far as Thompson is concerned, I've seen enough. Hired guns do what hired guns do. I just hope that he's prepared for the fallout when his advocacy of a particular "product" leads to the wrong system being selected and our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen or Marines end up killed or injured because of it.
Defense Procurement is a nasty business. HII and Thompson just made it a little nastier.
all procurement has become so political, the abrams line stayed open because the production site was in some very powerful peoples district and state (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/), i know government is more inefficient than private industry but i wonder if we should (like i think you mentioned recently) bring back bureau of ship building and start making things ourselves, in more private-public partnerships than being in this mess we find ourselves in now.
ReplyDeleteJoe
Sol on what factual basis do you come to this opinion?
ReplyDelete"I have been a fan of Huntington Ingalls and believed that they were selling a valuable product that would serve the Navy and Marines well"
Pls explain in the fact of cost overuns, construction quality issue, corporate mismanagement and other problems which has been open source for over a decade. Before you answer do some research on say Tim Colton's site.
Ingalls has NOT been a quality ship builder for a long time, not to mention that today's LPD17s are costing MORE than the early hulls instead of less. I would call that selling an over-priced, problem laden "exquisitie system" to the US Navy.
the proles with the early San Antonio class is that they were built at perhaps the WORST shipyard in the USA, AVONDALE.
DeleteThey were SO BAD, the shipyard went bankrupt and is now defunct.
You can badmouth HII whatever you want. At the end of the day, it's only yard capable of building carrier and amphib warhip in the USA. That's why the folks at HII don't give a rat @SS about your rant.
ReplyDeleteexactly.
DeleteThere is no other shipbuilder in the USA that can do what HII can do.
In fact, the Austin class, the LPD-17's direct predecessor, is FAR less capable than the San Antonio Class
both wrong. NASSCO could build amphibs and has. BIW will be without big ships in a couple of years and could build also. Hell NNS could also IF they didn't have carriers already building.
DeleteI certainly don't expect HII is listening to us, but I would tell them to their face. Of couse, I have not been at Ingalls in a few years~
NASSCO makes S. Korean designed tankers and supply ships, not LPDs.
DeleteBIW is busy with the Zumwalts and Burkes, and NNS has carriers
LPD-17 are 'short well-deck' ships, offering only about 42% of the well-deck capacity the older 8-vessel LSD-41 class ("Whidbey Island") at around. LPD-17 offers the MEU 189 x 49 feet of well-deck. LSD-41 features 440 x 50 feet of well-deck area.
ReplyDeleteAmphibious assault is at the end of the day massively dependent upon ship-to-shore-capability.
Even with LSD-41s it is hard to produce a potent First Wave landing in multiple locations with full-weight Main Battle Tanks and armored Personnel Carriers - none of which can be helo'd to the beach.
LPD-17 'Shorties' (short well-deck) shrink USMC MEU's option even further.
Why ?
- You must have adequate numbers of Connectors (aircushion light-load-&-fast) and conventional(medium-speed-&-heavy-lift) to launch an effective amphibious assault mission .
- This requires bringing adequate numbers of Connectors towards the projected theater of MEU-operations.
- 'Shorty' Amphibs simply cannot.
- Long Well-Deck Vessels like LSD-41 can.
According to the argument of the well-respected RAND-study of 2006 "Why has the Cost of Navy Ships Risen" , without any changes beyond the recent SLEP-upgrades across the LSD-41, inflation-adjusted a 21st-century COPY of LSD-41 should cost under $700 million !
LPD-17-based well-deck capacity thus loses vital well-deck capacity at apparently double-plus the cost for a 'Re-Production' of a fully-designed, 21st-century-correct upgraded, and well-tested across 30+ years of service long-well-deck LSD-41 type.
How is that justifiable ?
Would any Marine want to endorse that destructive move ?
Any pride anywhere defending this Less-for-Double+ policy by the LPD-17 folks ?
umm, both the Whidbey Island-class and the Harpers Ferry-class LSDs will remain in service until the 2030s....
DeleteThey aren't going away any time soon. In fact, the entire Whidbey island class just finished a major round of upgrades.
The San Antonio class is however directly replacing the old AUSTIN class, ship per ship, which are 1960s era dinosaurs.
2020 NAILS IT !!
Deletethe need is for Amphibious LIft and Connectors (surface and air) are what makes that happen. Couple the smaller number of landing spots on the LPD17 class with the Marines stated need to have more cargo space (area and weight), and I see NO need to use LPD17 as baseline for LX(R) ... but the the Marine general in N85 does NOT seem to think so?
I would note several OTHER senior naval officers have bitten the forbidden fruit by touting LPD17 from Iffy Ingalls as a good baseline. I think to many of those gents do not realize the technical ship design issues? or/nor seem to realize that whatever HII proposed WILL be well over one BILLION a copy.
Ironically LSD41 class ships were also built by HII’s predecessor. They probably own the blue print/technical data so construction is not an issue. The issue has to do with two things. The cost of re-starting the production line versus a warm line has to be taken into consideration. USMC is moving toward air assault model as she overinvested in air assets and still does. In the future more troops and material will be moved by air, LPD17 can accommodate this need better than LSD.
ReplyDeleteyes, and the LPD-17 still has 2 LCACs in the well deck.
DeleteSolomon, both the Whidbey Island-class and the Harpers Ferry-class LSDs will remain in service until the 2030s....
ReplyDeleteThey aren't going away any time soon. In fact, the entire Whidbey island class just finished a major round of upgrades.
The San Antonio class is however directly replacing the old AUSTIN class, ship per ship, which are 1960s era dinosaurs.
So, the USMC/USN has until roughly 2028 to 2030 to get a "cheap" replacement online.
HII is just trying to justify keep it's LPD-17 line open.
If you have ever read some of the other things Loren Thompson writes, the common theme is that he is very uncomfortable with the USA losing its capability to build modern military hardware.
In this day and age, most US shipyards limp along on repair jobs in between major military orders. The USA produces less than 1% of the global civilian ship tonnage. Turkey and Romania both do better. Those HII shipyard employees aren't going to patiently sit on their hands for no pay while they wait for the Navy to get it's head out of it's ass when it comes to ship orders. They will simply EXIT the Industry, and either retire, or go into something else.
that is Thompson's argument for keeping the LAST tank factory in the USA running, even if it is expensive, as it will be a HELL of alot more expensive to restart it with a green workforce. It's better to pay a bit more to keep the experience around.
If you don't believe me, go ask Hindustan Aeronautics what happened when the Indian government didn't fund aerospace in their country for 15 years.
i saw the vid with my own eyes. THompson said that (paraphrasing) they will pay to get his endorsement because its his job.
Deleteme calling him a hired gun is me being polite.
David there are lots of differences between maintaining shipbuiling capability and paying overhead to large corporations. HII falls into the latter category~
Deletethe United States has 4 major shipbuilders left.
DeleteThat's it. If one goes under, it is not coming back for a long time.
As for Thompson, every single thing he writes for Forbes includes the disclaimer that his think tank takes money from all the defense contractors.