It would appear that the Marine Corps is having trouble communicating is needs for large amphibious ships to the Office Of The Sec Defense

 The people behind Force Design 2030 have stated that they haven't properly communicated the benefits of the concept to people with an interest in the direction of the Marine Corps.

But what happens when the OSD has heard the pitch and decided that new LPDs should have smaller flight decks/aviation facilities and smaller well decks?

Surely they know the concept inside and out right?

via Defense News.

The Pentagon team leading the charge to reduce the cost of amphibious warships has shown the Marine Corps drawings of scaled-down, less expensive ship designs — but a service general told Defense News he won’t accept them.

During a Tuesday hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee’s sea power panel, Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl, the deputy commandant for combat development and integration, told lawmakers he will not change his current requirements.

&

 The general told Defense News after the hearing he has two major concerns with the Pentagon’s suggested designs.

First is that amphibious ready groups — a collection of one amphibious assault ship and two smaller San Antonio or Whidbey Island amphibious ships — hauling Marine expeditionary units typically disaggregate as soon as they deploy to a theater. The Whidbey Island LSDs cannot operate alone, but the LPD Flight II replacements can, making this design a boon for the Corps and the combatant commanders who want flexibility in how they operate ships in theater.

Heckl said the proposed designs take away the ability of this revised LPD to operate independently.

Additionally, he said the flight deck and vehicle cargo storage spaces would be “reduced dramatically.”

Story here 

Everyone runs wargames.

This tells me that the OSD ran its own and came to the conclusion that the Marine Corps as projected would not be the boon to the joint force that FD2030 is claiming.

Next, I have to wonder where the Navy is in all this.

The good Navy is that they have priorities and have decided that to get ready for the big fight they need more subs, more destroyers, at sea replenishment ships etc...

The bad Navy is that they aren't buying what the Marine Corps is selling, have been burned too many times and don't want another run of the Expeditionary Fast Transport or the Expeditionary Sea Base...ya know the ships that "once we get them, we'll figure out how to use them" variety.

Lastly I have to wonder how a smaller, lighter, more agile USMC needs the capacity of the legacy model that had much more firepower and weight.

The crazy thing is that if the Congress handles this budget the way they have past defense bills then this thing will drag out past the end of Berger's term.

Berger will be handing his successor an unpopular FD2030 that is incomplete, an amphibious shipping crisis (for the Corps), waiting on the US Army to pull the Marine Corps nuts out of the fire with their logistics in a contested environment planning and a looming recruiting crisis because the former booster of the Corps that resided in the Retiree/Vet Community is souring on the current administration if not the current military's stance on woke issues.

Quite honestly if I was a 4 star Marine General I would beg to get a Combatant Command and NOT the Commandant's chair.

Berger has fucked that up for the next generation.

Sidenote.  Berger and his cronies have gone so far as pitch using well decks to house anti-sub gear.  If the Navy isn't biting on stuff like that which basically makes the Marine Corps a Navy Auxiliary then what hope is there for this concept.