Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said last year: “We need to move from ‘luxury car’ platforms — with their built-in capabilities — toward dependable ‘trucks’ that can handle a changing payload selection.” There is one platform that can fulfill this requirement: the San Antonio-class landing platform dock (LPD).

Much has been written about the maintenance problems on USS San Antonio (LPD 17), and, as commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two, I lived the issues daily in getting the ship fully operational. However, in January 2009, as I stood up Combined Task Force 151 to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden, USS San Antonio was designated as my first flagship, and I learned firsthand the remarkable capability of this unique platform. Further proof the ship has fully turned the corner: In 2012, it was awarded the Navy’s Battle Effectiveness award.

USS Arlington LPD-24

USS Arlington LPD-24

With its multi-mission capability, USS San Antonio served as an afloat, forward-staging base as we took on one of the biggest challenges of combating piracy in many years. In addition to its standard load-out of Marine ground forces, the ship was able to embark helicopters from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 3 (HS-3), Fleet Surgical Team 8 and an eight-member U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment Team (LEDET). The ship’s robust command, control and communications suite provided my staff and me with exceptional command oversight. As the task force commander, I can confidently say this was truly the right platform for this dynamic mission.

The LPD program continues to perform well, and those in the Marine Corps — from the lance corporal to the battalion commander — have often stated how satisfied they are with the platform. The Navy has a very stable design-and-build plan in the LPD class, the shipbuilders know how to assemble the ships very efficiently, the supplier base is extremely familiar with the program, and the production line is humming, having delivered three LPD-class ships over the last year – LPDs 22, 23 and 24. Given the positive performance in building the LPD class, I believe this is an excellent opportunity to leverage the platform and hull form into a new flight of ships and, as Adm. Greenert directed, a platform “that can handle a changing payload selection.”

My understanding is that the Navy is about to get underway the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process for the next landing ship dock class, LX(R). I recommend the Navy take a hard look at an LPD variant to save multi-millions in the shipbuilding account. With minor changes to the basic LPD design, I believe the Navy can be offered a very robust platform that can perform amphibious warfare missions, maintain level-2 survivability for our sailors and Marines, and reduce the cost from the LPD of today.

Using an LPD hull for the landing ship dock (LSD) replacement creates an opportunity for cost savings because the platforms would have common equipment, common Integrated Logistics System (ILS) requirements, common training pipelines and a common knowledge base for sailors and Marines. Cost, schedule and technical performance risks would also be reduced because there would be no need to start from a “clean sheet” design with all the non-recurring engineering and first-of-class growing pains that go along with starting up a new program.

LPD 17-class ships have a tremendous amount of capability, are very flexible, and have the potential to fulfill multiple missions. The ship can be adapted to accommodate many missions, including amphibious warfare, humanitarian operations, joint command and control, ballistic missile defense, and hospital operations. By keeping a proven ship class in production for as long as possible, we can maintain our maritime dominance while saving critical shipbuilding funds. This approach allows the Navy to build the same hull for decades and benefit from the industrial learning curve. It will also serve to increase the commonality in the fleet. The sailors and Marines will be familiar with the platform, its capabilities, systems, equipment, etc. It will also have tremendous benefits in logistics, training and spares.

In the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), it is the sense of Congress that “the next generation amphibious assault ship should have ‘commonality in hull form design to reduce acquisition and life-cycle cost.’” In the early days of my naval career, the Navy demonstrated this theory with Spruance-class destroyer. This hull form was the lead ship of a new class, and the Navy built 62 ships over three classes using the same hull form. I believe the USS San Antonio hull form has the same potential and can be used for multiple missions. The LPD variant could be the affordable, capable, survivable next-generation amphibious ship of a platform that can meet the requirements of the warfighter in new defense strategy.




Posted by RDML Terry McKnight in Maritime Security, Navy, Tactics
Tags: , ,

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • http://nickysworld.wordpress.com/ Nicky

    I think the next landing ship dock should have the ability to embark a CB-90 craft for Anti Piracy and have the ability to carry a 25 MM Bushmaster cannon. It should be able to embark everything from a Marine combat team to a US Coast Guard LEDET, even for HA/DAR missions, should be able to embark a disaster response team

    • leesea

      ANY ship which can mount a crane or a davit, can lift USN RCB or other boats. There are already Mk 38s on these ships

      • http://nickysworld.wordpress.com/ Nicky

        Why’s I think an LSD would be perfect for as a staging base for special operations, USCG LEDT and a host of other teams.

  • leesea

    Why use an expensive LPD-17 design for a new ship? Why not use a modified repeat of the LSD-49? Since more capacity is needed, why not simply widened LSDs to PANAMAX width?

    The ILS and training argument goes to the ships’ systems and components and NOT to the hull form or internal structures,

    In the real world of ship contracting, ANY design change to an existing design costs money. The question is which hull is LESS costly to modify. Or to be more specific: Does the LX(R) need the all the internal features of the LPD or just more like those of the LSD classes?
    Also in the real world, using a modified repeat LSD would allow ANOTHER shipbuilder to compete thus getting the Navy away from sole source competition to a shipyard with a sketchy history of quality construction. Ingalls has enough hulls in its orderbook, let NASSCO or another yard come it on this procurement.

  • Dave Shirlaw

    Why is a ship 50% larger than predecessor and yet carries less, not a sign of overspending on procurement?

  • William Dee Sanders

    Thought Terrence McKnight was a HORRIBLE Commanding Officer…I was on USS WHIDBEY ISLAND in 1995-96 when he was Captain…Cared only for his Ward Room and nothing for the enlisted-crew (E6 and below)

  • http://www.examiner.com/foreign-policy-in-arlington/kevin-brent Kevin Brent

    Another one trying ‘LCS’ every ship in the Navy.

2014 Information Domination Essay Contest
7ads6x98y