The House and Senate will be meeting over the next few weeks to hash out the details of the National Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2008. Among the changes that will directly effect the previously proposed Navy 313-ship plan, fewer LCS will be built due to cost overruns with General Dynamics, and apparently the Navy will build 2 Virginia class submarines in FY 2009.
What has caught my eye however is the addition of 1.7 billion for an additional (10th) LPD-17. I suggest build it.
The 313-ship plan for amphibious ships changes the force structure of ESGs (formally ARGs) from 12 to 9, and gives a total of 31 ships. Both the ship number and the loss of 3 full ESGs confused many when it was announced, but it reflected the emphasis on the MPF(F) which is supposed to put Marines on civilian ships for forcible entry operations. uh, ya right, we will see.
The 9 ESG, 31 Amphibious Ship breakdown works like this:
1 LHD, 2 LPD-17, 1 LSD-49 - Forward deployed
1 LHD, 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHD, 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHD, 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHD, 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHD, 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHA(R), 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
1 LHA(R), 1 LPD-17, 1 LSD-41
If you add that up, it comes in at 10 LPD-17s and a total of 28 Amphibious ships. The Navy intends to use the remaining 3 LSD-49s for Global War on Terror operations, presumably similar to the MSO operations currently being conducted by the USS Carter Hall.
While the merits (or lack) of the MPF(F) is a topic for another time, without the 10th LPD-17 this reduced 9 ESG force won't exist. The 313-ship plan which included a shipbuilding guideline did not account for the 10th LPD-17, even though the Navy lists it as a top 5 unfunded priority in each of the last 3 years.
I encourage the House and the Senate to build the 10th LPD-17. It is smarter to build it this fiscal year than at some later date when the program is shut down and the Navy is in need of surface combatants when the LCS doesn't work out.
Posts
