Amphibs Are "Warships First"

The Navy's latest 30 year fleet plan extends the lives of 4 amphibious ships, specifically USS Nassau (LHA 4), USS Peleliu (LHA 5), USS Cleveland (LPD 7), and USS Ponce (LPD 15). The purpose of the life extension for these ships is not reported. The Navy Times article by Zachary M. Peterson is not online, but was in today's Navy News Clips. With the date of Feb 25th, it may be online later this week.

The article does a bit of speculating, highlighting the upcoming deployment of the Nassau ESG without Marines as a potential role for these ships. If so, that is OK with us, but we would really like to see the Navy truly invest in some deployable capabilities for amphibious ships. In reading stories about the USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) off the coast of Somalia earlier this year, I'm betting Commander Junge could have found a number of uses at a number of different times for some fast, deployable firepower of LCAC size at his disposal. The Navy needs to enable the warfighters.

The Marines have great deployable systems, LCAC, LCU, etc... but what we do not see are well armed, lethal craft able to fit in a well deck and conduct limited operations, and we believe they would be very useful if the Navy would invest just a little bit of money into the concept. This is beyond what SOF, this goes to the heart of leveraging craft for the warfighter for specific mission profiles.

Go back to the Korean War and you will find one constant in every Mine Warfare Operation the Navy conducted over that time. An Amphibious ship was used in some or multiple capacities from beginning to end. In every operation, the Navy utilized big, not small, ships to engage mines. Yes, I know that is counter intuitive, and I completely understand very small deployable craft were used, but those craft were almost always deployed from... amphibious ships.

Think I am off the reservation? Do your homework and ask the British what the role of the RFA Cardigan Bay is in the Persian Gulf today. The answer: Mine Warfare Command Ship.

This is the bulk of the Navy Times article I found interesting.

Amphibs, especially those with big decks to land aircraft, have "so many different capabilities," said Jan van ml, a retired Navy captain who last served as the commanding officer of the amphibious assault ship Essex. The retired officer is an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

These ships can serve as "mobile airports" to support humanitarian and other missions ashore and at sea, van Tol said. While in command of Essex, van Tol and his crew transited from the Persian Gulf in 2005 to assist in the tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia. The "mission flexibility" of amphibs is a major asset for the Navy, van Tol added. They can launch aircraft and small vessels such as air-cushioned landing craft that can rush ashore to provide aid for refugees, and also provide robust medical capabilities.

The amphibious assault ship Peleliu was used as a hospital ship in the Pacific last year, van Tol noted, and the dock landing ship Fort McHenry is the flagship for the Africa Partnership Station in the Gulf of Guinea, training navies and coast guards in the region and doing community out-reach projects.

Nonetheless, van Tel said amphibs are "warships first" and should not be completely divested from their core mission.

Well said. Amphibious ships have the right metrics for unpredictable 21st century maritime mission profiles. I know Mike is shaking his head, but we disagree on this point and history is on my side. The Navy can quickly turn an amphibious ship into a peacemaker or warfighter depending upon mission requirement, and unlike the LCS, it will have enough space for virtually every role. To be brutally honest, unlike the LCS it can do all three roles at once. It is the true littoral ship, with platforms that can get up to the beach if needed, or over the beach if required, and has room to carry the two most important warfighting tools for influencing a region, Sailors and Marines. The well deck or flight deck can be utilized for unmanned platforms, and they have the logistics capability to support the warfighter in blue water.

Think seriously about this. Given the choice, would you take a LPD and DDG-51 or a DDG-1000 and LCS? I'll guarantee one thing, the LPD and DDG-51 will cover a much larger area for a longer sustained period than the DDG-1000 and LCS will, and be able to conduct more mission profiles and react to more contingencies as well. The reason is simple, the DDG-51 has all the firepower one would need, and the LPD has all the space one could ever want for all the mission profiles you can throw at it. The DDG-1000 and LCS? Not so much, the tiny crews limit the options during continuous operations, and the LCS has a longer logistics tail. Oh the DDG-51 and LPD may not be invisible like these new 'stealthy' ships, but then again, in peacetime do we really want the Navy to be invisible? I would think that makes showing the flag difficult.

Pray that unmanned system on the LCS doesn't break, because it will need a makeshift repair shop on the LPD for repairs. Food for thought.