The evaluation is timely due to reports indicating that amphibious ship readiness is 32 percent. This means the Navy has much work to do to increase this number. An analysis conducted by military generals suggests that the service cannot decommission the older Landing Ship Dock (LSD) vessels without having new ones coming online. To address this issue, the Navy must focus on developing more agile and efficient ships that can be more easily deployed expeditiously as current operations require.
To bolster amphibious warfare capabilities, senior military leaders have suggested increasing investments in alternative solutions such as High-Speed Connectors (HSCs), Joint High-Speed Vessels (JHSVs), and Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) vessels, all of which are designed with speed and agility in mind. These vessels have seen successful deployment in Operation Inherent Resolve and other operations across the globe, offering promising potential for increased efficiency in naval warfare. Additionally, high-ranking military officials suggest researching alternative unmanned solutions, such as unmanned surface vehicles (USV), which could provide increased maritime security without relying on personnel or crew onboarding during missions.
“As these ships hit the fleet, we will continue to evaluate the requirements for vessels in production. However, we cannot afford to make wholesale changes that severely delay scheduled delivery,” he said of the LPDs.
“If LPD Flight II is not programmed, then the amphibious warfare ship industrial base will be forced to reduce the workforce starting in FY27.”
Another solution proposed by military leaders is leveraging infrastructure investments made by partner nations or allies, such as Italy’s LHD Trieste or France’s Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier Mistral ships, which could be leased out if necessary depending on operational needs across different theatres of operations. Senior officials could also suggest investing further research into technologies like Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning which could potentially improve amphibious operations through enhanced automation processes while reducing associated costs with personnel onboarding during missions.
“Using tools like multi-year buys to make sure the taxpayers get their dollars worth – we have bought these one at a time. That’s not the way you do it. We do it. We do block buys for other platforms – and for all the right reasons – destroyers, submarines, aircraft carriers. All the right reasons. We need to do it also for amphibious ships. Why? You heard it. You all know it better. That’s the signal that tells you all we have 10, 15 years worth of work. This is not one at a time.”
As part of its evaluation process, the Navy must consider all possible options before making any decisions that may affect its overall shipbuilding capabilities. Technological developments and strategic partnerships with allies will undoubtedly be essential in unlocking the potential for improved efficiency and better mission readiness for Naval forces worldwide.
“We should start thinking about that collectively, in other words, between the Navy, Marine Corps, and industry. What … the next LPD might look like. But I was part of the study in 2014 that decided that the Flight II was exactly what the nation needed,” he said.
“So I don’t buy any argument … ‘I don’t know why we have Flight IIs because they’re not the viable platform.’ I went through a year and a half with the Navy of studying that. And we got to the right answer. LPD is today. The Flight II is what we need right now. But we should start planning – start thinking about next.”
Given all the factors involved, it remains to be seen whether this decision will pay off. However, Congress appears to support continuing work on these vital vessels despite the budgetary constraints faced by DoD today, thanks primarily due to its importance for protecting American interests worldwide, both now and in the future.
It is clear that halting production on LPD-17 Flight II warship procurement has significant implications not only from a monetary perspective but also a strategic standpoint when looking ahead at what type of force projection capabilities we can provide going forward both domestically and internationally given budgetary constraints faced within DoD today; however, with solid congressional support from both parties, we remain hopeful that continued work can be done towards sustaining infrastructure necessary for building essential naval assets required by US Armed Forces moving forward so we can continue meeting our obligations abroad while providing critical protection against threats both now and into foreseeable future – all while staying within reasonable budgetary parameters set forth by DoD leadership across all branches today regardless of political party affiliations held by individual members throughout House & Senate chambers alike.
“We have to have the inventory not less than 31 [ships]. To me, that’s a combination of old and new. We cannot decommission a critical element without having a replacement in our hand,”
Berger said when asked how he argues to maintain the aging ships despite readiness issues.
“We can’t do that, or else, back to risk … we’re not going to have the tools or it’s not going to be available. So the decommissioning of the LSDs to me is directly tied to the inventory as fast as we can procure and field.”
COMMENTS