Monday, December 30, 2024

Marine Light Amphibious Warship Debacle Continues

As you’re well aware, the Marines have come up with a poorly conceived idea to act as hidden anti-ship missile shooters.  The absolute key to the entire concept was the Light Amphibious Warship (now called the Landing Ship, Medium, LSM), a small landing ship which would ferry small Marine units among the first island chain islands, enable relocation, and conduct resupply.  The Marines were asking for something on the order of 30 such vessels although the Navy seemed to be in mood for around 18.
 
The LSM is envisioned as a small vessel with cargo carried on an open deck, a capacity for around 70 troops, no viable defensive weapons, and a transit speed of 14 knots.  Construction was to have started a few years ago but that hope quickly fell by the wayside due to lack of Navy interest and buy in.
 
Now, with the Navy finally ready to proceed, the program has suffered a resounding setback.
 
After receiving bids from industry, the Navy canceled the request for proposals for the Landing Ship Medium …
 
“We had a bulletproof – or what we thought – cost estimate, pretty well wrung out design in terms of requirements, independent cost estimates,” Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition Nickolas Guertin said at an American Society of Naval Engineers symposium last week.
 
“We put it out for bid and it came back with a much higher price tag,” he added.[1]

The LSM, the key to the Marine’s concept, has been abruptly halted due to being shockingly expensive.  Shocking to the Navy, perhaps, but to no one else.
 
This raises a few issues.
 
Cost Estimate – This demonstrates just how unrealistic and incompetent Navy cost estimators are.  I don’t have the exact number in front of me but the Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimated the LSM cost at over twice the Navy’s estimate and it looks like they were much closer to reality.  If this were just one isolated incident of a cost estimate failure we might write if off as a fluke but the history is that every Navy cost estimate is ridiculously, absurdly, laughably, stupidly, incompetently low.  That kind of a pattern isn’t bad luck, it’s intentional, systematic fraud on the Navy’s part.
 
Look at the mismatch between CBO estimates and the Navy, as documented below.
 
The Congressional Budget Office projected the lead ship in the class costing anywhere from $460 to $560 million, according to an April report. If the Navy buys the 18 to 35 ships according to current plans, each hull could cost $340 to $430 million. Initial plans in 2020 called for each ship to cost $100 to $150 million.[1]

The Navy believed the ships would cost $100M-$150M versus the CBO estimate of $340M-$430M with a lead ship cost of up to $560M!
 
Priority – The key to the entire Marine concept (setting aside the idiocy of the concept) was the LSM.  It was the first piece of the puzzle that had to be nailed down before anything else could proceed.  Without the LSM, you have nothing but a stupid idea on a piece of paper.  Did the Marines secure the LSM first?  NO!  Instead, the Marines (and by ‘Marines’, I mean Commandant Berger) proceeded to dump armor, tanks, artillery, and firepower and reshape their entire organization and focus with the assumption (when you assume you make an …) that the LSM would magically appear when needed.  This is program mismanagement of the worst kind.  Commandant Berger destroyed the Marines and now has nothing to show for it. 
 
Buy In – It doesn’t matter whether it’s the military or industry, when you attempt change, you have to get buy in from all affected parties or you won’t succeed.  Not only did Commandant Berger fail to get buy in from his own personnel, active and retired, he failed to get buy in from the party that would have to pay for the most important element of his concept, the LSM.  Berger simply issued commands and assumed everyone would see the brilliance of his idea and fall meekly in line.  Well, that worked internally with active duty Marines who were intimidated into silence but the Navy, being outside Berger’s chain of command, responded with indifference, to put it mildly.  Again, buy in from the Navy is something the Marines should have secured before tearing down their organization.
 
 
Future
 
The Marines seem determined to ride their ill-conceived concept down to combat-irrelevance, if they haven’t already gotten there.
 
Along with a stunning failure to deploy when requested at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, the Marines have lost their place as America’s crisis response force and are now relegated to an afterthought, if that, by civilian and military leadership.
 
Nothing is going to progress regarding the LSM for the foreseeable future.  For the immediate future, the Navy may obtain a used vessel for the Marines to play with while negotiations between the Navy, Marines, and industry resume and drag out.
 
For now, to quickly get the Marines a ship that can move them around the region, the Navy plans to buy a “non-developmental vessel” while it works on the requirements … [1]

The utter failure of the program and the cancellation of the RFP offers a way out for the current Marine Commandant.  The Marines can cancel the entire concept, claiming that industry and the Navy have made the LSM unaffordable, and that the Marines are going back to doing what they historically should have been doing.  Will the current Commandant, General Eric Smith, have the courage and wisdom to seize this opportunity?  Unlikely, but it’s there for the taking.
 
The more likely scenario is that the LSM will linger in negotiations for several more years and the Marines will wind up with a missile shooting organization that has no way to deploy.  What an embarrassment and a waste !
 
 
_______________________________
 
[1]USNI News website, “Landing Ship Medium Program Stalled Over Price, Navy Cancels Industry RFP”, Mallory Shelbourne, 17-Dec-2024,
https://news.usni.org/2024/12/17/landing-ship-medium-program-stalled-over-price-navy-cancels-industry-rfp

20 comments:

  1. The US Army purchased similar ships in 2001 for $26 million, but current bids for the Marines are over $500 million each.

    "Kuroda was built by V.T. Halter Marine in 2001 at a cost of $26 million, and was christened in 2003"
    https://www.army.mil/article/326/new-army-vessel-arrives-in-hawaii/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great reminder. It seems the Army vessel more than meets the requirements. I wonder if the Marines ever even considered the Army ships?

      Delete
    2. The Marines should ask Halter if they can build such ships today for the double the 2001 price, or $54 million. It may be even higher but still much, much cheaper.

      Delete
    3. "It seems the Army vessel more than meets the requirements. I wonder if the Marines ever even considered the Army ships?

      Well, the Congressional Research Service did:

      https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46374/52

      They note that the Army had even attempted to dispose of these ships at one point. The Navy could no doubt have gotten them for a song.

      Of course there are only 8 existing ones, but new ones could no doubt be built to the same design.

      Delete
    4. The Runnymeade LCU 2000s have a smaller crew, but greater range and capacity than the LSM requires, but were thrown out as being "too slow" because of their 12 knot speed where the LSM / LAWS required 14 knots.
      Would more powerful engines or a simple bow re-design give them the extra 2 knots needed?
      Even at $60 million, like G2mil said, Marines could afford these. Amtrackers looking for a useful purpose after AAV cuts could man these, but Marines would have to fund these ships in house like they did DSU river boats because the Navy does not have the funds. At $60 million, they only have to cut a squadron of 10 F35s to afford all the LSMs they need.

      Delete
    5. Too slow by 2 kts? Really?

      Delete
    6. Remember the FREMM, I have complete confidence
      the Navy can make a Runymede class cost $350m
      after minor redesign.

      Delete
    7. 14 knots is the cruising speed of the amphibious fleet and the Marines wanted the LSM to match this speed. Don't know what it would take to add 2 knots to the speed of an LCU, but probably not major re-engineering to get 15% extra speed.

      Delete
    8. "Too slow by 2 kts? Really?"

      I'm with you. 12 kts is too slow but 14 kts makes the entire concept viable? That's absurd.

      Delete
    9. "14 knots is the cruising speed of the amphibious fleet "

      That overlooks the fact that the LAW is NOT supposed to be part of the amphibious fleet. They're meant to operate alone, flitting among the first island chain, moving Marines from island to island and delivering supplies. Fleet speed is irrelevant.

      Delete
  2. Good article on Snafu Solomon that was taken from compass points marine journal. CSIS ran 24 war game scenario's on a China assault on Taiwan. pretty damning article that stated that the marine littoral regiments were unsupportable or deployable after the shooting starts. I hope somebody in the Navy/Marines are seeing just what a waste this whole concept is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You understand that the wargames and report are from late 2022 or early 2023, if I remember correctly. I did a post on that a year or so ago and we discussed in comments. The report was horribly flawed in assumptions and methodology.

      I seem to recall that CSIS was funded by the Air Force to conduct the games and generate a report. It's been awhile so I could be remembering that incorrectly since I see lots of things like this. As I vaguely recall, the overall conclusion was strongly pro-Air Force ... surprise!

      In my experience, every wargame is designed to deliver the results the operator wants and you achieve that by manipulating the assumptions and methods.

      Before you hang your hat on any wargame result, check it out carefully and thoroughly. See who commissioned it, what they wanted in the way of a conclusion, and what the conditions of the game were.

      I'm not going to go back and revisit it but you might look closer at it and tell us what you think?

      Delete
  3. The South Korean Go Jun Bong-class LST would fit the bill but the USN would demand so many changes it would look like a San Antonio class and cost as much as a carrier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Marine wants to justify its existence in today's environment as an independent force to avoid bring merged into Army and Navy.

    Marine should be part of Navy. Pentagon should consider a ship like China's type 076 and large attack drone like GJ-11. Although GJ-11 has entered service in 2019, China is testing its naval version now (likely on type 076). Pentagon can use F-35B although it doesn't have GJ-11 like drones. Type 076 has well deck to host marine and their landing and combat gears. Various drones and F-35B can provide many functions. Helicopters, of course, can land them on beach and beyond. All these should be under Navy's directions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWjTM5HuvA8

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_076_landing_helicopter_dock

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the Marines should be split apart.

      Marine combat forces that serve aboard ships and defend naval installations can continue to be designated as Marines but be fully absorbed into the Navy command structure. Possibly also smaller assault units intended for port seizure can be included here as well.

      Marines that are intended to take/hold land (e.g. 1st Marine Division in OIF) should be designated as Amphibious Divisions and added to the Army. The Army can use these as regular land divisions but they should train for amphibious assault as that’s the whole reason for their existence (and if we don’t want that capability, change those units into pure infantry or airborne or whatever else makes sense).

      Delete
    2. "Marines that are intended to take/hold land (e.g. 1st Marine Division in OIF) should be designated as Amphibious Divisions and added to the Army."

      Along with this.... the whole of the Marine Air Wing goes to the Army, solving the Army's dilemma of relying on the Air Force for close air support. (CAS)

      Delete
  5. I always felt the Navy disagreed with the concept, and were just waiting Berger out. Nows the time for the Marines to do a reinvention, part 2... If the true amphib assault is history- then now is the time to redefine a proper mission, reorganize and rearm to achieve it. Maybe they need their tanks and arty back, maybe not. But hopefully this ship program stays dead, because it's a poor tool for a worse CONOP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Navy has a budget reckoning coming with Carriers and new subs. They must cut amphibs to free up funds. Marines need to understand amphibs numbers and maintenance budgets will shrink even if budgets grow.
    Marines need to pay for their LAWS / LSMs out of pocket by buying cheap ships like LCUs or finding a contract solution. Also, Marines need to shift a lot of their MEUs more to a forward deployed Crisis Response MAGTF model so they are less affected by amphib maintenance problems or unavailability if they still want to be relevant for COCOMs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Marines need to understand"

      The Marines need to understand that enthusiasm for building amphibs declines when the Marines publicly state that they are out of the assault business. If you're not going to do assaults you don't need amphibious ships. The Navy should say, hey, Marines, we believe you and, therefore, we're eliminating the amphibious fleet.

      Marines, you can't have it both ways. You're either in the assault business and need amphibs or you're not and you don't need ships.

      Delete
    2. Well says. Maybe that will bring Marines back to Title 10 responsibilities.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.