LSD-41/49 Class and LX(R)

The Navy has designated the LPD-17 as the basis for the LX(R) (now designated LPD-17 Flt II) which is intended to replace the LSD-41/49 class amphibious ships.  The San Antonio LPD-17 class began with the LPD-17 and has continued through LPD-27 with LPD-28 and -29 being designated transition vessels to the LPD-17 Flt II which begins with LPD-30.  The Navy intends to build 13 of the ships.

LX(R) / LPD-17 Flt II

As a reminder, the LSD-41 (Landing Ship, Dock) Whidbey Island class, built in the 1980’s, was designed specifically to transport and launch LCAC vessels and has a capacity of four LCACs which is the most of any amphibious ship.(1)   It can also provide docking and repair services for LCACs and for conventional landing craft.(1)

In 1987 the Navy began construction on LSD-49 Harpers Ferry class which reduced LCAC capacity to two while increasing cargo capacity.(1)

Here’s a few basic specifications for the LSD-41/49 class. (1)  Note the LCAC capacities.

LSD-41/49 Specifications
	LSD-41	LSD-49
Length, ft	609	609
Beam, ft	84	84
Displacement, tons	16000	17000
LCAC Capacity	4	2

LSD-41 Whidbey Island Class

There are several questionable aspects to the LPD-17 Flt II program that warrant a bit of discussion.

Well Deck Size.  The LX(R) is intended as the replacement for the LSD-41/49 class.  The problem is that the LX(R) has a significantly smaller well deck than the LSD-41 class and can only carry 2 LCACs.  Here are the well deck dimensions for recent classes of amphibious ships (see, “Wither The Well Deck”).  Note the generally decreasing well deck sizes.

Amphibious Ship Well Deck Size
Whidbey Island LSD-41	440’ x 50’
Harpers Ferry LSD-49	220’ x 50’
Tarawa LHA-1	268’ x 78’
Wasp LHD-1	267’ x 50’
America LHA-6	none
San Antonio LPD-17	170’ x 50’

The decreased well deck and LCAC capacity represents a significant decrease in ship to shore amphibious capability which seems incongruent with the LSD/LPD’s main function of amphibious assault.  One can’t help but wonder what the Navy sees as the main function of the new LPD-17 Flt II since it clearly isn’t amphibious assault.

Cost.  Navy’s cost target for the LPD-17 Flt II is $1.8B (FY2019$) for the lead vessel, LPD-30, and $1.5B (FY2019$) for the follow on ships (2), however, LPD-31 is now estimated to cost a bit over $2.0B (5) so, as always, the Navy’s cost estimates are significantly understated.

Huntington Ingalls announced a sole-source $1.5B fixed price incentive contract for the lead ship, LPD-30, in Mar 2019.  As usual, this is only a partial cost and does not include advanced procurement funds already expended, Government Furnished Equipment, or post-delivery construction which is an ever-increasing portion and is intended to get around cost caps and make acquisitions seem cheaper than they are.  The true cost is likely $2B+.  Indeed, the Navy’s budget request documents show a cost of $1.7B without GFE or post-construction costs. (4)

As usual, the Navy is not pursuing responsible contracting practices and is doing everything it can to obscure costs.  From the CRS report,

The Navy plans to award sole-source contracts to Huntington Ingalls—the only shipbuilder of Flight I ships—for Flight II construction. Further, the program did not request a separate independent cost estimate for Flight II prior to awarding the LPD 30 detail design and construction contract. At the same time, the Navy identified no plans to establish a cost baseline specific to Flight II. Without this baseline, the Navy would report full LPD 17 program costs—rather than Flight II specific costs—constraining visibility into Flight II. (4, p.14)

Design Basis.  The Navy’s driving force for the ship design was the cost target rather than functionality or combat effectiveness.  As we have repeatedly stated, cost is a secondary consideration for warship design and cannot be the primary design factor.  No good ship was ever designed with cost as the primary design criteria.

From 1Q 2013 to 1Q 2014, the Navy claims to have conducted an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) with three alternatives considered:

• modified (reduced capability/reduced-cost) LPD-17
• brand new designs
• foreign design

Given the Navy’s documented half-hearted or non-existent AOAs for other ships, one can’t help but wonder about the rigor and validity of this AOA.  The LCS, Ford, Zumwalt, Burke Flt III, and new frigate never got rigorous AOAs.  They were either never performed or they were conducted for show with the outcome having been pre-determined.  Indeed, the selection of the modified LPD-17 strongly suggests that this was yet another example of a pre-determined AOA conducted purely for show.

Following are LX(R) design features compared to the San Antonia Class (3):

• half the medical spaces
• smaller hangar for stowing two MV-22 tilt rotor aircraft
• no composite masts
• two main propulsion diesel engines instead of four
• two spots for Landing Craft Air Cushion hovercraft or one Landing Craft Utility boat
• reduced troop capacity from 800 to 500
• reduced vehicle storage space
• enhanced command and control facilities

Competition.  According to the Congressional Research Service, as recently as May 2017, the Navy had publicly stated that a competition would be held between HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS, the builder of LPD-17 Flight I ships, and General Dynamics’ National Steel and Shipbuilding (GD/NASSCO) of San Diego, CA.  However, on April 6, 2018, the Navy announced that it would sole-source the design and construction of LPD-30 to HII.  Again, this suggests that the previously announced ‘competition’ was for show and that the builder had been pre-determined from the start.

CONOPS.  One of the major justifications for the LX(R) is the “requirement” to operate independently.  Of course, this is idiotic but that’s the Navy’s story and they’re sticking to it.  Under this concept, the 3-ship Amphibious Ready Groups (ARG/MEU) will routinely disaggregate and operate as independent ships, widely separated geographically.  This, the Navy/Marines claim, will increase flexibility and responsiveness.

The reality is that disaggregated ARGs have even less capability than the mathematical 1/3 capability that splitting them up into three parts would suggest.  For example, the LPD, when operating independently, carries less than a third of a MEU and almost none of the aviation assets.  Similarly, the larger LHA-6 America class, when operating independently, cannot land heavy equipment as they have no well deck.

The Marines state that a MEU is the smallest full-function combat unit.  Subsets of a MEU are, by the Marine’s own definition, incapable of effective combat.  So, what does the Navy/Marines want to do?  Why, split the MEU up and send the pieces off to distant points where they cannot act as a complete unit nor support each other!  Stupid on a shingle!

Commandant’s Vision.  All of the preceding was background for the real point of this post and that is to consider how the LPD-17 Flt II jibes with the Marine Commandant’s recent statements and documents which call for a movement away from the 38 amphibious ship and 2 MEB lift requirements.

It is worth noting at the outset that the LPD-17 Flt II was conceived long before the current Commandant took office.  Thus, it may be that the Flt II doesn’t fit his plans for the Corps, at all !

Commandant Berger has unilaterally and arbitrarily set the Corps on a radically different path, assuming he follows through on his early statements.  To be fair, there are, as yet, few details so much is speculation, at this point.  That said, Berger has been pretty clear that the Marines will move towards small, dispersed units using forward bases.  The question, then, becomes how does the Flt II fit into and support this concept, if at all?

On the one hand, the Flt II, with traditional well decks and LCACs may be considered a relic of the old way thinking which involved massed combat power and amphibious assaults and, thus, of little value in a small unit, dispersed, forward based type of force structure.  On the other hand, a Flt II, being significantly smaller than the large deck LHA/LHDs, might be quite useful in moving around and supporting small units.  Then again, the Flt II has very limited aviation capability which is a cornerstone of the forward base concept and the Marine’s recent push to become aviation-centric.  As I noted, without details about Berger’s plans, it is very difficult to pass judgment about the value of the Flt II in the new Marine concept.

If we take the Commandant at face value and assume that the Flt II is of limited value, it calls into question the reason for the entire Flt II program.  Should we immediately halt the program and move in a different direction?  Berger has suggested that the Marines will look to smaller, cheaper, more numerous vessels such as the JHSV or the Light Amphibious Warship (see, “Light Amphibious Warship Update”) for transport.  If that’s the case, we can build a lot of JHSVs for the cost of one Flt II and we should halt the Flt II program immediately.  At the very least, a pause in the LPD-17 program is warranted until the Commandant decides what ships he wants for his Navy.

_____________________________________

(1)Navy website,

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1000&ct=4

(2)Congressional Research Service, “Navy LPD-17 Flight II (LX[R]) Amphibious Ship Program: Background and Issues for Congress”, R43543, Ronald O’Rourke, 3-Jul-2018,

https://www.defensedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/post_attachment/202101.pdf

(3)Wikipedia, “LX(R)-Class Amphibious Warfare Ship”, retrieved 10-Oct-2019,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LX(R)-class_amphibious_warfare_ship

(4)Congressional Research Service, “Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress”, 10-Oct-2019

(5)Congressional Research Service, “Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs: Background and Issues for Congress”, 22-Jul-2020

LX(R)

Let’s take a closer look at the LX(R), the replacement for the LSD-41/49 class.  To refresh our memories, here are some specs on the LX(R) and LSD-41.

Whidbey Island LSD-41       LX(R) (San Antonio LPD-17)

Length:                       610 ft                                      684 ft

Displacement:           16,360 t                                  24,900 t

Speed:                       22 kts                                      22 kts

Draft:                          21 ft                                         23 ft

Connectors:               4 LCAC or 21 LCM-6            2 LCAC or 1 LCU

Troops:                       400-500                                 700-800

Hangar:                      none                                      1 large helo or 2 smaller helos

Flight Deck:               2 landing spots                      2 landing spots

Well Deck:                 440 ft                                      170 ft

Cost:                          $339M(1981)                         $2.0B (2012)

Navy cost estimates for the LX(R) are on the order of $1.5B per ship.  Of course, we know that Navy cost estimates are uniformly, grossly underestimated so the actual cost will probably be on the order of $2.5B as we previously noted (see, “The Definition of Insanity”).  LX(R) contract issuance is scheduled for 2020 with delivery following in 2026.

The choice of the LPD-17 to be the basis of the LX(R) is odd on multiple levels.  The purpose of the LX(R) is to perform amphibious assault and yet the LX(R) will have a well deck half the size of the LSD-41 that it’s replacing.

The LPD-17 was one of the worst construction programs in the Navy’s history and that’s saying something.  The ships suffered from extensive manufacturing defects and quality control issues, were delivered unfinished, and continue to suffer from construction related problems.  This seems to make the LPD-17 an odd choice to base another class of ship on.

An interesting note is that the LX(R) will abandon the enclosed mast of the LPD-17 in favor of a conventional mast according to artist’s concept drawings.  Presumably, this is an attempt at cost savings although the Navy encountered interference problems with the enclosed mast and considered dropping it during the LPD-17 production run.

For a ship seemingly ill-suited to its purpose, why was the LPD-17 chosen as the basis?

The LSD did not have the ability to effectively operate independent of its ARG.  This is, apparently, the main justification for using the LPD-17 base seaframe.  The LPD’s aviation and command and control capabilities allow it to operate independently, according to the Navy.  One can debate the independence trend but this appears to be the rationale.

Of course, there’s also the ever-present poltics/jobs issues that can dictate directions in acquisition programs that otherwise make no sense.  Is that a major factor in this choice?  You can make your own decision on that.

Thus, the LX(R) has two general uses:  as part of an Amphibious Ready Group and operating independently.  Let’s look a bit closer at both those roles.

As part of an ARG, the LX(R) takes the place of an LSD.  Unfortunately, it costs the MEU/ARG two LCACS.  On the plus side, it potentially brings a couple of extra helos to the ARG, depending on the helo type.  It can also carry a few hundred more Marines although the benefit of that is questionable since aggregate ARG troop carrying capacity was not previously limited.  The major impact, therefore is the loss of two LCACs.

In independent operations, the LX(R) can carry 700 troops.  That’s kind of an odd amount for operations – more than a Company, less than a Battalion.  Presumably, the MEU’s tanks and artillery would be evenly distributed if the ARG’s ships were disbursed.  That would give the LX(R) one or two tanks and one or two artillery pieces.  Again, that’s an odd amount.  It’s not how tanks and artillery are organized or trained.  Alternatively, they might not get any tanks or artillery.  In either case, the embarked Marines would constitute a very lightly armed force.  The danger is that, eventually, they’ll get dropped into a situation they’re not equipped to handle and find themselves in over their heads with no help to call on due to acting independently.  In fact, the entire concept of independent operations is questionable but that’s a topic for another day.

Also noteworthy is the significantly larger cargo capacity of the LX(R) over the LSD-41 which would be beneficial in supplying the sustainment phase of any operation, no matter how small.

The LX(R) also further cements the Marine’s movement away from amphibious assault and towards vertical assault as evidenced by amphibious ships with no or smaller well decks, an emphasis on the MV-22, and the decades long lack of interest in a substantially upgraded replacement for the obsolete and doctrinally ill-suited AAV.

It’s evident, then, both from what the Navy has stated and a logical assessment of the evidence, that the LX(R) is intended to be an independent operator and the LPD-17 base sea frame was chosen for this reason.  Whether that rationale is wise is another topic.

LX(R) and LCAC

The LCS received intense scrutiny at its inception and that scrutiny continues to this day.  The Zumwalt, by comparison, has received almost none (baffling, huh?).  Somewhere in between is the LX(R).  Let’s take a couple of posts to look a bit closer at the LX(R).  We’ll start with just a quick peak at the LCAC carrying capacity of the LX(R).  This is just setting the stage for a few upcoming LX(R) posts and is not intended to be a deep analysis.  Read this post as a simple factoid, so to speak, that acts as a lead in to more posts.

The Navy intends to replace the LSD-41/49 class ships with a new LX(R) class.  One of the key differences between the old and new ships will be the well deck space and, in particular, the LCAC capacity.  Let’s take a closer look.

The LSD-41 Whidbey Island class dock landing ship is an 8 ship class with the ability to carry 4 LCACs or 5 LCACs if the cargo ramp is raised.  That’s 32 or 40 LCACs, total.

The LSD-49 Harpers Ferry class dock landing ship is a 4 ship class with the ability to carry 2 LCACs.  That’s 8 LCACs, total.

In total, the LSD-41/49 class has a capacity for 40-48 LCACs.

The Navy is planning to replace the 12 LSDs with 11 LX(R)s.  Each LX(R) will carry 2 LCACs for a total of 22.

So, the amphibious fleet will go from 40-48 LCAC capacity to 22.  That’s quite a drop for an amphibious fleet that is already sorely lacking sufficient ship to shore connectors.  Does that signal that the Navy/Marines are getting out of the amphibious assault business altogether, or that the Marines are betting on shifting from amphibious assault to vertical assault, or that they’re just idiots?  I have no idea what the official line of thinking on this one is.  For the moment, ponder this and we’ll take a closer look in a bit.

LSD-41 Class - 4 LCACs

LX(R) Class - 2 LCACs

Sneak peak:  There is actually another, more likely, explanation (although don’t discount the idiocy explanation!) which we’ll cover shortly.

The Definition of Insanity?

Over the years, we’ve seen that the Navy’s ability to estimate costs is laughable, at best.  Given that history, you’d think the Navy would have learned to bump up their estimates.  That makes the latest procurement program, the LX(R) replacement for the LSD-41/49 class another sad affair in the making.

The LX(R) is going to be a modified LPD-17.  So, with nothing more than that statement, what would you, the reader, estimate the cost of the LX(R) to be?  Probably the cost of the last LPD built ($2.1B) with some minor adjustments for specific equipment removed and specific equipment added plus the inevitable cost increases that just plain seem to accrue to shipbuilding, right?  Same ship, same cost.  Seems reasonable.  So, what does the Navy think?

From a USNI News website article comes the Navy’s view of the cost (1).

“The Navy and Marine Corps were able to design an LX(R) dock landing ship replacement with greater capability for less money by starting with the higher-end San Antonio-class LPD-17 design, stripping away unneeded features and adding back in desired ones, service officials said last week.”

The same ship, with greater capability, for less money.  Does that sound reasonable?

“Johnson [Capt. Bryon Johnson, OPNAV N953] said the program had to stay within a cost cap but said he was confident the first ship would stay within the cost cap and deliver on time.”

Consider the Navy’s track record of meeting first ship cost and schedule goals.  Would you think it’s more or less likely that the first LX(R) will be delivered on time and one budget?

“Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, who served as director of expeditionary warfare (OPNAV N95) until July, said at a Marine Corps Association event last month that, in fact, the Navy and Marine Corps had far surpassed cost-reduction goals while descoping the LPD design.

‘We drove that to a cost cap that was given to us by [the chief of naval operations], and we, with our industry partners, with [Naval Sea Systems Command], drove in the right requirements. And we got the most we could possibly get out of that ship, and it almost looks like an LPD-17, and we got it well under the cost cap,’ he said.”

An even more optimistic view, huh?  Costs will be well under the cost cap.  I don’t know what the cost cap is.  I think they’re referring to an internal target cost rather than a Congressionally mandated cost cap and I think the internal target is $1.6B per ship.

“Current N95 Maj. Gen. Chris Owens said the approach is ‘attractive to [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and it’s attractive on Capitol Hill’ due to its efficiency. Ultimately, he said, it will ‘give us a bigger ship, greater capability, not only in size and capacity but also in things like aviation capability, the medical capability and perhaps most importantly in this day and age of split and disaggregated operations the command and control capability that the LSDs lack.’ ”

There it is again – a bigger ship with greater capability for less money.  Does that seem believable?  The Navy will take the exact same ship they just built for $2.1B and make it bigger, with more capability and they believe it will be cheaper?  Isn’t that the definition of insanity - doing essentially the same thing and expecting a different outcome?  They're going to build essentially the same ship and expect it will cost significantly less - insanity.

LX(R) - Insanity?

Someday we will be discussing the LX(R) cost overruns and debating why they happened.  Well, the starting point is right here, right now, with the Navy’s typical wildly underestimated costs. 

What will the LX(R) really cost?  As I said, it will be the cost of the last LPD built ($2.1B), less removed equipment, plus added equipment, plus inflation, and plus that inevitable cost creep that seems to affect Navy ships.  The removed and added equipment will probably be a wash and cancel out so that leaves us with $2.1B plus the inevitable creep so let’s call it $2.5B.  There you have it.  With no specifications to look at, a reasonable cost estimate would be $2.5B.  Ask yourself, who is more likely to be right about the LX(R) costs, ComNavOps or the Navy?

The Navy’s inability to learn lessons is legendary and this is the start of yet another example.

(1)USNI, “Navy: LX(R) Will Be Cheaper, More Capable Thanks To Using San Antonio LPD Design As Starting Point”, Megan Eckstein, November 5, 2015,

http://news.usni.org/2015/11/05/navy-lxr-will-be-cheaper-more-capable-thanks-to-using-san-antonio-lpd-design-as-starting-point