via USNI News.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has signed an internal memo recommending the service base its next generation amphibious warship (LX(R)) on the existing San Antonio-class (LPD-17) warship design, first reported by the Inside the Navy newsletter on Monday.
Mabus’ approval of the memo, which he signed last week, validates more than a year of Marine Corps lobbying for a new amphibious ship based on the existing 25,000-ton San Antonio design.
“Through a focused and disciplined process that analyzed required capabilities and capacities, as well as cost parameters, it has been determined that a derivative of the Amphibious Transport Dock (LPD-17) hull form is the preferred alternative to meet LX(R) operational requirements,” read the document.
The lead ship of a San Antonio derived LX(R) would cost about $1.64 billion with follow-ons costing about $1.4 billion for a total of 11 ships, according to information from the service.
Navy officials would not comment to USNI News on the memo saying the service typically doesn’t comment or confirm details on internal memoranda.
Read more about the Ingalls proposal here.
Interesting. This move by the Navy to go ahead with the LPD II could indicate the direction of several internal battles that are being waged within the Marine Corps.
What the hell am I talking about?
Simple.
* Many want to see the Marine Corps head down the "support" SOCOM path. That way of thinking de-emphasizes amphibious shipping and moves toward placing small detachments of Marines aboard smaller ships AND MPS ships. That way of thinking has taken a beating though. The experience in the war on terror has shown that small units can be isolated and destroyed. The reaction has been to "upsize" all units. Gone are the days of 2 man sniper teams. Now you'll see an entire sniper platoon head out. Additionally while the SEALs, Green Berets will still operate with small squad size formations at times, they'll always have a company of Rangers waiting in the winds (or another infantry unit) ready to swoop in to pull their bacon out the fire...that along with copious amounts of indirect fire...and air support that would make a battalion commander get a woody.
* You also have the "air assault" side of the house that believes that the key to future warfare is to stow the cannons, the AAVs, the tanks and depend on air alone. This is mostly seen in the push to utilize the MV-22 in every possible scenario imaginable. Its also seen in the dogged determination...beyond all reason...to force a budget strapped service to buy an expensive, maintenance hog named the F-35. Again, real combat experience is highlighting the folly of such thinking. During a supposedly peaceful insertion a CV-22 was almost shot out of the sky, several SEALs injured and the aircrew will probably get a medal for getting their ship back at all. This concept was built around the 100 man Company Landing Team. The reality of small units operating far from support is the same as the "support SOCOM" dilemma. Already these feet dry SPMAGTF-CR's have been plus sized back up to infantry battalion strength. The "air assault", "sea going 101st Airborne" is taking a beating in Marine land.
* Last you have my camp. The traditionalist. This faction believes that the Marine Corps should be a general purpose force that is capable of dealing with all spectrum's of combat. Additionally this camp believes that we've started to encroach on Army turf and they in reaction are encroaching in ours. To put a bow on this, this faction believes that Marines are "from the sea" and amphibious shipping is how we get to work....or at least in the vicinity of work.
Depending on how this plays out we could see who wins.
You know what I want to see but budgets, the General's club and General Dunford will declare who wins.
It must be observed however that this is also a win for the carrier mafia. Too often the USS America is described as a "carrier" and not what it is. An amphibious ship designed to get Marines and their equipment to where they are needed.