Are there enough LPD-17 San Antonio Class

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
well are they enough San Antonios as 9 ships are relpaceing 41:eek ! and they are LPD as well to me this seems odd and against the norm as navys are getting more LPD and LHD ect rather than less.

are the USN downsideing as they have finaly put JFK into reserve and are replaceing 41 ships with 9.

will the USN have a problem with sea lift as they have such drastic loss of numbers of capital ships

so am i unessarly worried
 

contedicavour

New Member
harryriedl said:
well are they enough San Antonios as 9 ships are relpaceing 41:eek ! and they are LPD as well to me this seems odd and against the norm as navys are getting more LPD and LHD ect rather than less.

are the USN downsideing as they have finaly put JFK into reserve and are replaceing 41 ships with 9.

will the USN have a problem with sea lift as they have such drastic loss of numbers of capital ships

so am i unessarly worried
Which are the 41 ships you say are being replaced ?
My understanding is that the USMC will have 12 LHA / 12 LPD / 12 big LST which is close to current fleet strength, especially in terms of personnel and transport capability

cheers
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
this is from defence industry daliy its is also replaceing the LST as well as the LPD such as Anchorage Class,Austin Class ships,Newport Class tank landing ships, Charleston Class amphibious cargo


Navy sources note that the 9 scheduled ships of this class (reduced from 12) are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships. These include the USA's older LSD-36 USS Anchorage Class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 ships of class built and serving). The San Antonio Class ships may also replace two classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport Class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston Class amphibious cargo ships. The PMS 317 FAQ notes that the LPD-17 San Antonio Class' projected average cost once all ships are built is $1.2 billion.
 

leesea

New Member
LPD-17 not enough and too expensive!

harryriedl said:
this is from defence industry daliy its is also replaceing the LST as well as the LPD such as Anchorage Class,Austin Class ships,Newport Class tank landing ships, Charleston Class amphibious cargo
Those are some questionable comments.

The new LPD-17 class are quite capable of replacing the older amphib assualt ships (JFK has NOTHING to do with!). But the problem is the US Navy may not be able to afford multiple $1.2 billion ships!! Look how many are in the out-year budget, and think they can be cut!

BTW the USMC doesn't have any ships its the USN and there are not now and won't be for some time "12 LHA / 12 LPD / 12 big LST (Ds?) which is close to current fleet strength, especially in terms of personnel and transport capability" The lift target is 3 MEBs.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
yes but its A genral 41 ships being replaced 9 sounds drastic it just sounds like a massive cut im not dissagree with you but shouldn't their be at lest 15 rather than 9
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They will be having several Swift class HSV as well if i'm not mistaken, theirs 3, including the Ex-HMAS Jervis Bay, in use, and still under testing, this would be a cheaper option in the way of deploying Expeditionary forces, and can make two-3 trips before the first ship arrives.
Also, its designed to replace the functions of these ships from the 1960s, its consloidating say 3-4 ships into one. It may not increase troop deploying, but this would be fully covered by the rest of the USN and to some extent, the USAF-in terms of deploying troops on C-17s to a staging post rather then a slow boat ride.
Basically, they are just cleaning house, by getting rid of some old ships and replacing them with modern vessels, God i hope Some idiot doesn't scrap the Aussie LHD for three ...please see HMAS Manoora, Kanimbla.:mad:
 

contedicavour

New Member
leesea said:
Those are some questionable comments.

The new LPD-17 class are quite capable of replacing the older amphib assualt ships (JFK has NOTHING to do with!). But the problem is the US Navy may not be able to afford multiple $1.2 billion ships!! Look how many are in the out-year budget, and think they can be cut!

BTW the USMC doesn't have any ships its the USN and there are not now and won't be for some time "12 LHA / 12 LPD / 12 big LST (Ds?) which is close to current fleet strength, especially in terms of personnel and transport capability" The lift target is 3 MEBs.
But then which ships do the Harpers Ferry LSDs replace ? I though the new LSDs replaced the old LSTs ?
The one bit which is news to me is the reduction of the San Antonio class to 9, this is really bad news...

cheers
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The Americans will still have four Harpers Ferrys and eight Whidbey Islands, eight Wasps. Along with nine San Antonio's, the Americans will soon start building new LPAs to replace the five Tarawas. The San Antonio's are larger than the variety of ships they are replacing. After the construction of this class and the new larger LPAs, America will still retain its marine lift capability although with a smaller number of amphibious ships.

Keep in mind the Newport LSTs were never considered by the American navy as major warships, and were eager to discard them early once the M-1 tanks were received, since they were designed originally for the transport of M-48 tanks. The Newports vehicle deck had only 1765msquare of internal vehicle space, therefore only 490 lane meters. And yes, like the NZ MRV, the Newport LSTs could carry more vehicles on its external flight. Marine accomodations were for 400 troops.

America will retain its marine lift capability with fewer larger vessels.
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
Sea Toby said:
The Americans will still have four Harpers Ferrys and eight Whidbey Islands, eight Wasps. Along with nine San Antonio's, the Americans will soon start building new LPAs to replace the five Tarawas. The San Antonio's are larger than the variety of ships they are replacing. After the construction of this class and the new larger LPAs, America will still retain its marine lift capability although with a smaller number of amphibious ships.

Keep in mind the Newport LSTs were never considered by the American navy as major warships, and were eager to discard them early once the M-1 tanks were received, since they were designed originally for the transport of M-48 tanks. The Newports vehicle deck had only 1765msquare of internal vehicle space, therefore only 490 lane meters. And yes, like the NZ MRV, the Newport LSTs could carry more vehicles on its external flight. Marine accomodations were for 400 troops.

America will retain its marine lift capability with fewer larger vessels.
Does the US also have a civilian RO-RO vessels force that can be leased in case of urgency ? That could help make up for part of the fleet reduction.

cheers
 

bd popeye

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
contedicavour said:
Does the US also have a civilian RO-RO vessels force that can be leased in case of urgency ? That could help make up for part of the fleet reduction.

cheers
You have to remember that a lot of those type articles try to put the worst possible light on US Forces. When in fact the USN still maintains the largest amphib force in the world.
11 LDA/LHD's = 1 building..most other nations would count these ships as CV's.
2 LCC's
10 LPD's ==8 building as replacements
12 LSD's. I do not know how long they will remain in comission.
91 LCAC's + numerous other landing craft.

True that fleet reduction is on going but the new CNO ,ADM Mullen , wants to build to a 313 ship USN by 2012.

This article below points to the USNS suppourt ships as a strenght of the USN.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=112138&ran=43569

By JACK DORSEY, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 5, 2006

NORFOLK — As the Navy struggles to increase the size of its dwindling fleet, what’s known as the “other navy” is having little trouble.

Rear Adm. Carol Pottenger has about 40 ships under her wing now, including oilers, ammunition ships, salvage vessels, hospital ships, ocean tugs and combat stores ships.

And she expects more.

Pottenger runs the Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, which mans, equips and maintains the fleet of ships owned and operated by the government. Unlike Navy warships, these are manned by civilian crews, which can be as small as one-third the size of Navy crews that once sailed them.

“We’ve made a business case that convinced the Navy this is the right thing to do, and it’s based primarily on the minimum manning concept,” she said.

The oiler Bridge, for example, which Pottenger previously commanded, had a crew of 600 uniformed Navy sailors. When it was turned over to the sealift command, it needed only 120 civilian mariners and a cadre of five to 10 sailors to handle communications.

Automation in the engine room and on the bridge and the elimination of weapons systems allowed the crew to shrink.

The Military Sealift Command’s overall armada of about 185 non combatant ships largely goes uncounted when the Navy talks about its fighting fleet shrinking to 282 ships today.

The Navy has dropped from nearly 600 ships at the height of the military buildup during the Reagan administration; projected budgets indicate the figure will fall to 200 or 220, Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations, has said. He wants Congress to boost the number to 313 ships by 2012.

The civilian-crew program began in the 1970s and has expanded as the Navy sought to save money and become more efficient, Pottenger said.

The biggest savings comes from smaller crews, swapping crews while the cargo ships remain deployed overseas, and keeping the ships at sea longer than the traditional six months that Navy ships are away.

Crews can take vacations, get mandated training ashore or fill in on other ships while the ships spend more time at sea, supporting the fleet.

While Pottenger’s fleet of 40 ships, known as the Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force , is counted in the 282-ship Navy total, another 136 the sealift command operates or charters are not, she said.

Those include about 24 special-purpose ships, such as research, cable repair and missile range instrumentation ships; 36 ships pre positioned overseas carrying military equipment ; 28 s ealift s hips, carrying petroleum products; and a reserve force of 48 ships that can be quickly activated.

All have civilian crews.

Ships that belong to the Military S ealift C ommand are known as United States Naval Ships, or USNS ships, but are not commissioned as Navy warships. A gold and blue stripe is painted on their smokestacks to distinguish them from USS Navy ships. T hey also carry the prefix T before their hull numbers.

This summer, a new class of sealift command cargo ships arrived in Hampton Roads, built with minimum crew manning in mind. Called the Lewis and Clark class, or T-AKE class, for dry cargo/ammunition ships, the namesake ship uses just 124 crew members and is the first of 11 ships expected in the next five years. Four are coming to Norfolk.

Cmdr. Bill Power is in charge of an 11-person Navy detachment aboard the Lewis and Clark. His sailors – storekeepers and operations specialists – keep track of inventory and handle communications.

The detachment usually is aboard a year before getting new Navy assignments, compared with sailors on warships who sign up for about three years.

On most Navy ships, sailors sleep in open-bay berthing, with 30 or more in a cramped space. It stays that way until a sailor is promoted to petty officer first class, Power said.

Aboard Lewis and Clark, there are no open bays. So everyone, from seaman on up, military or civilian, has a two-person stateroom, which is “better accommodations then I had when I was a lieutenant,” Power said.

Each room also has a bathroom, something Power didn’t get until he was in charge of a department. “And I had to share that with someone too,” he said.

Pottenger heads a staff of about 470 in Hampton Roads, just 44 of them military. The command also employes 4,400 civilian mariners – expected to grow to 5,600 by 2009.

The mariners belong to the federal civil service, are union members and receive pay about equal to military positions.

While the sealift command doesn’t track annual savings, 2003 reports from the Center of Naval Analysis suggest the savings from using civilian crews.

One report calculated $21.5 million in annual savings because the sealift command operated the Navy’s four salvage ships.

Civilians working the Navy’s four command ships would help save $90 million a year, said another report from the Center for Naval Analyse s .

Pottenger’s command can sail ships with smaller civilian crews because “our merchant mariners are professionals and that is all they do,” she said. “In the Navy, sailors rotate through and you get a different chief engineer every year and a half and a different commanding officer.”

Although Power said it’s fair to call the sealift command ships “the other navy,” he said the civilian crews are highly skilled.

“These folks aboard this ship are as competent as I have ever seen,” he said. “They make difficult tasks easy all the time and are very proud of the fact that they call themselves mariners and they really do sail for a living. I love to work with them.”

Pottenger leaves her job Wednesday after a year to take command of Expeditionary Strike Group Seven in November. It is based in Okinawa, Japan, and is known as Amphibious Group One.

She will become the first woman to lead a combat strike group.


Reach Jack Dorsey at (757) 446-2284 or [email protected].
 

RubiconNZ

The Wanderer
Well in the recent release points perhaps to a light throught the cloud:

Current Navy plans call for Northrop Grumman to build at least nine ships in the class. Northrop Grumman delivered the first ship, USS San Antonio (LPD 17), in 2005, and the ship was commissioned in January 2006. Currently, New Orleans (LPD 18), Mesa Verde (LPD 19), Green Bay (LPD 20), New York (LPD 21) and San Diego (LPD 22) are in various stages of construction at the company's shipyards in New Orleans, La., and Pascagoula and Gulfport, Miss. Last June, Northrop Grumman was awarded construction contracts for LPD 22 and Anchorage (LPD 23).

You could see if the ship turns out to be a succesful a follow on order a bit further down, espescially as all the AB's will be finished by then.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
that would be good news as that would have a quite drastic reduction from 41 to 9.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
While the 5 Tarawas are being decomissioned with the Anchorage LPDs, 8 Wasps will still remain in service and the first new SuperWasp was included in the FY07 budget to replace the Tarawas. So add at least 9 more ships, we are up to 30 easily. More than likely at least another 4 SuperWasps are in the works, bringing the total to 34 ships.

I know of no navy which has 34 large amphibious ships other than the US Navy.

Each of the new classes of amphibious ships from the 1970 onwards have been larger ships with more capablities than the classes they have replaced.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
so it seems like they are repleaceing 41 perfecly desent lpd's and lsd's less bigger better ships.
pardon the only one super wasp according to wikapidia thats makin island PCU
apart from that i agree shame about the large overrunns in buliding them as there was the shoody workmanship on San antoinoio http://http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002636.html
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Please read the entire San Antonio Express News news story at this site:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA072205.1A.uss_san_antonio.85f7f3b.html

First off, please post the entire story, not the half that is all negative.

Read the last sentence, the Navy and the shipyard will fix the negatives.

Please note that the first ship of a class usually costs much more than follow on ships.

Please note that this ship was delayed considerably by Hurricane Katrina. Delays add to shipyard personnel costs.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Please read the entire San Antonio Express News news story at this site:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA072205.1A.uss_san_antonio.85f7f3b.html

First off, please post the entire story, not the half that is all negative.

Read the last sentence, the Navy and the shipyard will fix the negatives.

Please note that the first ship of a class usually costs much more than follow on ships.

Please note that this ship was delayed considerably by Hurricane Katrina. Delays add to shipyard personnel costs.
Hmm 850 million USD per ship increasing to 1.85 bn... a 30,000 tonne 244-meter aircraft carrier is costing us 1.4 bn euro (1.78 bn USD at current exchange rate). Even with the hurricane damage ... Houston we've got a problem :shudder

cheers
 

hybrid

New Member
Hmm 850 million USD per ship increasing to 1.85 bn... a 30,000 tonne 244-meter aircraft carrier is costing us 1.4 bn euro (1.78 bn USD at current exchange rate). Even with the hurricane damage ... Houston we've got a problem :shudder

cheers
Not really, the thing to remember with the LPD San Antonio class is that the USN is trying to create a "Jack of all Trades" kind of ship, not as specialized as say an Arleigh Burke roles, but capable of assisting in that role with modular weapons systems if needed, toss on the nearly double the capacity compared to the LPD-4 that its replacing which gives the USN and the USMC additional lift capacity above and beyond what it currently fields. The Navy needs these multirole types of ships now to fill in gaps where specialized platforms are too costly to produce or there are too few numbers to make. There are quite a few people paying attention to how the LPD-17 fares mainly because it has the potential to be a new way of building warships (i.e modular war design with components that can be potentially even "hot" swapped).
 

contedicavour

New Member
Not really, the thing to remember with the LPD San Antonio class is that the USN is trying to create a "Jack of all Trades" kind of ship, not as specialized as say an Arleigh Burke roles, but capable of assisting in that role with modular weapons systems if needed, toss on the nearly double the capacity compared to the LPD-4 that its replacing which gives the USN and the USMC additional lift capacity above and beyond what it currently fields. The Navy needs these multirole types of ships now to fill in gaps where specialized platforms are too costly to produce or there are too few numbers to make. There are quite a few people paying attention to how the LPD-17 fares mainly because it has the potential to be a new way of building warships (i.e modular war design with components that can be potentially even "hot" swapped).
Thanks - very interesting. If you excluded the spending in what should then be considered R&D onto new components and designs, what should the unitary cost of a series production San Antonio be then ?

cheers
 

hybrid

New Member
Thanks - very interesting. If you excluded the spending in what should then be considered R&D onto new components and designs, what should the unitary cost of a series production San Antonio be then ?

cheers
Hmm are we talking about ALL R&D and new components and techniques that are going into the San Antonio class here? If so you're essentially just wanting a bigger than a Wasp LHD or a LPD-4 hull, take out all the the extra goodies and throw the old stuff instead (mind you the Wasp LHD is closer to the UK's CVFs than the LPD-17 is) you're still gonna get some high costs. LHD-7 (Iwo Jima) of the Wasp class I believe had an actual cost of somewhere around 1.4 billion USD and the 8th (Makin Island) is expected to cost around 1.8 billion USD with similar systems that are going into the San Antonio class, I'm not sure if the latter figure is pre-Katrina or post Katrina to tell ya the truth.

Mind you again like I said the Wasp is closer to the CVFs than the San Antonios and the LPD-4 Austins are. If we're just talking about a bigger Austin well those unit costs are somewhere in the 400+ million USD range so figure say around 600-800 million for something around the size of a san antonio without any of the extra goodies?
 
Top