The Marine Corps is eyeing these vessels as a temporary capability for its stand-in forces, ahead of the construction and delivery of its highly desired Landing Ship Medium program. The committee’s language would also prevent the Navy from putting expeditionary fast transport vessels into reduced operating status, and requires the Navy and its Military Sealift Command to develop a concept of operations to use these ships to support operational plans in the Pacific. The Marines, though, eyeing a too-small amphibious fleet, have opposed retiring these aging ships without buying their replacements. The Navy has argued these ships are becoming too expensive to operate and maintain, and do not constitute a relevant capability in a high-end fight. The House Armed Services Committee is further raising the cost of its proposal by banning the Navy from decommissioning three specific amphibious ships and two specific cruisers - Germantown, Gunston Hall, Tortuga, Shiloh and Cowpens - or decommissioning more than three other guided-missile cruisers in FY24. But Berger told lawmakers this year that he included the request at the top of his wish list because the Navy’s shipbuilding plan was insufficient and the request was the only option he had to try to strengthen the amphibious fleet. That money to buy the remainder of the ship would come earlier than needed, as the LPDs had been bought one every other year, and LPD-33 wouldn’t be bought until FY25 to remain on track. David Berger asked for $1.71 billion on his unfunded priorities list to finish buying LPD-33. This spring, Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. The Marines fiercely oppose this idea, and in FY23 the Corps persuaded Congress to give $250 million in advance procurement funds to begin buying the next ship in the class, LPD-33. This authority - combined with recent Congressional investment in the workforce and supply chain - will accelerate that positive trajectory.”Īs for the amphibious warship, the Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the FY23 request announced a pause in buying San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks, to instead study what capabilities any future amphibious ship ought to have and if there were ways to save money using a new construction or acquisition strategy. Importantly, this provision sends a robust demand signal to the submarine industrial base which, in the last year, has been making great strides to recover a two-per-year build rate after the pandemic’s disruption. In allowing the contract to cover 13 boats, the defense bill “ensures the Navy has the authority to exceed the two-per-year build cadence for Virginia-class submarines - demonstrating Congress’ commitment to meeting the Navy’s fleet requirements while supporting the AUKUS agreement. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the committee’s sea power and projection forces panel, and whose district includes submarine builder General Dynamics Electric Boat, said in a June 12 news release he wants to incentivize the industrial base to ramp up its output now. Still, despite that planned timeline, Rep. The sea service wrote in its FY24 long-range shipbuilding plan, released in April, that “the Navy anticipates building additional Virginia class SSNs in the 2030s as replacements for submarines sold to Australia.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |