• Curtis Conway

    The LHA-8 and on should be built without a well deck (like LHA-6) expanding population and sustainable support of greater numbers of F-35Bs, to facilitate the additional striking power and maintained situational awareness over the Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in its Area of Operational Responsibility (AOR). It has been recognized, and is a given, that LPD-17 and LX(R) will have sufficient lift to support amphibious operations. The additional air support by greater numbers of F-35B is the compelling element in this argument. Who ever got Cold Feet and abandon the plan for LHA-6 no-well deck ships is doing the Marine Corps, and the nation, a disservice.

    Concerning the LX(R) the efficiency and effectiveness of the USS Makin Island (LHD-8) propulsion system should be considered, but I suspect the current propulsion plant will be retained to maintain the concurrency with the LSD-17 platforms.

    Ships Self Defense System (SSDS) will certainly be on board, and a non-rotating 3D radar and ESSMs populating a Mk48/56 (Mk41 Self Defense Length) GMVLS are required. That non-rotating 3D sensor should also be back fit to every large deck amphibious ship.

  • Dan

    I believe the amphibious landing’s are a thing of the past, especially anything large scale. In todays modern world I don’t see how anything like that could happen, love the Marines truly, I think you are becoming the Army and we don’t need two Army’s. During the gulf war of 91 most Marines were delivered by private 747’s and to me it don’t make scense, the Navy to this day does not have adequate gun fire support for a landind of any scale and your Marine brass never said a word when the Battleships were deactivated even after a flawless performance in the war. Sad but fact indeed.

    • Steve Skubinna

      Actually the Marines said a LOT of words when the BBs were retired. But being Marines they’re not in the driver’s seat and were essentially ignored. Congress responded by adding some mealy mouthed language to the act authorizing the BBs going to monuments about retaining the ability to reactivate for gunfire support, but realistically that’s never going to happen.

      • Dan

        Sad day when a Marine has no impact verbally. Do you think the Marines could or should buy the Iowa’s and pay for them threw there own budget? Navy crew’s of course if needed, The Marines could take care of them self’s then not relying on the Navy Brass where they don’t have an ounce of say that matters. You could have all Marine crew’s also, if the ships were reactivated, you could train Marines to do the same job since you would be starting with near zero experience anyway, the Marines would have fire support and the Navy wouldn’t need to pay for it, and this country would have there girls back, a win win is how I see it.

  • Curtis Conway

    both Dan & Steve have good points. The DDG-1000 and the new super-wiz-bang Rail-gun was to provide the new NGFS support. I think its a little late, and there will never be more than three (3) DDG-1000s. That is one of the reasons why the Double-enders (cruisers with two guns) receive laser focus by congress. Should there ever be a requirement for shore bombardment, the 5″ is all we have. In this new Tactical Ballistic Missile (TBM) environment getting anywhere near a coast is very risky business, and that is why EVERY surface combatant should have a non-rotating 3D primary sensor and a capable AAW defense in depth at least out to 20 nm (several layers) to ensure survival of our platforms and safeguard our sailors and Marines. Some folks just can’t wrap their minds around all the variables, and industry running around with all the money influencing the process doesn’t help.

    This specific topic (NGFS) is also an indictment against the US Navy for having dropped the guided projectile development ball all these years. We could have extremely long range 5″ naval artillery today with very capable guidance packages. that specific development is for something that withstands somewhat less stresses required for Rail-gun guidance packages. That development would have been a good stepping stone to the next level for rail gun.