Marines Already Missing the Well Deck

National Defense Magazine has a great article that reads like a service rivalry, whether intentional or not it is unclear. We are not big fans of an amphibious ship without a well deck, but understand the desire to return Marine air to sea with an escort carrier model as utilized in WWII. Regardless, the way I remember it, the CVE was cheap, and the LHA(R) is anything but cheap.

Although Marines are enthusiastic about the new ship, many of them question the decision to build a $3 billion ship without a well deck. It’s been a point of contention between the Navy and Marine Corps for some time.

The aviation-centric design of the LHA replacement — or LHA(R) — also has raised questions about its long term usefulness. Considering that Marines require heavy trucks and armored vehicles once they reach the shore, most of that equipment can only be transported by hovercraft, not by helicopters.

“It’s been a long-running debate, and it’s still not settled,” says Robert Work, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. “There are a lot of questions on LHA(R). Will it become the standard, or will it become only a niche capability?”

At least someone in the Marines is asking the question. The article is great, and is a must read in full. Every angle is covered except one: no one brings up options for sea based deployment other than a well deck. How this gets overlooked, or is missing from the discussion raises a whole new set of questions. One would think a ship as big as the LHA(R) could support some useful cranes for offloading.

But lets start from the beginning. The big problem facing the Marines in filling the amphibious lift requirement is because both services are still fighting over what Sea Basing is, and neither is taking a truly strategic view the other will agree with. There is no clarity regarding the requirements of the Marines, because while they can state a minimum ship metric (the 11/11/11 plan), there is still a great deal of confusion regarding the Sea Base.

There are also signs the Sea Base is about to die.

Is the LHA(R) the future CVE taking Marine air back to sea, or will it be the LPH unable to really give the Marines the flexibility they need? Who knows, the Marines were the ones silly, perhaps the word is nieve... enough to think adding 2 LHA(R)s and 1 LHD to the Sea Base was an acceptable solution to begin with. The 1997 QDR said 12 ESGs, and it is clear as day that was a smart recommendation with the operational tempo of amphibious ships today, and very smart given the challenges of this maritime era.

Good thing both services signed the cooperative strategy, because at least we can pretend both services are on the same page. We think the Navy loves this fight, because they can sit back and do nothing while spending shipbuilding money on new battleships.