This starts where Post 68 ended. It's about the rise of the LHA and how it altered the numbers.
Chapter 12 The Bomb and Vertical Envelopment - Part 2
The story of the LHA began on Page 370. By 1965, both fleets, having used LPHs, were complaining that it was at least, awkward for troops to disembark from an LPH onto landing craft supplied by another ship. This produced proposals for ships that evolved into the Tarawa class LHA. Meanwhile, in November 1964, the CNO had asked the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) for a study of amphibious force requirements through 1980, which resulted in "Amphibious Assault Shipping in the Mid-Range Period" (NAVWAG 44). In January 1965, CNA asked BuShips for feasibility studies of an LPD with an enlarged hangar and ALPS (amphibious landing platform slipway), an LPD with a marine railway to launch craft. ALPS, was a compromise between LSD and LPD, with greater helicopter operating capacity because its flight deck could extend over the slipway. At this time CNA suggested merging the LPH and LPD.
Page 372 says that the CNA asked BuShips to sketch a large amphibious ship or general-purpose amphibious ship on 23.02.65 and it reported on 31.03.65. It could carry a BLT's worth of marines, a considerable load of vehicles and combined LPH, AKA, LSD & even LST features.
Then were return to the paragraph that straddled Pages 373 & 374. It began by saying that NAVWAG 44 (completed in April 1966) strongly supported the general-purpose amphibious ship as the ideal building block for future amphibious forces. The next sentence was that by this time the lift goal had been cut from two 20-kt MEF lifts to one-and-a-half, based on the theory that the Atlantic Fleet could make to with half an MEF lift of slower ships because it covered shorter distances. Then it details the two-MEF building plan at February 1966 and the reduced requirements for a one-and-a-half 20-kt MEF already elucidated in Post 68.
The second paragraph on Page 374 says that too many AKAs were needed simply to provide the vehicles LPHs could not carry. LPDs did not carry enough helicopters. However, the new ship would greatly simplify the situation. It would replace the LPH and LPD as well as some AKAs. Building fewer larger ships would cut the construction and manning costs.
The third paragraph says the new ship was designated LHA―an assault (A) helicopter (H) ship. It would land a Marine amphibious unit (MAU), successor to the old BLT, supported by at least two more ships, preferably an LST and an LPD (both of which existed in sufficient numbers). The navy now decided that the LHA would be the centrepiece of the 20-kt amphibious force; procurement of LPH and LPD would cease.
- The navy and JCS estimated that 4 LHA, 3 LSD and 9 LST, for a total of 16 ships, ...
- ... could replace 39 older ones: 5 APA, 2 AKA, 10 LSD and 22 LST.
It appeared that 6 LHA and 7 LST would complete the one-and-a-half MEF objective, because there were already 6 LPH [actually 10] and 20 fast LST. Secretary of the Navy Paul Nitze became a strong supporter; on 23 June he ordered procurement of the LPH and LPD stopped in favour of the LHA, which would become the primary element of the planned one-and-a-half MEF lift.
This, is presumably, when LPD-16 in FY66 was deferred. My guess is that LPH-12 Inchon which was also in the FY66 building programme was too far advanced to cancel. As this ship was the seventh Iwo Jima class LPH the 6 LPH in the first sentence of this paragraph may refer to the first 6 ships of the class.
The fourth paragraph on Page 374 says that the NAVWAG 44 conclusions were incorporated in a 22.08.66 draft presidential memorandum on the amphibious assault ship issued by the secretary of defense. To reach the one-and-a-half MEF capacity by FY72, all necessary ships would be funded by FY69; the decision on the last half MEF would be deferred. Three LHA would be built in each year of FY68 and FY69, together with seven LST and the third AGC. A LHA project was formally established in July 1966.
The next few pages are about how the design of SCB 409.68 (the Tarawa class) evolved. The .68 in SCB 409.68 meant that it was to be approved in the FY68 building programme, however, it wasn't.
We return to the "story of the numbers" in the paragraph that straddles Pages 377 & 378. Friedman wrote that the 9th February 1968 presidential memorandum (DPM) on amphibious forces deferred the purchase of the one-and-a-half fast MEF force to FY71. It approved the building of one LHA ($153 million) and the long-lead items for three more, as recommended by the navy. It also deferred the accompanying seven LST from FY69 to FY70. By April 1968, with the winning design not yet selected, plans called for a lead ship in FY69, three in FY70, and two in FY71. The contract would be on a multiyear basis; soon one of the FY70 ships was deferred to FY71. These LHA would replace 18 previously approved ships: 2 LKA, 2 LPH, 4 LPD, 7 LSD, and 3 LST. The six-ship plan would actually bring navy forces beyond the one-and-a-half MEF, as a step toward the desired two MEF (one per ocean) force.
However, I don't know what the 18 previously approved ships were. The only ship that was approved by Congress was LPD-16 in FY66. The closest thing I can find in the book is the requirements for a 1½ MEF in February 1966 on Pages 373 & 374 which is in Post 68.
- 12 LPH (2 required) - I think the 3 converted Essexes and the 7 Iwo Jimas approved to FY66 plus 2 extra ships.
- 20 LPD (4 required) - I think the 16 ships approved to FY66 plus 4 extra ships.
- 20 LSD (8 required) - I think the 8 Thomastons and 4 Anchorages approved to FY66 plus 8 extra ships. However, a fifth Anchorage was approved in FY67 which would require 7 extra ships.
- 30 LST (10 required) - I think the 9 Newport class approved in FY65 & FY66 and the 11 ships proposed for FY67 (which were approved) plus 10 extra ships, which were reduced to 7 extra ships by the LHA programme so this is probably where the 3 deferred LST come from.
- 7 AKA (none required) - I speculated in Post 68 that "none required" was a typo for "one required" because 6 fast AKA had been approved to FY66 (Tulare and 5 Charleston class). It could be that it was a typo for "two required" i.e. 2 additional Charlestons and if it was they would be the 2 LKA referred to by Friedman in the second paragraph of Page 378.
Or put another way 2 LPH + 4 LPD + 7 LSD + 3 LST + 2 LKA = the 18 previously approved ships that the 6 LHA replaced.
The first paragraph on Page 378 begins by saying that extending the production run to ten ships would reduce the unit cost by about 5 per cent, and would provide enough for the ultimate two MEF goal and that OpNav therefore asked for the extension. It continued by saying that it would be necessary to replace the 3 Boxer class (converted Essex) LPHs by FY76-FY77 and that these ships were already very expensive to maintain ($20-22 million per year for the Boxers vs. $11-12 million for the LHAs); replacing them with three more LHAs would save about 5,000 personnel. The secretary of defense rejected the ten-ship program, but did agree to buy three ships to replace the Boxers, for a total of nine LHA. The resulting total of 9 LHA would provide a total of 16 large decks which would support the assault echelons of one-and-two-thirds MAF (actually, 16 rather than the 15 required MAU). This program was embodied in a national security memorandum (NSDM-27), which required the capacity to handle one major and two minor contingencies (respectively, one MAF and one third MAF).
This was the new programme in the same format as the tables in Post 69.
[ATTACH=full]697636[/ATTACH]
LPD-16 approved for the FY66 building program has been removed. There were also 2 LHA in FY72 and 2 more in FY73 for a total of 9 LHA and a grand total of 82 ships.
So far Friedman hadn't written anything about discarding the 2 Mariner class APA/LPA, so there would have been enough ships (9 LHA, 7 LPH & 2 LPA) to lift 18 battalions (2 divisions worth) when LHA-9 was completed. However, two of the 18 would have to be Battalion Landing Teams (BLT) rather than Marine Amphibious Units (MAU).
I also think that 36 LST would be required for 2 MAF/MEF if 27 LST were required for 1½ MAF/MEF. That's 4 less than the 40 required when the 2-MAF/MEF force was built around 16 LPH instead of a mixture of LHA & LPH.
To be continued.
