Thanks Jeff...
... as I understand it, the 2013 DOT&E reported the LPD 17 San Antonio class as
“… not operationally effective, not operationally suitable, and not survivable in a hostile environment.”
I understand you said that the Mistral (which cost 25 % of a LPD 17) as suspect because it is built to commercial standard but a MILSPEC vessel like the LPD 17 seems to have its own share of questionable suitability in a hostile environment.
How would you reconcile these issues?
Well, I am sure it may come across as purely partisan...but it is not.
This administration and almost all of its appointed personnel in the various agencies are the most rabidly politically oriented personnel I have seen in my life time.
I have seen, personally, in my own agency, so-called scientific studies concocted to prove a preconceived notion, rather than to test that thesis to see if it is even correct, and then proceed forward to funding on this pure junk science. They do this to placate political constituencies, and then waist billions of dollars awarding contracts to their own supporters for work that is not needed. This is rampant in the US right now, across the board, including he DOD.
When people attempt to blow the whistle (and I have done so), despite laws to the contrary, two things happen
1) There is backlash and retaliation...but very carefully. Most end up pigeon holed in dead end jobs until they retire.
2) Endless investigations ensue that purposely take years and lead nowhere while the projects in question go forward.
In short, I do not trust their findings, but rely rather on senior NCOs I know and officers I trust that I have spoken with.
Do the San Antonio class have issues? Yes they have. They were a new design, with new integrated combat systems and new methods of accomplishing tasks. Most (but not all) of those have been addressed and ironed out and the crews are learning to effectively operate and fight their ships. The hull itself is proving to be a good and stable platform to these professionals. That is why that hull design is being seriously considered for the LSD role and he BMD role.
Anyhow, that is how I explain it and proceed forward in this environment.
As it is, in any hotly contested, amphibious or air assault conflict, the gators are going to be at risk. It is part of the awful calculus of war. The US has not really had that particular scenario since WW II and perhaps the Korean War. But the professional planners and designers are not unaware of the risks and have planned and designed accordingly.
The Falklands War was probably the latest example of a hotly contested such operation in modern warfare...and the UK took some serious losses. But they also planned well for those contingencies and had adequate reserves and defenses to proceed forward, despite the losses, and get the job done.
You cannot contemplate such campaigns with any thought that you cannot lose vessels...some of them critical.
In today's environment, we have appointed...and, sadly, politically promoted individuals...who use the wrong metrics and reasoning to end up canceling or rejecting perfectly good designs, for political purposes. IMHO, the F-22 decision is a prime example...despite all the wrangling now on how what was clearly a premature, and even reckless, decision was still somehow justified.
Oh well, such is life.
Every professional sailor I have spoken with, and based on my own engineering experience, would rather be on a Wasp, San Antonio, or Harpers Ferry, then a Mistral in a hot conflict. IOW, on a combat MILSPEC design than an "augmented" commercial one.
Not because the French personnel are not squared away and will do their best, or are not proud professionals. But because the basic deign of the former was based on the premise of being in such a conflict and being designed and paid for to take the punishment. The latter was not.
Hope that helps. Each has to arrive at their own conclusions.
