HII Ingalls Considering LPD Changes During DoD Pause, Study

HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding [HII] is considering changes to the design of the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships (LPDs) while the Defense Department directs a review of the class in an effort to lower costs before deciding to buy more.

Last year, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directed the Navy to conduct another study on LPDs to determine how to move forward after buying the third Flight II ship, LPD-32. 

Last month, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday confirmed the goal is to lower increasing costs, which he saw as increasing 21 to 25 percent (Defense Daily, March 15).

Jay Stefany, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee this latest study is different from 21 previous amphibious studies in that it is a study to lower costs, not determine requirements (Defense Daily, March 29).

A top HII executive recently confirmed Ingalls Shipbuilding is preparing for possible LPD design changes amid the DoD review.

“Yes, we absolutely are doing some things now. So we’re doing some self-investment, as well as working with the Navy on what a potential next LPD, whatever that becomes, would look like. We advocate obviously to transition that over several ships as we’ve done with LPD Flight I to Flight II, DDGs Flight I to II to IIA to III. So we’ve got some experience in that. And so yeah, we’ve done some trade studies,” Kari Wilkinson, executive vice president at HII and president of Ingalls Shipbuilding, said at a media roundtable during the Navy League’s Sea Air Space symposium on April 3.

HII and the Navy already transitioned from the last San Antonio-class Flight I ships to the less expensive Flight II ships across several vessels, gradually changing features to minimize production line changes.

“We’re trying to understand requirements to the best we can right now, knowing that those could change right because the Navy and the Marine Corps are responding to evolving threats at all times. But we’ve gotten pretty good at change and incorporating change as we’re moving through a ship class,” Wilkinson continued.

She said Ingalls has not offered its own drawings designs as part of the DoD conversations because “we’re in the business of kind of answering requirements as opposed to generating them.”

However, Wilkinson noted the Marine Corps is focused on preserving the main capabilities on LPDs “so any suggestions we’re going to make or investments we will make to look at what does the next gen design look like – are going to take those things in mind. Affordability is top of mind for Navy and Marine Corps. I mean, everyone, right, ourselves included. So all of those things are kind of in the mix.”

She said the conversations HII has had with the Navy and Marine Corps focus on “if we understand a little bit better about how we want to evolve the capability, what we’re looking to retain, what’s maybe on the table for discussion that isn’t as interesting or compelling based on what you see the need for the ships to support in the future, then we can start looking at our design and sort of tailoring based on those expectations or potential requirements that pop out the other side of study.”

Wilkinson underscored that since they had a 3-D model of the Flight II LPD it gives them “some flexibility” to potentially make a more affordable option for the Navy.

“The more we think about that now and kind of gear up for that, we can give inputs to help them,” she said.

She underscored Ingalls brought some ideas forward and has had good conversations with the Navy program office and Marine Corps.

“So we actually brought some ideas forward and have had some good conversations with both the Navy program office and over at Quantico. So we’ll continue to do that.”

Wilkinson underscored that while the future of this class of amphibious ships is in the air, Ingalls Shipbuilding is seeking to retain its shipbuilders by working under a study contract on the submarine tender replacement program, called AS(X).

She said the company expects to see an AS(X) Request For Proposals later this year and “our offering might look like something else we build today. I mean, we have a steady contract. So in the absence of a solid amphib demand signal, we’re always going to be interested in what we can do to preserve our shipbuilders. We want to keep our shipbuilders in the facility so as we need to entertain other things we certainly will do that.”

Wilkinson did not reveal if HII sees a timeline for the eventual LPD decision, but they will keep advocating for bundles or block buys of ships.

“All I can say is we know this playbook. We’ve been in this position before, amphibs come one at a time, and we’ll continue to advocate for bundles and things like that. But, in the meantime, we’ll just respond to what our customers need.”

She did not presume how Congress would act but said “but we’re hopeful for support.”

Gen. David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps, disagrees with the cost complaints when comparing the prices without accounting for inflation and told a Senate Appropriations Committee panel he added LPD-33 to the service’s FY 2024 unfunded priorities list to highlight the Navy has no long term plans to procure more LPDs until the study is complete (Defense Daily, March 21).

The Navy, Marine Corps and HII all acknowledge the ideal construction timeline for LPD-type ships to retain steady production lines is procurement every two years. The Navy has until FY ‘25 to buy another LPD-type ship to retain that timetable.

In February, Executive Director for Program Executive Office Ships at Naval Sea Systems Command Tom Rivers said the Navy was not considering walking away from LPDs, but just working with the shipbuilder to find cost reductions, as they always do (Defense Daily, Feb. 27).