Skip to comments.Keel Laid For Amphibious Warship Tripoli
Posted on 06/25/2014 6:54:05 PM PDT by robowombat
Keel Laid For Amphibious Warship Tripoli
By: Sam LaGrone Published: June 20, 2014 3:21 PM Updated: June 20, 2014 3:21 PM
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus delivers remarks during the keel-laying ceremony for the amphibious assault ship Tripoli (LHA-7). US Navy Photo Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus delivers remarks during the keel-laying ceremony for the amphibious assault ship Tripoli (LHA-7). US Navy Photo
The keel for the next-generation amphibious warship Tripoli (LHA-7) was laid in a ceremony at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss. on Friday. The ceremony marked the official start of construction for the second America-class landing helicopter dock for the U.S., following the $3 billion first-in-class America (LHA-6) which plans to commission later this year.
Like America, Tripoli boasts a very credible and capable aviation centric design that replaces the Tarawa class of amphibious assault ships, Capt. Christopher Mercer, Amphibious Warfare Program Manager within Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships said in a Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) statement. The design brings with it increased capabilities and will maximize the Navys investment in future aircraft.
America (LHA-6) returns to Ingalls Shipyard Jan. 31, 2014 from acceptance trials. US Navy Photo America (LHA-6) returns to Ingalls Shipyard Jan. 31, 2014 from acceptance trials. US Navy Photo
Each of the 45,000-ton ships in the class are optimized for modern Marine aircraft like the MV-22 tilt-rotor Osprey and the short takeoff-vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
However, America and Tripoli were designed without a well deck which allows a ship to take on and disembark amphibious landing craft much to the protest of the Marine Corps.
LHA-8 will be redesigned to incorporate a well deck into the design.
Kheel-laying? How about a “kheel-hauling” of Mabus, the curse of the Navy?
Naming it the “Tripoli” is really bad timing. How about the USS Christopher Smith Betrayed? That’s more like Mabus.
the USS Whats the Difference
Nah, I like the name Tripoli. It’s a reminder of greater days of the U.S Navy and U.S Presidents, bravery and honor and all the good jazz.
It’s also a slight thumb in the eye to the Muslim world. Thinking about it now, I’m almost astonished they haven’t bound and banned it in the chains of political correctness.
We’re still spending money on this nonsense? In a few years it will be given to the NYPD to patrol New York Harbor anyway...
Active Duty ping.
How on earth can they call it an amphibious assault ship when there is no well deck?
I flew the CH-53D Sea Stallion, which is a great helo (and the -53E and 53K that follow) but you still must have landing craft to get the tanks and the tons & tons of ammo, rations, fuel, etc ashore to support the Marines who make the initial vertical assault via helos & Ospreys.
Landing craft require a well deck. I’ve done the old “climb down the cargo net into the landing craft” bit. It ain’t fun when the boat’s bobbin and you’re wearing a 95lb pack. Well deck is the only way to board or load gear into landing craft.
From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We will fight our country's battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.
Come on everyone! Sing along!
Not sure, but I think they use a hidden deck, located aft. perhaps on both sides, I can’t really tell from the pics presented...
Reminds me of a cruise ship dock. A section of the bulkhead moves up and folds, and the crane jib extends over the opening as a dock extends at the water line..
But I may just be seeing things...
However, America and Tripoli were designed without a well deck
The "well deck" is a giant pool in the center of the aft portion of the ship which has ballast tanks running along either side. When these ballast tanks are flooded, the well deck sinks to below the water line. At the stern there are doors that open to allow access to the well deck from the sea. Landing craft, LCACs and Amtracks can be loaded within the well deck, then sail out through the stern doors.
thanks,for the post, sir/ma’am.
But that dock would not take in and launch like a well deck.
I read that the marines are complaining about the lack of one. it is possible they could design one for the 3rd ship, but the first two sure don't have one.
I am wondering if it is because the brass thought they could do without it as they will be launching Osprey's...
I don't see what you are referring to as a "dock". Which photo? Where is the "dock" located?
...the brass thought they could do without it as they will be launching Osprey's...
The Osprey only carries about 2/3rd the Internal load of a CH-53E and about half the External load of the -53E.
Spent four years on the ship in your bottom picture: USS Peleliu (LHA-5).
Defense of New York Harbor, and any other harbor in the United States is the responsibility of the U.S. Coast Guard, not the U.S. Navy. During WWII it was the U.S. Army that was responsible for harbor defense within U.S. territorial waters.
The point was that rather than being built for a real war, this is being built as workfare make-work, and will eventually end up in the hands of civil authorities like so much of the equipment left over from our losses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What makes you think that this ship is not built for a real war? What civil authorities operate Carriers, Cruisers
Destroyers, Frigates, LHAs LHDs, LPDs, SSNs or SSBNs left over from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We’re past conventional wars; the civil authorities that are using military Humvees and such might use such craft to ferry more illegals here. We have no shortage of ships, and are spending money like drunken sailors just to keep people employed.
IMO, the Navy and Marines have numerous craft with “wells” on them, as I used to work for a shipyard. saw plenty of them back in the 80s..(don't know what they have now)
If you recall, we had only one large helicopter carrier for the last couple of decades and it saw a lot of use. The needs then and now were not for one with a “well”. They needed a floating airport for the choppers and now the Osprey and VTO’s.
So now they have two new modern ones.
Far as I know, large multicraft amphibious assaults are not very useful for land locked trouble spots. It seems we use aircraft more often and for large loads we do have ships that travel with carrier groups that have the capabilities you are requesting.
So it seems clear to me that the need for air support trumped the Marines desire to have a cargo watercraft capability as well on the same platform.
I am not trying to defend the decisions that were made. but I am trying to point out that there is a lot of logistical capability in the Navy, and there was a gap or need that these ships fill and the need was not for a “well”.
As to the location of the dock that I believe I saw on the ship, it is aft, as I said. It appears to be at the water line (just above) and there appears to be a section hull that moves and what looks like a platform. (As I said, similar to a cruise ship) There is a gantry crane positioned over head...Starboard side.
It is no doubt used for provisioning and probably for launching small boats and receiving personnel. I suppose one could use it for just about any purpose but it would not be a suitable for combat as a “well”. IMO..