Should we sell the 2 LHAs (Assault Ships) in mothballs at Pearl Harbor to Japan and the Phillipines instead of sinking both at RIMPAC?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 19:33:23 -0400

1. My friend here on RP, Col. John Cole, lives near the mouth of Pearl Harbor and he has seen two mothballed LHAs that are good candidates for Foreign Military Sales. His fear is that they will be sunk,eventually, as part of the yearly RIMPAC exercise.
2. We should sell one to the Phillipines and another to Japan along with the some of the AV-8 Harries that are going soon to DM AFB.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 18 at 2016 7:46 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 19:46:45 -0400

Now you're just playing with my Emotions Major as a Jacques Cousteau Wannabe I love anytime they make a New Reef but as a Sailor I hate seeing a Ship Sink when someone could milk a bunch more years out of it. I agree. Let sell it with the Friend of the Family Discount.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 18 at 2016 7:55 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 19:55:45 -0400

Sell them. They'll become artificial reefs one day, sooner or later. Until then, let the government recoup some of their investment to spend on other hare-brained schemes.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 18 at 2016 8:05 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:05:49 -0400

Don't know the strategic case for or against this but a couple of those floating around the Pacific might just put a burr under the ChiCom's plans to intimidate the locals with artificial islands. Sure the higher-ups are keeping their options open on these two ships. It seems like yesterday they were touted as the newest and next best thing to come down the pike. Now they are passe and retired or being retired. 50 years already?

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 18 at 2016 8:07 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:07:56 -0400

Sell them.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 18 at 2016 9:22 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:22:57 -0400

Perhaps and I am just guessing here, but the NAVY should KEEP them because there might, one day come a time, maybe in the future when the NAVY might need a ship. Just Saying

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Jun 18 at 2016 10:41 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:41:36 -0400

Those are some tired old hulls and would need significant overhaul and SLEP - the AV-8 airframes are also at the end of the line - a lot of them are fairly close to max flight hours. While the Japanese have the technology base to support something like this, the Philipines wouldn't be able to maintain and support an LHA from a logistical standpoint, let alone AV-8.

Further, without appropriate escorts, an LHA is meaningless - so it's just not the LHA and airframes, it's the support infrastructure, suitable escorts (meaning capable AAW and ASUW platforms) - yes an LHA can be a 'baby carrier' but not that simple.

Furthermore the Japanese already have a very capable, much more modern helicopter carrier - the Izumo class 'helicopter destroyer' - while the Izumo class currently does not have a ski-jump ramp, it is a VSTOL capable platform and much more modern.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jun 19 at 2016 5:25 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 05:25:51 -0400

I actually am in the unique position that I deployed on LHA 1 (USS Tarawa) in 1989 and also worked in the shipyard that got her ready for being mothballed in 2010. The costs of getting her seaworthy again would be astronomical. I actually would be all for scrapping them both. The steel in them alone is worth millions. Unfortunately, due to environmental laws, shipbreaking is no longerprofitable in the US, and current laws forbid the US Navy from having foriegn nations do shipbreaking. Nothing to do with security, its envirionmental and worker's health that was behind it. The cheapest thing to do is make them reefs. The costs of just keeping them in mothballs is too high to justify keeping them aropund.

Response by MSgt Daniel Attilio made Jun 19 at 2016 9:09 AM

MSgt Daniel Attilio — Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:09:28 -0400

I would prefer to see one set up as a museum ship, what better platform to display Navy Marine Corps hardware & history. My time on LHAs was on the USS Belleau Wood many moons ago in support of Operation United Shield.
However, if that is not an option being sold to another nation for further service is preferable to sinking a capable vessel.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Jun 21 at 2016 8:49 AM

PO3 Donald Murphy — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:49:17 -0400

Sell them to Viet Nam. Selling them to Japan would be "okay" except Japan doesn't want them. They are building their own gear. Philippines doesn't need any. Selling ONE of them to Viet Nam would make them more of a threat to China and therefore more of a stabilizing force.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 21 at 2016 11:40 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:40:09 -0400

Are those LHAs even serviceable still? And do those nations want them....?

Response by LCDR Phil Bowden made Jun 21 at 2016 11:54 AM

LCDR Phil Bowden — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:54:17 -0400

I would offer LHA-1 to Taiwan, but that will not happen.

Response by LCDR Bart Denny made Jun 21 at 2016 12:14 PM

LCDR Bart Denny — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:14:34 -0400

I'm not altogether certain you could make a strategic case for either Japan or the Philippines receiving such ships. They were getting a little long in the tooth when they were mothballed and, while they receive more maintenance than stricken ships (they are reserve, in maintenance category "B"--the highest for out-of-commission ships), reactivating them would be costly by any standard. Certainly, Japan could reactivate, operate, and maintain them, but why, when they can build more modern ships offering many of the same capabilities (such as the Izumo-class helicopter carriers)? I doubt it would be very cost effective for Japan, when compared to other alternatives--assuming Japan even needs the capabilities of an LHA. As for the Philippines, the USA would definitely have to reactivate them, and the operations and routine maintenance of such a large ship would, undoubtedly, be much more than the Philippine Navy could handle. A retired SWO's $0.02 for you.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jun 21 at 2016 12:29 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:29:08 -0400

Another thought is even if we gave them to PI could the Filipinos afford to man them and operate them on their own? Kinda wonder. We are doing a pretty good job of protecting them as is. Same with Japan which still doesn't want to assume a posture which might remind people of being offensive. Haven't heard too much out of Taiwan on this issue either.

Response by PO3 Dennis Stockinger made Jun 21 at 2016 1:40 PM

PO3 Dennis Stockinger — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:40:06 -0400

I don't see anything wrong with selling these to allies they are old run about 25 knots and ride rough in heavy seas lets get what money we can and reinvent it into ships we are still using just don't let government touch the funds

Response by PO1 Scott Cottrell made Jun 21 at 2016 4:19 PM

PO1 Scott Cottrell — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:19:14 -0400

It's just a case of how much Japan or the Philippines would be willing to spend on them. I have made WESTPAC's on two of them. LHA-3 (89) and LHA-1 (90-91 Gulf War). Also Did a PACEX on LHA-5 (also 89). Tarawa would not be something to try to sell, as anyone who has been on her knows there is a crack that runs along it's superstructure due to taking heavy rolls. Any country wanting to buy them, it would take a lot of money to make them seaworthy again. I don't think the Philippines could afford one, Japan maybe, but I think they are too out of date for them to want.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Jun 21 at 2016 11:04 PM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Tue, 21 Jun 2016 23:04:06 -0400

I'm not seeing the point in selling these two vessels to any foreign nation, when we have shortages of fresh water in our own backyards ! I'd place a better value on them by turning them into desalination plants to areas of our own country, were we have water shortages and extreme droughts with spontaneous fires out of control . Creating jobs for people who have been unemployed for months, invest in them by training them to run the equipment aboard these vessels. There are facilities which could be revitalized such as the berthing facilities, galley etc to accommodate their day to day essential needs. In addition providing essential water for the use in firefighting for the local departments, which are battling the extreme fires in some of these areas in need. The last resort sell them for scrap or turn them into reefs.

Response by SCPO Lonny Randolph made Jun 23 at 2016 10:35 AM

SCPO Lonny Randolph — Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:35:19 -0400

I was stationed on USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) from 84-91. She was a fine old girl and had a lot of capability, but even when I left her she was a tired old girl and technologically behind the curve. I was heartbroken when they killed her at RIMPAC a decade or so later, but there was no sense in letting her swing off a hook till she sank of disuse. If we cant scrap these proud ladies because of environmental concerns it doesn't make sense to sell them either. An LHA without a support fleet is a target waiting to be sunk by someone who has less respect for her than her own fleet does. A good support package won't work out either - it simply would cost us more than we could be paid. I say salute the proud old ladies and let them go to their rest while helping our active fleet as a training exercise.

Response by PO1 Harry Hallett made Jun 27 at 2016 5:01 PM

PO1 Harry Hallett — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:01:18 -0400

Major, I served my first tour ('79-'82) aboard the USS Nassau (LHA-4) which is now mothballed and rides at anchor at Beaumont, TX. She has a very special place in my heart and, while I would rather see her or any of her sisters that are still above water put back to sea, I have to agree with the others here who have laid out the reality that, like me, the LHAs are old and have far too many nautical miles under their keels to make reactivation economically viable. Japan has more capable ships in their Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers and the Philippines, in my opinion, would be wasting its money purchasing such a vessel since, among other things, the money spent for modifications and upgrades to an LHA could be better spent continuing to modernize other parts of the Philippine Navy.

In my estimation, a better use for the LHAs would be, as SCPO Knight has suggested, to turn them over to civilian use for emergency services or perhaps, as the non-profit organization Coalition of Hope has proposed for the ex-USS Nassau, making them into modern versions of the SS Hope (the ex-USS Consolation, a Haven-class Hospital Ship that was used by Project Hope) to sail to parts of the world requiring humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief support.