With some modifications, the existing expeditionary fast transport (EPF) design, formerly known as the joint high-speed vessel (JHSV), can meet the Navy and Marine Corps requirement for a light amphibious warship (LAW). In the Marine Corps’ annual Force Design 2030 update released in May 2022, it was announced that Military Sealift Command expeditionary sea base (ESB) and expeditionary fast transport (EPF) vessels will be used as interim solutions until the LAW is delivered.
With the fielding of a LAW likely to slip to 2028 or beyond, a decision to use existing EPF platforms in the interim is a sound one. It offers the opportunity to test concepts of employment as well as determine required capabilities for any future LAW design under real-world operating conditions, allowing the Navy and Marine Corps to modify LAW requirements before design finalization.
The original stated LAW program requirements include that it be based on an existing design and program of record or existing technologies to minimize risk and facilitate rapid fielding. Additional requirements for the LAW design include a beachable, stern-landing capability, a speed of 14–22 knots, and 8,000–12,000 square feet of cargo stowage. Regarding the speed requirement, even the maximum speed of 22 knots seems at odds with the Marine Corps’ expeditionary advanced base operations (EABO) concept that calls for Marine littoral regiment elements to be inserted into and extracted from austere forward locations within the combat zone. Presumably this would need to be conducted at a rapid speed to minimize enemy targeting and foster surprise.
Further, a vessel that beaches itself for stern-ramp loading/unloading means that its means of propulsion and maneuver, be it propellers and rudders or steerable waterjets, would be vulnerable to damage as the vessel is driven into the surf zone and onto the beach. Although commercial stern-landing vessels exist, a review of the world’s major navies reveals that stern-first, beachable-landing vessels are not in service.
The stern-landing ramp was justified by stating that a bow-ramp design would limit the top speed of the LAW. This is also at odds with the stated speed requirement of 14–22 knots. A bow-ramp design is capable of seakeeping at 22 knots. The Newport County–class tank landing ships (LSTs) that served from the 1970s to the 1990s possessed a bow-ramp design, in which the bow ramp was located above the portion of the bow that would be moving through the sea. This unique design allowed for both speed and a bow-ramp beaching capability. In other words, speed and a bow-ramp design are not necessarily incompatible, certainly not at the stated required speed for the LAW.
Rather than an interim LAW, the EPF should be considered the permanent answer to the LAW requirement. With its 40+ knot speed, cargo capacity of 600 tons, shallow draft, and extendable swivel vehicle ramp at the stern with supporting cargo crane, the existing EPF could meet all the LAW program requirements as well as address additional unforeseen requirements. However, some modifications would be required to make the EPF fully capable of operating inside an enemy’s weapon engagement zone (WEZ) in support of EABO.
EPF-to-LAW Structural Modifications
In touring an EPF a few years ago, I remarked to the civilian master that the ship’s bow design lends itself to including an integrated bow ramp. He agreed and said it would be feasible with some modification of the ship’s forward most bulkhead—a catamaran design in which the bow section is always out of the water. This would answer the LAW requirement for a shore-to-shore beach landing at speed without having to beach the ship stern-first.
Already equipped with a flight deck and open hangar-like area for vertical flight operations, at a minimum the EPF flight deck would need to be reinforced to handle the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and CH-53K King Stallion helicopters. Enclosing the existing hangar-like area and making it a true aircraft hangar would be desirable but not essential. Additional modifications would include eliminating the “passenger ferry” wrap around windows in the forward portion of the vessel and internal changes for troop embarkation, though embarks would be of short duration by nature of the expected missions. The extendable stern-vehicle ramp and cargo crane should be retained.
Survivability
In its current form, the EPF is not survivable in anything but a permissive operating environment. To convert it into a viable LAW, modifications would be required regarding compartmentation, watertight integrity, and ship self-defense.
The JHSV master pointed out that he did the weight-and-moment calculations to determine that a rolling airframe missile (RAM) launcher could be mounted on the vessel’s aft starboard superstructure corner. Therefore, mounting either a RAM or SeaRAM missile defense system launcher is feasible. On the foc’sle there is an open, square compartment that might be suitable for a modified version of the littoral combat ship surface-to-surface missile module for Hellfire Long Bow short-range missiles, providing defense against fast-attack craft or other surface threats. Further, weapon systems such as the Mk 46 30-mm gun system could be installed below the bridge on both sides. Passive protection in the form of lightweight armor covering vital spaces would be another required modification. Finally, electronic warfare sensors and decoy launchers could be mounted topside behind the bridge area.
In addition to the structural and ship-survivability recommendations above, using the EPF design as the basis for the LAW would require the ships be commissioned as U.S. Navy ships with the “USS” designation and manned exclusively by U.S. Navy officers and enlisted personnel. This would prevent any restriction in employment that would come with civilian manning.
Why Wait?
There are many benefits to using a modified version of the EPF design to meet the LAW requirement. The EPF is a proven design that could meet all LAW program requirements. And it should reduce cost, as the LAW would benefit from a “hot” production line and the attendant economy-of-scale production. The EPF’s high speed and shallow draft would effectively support the “shoot and scoot” dynamic repositioning necessary for effective EABO. Furthermore, as the Navy decommissions some littoral combat ships, there would exist a pool of personnel already familiar with propulsion and shiphandling systems similar to those found on an EPF.
A light amphibious warship derived from the EPF design could deliver anything in the Marine Corps inventory, at speed and shore-to-shore. With the modest modifications proposed, the EPF-turned-LAW could defend itself and embarked Marines. The design is mature, and the production line is up and running. Time to move out.