Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious
Ship Programs: Background and Issues for
Congress
Updated July 11, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R43543

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Summary
The Navy is procuring two types of larger amphibious ships: LHA-type “big-deck” amphibious
assault ships and LPD-17 Flight II class amphibious ships. Both types are built by Huntington
Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS.
Section 1023 of the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-
263 of December 23, 2022) amended 10 U.S.C. 8062 to require the Navy to include not less than
31 operational larger amphibious ships, including not less than 10 LHA/LHD-type “big-deck”
amphibious assault ships and the remaining ships to be LPD-type or older LSD-type amphibious
ships. Section 129 of the FY2023 NDAA permits the Navy to enter into a block buy contract for
procuring a combination of up to five LHA-type and LPD-17 amphibious ships.
Oversight issues for Congress regarding larger amphibious ships include whether the Navy
intends to use the authority for an LHA-LPD-17 block-buy contract, technical and cost risk in the
LPD-17 Flight II and LHA programs, and the operational readiness of in-service amphibious
ships.
The Navy’s Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirement (BFSAR) study, which was provided
to the congressional defense committees in June 2023, calls for achieving a future fleet of 381
manned battle force ships, including 31 larger amphibious ships, consisting of 10 LHA- and
LHD-type “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, and 21 LPD- and older LSD-type amphibious
ships. While the Biden Administration has not explicitly endorsed the Navy’s 381-ship goal or
any other force-level goal for the Navy, the above-mentioned requirement in 10 U.S.C. 8062 for
having 31 larger amphibious ships applies in any case. Taking into account the 13 LPD-17 Flight
I class ships that were procured in FY1996-FY2017, achieving a force of 21 LPD-type
amphibious ships would require procuring a total of 8 ships built to the LPD-17 Flight II design
or a follow-on design.
Three LPD-17 Flight II ships were procured in FY2018-FY2023. The Navy’s FY2023 and
FY2024 5-year shipbuilding plans did not include the procurement of any additional LPD-17
Flight II ships, and the Navy’s FY2023 and FY2024 30-year shipbuilding plans projected that the
Navy in coming years would include fewer than 31 larger amphibious ships. The absence of
additional LPD-17 Flight II ships in the Navy’s five-year shipbuilding plans and the projected
force of fewer than 31 larger amphibious ships were prominent oversight issues in Congress’s
review of the Navy’s proposed FY2023 and FY2024 budgets, leading to the above-mentioned
Section 1023 of the FY2023 (NDAA) and additional provisions relating to amphibious ships in
the FY2024 NDAA (H.R. 2670/P.L. 118-31 of December 22, 2023).
The Navy’s FY2025 five-year shipbuilding plan includes three additional LPD-17 Flight II class
ships to be procured in FY2025, FY2027, and FY2029, and the Navy’s FY2025 30-year
shipbuilding plan projects that the Navy in coming years will maintain 31 amphibious ships. The
Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests $1,562.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) to complete
the procurement cost of the LPD-17 Flight II ship requested for procurement in FY2025.
Marine Corps officials in public remarks have called attention to the number of in-service
amphibious ships that are not operationally ready because they are undergoing or need
maintenance and repair work, and have stated that inadequate numbers of operationally ready
amphibious ships have resulted in instances of where the Navy has not been able to meet requests
from U.S. regional combatant commanders for amphibious ships for day-to-day forward presence
or responding to contingencies.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 18 link to page 21 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Appendixes
Appendix. Procurement Dates of LPD-31 and LHA-9 ................................................................. 14

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 17
Congressional Research Service

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Introduction
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on two types of amphibious
ships being procured by the Navy: LHA-type “big-deck” amphibious assault ships and LPD-17
Flight II class amphibious ships. Both types are built by Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls
Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS.
Oversight issues for Congress regarding larger amphibious ships include whether the Navy
intends to use authority provided by Congress for an LHA-LPD-17 block-buy contract, technical
and cost risk in the LPD-17 Flight II and LHA programs, and the operational readiness of in-
service amphibious ships. Decisions that Congress makes on procurement amphibious ships could
substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the shipbuilding industrial
base.
A separate CRS report discusses the Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM) program, previously
known as the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program.1
Background
U.S. Navy Amphibious Ships
Roles and Missions
Navy amphibious ships are operated by the Navy, with crews consisting of Navy personnel. They
are battle force ships, meaning ships that count toward the quoted size of the Navy and toward the
Navy’s force-level goal. The primary function of Navy amphibious ships is to lift (i.e., transport)
embarked U.S. Marines and their weapons, equipment, and supplies to distant operating areas,
and enable Marines to conduct expeditionary operations ashore in those areas. Although
amphibious ships can be used to support Marine landings against opposing military forces, they
are also used for operations in permissive or benign situations where there are no opposing forces.
Due to their large storage spaces and their ability to use helicopters and landing craft to transfer
people, equipment, and supplies from ship to shore without need for port facilities,2 amphibious
ships are potentially useful for a range of combat and noncombat operations.3
On any given day, some of the Navy’s amphibious ships, like some of the Navy’s other ships, are
forward-deployed to various overseas operating areas. Amphibious ships typically are forward-
deployed in multiship formations called amphibious groups (ARGs). Amphibious ships are also

1 CRS Report R46374, Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
2 Amphibious ships have berthing spaces for Marines; storage space for their wheeled vehicles, their other combat
equipment, and their supplies; flight decks and hangar decks for their helicopters and vertical take-off and landing
(VTOL) fixed-wing aircraft; and in many cases well decks for storing and launching their landing craft. (A well deck is
a large, garage-like space in the stern of the ship. It can be flooded with water so that landing craft can leave or return
to the ship. Access to the well deck is protected by a large stern gate that is somewhat like a garage door.)
3 Amphibious ships and their embarked Marine forces can be used for launching and conducting humanitarian-
assistance and disaster-response (HA/DR) operations; peacetime engagement and partnership-building activities, such
as exercises; other nation-building operations, such as reconstruction operations; operations to train, advise, and assist
foreign military forces; peace-enforcement operations; noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs); maritime-security
operations, such as anti-piracy operations; smaller-scale strike and counterterrorism operations; and larger-scale ground
combat operations. Amphibious ships and their embarked Marine forces can also be used for maintaining forward-
deployed naval presence for purposes of deterrence, reassurance, and maintaining regional stability.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

sometimes forward-deployed on an individual basis, particularly for conducting peacetime
engagement activities with foreign countries or for responding to smaller-scale or noncombat
contingencies.
Types of Amphibious Ships
The Navy’s current amphibious ship force currently consists entirely of larger amphibious ships,
including the so-called “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, designated LHA and LHD, which
look like medium-sized aircraft carriers, and the smaller (but still quite sizeable) amphibious
ships, designated LPD or LSD, which are sometimes called “small-deck” amphibious ships.4 As
mentioned earlier, a separate CRS report discusses the Navy’s Medium Landing Ship (LSM)
program, previously known as the Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program, which is a
program to build a new type of amphibious ship that would be much smaller than the Navy’s
current LHA/LHD- and LPD/LSD-type amphibious ships.5
Amphibious Ship Force-Level Goal
Requirement in 10 U.S.C. 8062
10 U.S.C. 8062(b) requires the Navy to include not less than 31 operational amphibious warfare
ships, consisting of not less than 10 LHA/LHD-type “big-deck” amphibious assault ships and the
remaining ships to be LPD/LSD-type amphibious ships. The requirement for the Navy to include
these numbers and types of amphibious ships was added to 10 U.S.C. 8062 by Section 1023 of
the FY2023 (NDAA) (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-263 of December 23, 2022).
Force-Level Goal Under Navy’s 381-Ship Plan
The Navy’s Battle Force Ship Assessment and Requirement (BFSAR) study, which was provided
to the congressional defense committees in June 2023, calls for achieving a future fleet of 381
manned battle force ships, including 31 larger amphibious ships, consisting of 10 LHA- and
LHD-type “big-deck” amphibious assault ships and 21 LPD- and older LSD-type amphibious
ships. While the Biden Administration has not explicitly endorsed the Navy’s 381-ship goal or
any other force-level goal for the Navy, the above-mentioned requirement in 10 U.S.C. 8062 for
having 31 larger amphibious ships applies in any case.6
FY2023 and FY2024 NDAA Provisions
The FY2023 NDAA included the following provisions relating to the amphibious ship force-level
goal:

4 U.S. Navy amphibious ships have designations starting with the letter L, as in amphibious landing. LHA can be
translated as landing ship, helicopter-capable, assault; LHD can be translated as landing ship, helicopter-capable, well
deck; LPD can be translated as landing ship, helicopter platform, well deck; and LSD can be translated as landing ship,
well deck. Whether noted in the designation or not, almost all these ships have well decks. The exceptions are LHAs 6
and 7, which do not have well decks and instead have expanded aviation support capabilities. For an explanation of
well decks, see footnote 2. The terms “big-deck” and “small-deck” refer to the size of the ship’s flight deck.
5 CRS Report R46374, Navy Medium Landing Ship (LSM) (Previously Light Amphibious Warship [LAW]) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke
6 For more on the Navy’s 381-ship goal, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. For a review of earlier amphibious ship force structure
requirements, see Appendix A of archived CRS Report RL34476, Navy LPD-17 Amphibious Ship Procurement:
Background, Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 link to page 8 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

• Section 1022 amended 10 U.S.C. 8026 to require the Secretary of the Navy to
ensure that the views of the Commandant of the Marine Corps are given
appropriate consideration before a major decision is made by an element of the
Department of the Navy outside the Marine Corps on a matter that directly
concerns amphibious force structure and capability.
• Section 1023, as noted earlier, amended 10 U.S.C. 8062 to require the Navy to
include not less than 31 operational larger amphibious ships, including 10
LHA/LHD-type ships and the remaining ships to be LPD or LSD type ships.
• Section 1025 amended 10 U.S.C. 8695 to state that, in preparing a periodic battle
force ship assessment and requirement, the Commandant of the Marine Corps
shall be specifically responsible for developing the requirements relating to
amphibious warfare ships.
The FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (H.R. 2670/P.L. 118-31 of December
22, 2023) included the following provisions relating to the amphibious ship force-level goal:
• Section 348 directed the Navy to submit, as part of its FY2025 budget
submission, a 30-year shipbuilding plan that “meets the statutory requirement to
maintain 31 amphibious warships as found in section 8062(b) of title 10, United
States Code,” and prohibited the obligation and expenditure of more than 50% of
FY2024 funds for Administration and Servicewide Activities within the
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OPN), account until such a plan is submitted.
• Section 1019 amended 10 U.S.C. 8695(e), which sets forth the role of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps in the preparation of an annual Navy battle
force ship assessment and requirement, to state that the Commandant shall be
specifically responsible for not only “for developing the requirements relating to
amphibious warfare ships,” as previously stated in 10 U.S.C. 8695(e), but also
“for naval vessels with the primary mission of transporting Marines.”
Current and Projected Numbers of Amphibious Ships
The Navy’s force of amphibious ships at the end of FY2023 included 31 larger ships, including 9
LHA/LHD-type “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, 12 LPD-17 Flight I class ships, and 10
older LSD-41/49 class ships. The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission projects that the Navy at the
end of FY2024 will include 32 larger amphibious ships, including 9 LHA/LHD-type “big-deck”
ships, 13 LPD Flight I class ships, and 10 LSD-41/49 class ships, and that the Navy at the end of
FY2025 will include 31 larger amphibious ships, including 9 LHA/LHD-type “big-deck” ships,
13 LPD Flight I class ships, and 9 LSD-41/49 class ships. The Navy’s FY2025 30-year (FY2025-
FY2054) shipbuilding plan projects that the Navy will include 31 larger amphibious ships for the
entire 30-year period.
Existing LSD-41/49 Class Ships
The Navy procured a total of 12 Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class ships (Figure
1) procured between FY1981 and FY1993. The ships entered service between 1985 and 1998.7
The LSD-41/49 class included 12 ships because the class was built at a time when the Navy was

7 The class was initially known as the Whidbey Island (LSD-41) class. The final four ships in the class, beginning with
Harpers Ferry (LSD-49), were built to a modified version of the original LSD-41 design, prompting the name of the
class to be changed to the Harpers Ferry/Whidbey Island (LSD-41/49) class. Some sources refer to these 12 ships as
two separate classes.
Congressional Research Service

3

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

planning a 36-ship amphibious force that included 12 LSD-41/49 class ships. LSD-41/49 class
ships have an expected service life of 40 years. The Navy began retiring LSD-41/49 class ships in
2021.
Figure 1. LSD-41/49 Class Ship

Source: Cropped version of U.S. Navy photo dated July 13, 2013, showing the Pearl Harbor (LSD-52).
Amphibious Warship Industrial Base
Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding (HII/Ingalls) of Pascagoula, MS, is the Navy’s
current builder of both LHA- and LPD-type amphibious ships, although other U.S. shipyards
could also build amphibious ships.8 The amphibious warship industrial base also includes many
supplier firms in numerous U.S. states that provide materials and components for Navy
amphibious ships. The Amphibious Warship Industrial Base Coalition (AWIBC), an association
of many of these firms, describes itself as “a coalition of 650 companies in 39 states and 249
Congressional districts.”9
LPD-17 Flight II Program
Program Origin and Name
The Navy decided in 2014 that the LSD-41/49 replacement ships would be built to a variant of
the design of the Navy’s San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships. (A total of 13 LPD-17
class ships [LPDs 17 through 29] were procured between FY1996 and FY2017.) Reflecting that
decision, the Navy announced on April 10, 2018, that the replacement ships would be known as
the LPD-17 Flight II class ships.10 By implication, the Navy’s original LPD-17 design became the

8 Amphibious ships could also be built by U.S. shipyards such as HII/Newport News Shipbuilding (HII/NNS) of
Newport News, VA; General Dynamics/National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (GD/NASSCO) of San Diego, CA;
and (for LPDs at least) General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works (GD/BIW) of Bath, ME. The Navy over the years has from
time to time conducted competitions among shipyards for contracts to build amphibious ships.
9 See, for example, Amphibious Warship Industrial Base Coalition, “Amphibious Warship Suppliers Return to Capitol
Hill to Advocate for Amphibious Warships,” press release dated March 8, 2024.
10 Megan Eckstein, “Navy Designates Upcoming LX(R) Amphibs as San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II,” USNI News,
April 11, 2018. Within a program to build a class of Navy ships, the term flight refers to a group of ships within the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 link to page 18 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

LPD-17 Flight I design. The first LPD-17 Flight II class ship is designated LPD-30. Subsequent
LPD-17 Flight II class ships are designated LPD-31, LPD-32, and so on.
Whether the LPD-17 Flight II class ships constitute their own shipbuilding program or an
extension of the original LPD-17 shipbuilding program might be a matter of perspective. As a
matter of convenience, this CRS report refers to the Flight II class shipbuilding effort as a
separate program. Years from now, LPD-17 Flight I and Flight II class ships might come to be
known collectively as either the LPD-17 class, the LPD-17/30 class, or the LPD-17 and LPD-30
classes. On October 10, 2019, the Navy announced that LPD-30, the first LPD-17 Flight II class
ship, will be named Harrisburg, for the city of Harrisburg, PA.11 As a consequence, LPD-17 Flight
II ships, if treated as a separate class, would be referred to as Harrisburg (LPD-30) class ships.
Design
Compared to the LPD-17 Flight I design, the LPD-17 Flight II design (Figure 2) is somewhat
less expensive to procure, and in some ways less capable—a reflection of how the Flight II design
was developed to meet Navy and Marine Corps operational requirements while staying within a
unit procurement cost target that had been established for the program.12 In many other respects,
however, the LPD-17 Flight II design is similar in appearance and capabilities to the LPD-17
Flight I design. Of the 13 LPD-17 Flight I class ships, the final two (LPDs 28 and 29) incorporate
some design changes that make them transitional ships between the Flight I design and the Flight
II design.
Procurement Cost
LPD-17 Flight II class ships have a current estimated unit procurement cost of about $2.0 billion.
Procurement Quantity and FY2025 Funding Request
The first LPD-17 Flight II class ship (LPD-30) was procured in FY2018, the second (LPD-31) in
FY2020 (the Navy states that the year was FY2021),13 and the third (LPD-32) in FY2023. The
Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests the procurement of a fourth LPD-17 Flight II ship in
FY2025, and requests $1,562.0 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) to complete the procurement cost
of this ship.

class that are built to a particular version of the class design. The LPD-17 Fight II program was previously known as
the LX(R) program and before that as the LSD(X) program.
11 Secretary of the Navy Public Affairs, “SECNAV Names Future Amphibious Transport Dock Ship in Honor of the
city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,” Navy News Service, October 10, 2019.
12 The Navy’s unit procurement cost targets for the LPD-17 Flight II program were $1,643 million in constant FY2014
dollars for the lead ship, and an average of $1,400 million in constant FY2014 dollars for ships 2 through 11. (Source:
Navy briefing on LX(R) program to CRS and CBO, March 23, 2015.) The cost target for the lead ship was greater than
the cost target for the subsequent ships primarily because the procurement cost of the lead ship incorporates much or all
of the detail design and nonrecurring engineering (DD/NRE) costs for the program. Incorporating much or all of the
DD/NRE costs of for a shipbuilding program into the procurement cost of the lead ship in the program is a traditional
Navy shipbuilding budgeting practice.
13 For further discussion, see the Appendix.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 11 link to page 12

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Figure 2. LPD-17 Flight II Design
Artist’s rendering

Source: Cropped version of Huntington Ingalls Industries rendering accessed March 2, 2021, at
https://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/file?fid=5c9a85ca2cfac22774673031.
LHA-9 Amphibious Assault Ship
LHA-type amphibious assault ships (Figure 3 and Figure 4) are procured once every few years.
The most recent such ship to be procured, LHA-9, was procured in FY2023. The Navy’s FY2025
budget submission estimates its procurement cost at $3,834.3 million (i.e., about $3.8 billion).
Under the Navy’s FY2025 budget submission, the next LHA-type ship, LHA-10, is programmed
for procurement in FY2027 at an estimated total procurement cost of $ 4,560.2 million (i.e., about
$4.6 billion). The ship has received $289.0 million in FY2023 advance procurement (AP)
funding, and the Navy’s proposed FY2025 budget requests another $61.1 million in AP funding
for the ship.
Proposed Retirements of LSD-41/49-Class Ships
The Navy’s FY2025 budget submission proposes retiring one LSD-41/49 class amphibious ship
in FY2025, two in FY2026, one in FY2028, and one in FY2029, all at age 40.
NDAA Provisions Authorizing Block Buys
FY2021 and FY2022 NDAAs
Section 124 of the FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395/P.L. 116-283 of January 1, 2021), as amended by
Section 121 of the FY2022 NDAA (S. 1605/P.L. 117-821 of December 27, 2021), permitted the
Navy to enter into a block buy contract in FY2021 or FY2022 for the procurement of three LPD-
17 class ships and one LHA-type amphibious assault ship. Such a contract would have been the
first block buy contract to cover the procurement of ships from two separate ship classes. Using
block buy contracting could reduce the unit procurement costs of LPD-17 Flight II and LHA-type
Congressional Research Service

6

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

ships and affect Congress’s flexibility for making changes to Navy shipbuilding programs in
response to potential changes in strategic or budgetary circumstances during the period covered
by the block buy contract.14 The Navy did not use this authority.
Figure 3. LHA-8 Amphibious Assault Ship
Artist’s rendering

Source: Rendering accompanying Tyler Rogoway, “The Next America Class Amphibious Assault Ship Wil
Almost Be In a Class of its Own,” The Drive, April 17, 2018. A note on the photo credits the photo to HII.
FY2023 NDAA
Section 129 of the FY2023 NDAA permits the Navy to enter into a block buy contract for
procuring a combination of up to five LPD-17 and LHA-type amphibious ships. Similar to the
point made in the previous paragraph, such a contract would be the first block buy contract to
cover the procurement of ships from two separate ship classes. As noted above, using block buy
contracting could reduce the unit procurement costs of LPD-17 Flight II and LHA-type ships and
affect Congress’s flexibility for making changes to Navy shipbuilding programs in response to
potential changes in strategic or budgetary circumstances during the period covered by the block
buy contract. At an April 17 hearing on FY2025 seapower and projection forces programs before
the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, the
Department of the Navy (DON) testified that HII/Ingalls had informed DON that, as estimated by
HII/Ingalls, using the block buy contract authority could reduce the combined procurement cost

14 For more on block buy contracting, see CRS Report R41909, Multiyear Procurement (MYP) and Block Buy
Contracting in Defense Acquisition: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke. See also Megan
Eckstein, “Ingalls Eyeing LPD Cost Reductions, Capability Increases As Future Fleet Design Evolves,” USNI News,
January 21, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

7

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

of the ships being procured under the contract by about $914 million.15 As of April 2024, the
Navy has not used this authority.
Figure 4. LHA-7 Amphibious Assault Ship
Shown with 20 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) on Flight Deck

Source: Photograph accompanying Stavros Atlamazoglou, “The US’s Experimental ‘Lightning Carriers’ Are
‘Much More Capable’ than China’s Current Carriers, US Admiral Says,” Business Insider, December 6, 2022. The
article credits the photograph to U.S. Marine Corps/Sgt. Samuel Ruiz.
Issues for Congress
Use of Block Buy Contract Authority
One issue for Congress is whether the Navy intends to use the LPD-LHA block buy contracting
authority provided by Congress in Section 129 of the FY2023 NDAA, and if not, then what, if
anything, Congress should do in response. As noted earlier, using block buy contracting could
reduce the unit procurement costs of LPD-17 Flight II and LHA-type ships and affect Congress’s
flexibility for making changes to Navy shipbuilding programs in response to potential changes in
strategic or budgetary circumstances during the period covered by the block buy contract. As
noted earlier, at an April 17 hearing on FY2025 seapower and projection forces programs before
the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, the
Department of the Navy (DON) testified that HII/Ingalls had informed DON that, as estimated by
HII/Ingalls, using the block buy contract authority could reduce the combined procurement cost
of the ships being procured under the contract by about $914 million.
A May 2, 2024, press report stated:

15 Source: Spoken testimony of Lieutenant General Karsten Heckl, Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and
Integration, and Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, as reflected in the CQ
transcript for the hearing. See also Justin Katz, “Multi-Ship Amphib Buy Could Net $900M in Savings, Say Navy,
Marine Corps officials,” Breaking Defense, April 18, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

8

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

As the Navy works towards bolstering its fleet and rebuilding a struggling shipbuilding
industry, its secretary said he is confident a decision on a multi-year procurement
agreement for amphibious warships could be coming in the next few weeks.…
Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro told reporters May 2 at the Modern Day Marine
conference that “close discussions with the shipyard” have been underway to “negotiate
the best deal possible on behalf of the American taxpayer.”
Del Toro said he feels confident that “hopefully, over the next several weeks, we’ll be able
to have a negotiated deal that we can announce.” Multi-year procurement is a special
method to contract for multiple years of requirements in a single contract. The agreement
would be to build three San Antonio-class amphibious transport docks and one America-
class big deck amphibious warship.16
An April 23, 2024, press report stated
Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said he expects “a major announcement” in the next few
weeks on a new multi-year procurement agreement to build three San Antonio-class
amphibious warships and an America-class big deck amphibious warship at HII’s Ingalls
Shipbuilding in Mississippi.
The Navy has been negotiating “as low a price as possible” for the ships that the sea
services view as essential to future expeditionary missions, Del Toro said at the Stimson
Center on Tuesday [April 23]….
In discussing the pending announcement, Del Toro mentioned the Modern Day Marine
exposition, which opens April 30 in Washington, as the likely venue.
“We’ll do the same thing with the amphibs” as were done with multi-year procurement
contracts to build two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers17 with HII’s Newport News
Shipbuilding to achieve savings in construction and provide stability to the yard’s
workforce planning, he added.18
Technical and Cost Risk in LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Programs
Another potential issue for Congress is technical and cost risk in the LPD-17 Flight II and LHA
programs.
LPD-17 Flight II Program
A June 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report—the 2024 edition of GAO’s
annual report surveying DOD major acquisition programs—stated the following about the LPD-
17 Flight II program:
Current Status
The Office of the Secretary of Defense paused the program in the spring of 2023 to study
the costs and capabilities of the platform. As of January 2024, the Navy-led study has been

16 Laura Heckmann, “MDM News: Navy Expects Multi-Year Procurement Decision on Amphibs Soon,” National
Defense, May 2, 2024. See also Lee Hudson, “Navy, HII Aim to Close Multiship Amphib Deal over Next ‘Several
Weeks,’” Politico Pro, May 2, 2024.
17 The Navy is using a two-ship block buy contract for the aircraft carriers CVN-80 and CVN-81 to reduce the
combined procurement cost of the two ships. For further discussion, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78)
Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.
18 John Grady, “SECNAV Del Toro Previews Major Amphibious Warship Buy,” USNI News, April 23, 2024. See also
Rich Abott, “SECNAV Confirms Amphib Multi-Ship Buy Coming Soon,” Defense Daily, April 23, 2024; Nick
Wilson, “Navy to Advance Amphibious Warship Block Buy in the Coming Weeks,” Inside Defense, April 23, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

9

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

completed. The Navy is evaluating program quantities and if the acquisition strategy for
using what the Navy refers to as a block buy would generate cost savings for LPD Flight
II purchases.
The Navy now expects delivery of LPD 30 in fiscal year 2026, a delay of approximately 6
months since our last assessment. The Navy attributed LPD 30 delays to COVID-19-related
labor shortfalls in the 2020 to 2022 time frame. Navy program officials stated that the
shipyard is holding hiring events and accelerating training efforts to grow its workforce in
response to this challenge.
The program continues to track risks associated with the integration of a new surface radar
system as construction of LPD 30 and 31 continues. The new radar was developed to
standardize the Navy’s surface search radars in response to the Navy’s ship collisions. The
radar has been installed on several in-service ships but has yet to go through independent
testing. Navy officials anticipate that the program’s master plan for operational testing—
to include testing the integration of the new radar system—will be approved prior to LPD
30 delivery and testing, which begins in 2026. While fleet officials reported some issues
with the new radar, radar program officials are confident that they can fix the issues and
the radar will meet requirements.
Program Office Comments
We provided a draft of this assessment to the program office for review and comment. It
provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. According to the
program office, the Navy continues to successfully manage and deliver LPD 17 class ships.
The program reported that it received funding for LPD 30, 31, and 32, and has budgeted
for LPD 33, 34, and 35. The program also stated that in 2023, it: (1) conducted final
contract trials for LPD 28; (2) took LPD 29 to sea with a new radar; (3) continued
construction of LPD 30 and 31; and (4) placed LPD 32 under contract for construction.19
LHA Program
A January 2024 report from DOD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—
DOT&E’s annual report for FY2023—stated the following about the LHA program:
TEST ADEQUACY
In February 2023, DOT&E published an LHA 6 Flight 0 FOT&E report based on
evaluation conducted between March and April 2022 on USS Tripoli (LHA 7), as detailed
in the FY22 Annual Report. Testing was adequate to demonstrate LHA 6 Flight 0 capability
to support Marine Corps aviation operations in the F-35B-heavy configuration consisting
of 20 F-35B aircraft, 3 SH-60S Seahawk helicopters, a Marine Aviation Combat Element,
and a Marine Command Element. Testing evaluated the ability to embark, operate, support,
and maintain the fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft in this configuration. The LHA 6 program
conducted this FOT&E period of the LHA 6 Flight 0 in accordance with a DOT&E-
approved test plan, and tests were observed by DOT&E. The LHA 6 program plans to use
test observations to inform future F-35B-heavy operational concepts and tactics,
techniques, and procedures.
As first reported in the FY21 Annual Report, DOT&E and the LHA 6 program have yet to
agree on an LHA Flight 1 LFT&E strategy to evaluate the survivability of the LHA 6 Flight
1 against air-delivered or underwater kinetic threats. Specific DOT&E concerns are the
lack of fire testing for embarked vehicle spaces and the lack of a Full Ship Shock Trial.
PERFORMANCE

19 Government Accountability Office, Weapon Systems Annual Assessment[:] DOD Is Not Yet Well-Positioned to Field
Systems with Speed, GAO-24-106831, June 2024, p. 152.
Congressional Research Service

10

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

EFFECTIVENESS
LHA 6 Flight 0 ships are operationally effective in supporting Marine Corps aviation
operations in the F-35B-heavy configuration. USS Tripoli demonstrated the capability to
conduct representative flight operations with 20 embarked F-35Bs throughout two days of
mission exercises. USS Tripoli supported reliable launch and recovery of the F-35B. The
Navy also demonstrated sufficient capability to conduct casualty control in the F-35B-
heavy configuration during the simulated events of an aircraft fire on the flight deck and in
the hangar of an LHA Flight 0 ship.
LHA 6 Flight 0 ships have limited special access program facility (SAPF) capacity,
degrading the planning and execution of real-world missions with sustained operations in
the F-35B-heavy configuration. Full details are in the LHA 6 Flight 0 FOT&E report.
SUITABILITY
LHA 6 Flight 0 is operationally suitable for amphibious warfare and standard ACE
operations. USS Tripoli experienced no material issues and demonstrated sufficient
reliability to support strike and defensive counter air missions in the F-35B-heavy
configuration. Additionally, the ship’s command, control, and communications systems
were sufficient to support the demonstrated missions. Full details are in the LHA 6 Flight
0 FOT&E report.
The embarkation of an F-35B-heavy ACE created crewing requirements that exceeded the
12-hour routine operations. The Navy will likely need to develop a crewing plan for
supplementing the ship’s crew when operations exceed 12 hours with the embarkation of
an F-35B-heavy ACE.
SURVIVABILITY
No data are available to change the survivability assessment of LHA 6 Flight 0 from
IOT&E or assess survivability of LHA 6 Flight 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Navy should:
1. Investigate SAPF space options that support sustained operations with an F-35B-
heavy ACE embarked. If SAPF space cannot be increased to support mission requirements,
the Navy and Marine Corps should investigate the feasibility of relaxing the requirement
for the SAPF as necessary to support F-35B operations.
2. Investigate supplemental crewing options for sustained LHA 6 Flight 0 operations
with an F-35B-heavy ACE embarked.
3. As recommended in the last two Annual Reports, deliver the LHA 6 Flight 1 LFT&E
strategy for DOT&E approval in FY24. Identify funding in the updated TEMP for
embarked vehicle fire testing and a Full Ship Shock Trial.20
Operational Readiness of In-Service Amphibious Ships
Another issue for Congress concerns the operational readiness of in-service amphibious ships.
Marine Corps officials in public remarks have called attention to the number of in-service
amphibious ships that are not operationally ready because they are undergoing or are in need of
maintenance and repair work, and have stated that inadequate numbers of operationally ready
amphibious ships have resulted in instances of where the Navy has not been able to meet requests
from U.S. regional combatant commanders for amphibious ships for day-to-day forward presence

20 Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, FY 2023 Annual Report, January 2024, pp. 203-204.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 16 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

or responding to contingencies.21 The situation has prompted the Marine Corps to explore
alternatives for deploying Marines on other kinds of ships that are not designed for embarking
and transporting Marine forces.22
Legislative Activity for FY2025
Summary of Congressional Action on FY2025 Funding Request
Table 1 summarizes congressional action on the Navy’s FY2025 procurement and advance
procurement (AP) funding request for the LPD-17 Flight II and LHA programs.
Table 1. Summary of Congressional Action on FY2025 Procurement
Funding Request
Millions of dollars, rounded to nearest tenth
Authorization
Appropriation

Request
HASC
SASC
Enacted
HAC
SAC
Enacted
LPD-33 advance procurement (AP) funding
0
0

0

LPD-33 procurement funding
1,562.0
1,562.0

1,562.0

LPD-17 Flight II cost-to-complete funding
19.2
19.2

19.2

LHA-10 advance procurement (AP) funding
61.1
61.1

61.1

LHA cost-to-complete funding
115.4
19.2

19.2

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on Navy’s FY2025 budget submission, committee and conference
reports, and explanatory statements on FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act and FY2025 DOD
Appropriations Act.
Notes: HASC is House Armed Services Committee; SASC is Senate Armed Services Committee; HAC is
House Appropriations Committee; SAC is Senate Appropriations Committee.
FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 8070)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 118-529 of May 31, 2024) on H.R.
8070, recommended the funding levels shown in the HASC column of Table 1.
Section 132 of H.R. 8070 would amend subsection (c) of Section 129 of the FY2023 National
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 7776/P.L. 117-263 of December 23, 2022)—the provision that

21 See, for example, Mallory Shelbourne, “Marines, Navy Crafting Long-Term Fixes for Amphibious Warship
Shortages,” USNI News, May 3, 2024; Drew F. Lawrence and Konstantin Toropin, “Marines Can't Count on Navy
Ships to Carry Them to Global Emergencies, One of the Service's Top Generals Says,” Military.com, January 25, 2024.
See also James G. Foggo, “Evacuating Sudan: An Amphibious Gap and Missed Opportunity,” Defense News, May 3,
2023; Justin Katz, “Short on Amphibs for Turkey, Sudan, the Marines Grapple with Crisis Response Ethos,” Breaking
Defense, May 1, 2023; Nancy A. Youssef, “Grounding of U.S. Marine Unit Spotlights Lack of Ships in Asia-Pacific,”
Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2023.Richard R. Burgess, “Berger: Lack of Amphibs Left AFRICOM with No Sea-
Based Option for Sudan Evacuation,” Seapower, April 28, 2023; Konstantin Toropin, “‘I Let Down the Combatant
Commander’: Marine Leader Regrets His Forces Weren't Available for Recent Crises,” Military.com, April 28, 2023.
22 See, for example, Megan Eckstein, “Ship Shortage Forces Marines to Consider Alternate Deployments,” Defense
News, January 25, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 16 Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

permits the Navy to enter into a block buy contract for procuring a combination of up to five
LPD-17 and LHA-type amphibious ships—to insert “across programs” after “advance
procurement,” so that the subsection as amended would read (emphasis added):
Authority for Advance Procurement.--The Secretary of the Navy may enter into one or
more contracts for advance procurement across programs associated with a ship or ships
for which authorization to enter into a contract is provided under subsection (a), and for
systems and subsystems associated with such ships in economic order quantities when cost
savings are achievable.
FY2025 DOD Appropriations Act (H.R. 8774)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 118-557 of June 17, 2024) on H.R.
8774, recommended the funding levels shown in the HAC column of Table 1.

Congressional Research Service

13

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Appendix. Procurement Dates of LPD-31 and LHA-9
This appendix presents background information regarding the procurement dates of LPD-31 and
LHA-9. In reviewing the bullet points presented below, it can be noted that procurement funding
is funding for a ship that is either being procured in that fiscal year or has been procured in a prior
fiscal year, while advance procurement (AP) funding is funding for a ship that is to be procured in
a future fiscal year.23
Overview
An institutional issue for Congress in FY2021 concerned the treatment in the Navy’s proposed
FY2021 budget of the procurement dates of LPD-31 and LHA-9. The Navy’s FY2021 budget
submission presented LPD-31 as a ship requested for procurement in FY2021 and LHA-9 as a
ship projected for procurement in FY2023. Consistent with congressional action on the Navy’s
FY2020 and FY2021 budgets regarding the procurement of LPD-31 and LHA-9, this CRS report
treats LPD-31 and LHA-9 as ships that Congress procured (i.e., authorized and provided
procurement funding for) in FY2020 and FY2021, respectively. Potential oversight issues for
Congress included the following:
• By presenting LPD-31 as a ship requested for procurement in FY2021 (instead of
a ship that was procured in FY2020) and LHA-9 as a ship projected for
procurement in FY2023 (instead of a ship that was procured in FY2021), was
DOD, in its FY2021 budget submission, disregarding or mischaracterizing the
actions of Congress regarding the procurement dates of these three ships? If so
• Was DOD doing this to inflate the apparent number of ships requested
for procurement in FY2021 and the apparent number of ships included in
the five-year (FY2021-FY2025) shipbuilding plan?
• Could this establish a precedent for DOD or other parts of the executive
branch in the future to disregard or mischaracterize the actions of
Congress regarding the procurement or program-initiation dates for other
Navy ships, other Navy programs, other DOD programs, or other federal
programs? If so, what implications might that have for the preservation
and use of Congress’s power of the purse under Article 1 of the
Constitution, and for maintaining Congress as a coequal branch of
government relative to the executive branch?
The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission, similar to its FY2023, FY2022, and FY2021 budget
submissions, presents LHA-9 as a ship procured or projected for procurement in FY2023. Navy
officials have described the listing of LHA-9 in the Navy’s FY2023 budget submission as a ship
being requested for procurement in FY2023 as an oversight.
LPD-31—an LPD-17 Flight II Class Amphibious Ship
The Navy’s FY2021 budget submission presented LPD-31, an LPD-17 Flight II class amphibious
ship, as a ship requested for procurement in FY2021. This CRS report treats LPD-31 as a ship
that Congress procured (i.e., authorized and provided procurement funding for) in FY2020,

23 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL31404, Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy—Background,
Issues, and Options for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke and Stephen Daggett.
Congressional Research Service

14

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

consistent with the following congressional action on the Navy’s FY2020 budget regarding the
procurement of LPD-31:
• The House Armed Services Committee’s report (H.Rept. 116-120 of June 19,
2019) on H.R. 2500, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act,
recommended authorizing the procurement of an LPD-17 Flight II class ship in
FY2020, showing a quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and
recommending procurement (not just AP) funding for the program.24
• The Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (S.Rept. 116-48 of June 11,
2019) on S. 1790, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act,
recommended authorizing the procurement of an LPD-17 Flight II class ship in
FY2020, showing a quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and
recommending procurement (rather than AP) funding for the program.25
• The conference report (H.Rept. 116-333 of December 9, 2019) on S. 1790/P.L.
116-92 of December 20, 2019, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act,
authorized the procurement of an LPD-17 Flight II class ship in FY2020,
showing a quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and
recommending procurement (rather than AP) funding for the program.26 Section
129 of S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 authorizes the Navy to enter into a contract,
beginning in FY2020, for the procurement of LPD-31, and to use incremental
funding to fund the contract.
• The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report (S.Rept. 116-103 of September
12, 2019) on S. 2474, the FY2020 DOD Appropriations Act, recommended
funding for the procurement of an LPD-17 Flight II class ship in FY2020,
showing a quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and
recommending procurement (rather than AP) funding for the program.27
• The final version of the FY2020 DOD Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R.
1158/P.L. 116-93 of December 20, 2019) provided procurement (not AP) funding
for an LPD-17 Flight II class ship. The paragraph in this act that appropriated
funding for the Navy’s shipbuilding account, including this ship, includes a
provision stating “Provided further, That an appropriation made under the
heading ‘Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy’ provided for the purpose of
‘Program increase—advance procurement for fiscal year 2020 LPD Flight II
and/or multiyear procurement economic order quantity’ shall be considered to be
for the purpose of ‘Program increase—advance procurement of LPD–31’.” This
provision relates to funding appropriated in the FY2019 DOD Appropriations Act
(Division A of H.R. 6157/P.L. 115-245 of September 28, 2018) for the
procurement of an LPD-17 Flight II class ship in FY2020, as originally
characterized in the explanatory statement accompanying that act.28

24 H.Rept. 116-120, p. 379, line 012.
25 S.Rept. 116-48, p. 433, line 12. See also pp. 23-24 for associated report language.
26 H.Rept. 116-333, p. 1566, line 012. See also p. 1144 for associated report language.
27 S.Rept. 116-103, p. 118, line 12. See also p. 122 for associated report language.
28 See PDF page 176 of 559, line 12, of the explanatory statement for H.R. 6157/P.L. 115-245.
Congressional Research Service

15

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

LHA-9 Amphibious Assault Ship
The Navy’s FY2024 budget submission, similar to its FY2023, FY2022, and FY2021 budget
submissions, presents LHA-9 as a ship procured or projected for procurement in FY2023. This
CRS report treats LHA-9 as a ship that Congress procured (i.e., authorized and provided
procurement funding for) in FY2021, consistent with the following congressional action on the
Navy’s FY2020 and FY2021 budgets regarding the procurement of LHA-9:
• The Senate Armed Services Committee’s report (S.Rept. 116-48 of June 11,
2019) on S. 1790, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act,
recommended authorizing the procurement of LHA-9 in FY2020, showing a
quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and recommending
procurement (rather than AP) funding for the program.29
• The conference report (H.Rept. 116-333 of December 9, 2019) on S. 1790/P.L.
116-92 of December 20, 2019, the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act,
authorized the procurement of LHA-9 in FY2020, showing a quantity increase of
one ship above the Navy’s request and recommending procurement (rather than
AP) funding for the program.30 Section 127 of S. 1790/P.L. 116-92 authorizes the
Navy to enter into a contract for the procurement of LHA-9 and to use
incremental funding provided during the period FY2019-FY2025 to fund the
contract.
• The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report (S.Rept. 116-103 of September
12, 2019) on S. 2474, the FY2020 DOD Appropriations Act, recommended
funding for the procurement of an LHA amphibious assault ship in FY2020,
showing a quantity increase of one ship above the Navy’s request and
recommending procurement (rather than AP) funding for the program.31
• The final version of the FY2020 DOD Appropriations Act (Division A of H.R.
1158/P.L. 116-93 of December 20, 2019) provided procurement (not AP) funding
for an LHA amphibious assault ship. The explanatory statement for Division A of
H.R. 1158/P.L. 116-93 stated that the funding was for LHA-9.32
• The procurement (not AP) funding provided for LHA-9 in the FY2020 DOD
Appropriations Act (see previous bullet point) was subsequently reprogrammed
to provide support for counter-drug activities of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) along the U.S. southern border.33 The final version of the
FY2021 DOD Appropriations Act (Division C of H.R. 133/P.L. 116-260 of
December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021), however, once
again provided procurement (not AP) funding for an LHA amphibious assault
ship. The explanatory statement for Division C of H.R. 133/P.L. 116-260 stated
that the funding is for “Program increase—LHA 9.”34 As a result of the FY2021
procurement (not AP) funding for LHA-9, the ship once again has an
authorization (provided in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act),
authority for using incremental funding in procuring it (provided by Section 127

29 S.Rept. 116-48, p. 433, line 15.
30 H.Rept. 116-333, p. 1566, line 015.
31 S.Rept. 116-103, p. 118, line 15.
32 Explanatory statement for Division A of H.R. 1158, PDF page 175 of 414, line 15.
33 Reprograming action (Form DD 1415) FY 20-01 RA, February 13, 2020, page 3 of 5.
34 Explanatory statement for Division C of H.R. 133/P.L. 116-260, PDF page 204 of 469, line 17.
Congressional Research Service

16

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

of the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act), and procurement (not AP)
funding (provided in the FY2021 DOD Appropriations Act).
Provision in FY2021 NDAA Relating to Ship Procurement Date
The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) decision to present LPD-31 and LHA-9 in its FY2021
budget submission as ships requested for procurement in FY2021 and FY2023, respectively, even
though Congress procured the two ships in FY2020 and FY2021, respectively, posed an
institutional issue for Congress regarding the preservation and use of Congress’s power of the
purse under Article 1 of the Constitution, and for maintaining Congress as a coequal branch of
government relative to the executive branch. Section 126 of the FY2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395/P.L.
116-283 of January 1, 2021) states
SEC. 126. TREATMENT IN FUTURE BUDGETS OF THE PRESIDENT OF SYSTEMS
ADDED BY CONGRESS.
In the event the procurement quantity for a system authorized by Congress in a National
Defense Authorization Act for a fiscal year, and for which funds for such procurement
quantity are appropriated by Congress in the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account
for such fiscal year, exceeds the procurement quantity specified in the budget of the
President, as submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for
such fiscal year, such excess procurement quantity shall not be specified as a new
procurement quantity in any budget of the President, as so submitted, for any fiscal year
after such fiscal year.
Regarding the original Senate version of this provision, the Senate Armed Services Committee’s
report (S.Rept. 116-236 of June 24, 2020) on the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (S.
4049) states
Treatment of weapon systems added by Congress in future President’s budget
requests (sec. 126)
The committee recommends a provision that would preclude the inclusion in future annual
budget requests of a procurement quantity of a system previously authorized and
appropriated by the Congress that was greater than the quantity of such system requested
in the President’s budget request.
The committee is concerned that by presenting CVN–81 as a ship that was procured in
fiscal year 2020 (instead of as a ship that was procured in fiscal year 2019), LPD–31 as a
ship requested for procurement in fiscal year 2021 (instead of as a ship that was procured
in fiscal year 2020), and LHA–9 as a ship projected for procurement in fiscal year 2023
(instead of as a ship that was procured in fiscal year 2020), the Department of Defense, in
its fiscal year 2021 budget submission, is disregarding or mischaracterizing the actions of
Congress regarding the procurement dates of these three ships. (Page 11)

Author Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs

Congressional Research Service

17

Navy LPD-17 Flight II and LHA Amphibious Ship Programs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R43543 · VERSION 140 · UPDATED
18