its not B-U-fort scale, its Bow-fort scale as in Cross-bow-fort or Beau Guest the fictional character

Transferring missiles while at sea just seems like overengineering the problem of, not enough missiles can fit on this boat's hull size. Instead of just making a bigger boat specializing in missile quantity, they must create an overly complicated and inefficient system.

I've been using Ground since your last video with them and it's fantastic so far! Highly recommend it

Anything Americana has sitting on water in war is useless because of the hypersonic weapons deployed by China and Russia. Fear not America has the largest Submarine fleet. Everything else is just a target in a state of war against a real military

This is what happens when defense is privatized more and more

Logistically drones win every time. You have to think a little outside the box, but there's decades of sci-fi to draw on.

Please remind these professionals about crew fatique, spare parts, fuel, consumables....

As a Navy veteran taking away a week long port call is a necessary break for morale.

@@jtjames79 Drones are not the solution "every time". They're more successful in land warfare than at sea.

@@piotrd.4850 Which is one reason the LCS was crap.

You know comments help him. They put wrong stuff in videos to get comments.

@@randygravel2057 Well sure, I'm aware of how comments improve a video's reach. Though I'm not sure Sandboxx is doing it intentionally, and if they are, on any piece of info that's significant. For example, I've seen Shorts (not Sandboxx's) make an very targeted errors to trigger viewers into commenting. So I'm not implying that practice isn't in play... I'm just not sure _Alex_ does it. But I've been known to be wrong, which is fine! 😅

I don't think he really needs to do that 🤷🏻‍♂️. But, l could be wrong 🫡

He’s the best.

Be a he is often wrong

Which would be a lot harder to do now with intel satellites in orbit.

​@@Kriss_L: Sailing to Pearl, Bremerton, or San Diego would _also_ be much harder for the same reason. Those ships which actually sailed all the way back often succeeded only because of work already done at those mobile facilities.

Indeed this is why the Navy established overseas forward bases in Ulithi atoll, Majuro etc. which are located close to the frontlines and made warships and aircraft carriers to refuel, rearm and repair. Logistics also defeated Japan in WWII, Japan lost most of their cargo and merchant ships and they couldn't conduct their logistical operation with efficiency.

Exactly. Floating bases. These would be huge targets, but would and could be heavily defended, like an aircraft carrier group. You would almost need one of these for each deployed carrier group. Many floating base defenses could be on-board or the base could have its own escorts of Arleigh Burks and Cruisers. Picture the most recent, former Enterprise together with the Kitty Hawk or the Nimitz, combined as superstructures into a huge catamaran that ships sailbetween for reloading and resupply. Sail right through. It could be designed to work on 2 ABs at the same time even, perhaps, or, could place a single AB in effective floating drydock.

Web search: "Floating Dry Dock - South Pacific WWII Museum"

Everything at sea becomes 10^3 times harder. Navy stuff ain't cheap.

Because of the length of the cells and the tight tolerances, perfect alignment needs to be maintained while they are lowered into position. This is nearly impossible when the Crane is on the donor ship because there's no way that 2 different ships can be locked together as one. I think the solution is to lower the cells on the deck of the recipient and then use a Crane on that ship to pick it up and put it in position, In the module. Now I'm interested to look up the TRAM system to see how that's designed...

coulkd a system similar to the himars rack work?? it would need to be able to erect the cells, but the built in guide rails, even if stowable when not in use, might be a viable option.

@@cannon3267 I was actually thinking something similar. A bundle of VLS tubes with a specialty fitted resupply vessel. By specialty, I mean one with a significant arm and bumper system to hold the ships together and a significant gantry crane system to do the full job of lifting the vls bundle and inserting it into the destroyer. I would envision this gantry as not using conventional cables and cranes, but instead telescoping armature or guide rails with cables. Between locking the ships together and using this gantry system, I would aim to eliminate any sway in moving the cargo. Granted, this is an expensive and unique solution. Plus I can see potential flaws with the approach. But I think it could handle intense sea states. I need to look into the TRAM system mentioned in the video to see how it works.

No it’s not. KISS my friend all of the tech to do this has been around since the early 90’s. Civilian merchant and working commercial vessels deal with this all the bloody time when rafting up for cargo transfer and used to do it without dynamic positioning and with at times more reactive materials than a missile in a VLS canister. Don’t reinvent the wheel when solutions are already around.

That kind of sounds like a selling point to get Congress to provide the capability. However I'd be thinking about rearming in and around Guam, Japan and the Philippines. We are pouring a crap-ton of money into the Philippines now and paying for base development in many different locations to host ATACMS and other weapons systems to dominate the South China Sea in the event the Chinese go further in their efforts to threaten the Philippines and other neighbors. You have to watch a lot of these videos from different perspectives to see what steps we are taking along with the other ASEAN nations to obstruct China.

We used to have these vessels called "Destroyer Tenders". These had cranes, big holds and machine shops and were designed to support DD flotillas away from major bases. The Navy got rid of them because reasons.

could it be that the VLS cell is not practical for a large scale war?

@@donaldg.freeman2804 I suppose you've seen where think-tanks have gamed this out. Did you miss the ones about a preemptive first strike on air bases and naval ports (you know, the ones with reloading capabilities and ships re-supplying) before actually landing on Taiwan? So much for the survive-ability of the first string ships within missile range of China.

@@franklordi2219 Well... There was the concept of the arsenal ship, but it was decided that the navy couldn't afford the 100's of missiles required to are it (not to mention the replacement costs due to normal wear & tear of deployment).

OSV with ADL or Mk.70....

Problem with that is making enough missiles to fill the tubes. Offensive wise, SSGNs are the best option. The enemy is very unlikely to detect them before they're in range, they can carry plenty of missiles, then disengage and go back to reload. Some have suggested a cheaper semi-submersible arsenal ship option, which I could get behind if the factories can meet the demand.

@@tickticktickBOOOOM The problem with SSGNs is that it may be overkill or underkill for short range attack or air defense or ABM roles.

@@tickticktickBOOOOM The purpose of surface vessels is really just air defense. Most of their VSLs in a conflict will be filled with Sams to protect themselves and the carrier. Ssgns can’t do that.

@@tickticktickBOOOOM SSGN's are stealthy...until the first missile launch. The missile exhaust is like a big ol arrow "submarine is here". That said, I do agree with you.

Kings Point is such a beautiful place to go to school. More people should know about it.

A very challenging program from all I’ve ever heard! United States Military Academy (better known as West Point)

I like the sound of that. USS Pyro. Sounds like an idea I would have had.

Isn’t he specifically talking about VLS cells in this video?

Yeah... you gave fuel and supplies and equipment... NOT VLS replacement rounds. Pay attention.

You saying that you resupplied VLS while under way?

@@nametag4277 Alone with his bare hands, probably

Hopefully, the remaining targets are significantly reduced after the first day.

@@PDXdjn Yes, but the Day 1 problem still exists. A war with China will not be initiated by the US. So the load-out of ships will have to reflect a good deal of uncertainty in just what the war will be. Every tomahawk in a VLS cell is one less missile to protect the ship, battlegroup, or Taiwan. But every tomahawk used is a potential pier-side ship destroyed, or ammunition bunker obliterated, or fuelling depot crippled. Its a question of how much of today gets sacrificed in the name of tomorrow. Quite literally.

The ignored issue is the CURRENT stockpile of and the CURRENT manufacturing capacity for said weapons.

@@dgthe3 actual VLS loadouts are secret, but I think it's about 75 percent defensive. The USN relies on airpower for offense.

I wouldn't call the Chinese "near peer", but they def. are the greatest threat. Russia is a baby that Europe can easily handle. The Chinese have upped their military quite a bit that is true, at the cost of their voilatile economy though. Not to mention, their population crisis will cripple them for years to come. That being said, drone tech is def. the way to the future, that's for sure!

I'm also not opposed to arsenal ships with hundreds of missiles on them. Make them semi-submersible so they're hard to hit. Maybe even double decker the missiles. I dunno. Have them use mainly extra long-range missiles and keep them a couple hundred miles back behind the fleet from the enemy. They would be used for static and slower targets. Anything where the clock is ticking and it needs to be destroyed NOW could be fired upon from traditional ships, closer to the fight.

@@protorhinocerator142 Arsenal ships would be better employed as moving, harder to destroy anti ballistic missile shields for say Guam or Hawaii. South Korea and Japan use their Aegis destroyers to provide the same protection. They are very close to China and Russia and North Korea so these are easier to target via land or sea or submarine. The US islands are much further away so these ballistic defense ship would be easier to protect. As for strike capability, I think the US Air Force bombers and convert transport with Rapid Dragon would be a better choice. Air launch long range strike missile benefit from release at higher altitudes so the expensive boosting of the into the air via rockets will not be needed. Just fly them up and carry them to a launch point via much more efficient air transports and release them. I'm sure the NAVY will hate this but having fighters from carriers provide support to Air Force bombers will be the best solution for stand off strikes against coast China and their ships inside the first island chain.

​@@protorhinocerator142Make it fully submersible and you've got yourself an SSGN.

@@hailexiao2770 True but you don't need to submerge half a mile. Make it so it can submerge 20 feet. That's plenty.

@@protorhinocerator142 won’t that make those semi-submersible ships just as vulnerable as a surface ship without the capability to use surface-to-air missiles? Might as well commit to an SSGN since it’s more stealthier.

Proud to be brothers with the lords of banter!

@@spurgear World champion shit talkers and beer drinkers! lol Good on ya mate. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

The land down under that out crazies florida. Strongest ally in the region

@@spurgear Yes we could be considered world champions at sledging and beer drinking! lol 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

@@randomuser5443 Bigger than Texas and crazier than Florida. These are trying and dangerous times, we need to stick together. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

He said the first was in 1986.

Thank you

I was on FOSTER for her last 16 months until we decommed her. Retired YN/CTA1(SW).

It doesn’t seem that hard to solve, but I don’t know what constraints you were dealing with. Is it an important problem?

@@jackthompson6296 Ya we didn’t think so either, but the ship moved so much relative to avg surface level even at sea-state of 1, that the winch was paying out and unpaying very rapidly, so much so that the winch cable got insanely kinked and tangled. The level-wind could not keep up. There’s no motor tech that can keep up that sort of speed and variability.

Instead of a magical crane, how about robot arms?

​@@danielch6662: Cranes _are_ a type of robot arm.

​@@dan725: Old-style tape drives used vacuum tech to help with their equivalent (the drums the tape was stored on were too high-mass for quick accelerations), but admittedly they still needed capstan motors that could go fast enough as well.

Thank you for your service.

When I reported to USS FOSTER, we had two walls of empty racks in the space that had been replaced with two laptops.

Hey be happy missile are safer then other ideations ages past powder mags were the most dangerous thing on our ships and directed. Munitions one shot one kill vastly superior look at convenience and ease of decoy modules to confuse combvataants

It could have been catastrophic if you didn't

The USN had a big one: (Google) images for floating drydock / Ulithi / 1944.

From what I understood, the aim is to not stop anywhere in order to maximise the separation abilities should a ship being rearmed come under attack and to prevent them from becoming a sitting duck. The idea of parking anywhere seems to go against the nature of this change. That said, I am not a navy man and my general understanding of bobbing up and down in the sea comes down to the idea that something has gone very wrong and I have very unhappily ejected over the water. It’s cold, it’s wet, it’s salty, and far more deadly than anything in the sky. I can appreciate walking along the beach front on a nice sunny day and that is enough sea for me. For this reason, if by “parking” you mean something other than static in the ocean, forgive my ignorance. I know nothing about mobile floating dry docks and if they could technically do all of these things whilst actually on the move.

Too slow. The drydocks cannot easily reposition themselves. They are effectively immobile on a stragetic level

A stationary ship can be targeted with satelite data only, something thats quite easy to do. A moving ship requires initial recon with a satelite followed by additional tracking with an airborne asset which is a lot harder - giving the ship better chance of survival within an area of operation.

It seems to me that all of the issues to using this idea boil down to POWER. How long does it take to pump the water out? Are you holding in one place ore moving fast enough to make targeting difficult? How long does it take to extract empties and insert the desired canisters? How fast is the dry dock going to go between fill-ups? etc.

More than x,y,z, I think roll, pitch, and yaw would make it very difficult to align things.

I'm no engineer but I think you'd have to anticipate the motion\wind which brings in many more variables.

@@hanrockabrand95 Yeah, the Dutch roll.

@@hanrockabrand95 exactly. Sorry, was typing at red lights. I’m terrible, I know

US Navy is already thinking about Arsenal ships but distributed. Think unmanned or optionally manned ships with VLS cells and a large open rear deck suitable for various task such as landing helicopter, VTOL, F35Bs, drones or mobile missile launchers. They can even have a rolling on/off cover so that you don't know what's underneath. I"'m sure RAS (refueling at sea) for drones is in development. These would have nearly limitless endurance provided they have fuel. Minor maintenance can be performed by roving techs. If major maintenance is needed, they can be sent back to friendly port.

Not needing to house crew would open up a lot of space for weapons that crewed ships can't use, so they wouldn't necessarily need to be bigger

I'd be more comfortable with new cruisers. Not because of any possible vulnerability & risking losing a big chunk of your battle groups VLS cells, but because 1 ship can only ever be in 1 place at 1 time. Take the DDX hull, add a bit of length fore & some more aft (50-60 feet total) and just pack in dozens more missiles. 200 total feels like a good target number.

@@dgthe3 Understood. Thats why in my mind, you disperse the arsenal ships like the rest of the fleet. Some be part of the CBGs, others to trail cruiser, destroyers and frigates at a distance. Still others spread out elsewhere. The idea is to continue to amass combat power, by any and all available means, preferably keeping them all in motion and slipping into and out of range.

Arsenal ships will be of equal value to a carrier and thus will require high amounts of defensive measures. This may eventuate into a dead end concept. How many 'too many eggs in one basket' concepts can be supported by the greater fleet? Success may be in distributed nodes rather than centralized masses. If the nodes are cheap enough - there will be a benefit when compared with 'support groups' for - not only the carriers, but for the arsenal ships. It is not an easy balance to strike. Good luck with this from your neighbour to the north.

Finally a comment that makes sense.

I'm willing to bet in a big scale shooting war after the first days or months, the use of older tech will be used more and more IE surface engagements that use torpedoes deck guns ect. You can have all the best tech, but if you cant supply enough its pointless

Yes, a ship that carries missiles for other ships HAS to be well protected, and it can't protect itself alone. You'd have to have underwater support and air support as much as possible to go with it and there aren't many places in the world that would want a magazine ship to pull into their ports.

​@@johndoh5182Not an arsenal ship... a magazine ship. Instead of a manned reloader ship, people have been talking about an unmanned missile launching ship that can hold way more missiles since it won't need to house a crew. Which is a fabulous idea until Hal9000 or Korean hackers take it over electronically... then it will seem like just the worst idea... a drone with thousands of long-range missiles - what could go wrong?

@@GizzyDillespee A support ship hauling missiles isn't really the problem. Getting them from that vessel onto a warship, is.

You're determinized, I'll give you that. Also might want to update your copy pasta because they "just" chose those finalists nearly a year ago.

@@MrSJPowell i mean i could, but we could also use it as a timescale to when the video finally comes out...

I really want to know more about active flow control.

Thanks

The bumpers protect the walls of the ship. 🙂

I would argue that you need a lot more sea experience and materials handling as well. We were doing crap like this back in the 90’s under much worse conditions. Why do people look for difficult solutions to relatively simple problems. Build the head of the lifting boom correctly and it’s not a big problem.

"I'd probably argue that VLS was a nice idea, but they forgot to include a magazine system to reload them." I was just thinking this. I'm surprised there isn't a faster way to eject the spent cells (perhaps some sort of elevator beneath) that could also facilitate faster reloading.

Bring back the Iowa's.

yeah i can tell u read one book about a ww2 battleship and based your entire naval idea of strategy on outdated technology from 70 years ago…but I’m sure the people that study this for a living don’t know as much as you :)

Could call it the Evans-class Surface Arsenal Ship. First ship would be the USS Evans after Cmdr EE Evans. That dude was a legend!

I think all of that is being reconsidered. All the targeting provided by the Aegis ships and barges full of VLS cells. The Air Force wants to fill cargo aircraft with missiles and bombs. Things are changing rapidly.

How exactly do you plan on arming more than 3 or 4 with 500 missile each ? No one can arm large numbers of ships with that many missiles along with other ships

@@kameronjones7139 I wouldn't put 500 on a ship for fear of losing it. I would use a lot of smaller ships with deck stowed VLS, maybe in containers.and distribute them. There wasn't (isn't) an infinite number of reloads of anything. Back when I was in half the missiles the Navy owned were aboard ship somewhere.

@@donaldg.freeman2804 exactly to many missiles one one ship can be a really bad situation

And yet people keep voting for the politicians that want to keep cutting taxes, which comes at the expense of the military budget. Yes it's correct that the USN or to say this more correctly, the US military can no longer meet a mission goal it had decades ago which was to be able to fight and win wars in 2 theaters. It then dropped to winning in one theater and sustain another theater. My assumption would be with the growth of the Chinese military it can no longer do that, but ONLY because of the growth of the Chinese military, not because of Russia which has shown itself to be a dud. Having said that, both Russia and China are near bankruptcy. For China in particular their regional govts. ARE bankrupt for the most part whether they say they are or not. Many of their BANKS are also bankrupt, most their real estate companies are bankrupt. Their central govt. has SAID they will use QE to deal with the issue of the local govts. along with finishing housing, where you have a few million people/families that have bought housing that's not finished, but the real estate companies have no money nor do the construction companies that were supposed to do the work. The CCP is going to have to put at a MINIMUM of a couple trillion USD, not Yuan, USD into QE and if they don't they're facing a hostile population. In other words, people think China is much more of a threat than they really are. The CCP is hated across the country for the economic disaster people are facing now. I mean the ONLY reason citizens put up with a govt. that greatly restricts their rights is the promise of economic stability and growth. The US military in general could EASILY take on the Chinese military where most of the members would lack the motivation to fight, considering they hate their govt. And yes, it's hate, not just a minor disliking. You have SOME citizens that will thump their chests about how great the CCP and China is, but that's not most citizens. Most citizens dislike the govt., and others hate it. So, without China being a threat, the US military is still in the position to where they could fight in one theater to a victory and sustain another one.

It's almost like we should mind our own business and these wouldn't be problems in the first place.

Found the chinese shill.

@@ianduffy5176 huh?

What's wrong, butthurt about the other comment?

Agreed. What they do not report can have negative consequences on the public.

That's the first thought I had- a SOSO (Sail On Sail Off) solution that's mobile and versatile. I'd also look at replacing banks of cells as a package rather than reloading individual cells on the combatant. Pull the partially/fully expended bank, drop in a full bank, then let the SOSO reload the banks expended cells from their own stores as the combatant sails off into the fight again. Heck, a combatant could even call ahead for a customized load out based on current need.