Why This Is The US Navy’s Most Controversial Warship

Рет қаралды 1,442,496

Күн бұрын

The U.S. Navy has invested billions in the Littoral Combat Ship. But with unsolved problems and a murky mission set, will this close to shore surface combatant remain a key part of the Navy's strategy?
The USS Freedom - the first Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS - was decommissioned after only 13 years in the fleet. This move appears to be at odds with the U.S. Navy’s goal of building up a force of 355 ships.
The LCS is designed for littoral areas, or water closer to shore. Larger ships have trouble operating in these areas because of the shallow water. But engine issues, mission module problems and the evolving state of the world have put the future of the ship in choppy waters.
Several older Littoral Combat Ships are also being decommissioned due to the high cost of upgrading them.
“The bottom line is, it’s a zero-sum game. Every dollar you spend to keep those [LCS’] going is $1 you can spend on these other, I think, higher priorities” said Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
To increase the vessel’s punch, the Navy has moved to add the Naval Strike Missile to some of the warships. It also decided to designate certain ships for specific missions, in contrast with the quick and swappable mission modules that were envisioned when the ship was first designed.
There are two variants of the Littoral Combat Ship: the Independence-class, an all-aluminum trimaran design, and the Freedom-class, which is a more traditional steel hull with an aluminum superstructure.
“Independence has been very successful deploying overseas to Singapore, in you know, in China’s backyard,” LCS Squadron Two commander Capt. David Miller said. “Starting in late 2019, the Freedom-class followed in the [U.S. Southern Command Area of Responsibility].”
The Freedom-class was plagued by an engine issue that related to the combining gear, a complex piece of machinery that ensures that the multiple engines on the ship can function together. The Navy and Lockheed Martin are working to fix the problem in future ships that are waiting to be commissioned into the fleet, and those that have yet to be constructed.
“In a nutshell, we are running on track to get to put that problem behind us and move on with the future of the freedom class,” Miller said.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCclassic
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
Subscribe to CNBC PRO: cnb.cx/2NLi9AN
#CNBC
Can The Navy Fix Its Most Controversial Warship?

Пікірлер: 1 800

@mikemeiser670 2 жыл бұрын

TBH the coastguard is in need of more modern ships, they'd probably love some of these

@sarcasmo57 2 жыл бұрын

I could use one.

@Gpz0 2 жыл бұрын

It's hilarious that littoral means "close to shore" but was built to be completely incompatible with the Coast Guard. Smh

@danyannick8241 2 жыл бұрын

Many thanks!

@hypothalapotamus5293 2 жыл бұрын

No they wouldn't. Maintenance costs are too high.

@dundonrl 2 жыл бұрын

Coast Guard has the Legend class cutters, which are a lot better ships than the Freedom class LCS.

@tellthemborissentyou 2 жыл бұрын

Surely those Zumwalt ships are more controversial. A ship designed around a gun that it now won't have.

@overcorpse 2 жыл бұрын

The military-industrial complex won't feed itself you know.

@link10909 2 жыл бұрын

Not really controversial, everyone who knows about that program knows it failed HARD and will only (hopefully) act as proof of concept and test platform. The LCS is controversial because contractors/PMs/politicians try to pretend a program which has realized few of its goals and failed at nearly all its innovative facets is a success.

@chrisusher1356 2 жыл бұрын

I'm glad someone mentioned the Zum gun... At least there is ammo for the LCS weapon systems.

@mrchocolatebean8878 2 жыл бұрын

the zumwalt isnt controversial because almost everyone agrees it failed.

@rackem6724 2 жыл бұрын

@@mrchocolatebean8878 The gun failed the ships are amazing. If they get the modified Virginia payload module upgrade the Zumwalt may still prove to be the way forward. The LCS is just hot garbage. Both are a failure of strategy and tactics. They are weapon systems customized to deal with a low level opponent not a near peer threat. We don't need new billion dollar systems to deal with pirates and 3rd world dictators.

@lindo110 2 жыл бұрын

"you may get a better product but you'll never pay more" Lockheed Martin mission statement.

@bryandepaepe5984 2 жыл бұрын

One of the first selling points I remember hearing was, besides it's primary coastal role, was to free up destroyers for smaller interdiction missions and humanitarian relief. Then in the event of war they would be used mainly as anti-sub platforms, it was known engaging larger enemy surface ships was not recommended and evasion using their speed advantage was the plan.

@bryandepaepe5984 2 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-le6sp Missiles and projectiles don't work on a torpedo under water. And yes they do run the attack speed that fast by creating a pocket of gas or steam in front of the torpedo.

@patrickmccrann991 2 жыл бұрын

How they going to track a submarine? Last I checked they had no towed array and going active (if they have a sonar?) will just get them killed. Spent 24 yrs in the Navy doing towed array ops (SQR-15 and 19) and the name of the game is quiet!

@bryandepaepe5984 2 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-le6sp Sorry my bad, was having Russian Poseidon torpedo comment replies at same time for another channel.

@bryandepaepe5984 2 жыл бұрын

@@patrickmccrann991 They said they had a towed array sonar module they can install plus the helicopters.

@patrickmccrann991 2 жыл бұрын

@@bryandepaepe5984 If the module actually works. That part of the ship plan has been a total failure. Last I heard it was being abandoned.

@matthewhuszarik4173 2 жыл бұрын

Have they looked into selling them to smaller nations? They would be ideal for small nations that have no need for a blue water navy. Another option would be moving them to the Coast Guard.

@notliquid1448 2 жыл бұрын

That's actually what they're trying to do! They lost bid with Greece just a few weeks ago, it's basically competing with corvettes from other countries

@tomte47 2 жыл бұрын

They have a hard time competing with modern corvettes which have similar armament for a much cheaper price.

@matthewhuszarik4173 2 жыл бұрын

@@notliquid1448 If the alternative is decommissioning and scraping you can sell them pretty cheap and still come out ahead.

@notliquid1448 2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewhuszarik4173 Oh they actually proposed newly built Freedom class ships

@TheBooban 2 жыл бұрын

@@matthewhuszarik4173 No. LCS are meant to function along coats but the US also had a need for them to be ocean going and super fast. No other country needs those requirements and they present extra costs. Coastal nations just want bog standard corvettes.

@nicholasrivera9280 2 жыл бұрын

Defense contractors should be on the bill for any problems that arise. We should not be paying for their mistakes. Lockheeds modification to fix the problem with their design should come from the profits they make off of it. Stop paying for contractors to mess up

@fatnlazychinc 2 жыл бұрын

well then they will just give you a much higher quote when they initially design the ship.

@stuckbug3586 2 жыл бұрын

@@fatnlazychinc that will help us understand the real development cost

@samsonsoturian6013 2 жыл бұрын

That partially already exists, as often payment is often fixed at the beginning and the designers have to figure it out. This can actually, as private companies will only take big risks if you offer them more money up front. Of course, we all know you'd always argue in favor of what costs you less tax dollars.

@starexcelsior 2 жыл бұрын

Lockheed didn’t design the combining gear box (the part that breaks), they outsourced that to a company they believed had more experience in that type of design.

@Matt-yg8ub 2 жыл бұрын

@@fatnlazychinc Lockheed already does that. Everything they touch goes through numerous rounds of upgrades and fixes and repairs because they are just loaded top to bottom with problems that take decades to iron out…..Which conveniently gives Lockheed billions of dollars in maintenance contracts.

@prohero22 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS mission is basically the US Coast Guard’s mission.

@cgmason7568 2 жыл бұрын

Except it's bad at it

@erikanybody4298 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS mission has NOTHING to do with the Coast Guard. They're about as far apart as conceivable. I don't remember the Coast Guard being tasked to fight in off coastlines. Maybe look at what the Coast Guard actually does?

@davidburroughs2244 2 жыл бұрын

@@erikanybody4298 Lately, sure. In ww2 coasties often manned various craft, especially landing craft in the islands assaults. That being said, I do not know of any heavily armed coast guard ships protecting convoys against surface raiders, subs or enemy aircraft then. But, the coast guard did man nearly 400 skips then and almost 80 of them were LST's and etc. These days, not so much. Those WHEC mini cruisers pack a punch, so they are serious business when going about their LEO ops.

@sirbader1 2 жыл бұрын

@@banky4943 C O P I U M

@sirbader1 2 жыл бұрын

Love the avatar OP.

@glennalexon1530 2 жыл бұрын

The ships are still modular... but we don't change the modules. Sounds like "Modularity was a stupid idea; it would be better to build the ship the way you want it in the first place".

@k53847 2 жыл бұрын

And the modules that exist don't work. But other than that it's perfect. So we undercrew forward deployed DDGs to man these unarmed, short ranged missile sponges.

@ItsTheMasterWoo 2 жыл бұрын

give those small ships to coast guard. no need for the navy to be working by the coast.

@bradhartliep879 2 жыл бұрын

The US Coast Guard does not normally operate off the Coasts of Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea, Australia and the Starights of Hormuz - THAT is why the USNavy needs Littoral Class Ships .. the US Coast Guard has their own that operate in US Coastal Waters ..

@yf4013 2 жыл бұрын

@@bradhartliep879 Why in the hell is US navy operating in other countries' littoral water anyway. If you want to dominate the world, don't expect you can do it cheaply.

@roy1299 2 жыл бұрын

@@bradhartliep879 wow you think that what you see are not nations? That’s why your thinking is loathed around the world.

@emilyseto1350 2 жыл бұрын

They would be the most expensive over engineered coast guard ships in the history of the world.

@royhuang9715 2 жыл бұрын

@@bradhartliep879 LCS would get instant fcked up if it tried to operate say near Chinese or Iranian coast. Their stealth is a myth. Airborne early warning radar could easily spot them from 100 miles away, then a few subsonic anti ship missile would finish those LCS which lacks any self defense capabilities. LCS is a junk because it could not perform the task it was designed for. Plain and simple.

@cedricchiu9763 2 жыл бұрын

LCS was meant to be a cost-saving ship... it was supposed to be a "modular ship", that by swapping Anti-Air, Anti-Sub, Anti-Mine "Modules", LCS can do various jobs (and the navy can save by cutting "single purpose ship" like the Mine-hunting Ospreys and sub-hunting Perrys). The problem is... this idea never worked, its too costly to swap modules, but all the negativity that comes with the "modular design" got added into to cost and system complexity anyway. Even the littoral hull design, is considered less valuable now after the war on terror ended. From an engineering perspective (both trained electrical engineer and project manager), I only feel sad for the outcome, and I don't think it is much a project-managing issue. The technical complexity was underestimated, and we simply didn't have the technical maturity needed for the "swapping modules" technology..... In Hindsight, the moment the higher-ups decided to go with the modular design, its Game-Over for the engineering and project-managing team... its basically asking using 90s technology to design a Tesla Electric Car in the 2010s.... (its not entirely "impossible", but don't do it!). No engineering/project management team can save you from that, and this decision was made very early in the program phase.

@TakeDeadAim 2 жыл бұрын

I retired a few years ago. I worked at the Pentagon in the office of the CNO. Even top Admirals referred to it as "Little Crappy Ship" early in it's life. It's a ship with no mission. It was simply built to satisfy politicians in Wisconsin and Alabama...where the two are built. The Freedom class has had fewer issues as the quality coming out of Marinette Wi has been much higher. The Independence class built in Mobile is plagued with ongoing QC problems due to the inferior workforce.

@Lawrence330 2 жыл бұрын

100% this. Name another bid where both contestants were awarded contracts and the Navy bought (or ordered) dozens of each hull. From the outset it was clear to me that this was shady AF and meant to grease palms. The Perry design was built in multiple yards, the Burkes are built in multiple yards, but they are built under license from the "winning" bid.

@laqueenawilliams4762 2 жыл бұрын

This is freaking BS. Our tax money being throw away while people are homeless.

@SpamSucker 2 жыл бұрын

Almost every detailed account of problems with “the LCS program” references problems with the Freedom class. Independence gets guilt by association, with very few detailed accounts of specific problems. This video continues the trend of media unable to distinguish the performance of the two classes. The Navy was always skeptical of the trimaran design, and has adjusted its perception of reality to fit it’s desired narrative.

@MultiBaseball1010 2 жыл бұрын

The Independence is a pile of junk as well that wears itself out after a simple transit of the Pacific requiring weeks of post trip maintenance. And being aluminum it’s ridiculously unsurvivable. They’re both garbage and need to be abandoned. Buy more real ships and move on.

@Ezees23 2 жыл бұрын

That is to be expected. Alabama is known to have one of the absolute worst school/education systems in the U.S. They're proud of their ignorance down there as evidenced by their % of MAGA to non-Kool Aide drinkers, LOL (not really funny at all considering that this effects our National Defense).

@stealthassasin1day291 Жыл бұрын

A cost saving ship that ended up being a money pit that had too many issues. They learned from their lessons and it's time to move forward. It's a wise decision of cutting your losses.

@lexluthor4156 Жыл бұрын

It's also a wise decision to spent your money multiple times on the "wrong ships" so they can afford bigger yachts to impress chicks in the summer.

@fatdoi003 10 ай бұрын

yep.. near $1bil per pop is so easy to say.... like money grows on trees or printed....... oops... they're just printed for free

@williamniklaus9480 2 жыл бұрын

Fantastic! And please do more of your very good reporting on more defence programs!!!!!

@mogtrader8 2 жыл бұрын

It's worrisome when the US is okay exposing their fleet to the world and her adversaries!

@bonpaoi4736 2 жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdh-asiIl7W3h6s.html

@wanpenmohilla5671 2 жыл бұрын

It might make more sense to reconfigure the LCS for the Coast Guard.

@amerigo88 2 жыл бұрын

Read this many times elsewhere and in many of these comments. A key problem with LCS is they are very expensive to operate and maintain. In peacetime, the US Coast Guard is funded by the Department of Homeland Security which tends to have a smaller budget than the Department of Defense. As a result, the Coast Guard generally chooses lower-cost, lower capability ships than the US Navy. If the Coast Guard accepted expensive LCS's, they would likely siphon funds away from more financially viable cutters like the Hamiltons. This would reduce Coast Guard sea coverage and especially the long range patrols to the Western Pacific. The Coast Guard also operates unique vehicles like the Dolphin helicopters that might require expensive reconfiguration for use on the LCS's or the use of the expensive Seahawk (Blackhawk) helicopters to maintain LCS compatibility. After WW2, the Navy passed many vessels on to the Coast Guard, but the ships were less costly and less specialized in those days.

@Terran994 2 жыл бұрын

I love that line "I don't think the service has ever like these ships. They're not blue water assets and can shoot a missile 1,000 miles away." Just like the Cyclone Class PCs

@Lawrence330 2 жыл бұрын

The Navy happily operates minesweeps and patrol craft, hovercraft (LCAC), and a plethora of small boats for security operations around the world. The phrase "brown water Navy" refers to riverine squadrons, which have been operated in tactical environments since Viet Nam. The LCS was a dupe from day 1 when they awarded orders for both competing bids (two hull designs). No other ship class has been purchased that way as far as I can recall.

@Terran994 2 жыл бұрын

@@Lawrence330 I spent 3 years on a PC, so I know some people look down on those small ships and craft because they're not big, fancy, and multi-mission, but those small ships and craft get the job done every time, and the crew has the hearts and guts to get it done

@geoben1810 2 жыл бұрын

The contractor, whoever it may be, Lockheed Martin in this case, needs to be held responsible for whatever defects and for the repairs required due to material defects and/ or workmanship. And a suspension period of future contracts. ,👍

@kffire12 2 жыл бұрын

...Are you giving yourself a thumbs up?

@nosonoliento 2 жыл бұрын

What? Are you a comedian? Because that's funny.

@fucker1714 2 жыл бұрын

I think they engineer problems into their equipment in order to keep that gov't MIC $$$ rolling in. They use a subscription-based business model. Like Microsoft does now.

@plab0187 2 жыл бұрын

@@fucker1714 considering that Lockheed is footing the bill for the modifications and repairs that seems unlikely.

@rayray7405 2 жыл бұрын

It is just a jobs program.

@coreymicallef365 2 жыл бұрын

"The Constellation class is based on an existing class of ships" except the US Navy's specifications for it have completely altered every aspect of them (they're longer, wider, with a different set of engines, a completely different sensor suite and twice the the missile armament).

@wavavoom 2 жыл бұрын

I agree. But is that a refinement or a revolution. I'd argue it's a refinement but don't worry military have a way of screwing it up

@danielhaire6677 2 жыл бұрын

@@wavavoom Agreed. The Navy first started moving to missile heavy instead of gun heavy platforms decades ago with the Ticonderoga Class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers. So a Heavy Cruiser of Battlecruiser scale ship built around the same philosophy does seem a logical next step. And yes, the first ships will be "screwed up" and have a ton of problems that will eventually get ironed out and the ships will become the norm for the fleet.

@kevinshort3943 2 жыл бұрын

""The Constellation class is based on an existing class of ships" except the US Navy's specifications for it have completely altered every aspect of them" Exactly!! They should have gone for the Type 26, like the other 5 eyes.

@ernstschloss8794 2 жыл бұрын

@@kevinshort3943 They went for a more multi-purpose capable design. 26s are more ASW oriented, besides Type 26s are yet unproved, Anyway: the logical choice would have been Navantia's F-100. AEGIS frigates for an AEGIS navy. Politics tipped the ballance in favour of the Italians.

@kevinshort3943 2 жыл бұрын

@@ernstschloss8794 "They went for a more multi-purpose capable design. 26s are more ASW oriented" They are, but the Canadian and Australian variants aren't. "Type 26s are yet unproved," And a design that has been altered in every way is? "the logical choice would have been Navantia's F-100. AEGIS frigates for an AEGIS navy." The Australian Type 26 is being fitted with AEGIS - it's only electronics. "Politics tipped the ballance in favour of the Italians." Yes, or they would have gone for the more modern and capable type 26 - admittedly it is more expensive, but economies of scale and all that.

@OG_Mac79 2 жыл бұрын

As a former USN sailor, the ship has NEVER been capable of the missions it was supposed to be capable of. The boondoogle of the railgun system was scrapped, the subsurface warfare was limited to its helo missions, and the plug and play functions that were a MASSIVE selling point are an epic failure. It was supposed to be swappable within 3 days. Well that turned out to be 10-22 days according to navy statements. It is limited to very few vls missiles and its gun. A gun that when examined as an anti ship weapon was found to be lacking. It has minimal defense capabilities from shore based systems, which again is a MAJOR issue when these are meant to be close to shore ships by design. The 30mm is not capable of seriously damaging any hard target and is mainly used as anti aircraft/anti tank/vehicle use. As far as I know there is only ONE asw module built and was set to be installed in 2017. AND it is an ACTIVE sonar system. If you put these against even ww2 class destroyers they are dead. Completely ignoring the real threat of missile attack. I would not want my loved ones on one of these ships in the fleet. So it is understandable for the Navy to want to get rid of a system that does not work, is expensive to maintain, and of minimal use in the very missions it was designed to complete. Sell them to the Coast Guard for interdiction missions and let them deal with it. Since they are pretty much useless in a fight unless against boghammers. To be fair when every tinpot dictator has access to Chinese and Russian missiles these ships are at a serious risk.

@aurorauplinks 2 жыл бұрын

I think they built them specifically to be blown up while the good ships survive, and that's why the crew complements were designed to be very low. And they have a helipad so important politicians visiting or officers can get off at the last second before a dangerous mission, and if that fails they can order the ship to run away even if it endangers the fleet its with. Thats just the cynical movie/tv show writer in me dreaming of a villainous intent behind something the government did.... totally not what it was really designed for I'm sure.

@josephcernansky1794 2 жыл бұрын

sounds like some Navy Procurement officers had too much pull with the Congressional Armed Services Committee....I figured how that worked years ago when Murtha was the Chairman. Bad idea to let a lifelong corrupt "pick-pocket" in charge of money things in our government. (looking at you too Brandon!!) PS : Ukraine will need some littoral ships to "attempt" to keep it's shipping protected once Putin and his Orcs are all dead. Donate to them...at least a future NATO country will be able to make use of them sailing along NATO coastlines of the Black Sea. (Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkish straits to the Mediterranean Sea will be the only viable shipping lane unless Crimea is counter-offense and re-captured from the Drunken Mongrel Horde). And relinquishing them to the Coast Guard is another really good idea with its helicopter support capabilities and reduced mission lengths. That ship seems right up the CG alley.

@aurorauplinks 2 жыл бұрын

@@josephcernansky1794 seems interesting for an idea, id rather they figure out a weapons or mission platform that the ships could excell at though. Perhaps some sort of baking ship to make food for the fleet :) Fine fine maybe it would be a GOOD coast guard ship for america and the black sea

@pooyasafaei2538 Жыл бұрын

Yes the same thing that happened to zummwalt, and possibly many more projects that are on the way too

@carisi2k11 Жыл бұрын

The railgun was never meant for these LCS ships. You are thinking of the zumwalts.

@vodka4215 2 жыл бұрын

Ah yes... The LCS.. it's technically not a success since there's no job for it but it's technically not a failure either since there's no job for it to do it badly

@gabekillian2761 2 жыл бұрын

Basically we predicted a future of terrorist response that we didn't need. It's designed for a problem that doesn't exist

@Francis__D 2 жыл бұрын

Dude the door broke during a training exercise with the media. With its past reliability issues idk how else to say it..... looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....its a failure.

@MrFlatage 2 жыл бұрын

@@gabekillian2761 'we predicted'? You are a U.S general with 7 bars on your chest? Dude you cannot even end sentences yet. Go back to school kid.

@carbon1255 2 жыл бұрын

It floats quite badly as the aluminium gains stress fractures. I think they forgot aircraft are entirely replaced every few years.

@MrFlatage 2 жыл бұрын

@@carbon1255 Hehe sure they 'replacd' the B53's from ... the 1950s? Your funny. Bad trolling though. We all know it's not true.

@floydkershner6591 2 жыл бұрын

I can understand build 2 different types to test concepts. But once you have a design stick to it. Having 2 different designs for LCS is an unnecessary cost. Also why is it necessary to have that much speed? this adds a huge cost and space requirement for what? We also know about what happens to Aluminum when hit by a missile. This is why you never build a warship with Aluminum. The LCS is needlessly complex and expensive.

@aleksaradojicic8114 2 жыл бұрын

Speed is really needed element in littoral areas, where pretty much anything is near coast on land, air or sea whit goal to hit you. As such, speed is first line of defense against those threats.

@Lawrence330 2 жыл бұрын

The aluminum thing is a red herring, that isn't the reason. The superstructure on most combatants is already aluminum. Aluminum is lightweight, even in greater thicknesses, and is more corrosion resistant than steel in many aspects. The speed is necessary for pursuits of pirate craft or drug-running vessels. I'm surprised the Navy disclosed it, honestly. Most ships are stated as "30+ knots" regardless of their actual performance. Also, knots is kn or kt. No ship can "outrun" a missile, but speed is important for torpedo evasion.

@doogleticker5183 2 жыл бұрын

@@Lawrence330 - Scenario: an aluminum ship gets hit by a missile and damages a non-critical part of the ship, but a fire starts. Aluminum melts at 660.3°C. 'Benign' accommodation spaces (no petroleum products) have an average fire temperature ranging from 700 to 900°C. A ship goes to DC condition Zulu Alpha, but oxygen still fuels the fire. The ship melts. Have you never heard of the fire on HMS Sheffield or HMCS Kootenay? Those lessons are why warships are made of steel. Even the ladders within ships are steel. I don't consider it a red herring, but a valid reason. Especially with small boats being armed with missiles as in the Iranian Navy. Swarms can be made effective, especially if different weapon systems and vectors are employed. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-e82667ce0042d744921596fda52a1bc2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-e82667ce0042d744921596fda52a1bc2.pdf www.quora.com/Why-did-the-US-Navy-abandon-aluminum-superstructures-for-its-destroyers-after-the-Oliver-Hazard-Perry-class-frigates-and-return-to-totally-steel-ships-for-the-Arleigh-Burke-class-destroyers

@boratb258 2 жыл бұрын

bribed politicians

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

You aren't looking at it as a politician. Two classes built in two places means twice the jobs for Congressman Bigwig's district and twice the campaign donations from contractors. From that perspective one might say this program has greatly exceeded expectations.

@jstasiak2262 2 жыл бұрын

This was a very incoherent report and I’m not sure I learned anything from it. America’s most pressing adversary for the foreseeable future is the Chinese Navy and Air Force in the South and East China Seas, the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca. Large numbers of small, agile ships are necessary because China has developed weapons technology that is capable of accurately and reliability sinking large combat ships (i.e. aircraft carriers). Such ships have to be “blue water” capable. The primary mission of a US Navy ship is to defend US interests abroad on the high seas, not for doing humanitarian missions. Humanitarian missions should not be a major design priority. Modern Naval warfare is conducted via aircraft (manned and/or unmanned) and long range missiles, not by ships duking it out with guns on the high seas. None of these important concepts were mentioned. For that reason, I am extremely unimpressed with this report.

@RR-in7do 2 жыл бұрын

The humanitarian ability of the Navy is massively important to America's global influence. Should humanitarian missions be prioritized over its combat capability? No. But it should still definitely be an important consideration.

@wh6055 2 жыл бұрын

Had the same feeling. They were so enthused in presenting a 'neutral' view to the point where they lost the plot.

@MrChickennugget360 2 жыл бұрын

@John Hackney America definitely has adversaries. China is a threat. Don't care if you ignorant of reality but having nuclear weapons does not protect you from anything other than nuclear first strike.

@Alex-ub7tk 2 жыл бұрын

The real surface-level war ships were the friends we made along the way.

@KillroyX99 2 жыл бұрын

Military spending is the largest segment of federal discretionary spending.

@abrahamdozer6273 2 жыл бұрын

It's also the main way that the United States subsidizes industry (while claiming that they don't)

@dundonrl 2 жыл бұрын

Yes you're right, but it's not the largest part of the federal budget, that would be health services!

@abrahamdozer6273 2 жыл бұрын

@@dundonrl Really? Definitely not getting your money's worth out of that. The US is behind almost everybody in the fight against the virus.

@SeeLasSee 2 жыл бұрын

Yes. And yet it seems so modest now compared with all the Covid expenses.

@KillroyX99 2 жыл бұрын

@@dundonrl , Are you sure. In 2019, pre-pandemic, health services was only 5% of federal discretionary spending. Defense was 61% and veterans benefits at 7%. Also, don’t confuse health benefits that employees and employers have already paid for out of their paycheck. The same goes for Social Security. Those are non-discretionary.

@Big-Government-Is-The-Problem 2 жыл бұрын

lol they claim is has a low crew count then proceed to compare it to a ship 3x larger with slightly more than 3x the crew members

@Big-Government-Is-The-Problem 2 жыл бұрын

@The Paradox Destroyer nah the ships are expensive trash that would be taken out by 1-2 anti ship missiles or a zerg of 50 jihad bomb boats.

@amarican3530 2 жыл бұрын

@@Big-Government-Is-The-Problem They are expensive but, in reality probably costs the US Taxpayer less than the new class of ship, or equal, due to crew size, the constellation plans for 199 crew, a book I read claims the navy spends on average-ish, 50000 to recruit and 100000 to maintain, multiplying those figures by anticipated crew compliment and doubling it for officers gets you around 33-34 million, while the same math for the independence class LCS gets you at 6 million. I'm not going to argue that they should or shouldn't be replaced, but I will argue that for the Independence class at least, the Navy may keep them around for their small crew size.

@hamentaschen 2 жыл бұрын

"The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."

@PaulGuy 2 жыл бұрын

This whole thing sounds like the Navy's version of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Pentagon Wars Mk 2.

@dccs6009 2 жыл бұрын

Pretty much.

@2adamast 2 жыл бұрын

Those same Bradley's that did in Iraq a better job than the Abrams M1 against heavy tanks?

@PaulGuy 9 ай бұрын

@@2adamast Yeah, those Bradleys. They spent way more money on them than they'd originally planned making it a do-everything vehicle. The Bradley luckily ended up a good vehicle, thanks in part to the failures of their target vehicles. The LCS is also a good ship, but not for what the Navy wants to use them for. They should have been Coast Guard ships.

@WalrusWinking Ай бұрын

The Bradley ended up being an excellent vehicle and STILL is. It's only now that we're in the absolute beginner stages of making prototypes to replace them DECADES later. The same seems to be happening with the Freedom class today.

@dantea6 2 жыл бұрын

they are so great because one can look out the bridge wing to see traffic. what matter is that they look cool, that's the most important thing.

@jeremydyar7566 2 жыл бұрын

They certainly look cool

@alfredolejo3504 2 жыл бұрын

I remember when I was kid my friends would rip their shoes so their parents would buy them new ones

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

I would have been wearing ripped shoes for a while.

@davidteer80 2 жыл бұрын

The first four LCS's are being retired due to the cost of repairs. As far as I know all the remaining LCS's will be repaired or upgraded.

@patrickkenna6387 2 жыл бұрын

The first four were also used as capability platforms for the other ships.

@frankpinmtl 2 жыл бұрын

wiki has 6 being retired

@davidteer80 2 жыл бұрын

@Kenneth Tham that was one of the original purposes of the LCS. it's original surface warfare module had a lightweight mid-range missile. But that missile was eventually canceled.

@davidteer80 2 жыл бұрын

@Kenneth Tham they should retire the ones that are too expensive to fix. The remainder need to be permanently converted to anti-submarine or anti-mine. But remember correctly the sub hunting module is the only one that works out of the three of them.

@patrickkenna6387 2 жыл бұрын

@@frankpinmtl Just looked it up, No idea why they are retiring 2 other freedom class ships. Could be the propulsion issue that got fixed in latter ships

@pauloakwood9208 Жыл бұрын

As I recall, these LCS ships were forced on the Navy by Congress who wanted to create jobs in their home districts. The Navy didn't want them, and one Admiral famously testified that they would be floating coffins. Gee, guess what, it turns out that the Navy was right. I mean have we forgotten that the Freedom class was based on an Australia ferryboat.

@steve_jackson9933 2 жыл бұрын

the thing with the LCS is the design is incredibly brilliant in that if you want to bring in a ship with a certain package, such as ASW, put that package in the LCS and send it in. The problem is that does not quite work that way. instead of playing games with LCS system, they could have a DDG type class that is a bit better, overall, and have that instead of a class that is plagued with problems.

@changwanlu2448 2 жыл бұрын

Great weekly summary!

@folie-n3t 2 жыл бұрын

It's an bit a ridiculous that the door jammed when the reporter try to leave the boat...

@christopherwarsh 2 жыл бұрын

Thats military grade hardware!

@bonpaoi4736 2 жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdh-asiIl7W3h6s.html

@wallacegrommet3479 2 жыл бұрын

Didn’t show his Covid-19 passport yet :)

@pamelastokes2964 2 жыл бұрын

I was taught that the more complicated a thing is made, the more problems it will have. This has always proven to be true, in my experience.

@Lawrence330 2 жыл бұрын

A telescope has few moving parts, but a complex RADAR is more useful most of the time. A tomahawk missile is probably more technologically complex than most of the ships that carry it, and it's meant to be destroyed when used!

@bradz9413 2 жыл бұрын

Great report.

@christophersnyder1532 2 жыл бұрын

I just recently noticed that USS Freedom LCS-1, was just decommissioned, I was surprised, since it is pretty young. Take care, and all the best.

@karenfay4545 2 жыл бұрын

Realize the LCS was originally conceived as a throw away, one hit and dead. The idea was to build a butt load of them to swarm the opponent. STUPID, and they finally came to their senses and tried to beef up the LSC to be more than a target but that was to late Mark Fay US MMC Jr. Engineer QMED AS-E

@boratb258 2 жыл бұрын

U.S can't be like that, they need big hold your ground ships because U.S navel warfare revolves around their carriers sending out 20 aircraft with at least two anti ship missiles each.

@jamesk370 2 жыл бұрын

One use I could see for the LCS ships is to supplement the Cyclone-class patrol ships, stationed in the Persian Gulf, deterring / defending against small boat attacks preferred by Iran.

@wolfenstien13 2 жыл бұрын

I can see those ships supplement a small fleet, but the main purpose of a frigate-sized ship is to support larger ship types and fleets. It so happens Frigates are good coastal vessels. Dumb Navy is trying to build a ship for the wrong reasons.

@johncox2865 2 жыл бұрын

It would only be a larger, less maneuverable target.

@blank1778 2 жыл бұрын

Anti mine and submarine to support large attack groups especially in the South China Sea

@hypothalapotamus5293 2 жыл бұрын

I don't see a use for a frigate ship that's armed like a corvette and has the upkeep cost of a destroyer.

@jamesk370 2 жыл бұрын

@@hypothalapotamus5293 unfortunately we are stuck with them at a time when we need MORE warships, and it is going to take a few years to acquire better replacements. Best we can do in the interim is make the best chicken salad we can out of these piles of chicken 💩.

@jom1727 2 жыл бұрын

America free college: nah cool boat: yah

@LeeXRV 2 жыл бұрын

I think there is a different dimension to some of these arguments about how successful these ships are and it should also be considered that a number or % of these projects will fail but they never fail entirely in so much as a great deal is learned in these projects and many of the technologies developed for these platforms evolve and mature into systems that will be latterly used in combat. There is a cost to being number one and developing new technologies that other countries will eventually try to replicate and I say this as someone who isn’t American.

@justsayingforafriend7010 9 ай бұрын

This was a colossal failure... When you have to have civilians come on board just for general housekeeping? It's sad. The captain and executive officer had cleaning stations. Nothing more embarrassing than seeing the Captain of a ship high dusting and waxing the deck... I was discussed!!!

@michaelcrockis7679 2 жыл бұрын

Tactical strings on the propulsion levers are just great!

@michaelcrockis7679 2 жыл бұрын

@Joe Griffin Simple one. CHCl3.

@WG55 2 жыл бұрын

With such small crew numbers, it should be an efficient design as long as it doesn't have to do any fighting.

@shawnbixby1 2 жыл бұрын

any fighting or any maintenance

@mahmadrozi1710 2 жыл бұрын

sell those ships to the Phillipines

@philcharles238 2 жыл бұрын

That's the thing; you can't even fight a fire for any length of time because of lack of bodies. It becomes an abandon ship scenario quickly.

@davidburroughs2244 2 жыл бұрын

At nearly a billion dollars each? I'd rather have a new Arliegh Burke and even those are getting a little long in the teeth.

@damongraham1398 2 жыл бұрын

@@davidburroughs2244 around 4 million each.

@robertrussell1879 2 жыл бұрын

Anyone remember when the goal was 500 ships at any cost? Regardless of the costs or additions to the deficit?

@drunkdonkey1009 2 жыл бұрын

@Cheese Um, so we aren’t taken over and possibly killed? It’s happened to just about every nation throughout history and it’s bound to happen to us at some point

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

Sure. I also remember Mr. Gorbachev tearing that wall down because the Soviets couldn't keep up. It was money well spend to rid the world of the dangerous evil of Soviet Communism.

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

@Cheese Not the slightest little bit.

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

@Cheese As it existed in the Soviet Union, absolutely. It's just about tied with Nazism as the worst, most murderous ideology and system of government in human history. Of course, you can't make an omelette without murdering a few million people, at least if you're Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

@Cheese You're hilarious. And so wrong it hurts.

@The_Quaalude 2 жыл бұрын

We spend billions on war but can't feed the poor...

@phiksit 2 жыл бұрын

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

@arvindkennedy4577 2 жыл бұрын

I wish the strength of a nation is determined by the quality of life, health care and education... rather than military spending

@qrion13 2 жыл бұрын

Books don’t go “shroof!”

@88eclhome71 2 жыл бұрын

If only.

@bradhartliep879 2 жыл бұрын

Without the US Military to protect and defend our Constitutional and Civil Rights there will be NO quality of life, healthcare and education - the minute our Military is gone, we will get invaded by Russia and China and all Human Rights will END .. and if the American People had elected #Eisenhower #REPUBLICAN #BradHartliep in 2020, 2016 and 2012, instead of LIARS and CONARTISTS and Elitist sellouts Obama, Biden, Hillary, Sanders and Trump, the American People would have a GREAT National Healthcare System - one that Brad Hartliep has been actively supporting since 1990, one that would cover ALL Healthcare issues from Birth to death, and one that would put "obamacare for the rich elite" [ which the Poorest American Citizens can't afford and have been forced out of - by Obama] and all the healthcare plans in Canada, UK, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark to shame, and our children would be receiving the GREATEST STEM Education in the world, and our Infrastructure would have already been rebuilt, and our communities would be bicycle and walking traffic friendly, and America would not be the disaster it has become under Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton .. REAL Progressive Growth in America - REAL Civil Rights in America - REAL Equality for Minorities and Women in America - did not come about because of the Democratic Party [ who supported and promoted Racism and opposed Civil Rights for more than 200 years] - they exist, and were invented by, and were promoted by, and were passed into law by, the #Eisenhower #TeddyRoosevelt, #Lincoln, #JohnAdams #REPUBLICAN Party .. And that's the Leadership America needs in 2024 ~ #BradHartliep 2024 President, #LaunchAmericaForward ..

@jmf5246 2 жыл бұрын

I agree but both would be better with less govt involvement. Just like defense

@jmf5246 2 жыл бұрын

Lockmart? Ha ha

@DosKumaks 2 жыл бұрын

You called them ‘conex boxes’ instead of ‘shipping containers’! I haven’t heard many people outside of rural Alaska call them that! Then again I live in rural Alaska so I don’t see or hear many people.

@Akapaco2 2 жыл бұрын

I live in North Carolina and we call them Conex's at work.

@darrellcook8253 2 жыл бұрын

It's ok man! Conex boxes was their original name. I wondered what happened to the name.

@Error-0x0194 2 жыл бұрын

1:54 The LCS program began in 2002 but not from scratch. It really started in 1994 with the SC-21 program.

@informationcollectionpost3257 2 жыл бұрын

Just from viewing a large number of You Tube videos on the LCS concept and on missile boats and corvettes; the ship has some problems that could be worked around. Very few missile boats achieve a speed over 40 knots. The drive systems of the LCS vessels break down frequently. Could it be that 46 knots is trying to go a faster than one should go? The LCS is built in modules but missile boats or corvettes are sometimes built as well rounded combat systems with perminent weapon systems that include anti-aircraft missiles, ship to ship missiles, ship to shore capabilities even if its a rapid fireing Oto Melara or Bofors gun, torpedoes, and anti-sub search systems, and at times mid-range cruise missiles. They often employ stealth technologies. They can't carry large quanties of any one of these weapons and therefore can't sustain a long drawen out fight unless they are reconfigured to just a few tasks. They can take more damage than a ship built with modules. They require surveillance and targeting often from aircraft or drones often from the shore but if made bigger, which often defeats their laterial mission, they can carry a drone or helicopter with them, and they rely on larger number of similar vessels for sustaining a longer duration fight. The use of modules which are bolted in place, instead of welded in place may not achieve the versitilty or ruggedness that today's combat demands. As others mentioned, they may be better suited for the Coast Guard to protect our own shores where Coast Guard aircraft are covering them. Lattoral ships will still be needed for overseas deployment and the Cyclone boats or a beefed up and larger Cyclone boat may be more suitable. ( they are already in the USN's arsenal) Also, a look at other nations missile boat and corvette fleets would provide better answers to the USN's needs. Nations such as Israel, Turkey, Sweden, Finland, and Norway seem to have excellent fleets of smaller boats for Lattoral waters. They are not making them like we are trying to and they would be off the shelf, proven technology.

@Errr717 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS class ships would be good for the Coast Guard.

@William_sJazzLoft 2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@penitent2401 2 жыл бұрын

except in many way that it isn't. the cost to build and run is way too high for normal coastguard use. Majority of the weapon and electronic systems and technologies has to be stripped and replaced because the coast guard has no use for them or too much technical skills and upkeep is required (cutting edge stealth system and cruise missiles, defences and electronic warfare systems). It's cheaper to build the coastguard a new ship than make them use this one, it's designed and built for a very specific role. like handing a F35 to the police to replace some helicopters.

@richardcarlson2644 2 жыл бұрын

Better hang on and up funding across the board and kick the ass of these defense contractors who need competition and urgency we have a War coming Damn soon! Better such it up boys or we'll all be cannon foder for Chinese invasions!

@MultiBaseball1010 2 жыл бұрын

No. A doesn’t have the range, costs too much to operate, and inferior in every way to the ships the Coast Guard has.

@keinoquias1708 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS-2 looks good and has a decent performance, and I didn't know that there is a Constellation class.

@jonnyrawket8158 2 жыл бұрын

There’s also Zumwalt successor and Ticonderoga successor programs currently in the concept phase. But that’s the issue. We need ship replacements in those areas and they aren’t coming along fast enough

@bonpaoi4736 2 жыл бұрын

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdh-asiIl7W3h6s.html

@swaghauler8334 2 жыл бұрын

They aren't built yet. The Navy is modifying a FREM class vessel for the new Constellation. This won't be floating for a couple of years.

@danyannick8241 2 жыл бұрын

Many thanks!

@patrickmccrann991 2 жыл бұрын

@@swaghauler8334 The first two ships of the class have already been had lead funds authorized. They just laid down the keel for the first one.

@chrisf8855 2 жыл бұрын

The ship's guns are underpowered for sure. War simulations have shown this. Simply amazing the level of incompetency in the military.

@gusniev9631 2 жыл бұрын

Coast guard right now excited for those new ships lol

@hbarudi 2 жыл бұрын

What about retiring the ship to restart a public transportation service on the great lakes between USA and Canada? The new companies would simply have to fix the non functioning engines and build amenities on board to provide for passenger comfort...

@Dave_Sisson 2 жыл бұрын

The trimaran is an adaption of an Australian fast car ferry. Two Australian companies (Incat and Austal) dominate the fast (35 to 50 knots) car ferry sector and sell a lot of ships to Asia and Europe. BUT the USA has never accepted them. Two examples. A service in the Bay of Fundy failed because people preferred to drive around the bay, even though it took 4 hours longer and in Hawaii the airlines lobbied to close down a fast inter island ferry because by claiming that it was bad for the environment. So they could be used as fast car ferries elsewhere, but not in North America.

@greatvalleyone 2 жыл бұрын

The hulls of the all aluminum ships is plagued with cracking structural welds when used in rough weather, seems like a poor design.

@davidcunico1673 Жыл бұрын

The USS John S McCain, DL3 was capable of 41.2 knots and it tested at that speed when I was aboard in 63-66. Of course it had engine problems, too

@michaelschneider2874 2 жыл бұрын

I have years working on the open ocean . This particular tri-hull design is a steel anchor . This ship is not a blue water vessel . It would need to outrun any big weather or be pounded beneath the waves !

@carbon1255 2 жыл бұрын

I think that is unfair, it is not an issue of a tri hull- it is under armed and incapable, which would be fine if it didn't cost the same as a warship. The tri hull doesn't make it that weather unsuitable, but it is light aluminium for as low draft as possible and it is tiny.

@GRIGGINS1 2 жыл бұрын

Those boats seem to be an Engineman"s nightmare. I shutter at the amount of PMS checks and Engineering watches they have to perform.

@magmafoxx7747 2 жыл бұрын

There more of an electricians nightmare

@GRIGGINS1 2 жыл бұрын

@@magmafoxx7747 How about a combined Snipes Nightmare then lol.

@createdeccentricities6620 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS: over priced, under armed and mechanically unreliable, to boot.

@mr.coffee6242 2 жыл бұрын

Cant operate more than 1 day away from a gas station. Its useless

@LexlutherVII 2 жыл бұрын

Welcome to usa

@fumingriley 2 жыл бұрын

LCS = Little Crappy Ships

@dennisstafford1749 2 жыл бұрын

Use them as drone/anti-drone platforms. This could be a vehicle whose main purpose is launching and/or counter-acting drone swarms. Drone swarms flying into drone swarms as defense.

@icmedia6314 2 жыл бұрын

I been on that ship when I was a kid. Amazing design.

@Lawrence330 2 жыл бұрын

The leaky design? Or the one that doesn't run? Neither are "good" designs, just "good looking" if you're into that.

@scifitoilet 2 жыл бұрын

feel like EVERY modern military endeavor can be described as Ambitious but Flawed

@protorhinocerator142 2 жыл бұрын

I'm thinking the Navy should make some very small, very stealthy, unmanned, submersible, targeting boats. You launch them from a larger ship near the enemy coast. These boats would obtain and retain a radar lock on multiple enemy targets. It would be hard for enemy radar to get a lock on them, but if any do, they could turn off their radar systems and pop under water. If you have 12 of them deployed, you might have 2 under water at any given time. They would be effective if only 4 are active. These boats would relay tracking data back to the main fleet so the capital ships could launch missiles without generating their own radar signature. The boats would be "attritable" but not expendable. That means we could afford to lose a few now and then but we try not to lose them. These boats would be made on the cheap. You're putting many unmanned stealth boats in harm's way to lower the risk for larger expensive capital ships with hundreds of sailors on board. And unlike Aegis destroyers which take years to build, you can crank these boats out in a matter of weeks. Let's add to the fun. It uses stealthy (low sonar) underwater pontoons. The top observable portion is stealthy to radar and turns like a 360 turret. This way, no matter what direction the boat is heading, a maximum stealth surface is always facing the enemy. The underwater pontoons can link, making it possible to send out one boat to retrieve another that was damaged or ran out of fuel. Then bring it back to the deployment ship for repair.

@johnstreet797 10 ай бұрын

Ukraine could sell us those

@julwiezdeghorz5089 2 жыл бұрын

I remember, Discovery Channel made a documentary both of these two ships and bragged so much about it. Decades later the Navy declared that the two ships was a flop.

@Elthenar 11 ай бұрын

Imagine if you filled that rear deck with VLS cells. All of a sudden, you'd have a small ship with a hell of a lot of firepower that could be outfitted any number of ways. You'd probably have to remove that CIWS from the roof and launch smaller helocopters from there but that would be a worthwhile tradeoff IMO.

@Psychol-Snooper 2 жыл бұрын

It seems like just yesterday congress was debating the littoral stimulus. Conservatives though the need was a myth.

@tdyblgm24 2 жыл бұрын

So is more tanks that the army doesn’t want. But conservatives pushed for them and now they have more tanks than they want or need.

@blairhaffly1777 2 жыл бұрын

Conservatives never prioritize clitoral stimulus.

@ivanlowjones 2 жыл бұрын

Oh,...."littoral ships". At first I wondered why a ship was named after a woman's nether regions.

@erichoppe8228 2 жыл бұрын

I am somewhat confused. Are you thinking that "littoral" is the same as "clitoral"??

@ivanlowjones 2 жыл бұрын

@@erichoppe8228 You should go sit down in a quiet room and ponder your lack of understanding. The multiple people who clicked 👍apparently understood my humorous intent.

@deth3021 2 жыл бұрын

2:08 calling them variants is misleading. They are 2 completely different ships in the same class. I mean we don't call the yf32 a variant of the f35. Or the yf23 a variant of the f22.

@kristinaF54 2 жыл бұрын

You'd think the navy would cop on to the fact that mid to long range anti-ship missiles are more precise and hyperballistic than ever and that wanting bigger ships is really just offering a larger target for enemy combatants. I really think semi-automated drone submersibles are the future of warship design rather than surface manned ones. With drones you can churn them out without having to worry about adequate ship personnel numbers, their safety or their training standards (because there isn't any, except in a remote control booth far way from the theatre of operations).

@mrpusser0348 2 жыл бұрын

Large ships have more capacity to carry defensive armament , i know wheich ship i'd rather be on

@scotthruska4906 9 ай бұрын

Freedom IS FAST,.,. 40 knots are the official speed but She CAN DO 70 knots!!! Just a big jet ski!! 🤪😉

@leonidasg2257 2 жыл бұрын

Thank god we dodged this bullet in Greece and chose the french design which is a proper ship.

@defencebangladesh4068 2 жыл бұрын

yeah... nice choice

@gardnert1 2 жыл бұрын

I used to think the aluminum hull design was crazy, until I read up on what the logic behind it actually is. First of all, it's lighter and cheaper. Second, there is actually very little difference between an aluminum ship and a steel ship in terms of the damage it takes from modern naval weapons (for that type of ship, it's going to be catastrophic damage no matter what you do). But most importantly, the Navy has different categories of ship survivability that are based on the utility of the ship. A carrier is in the first category, and that means they will attempt to save a stricken carrier no matter what. A category two ship is one which the Navy will attempt to save up to a certain level of damage, and then will abandon. A category three ship is one which the Navy won't bother trying to save if it takes significant damage. So if any anti-ship missile is enough to knock out such a vessel regardless of what it's made of, and if you don't plan on trying to put too much effort into saving it, the differences between aluminum and steel are very little. That gives aluminum the advantage as it is corrosion-resistant on top of being light weight.

@darrellcook8253 2 жыл бұрын

Hmmm. I wonder how they saved ships like the Franklin during WW2? And a whole lot of other battle damaged ships that today would be given up on. How easy would it be to repair aluminium, can you do it at sea? Steel hull and aluminum upper decks and fixtures?

@Bartonovich52 2 жыл бұрын

Obviously you’ve never heard of the USS Belknap… or the Falklands War. Aluminum is a terrible idea in warships.. and the US had learned that lesson which is why the Spruance, Perry, Arleigh Burke etc were all steel.

@peterherd5982 2 жыл бұрын

@@jackgray305 Totally agree,just ask the sailors that were at San Carlos.

@standardnnn6064 2 жыл бұрын

Aluminium is 3x more expensive than steel.

@JustAlanIsCool 2 жыл бұрын

You can take a pocket knife and put a fairly deep scratch into that aluminum, it may be thick but the softness is crazy.

@brycelummis941 2 жыл бұрын

Hi NZ here, we'll have them! Honestly with the missions the RNZN carries out we could use them here. I am sure a deal could be struck and these vessels modernised and refitted to NZ specifics. They are capable War Ships, i think the deficits they have could be rectified.

@NathanOkun 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS is as small as most FRIGATES! It is getting down to the minimum needed for a true ocean-going warship that can handle really bad weather. How it can handle all of those helicopters on its small landing pad is kind of amazing.

@keneubanks 2 жыл бұрын

I was a welder at Marinette Marine for the first 3 freedom class ships. Also worked at the Austal facility in Mobile Alabama in 2006 on upgrading the infrastructure there for the new contract for the independence class ships.

@TheBooban 2 жыл бұрын

So this is your fault?

@DeputyCartman100 2 жыл бұрын

Sometimes you strike out when trying new things, new methods, new technologies. Sometimes you hit a metaphorical home run, like with trying new recipes or restaurants, other times they are abject failures. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I will say this, though. Any Congress person who called for defense contractors eating the cost of delivering garbage quality hardware, like Lockheed Martin engines that constantly break down, would die under mysterious circumstances.

@shenghan9385 2 жыл бұрын

Right. Put new technology on any scams and chances are you be making tons of money

@parallax9281 2 жыл бұрын

Whoa..... !

@anon69_q 2 жыл бұрын

I hear this all the time, but no one has provided any evidence ever for this. Could someone help guide me to resources that support this?

@buzzman4860 2 жыл бұрын

Ships need a large enough crew to fight battle damage

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 2 жыл бұрын

They should just get rid of the flight deck and mission bay and simply install a huge VLS array and turn these things into arsenal ships.

@Bartonovich52 2 жыл бұрын

A helicopter is far more valuable than a VLS. They made that mistake on the Flight I Arleigh Burkes even though the Spruances, Kidds, and Ticonderogas had them. The Royal Navy also made that mistake on the Type 82. Never again.

@misham6547 7 күн бұрын

I'm curious why is one heli more valuable then a bunch missiles ready to launch?

@CRAZYHORSE19682003 6 күн бұрын

@@Bartonovich52 Having another 80 cells for various missiles is far more important than redundant helicopters.

@spacewalker9375 2 жыл бұрын

So what I'm hearing is that you don't want to be a seamen on that ship

@srossompheap412 2 жыл бұрын

I'm really interested in such a landscape💜😊

@johnchen9930 2 жыл бұрын

The 10 ft shallow draft of these fast LCS made them unable to follow the fleet vessels in rough oceans. It is like using 25 ft ranger bass boat to fish in 8 ft waves, it flips easy. The only places for the LCS power ski boats to operate are bays, Great Lakes, rivers and harbors. BTW, there will be no enemy warships in our coastal bays.😏

@cragnamorra 2 жыл бұрын

During the 1960s-1980s, seems like the Navy hit homeruns with so many of its programs. Ohio-class SSBNs and LA-class attack subs. A-6 & F-14 aircraft, followed up by the FA-18. Nimitz-class carriers. Spruance-class destroyers. Aegis CGs and DDGs. Hardly an exhaustive list, just a few prominent examples; overall lots of very capable, successful, long-serving air, surface, and subsurface platforms. Some ot these programs continued well into the current century, even a few still under production now. But right around 1990-ish (the A-12 program comes to mind), suddenly the Navy seemed to start laying egg after egg with just about every new major-platform program it undertook. Put another way, LCS is not an isolated problem in itself, but seems to me symptomatic of a much more fundamental and widespread recurring issue (or perhaps set of issues).

@tfaltermeier 2 жыл бұрын

Why have public healthcare if you can just buy more ships?

@jonjeskie5234 2 жыл бұрын

There's no such thing as a "healthy" nation who's just been blown up by its enemies hypersonic missles 🤨

@overcorpse 2 жыл бұрын

@@jonjeskie5234 It's worked for us and other developed nations since 1945. You lot just choose to be "different" because of "muh freedom"

@phillipsmith4814 2 жыл бұрын

I realize that many people, including the Congress, the president and the Supreme Court don’t care about the laws our republic was founded on, however I hesitate to point out the obvious. Namely that the US Constitution does not allow for public healthcare. Since it isn’t mentioned, then it is a power that is reserved to the states or to the people. On the other hand, defense of the Republic is a responsibility of the Federal government specified and mandated in the Constitution.

@davidburroughs2244 2 жыл бұрын

If you're taking up the cost and role of being the west's protector you afford it or you let the little guys do that all their own. That's why most nations whose populations of 5 million to 80 million do not have have huge standing armies, navies, air forces and space forces 🤣

@1chish 2 жыл бұрын

@@phillipsmith4814 So let me see now? How many times has the inviolable US Constitution been amended? And how many times have amendments been deleted? Its a thin argument to blame your Constitution for operating a Health Care Industry rather than a Health Care Service. If your argument stood up there would never have been the 2nd Amendment and hundreds of thousands of Americans wouldn't have died unnecessarily. But then 26,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance and thousands are bankrupted. Still got to keep those profits going to the party donors right?

@aceloth 2 жыл бұрын

The future belongs to smaller unmanned hunter/killer class ships and subs….

@danielhaire6677 2 жыл бұрын

BS. No one will ever be stupid enough to go to a completely unmanned force.

@LeeeroyJenkins 2 жыл бұрын

@@danielhaire6677 In a few decades you will be eating your words. And a few decades after that humanity will be eaten by robots

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

Great idea! We can call it... Skynet.

@dmac7128 2 жыл бұрын

The original concept of the LCS is a sound one. They were conceived as ships performing specialized missions that don't put them in high intensity surface fights. Missions like interdiction, counter piracy, minesweeping, and ASW could be handled by these ships while at the same time freeing larger surface combatants to perform their primary missions. LCS's were never meant to be ships of the line in the same vein as a cruiser or destroyer. Aside from the problems with the ships (every new class of ships goes through problems), the major problem is the lack of working mission packages. The only one in operation is the surface warfare package. The Mine warfare and ASW packages are still in development and are years behind schedule and over budget.

@jasonshen7600 2 жыл бұрын

China: How you are fking up a whole gen of ships US: I have no idea!

@JigilJigil 2 жыл бұрын

*The problem is there are few giant defense companies (Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop, Huntington,..) who are lazy and has some kind of monopoly in some specific sectors, they get huge contracts regardless of what they offer, US needs more disruptors such as SpaceX who can not just do more with less money but can do everything far better and faster.*

@stupidbro2301 2 жыл бұрын

It is funny to argue with SpaceX when the US military pays SpaceX per kilo two times more than the French and German military to ESA and three times more than the Chinese and Russians are paying. 😂😂😂

@samsonsoturian6013 2 жыл бұрын

Please leave military matter to those of us that know basic facts about military contractors. For starters, there's literally thousands of such ventures. And they've done a whole lot of science you're simply too lazy to read about.

@JigilJigil 2 жыл бұрын

It seems you are the one who is not even aware of the basic facts, how many companies are building these ships?! let me enlighten you? Huntington Ingalls Industries, Lockheed, General Dynamics, who make those helicopters?! let me enlighten you again, Lockheed(Sikorsky), Bell and Boeing, who else?! no one, what about fighters? Lockheed and Boeing, who else? no one, what about orbital launches?! ULA (Lockheed, Boeing), Northrop,( I am not counting SpaceX), do you see that?! everywhere you look you encounter these names and no one else. I am well aware of the fact there are 1000s of suppliers and companies who contribute but their share of the defense contracts is absolutely uncomparable to these giants, that's why ULA is a fossil, that's the reason Boeing is still struggling badly with their expensive spacecraft (Starliner), the defense contracts are dominated by these companies monopoly, duopoly and tripoly and that's the reason almost every major military project ends up with cost overrun, delays and many other significant issues.

@Gramatic69 2 жыл бұрын

I’ve never built a warship but you give me $30,000,000,000 i guarantee I could build the best god damn ships ever built.

@Freddy-fd9fb 2 жыл бұрын

The LCS are ideal to fight small, fast boats like Pirates. They’re not built for a open water warfare against big ships from other countries. It would have been better to buy a small number like 4 and only from one type. I would have dumbed the independence class entirely even if it looks just awesome.

@froodtube 2 жыл бұрын

In the era of smart weapons and drones, ships are increasingly becoming big expensive targets. Far more effective would be small lightweight drone launching ships. Rather than expensive weapon systems to try and defend themselves (and most likely fail), they would simply launch their drone payloads if attacked which would either counter-attack, hover, or find a sister drone ship to land on while others take out the attacker.

@Joe-bm4wx 2 жыл бұрын

LCS (independence class in particular) is the coolest ship I have ever been on. Her bridge is incredibly modern, and the crews are top-notch.

@calcrappie8507 2 жыл бұрын

What can they bring to the fight?

@blackknight4996 2 жыл бұрын

It's deemed to be an expensive piece of junk. Sorry!

@GreenAppelPie 2 жыл бұрын

Lockheed Martin building ships? This worked out just as well as an aircraft company building tanks with engine problems.

@samsonsoturian6013 2 жыл бұрын

Hilarious, but Lockheed have owned a shipyard for decades.

@raycuizon8226 2 жыл бұрын

You probably the same guy that thinks GE only make refrigerators. You haven't got a clue.

@barakaobombervsronaldraide3098 2 жыл бұрын

@@raycuizon8226 GE makes refrigerators?I need one😁✌.

@damongraham1398 2 жыл бұрын

First full disclosure. I used to work for Marinette Marine. I moved to Wisconsin for the Freedom class. The Freedom class was never suppose to fight the Chinese. Certain Iranian ship but not China. If the other equipment for the modules had worked things would have been better. I for one am still rooting for the LCS.

@nyareyes9828 2 жыл бұрын

Personally in a perfect world I’d convert the Independence Class LCS’ into ships of the line running as many as 48 howitzers to provide fires for MRL amphibious strikes

@arnoldozamorano8618 2 жыл бұрын

So if we pass on paying for a new class of frigates, what happens? Are our current frigates obsolete? Is more missiles, in cells, worth spending this money. And as far as the LCS being outgunned by Chinese and Iranian ships...what happened to all the others ships the Navy has? Those wouldnt be involved in the fight? The 30 LCS ships would be the only ones fighting? These big defense expenditures need to be challenged. There are more important priorities in this nation.

@strangerdanger8462 2 жыл бұрын

Or better still.... Don't get us into any damned wars.

@calcrappie8507 2 жыл бұрын

All the other ships in the navy will be busy fighting Chinese warships. They don't have time to babysit these ferry boats disguised as navy ships. The navy wasted billions on these aluminum cans while a lack of real war-fighting frigates became a crisis. China is building a lot more warships than we are. We wasted years and billions on the LCS.

@lucysmith4242 2 жыл бұрын

Why spend money on ships if we have nukes...

@stevensullivan5287 2 жыл бұрын

Obviously you have never served in the USN. You're voicing political opinions about missions that we've completed, both wartime, humanitarian and peacekeeping. Retired Navy Chief.

@brucetucker4847 2 жыл бұрын

Why build schools or hospitals, when we already have schools and hospitals? Can't the kids or sick people just go to those? Your comment is very silly.

@jerrydiver1 2 жыл бұрын

More controversial than the Ford-class carriers? Looking back into the Navy's past, you can find any number of examples of classes of ships that ended up being used for missions very different from the original intent. The 10 fast battleships that the U.S. built just before and during WWII weren't originally intended to escort aircraft carriers and conduct surface bombardments of enemy territory. Our 'fleet boat' submarines built before and during WWII likewise were intended to serve as scouts for the battle line and attack enemy fleet units as part of a larger battle, not throttling the enemy by destroying his merchant marine. Our patrol boats, hydrofoil (PBH) of the 1960s-1980s were envisioned for lots of missions other than what they ended their careers doing, protecting Key West and escorting the training carrier Lexington (AVT-16) during flight ops in the Key West oparea. Ballistic missile submarines had their missions changed, and underwent reconstruction to adapt to new uses. A couple dozen WWII fleet boats had faulty diesel engines and had to have them completely replaced before they were finally able to complete their assigned missions. These LCS platforms are hardly the first propulsion system scandal to hit the Navy, and who among us believes they will be the last, or that an ever-changing world dynamic will never again require the Navy to adapt and overcome, like the Marines?

@Gentleman...Driver 2 жыл бұрын

I always thought Zumwalt class destroyers were the biggest failure...

@aurorauplinks 2 жыл бұрын

@@Gentleman...Driver their only a fail if they never get a superior offense/defense system to function on them. Sooooooooooo... any day NASA you wana install those doom lasers and death rays on the Zumwalt ;D

@aurorauplinks 2 жыл бұрын

Maybe install some form of liquid metal shield barrier if they can develop that somehow. See a incoming missile launch, deploy the liquid metal shield... I wonder if the force of the missile would push the boat far enough into the water that it would start to sink though even if it survived the explosion/impact of it... maybe the shield could be designed to keep the missile from exploding somehow... like fry the electronics without detonating the explosives... probably not... i mean if you could slam something into the nose of the missile it might smash the detonator and keep it from activating though... but maybe its designed to detonate if something starts to smash it :/

@lunabranwen 2 жыл бұрын

Should have started on the Frigates a long time ago

@christopherslaughter2263 Жыл бұрын

Small ships our ww2 fleet consisted of ships that were restricted by the naval treaties. So the fletchers that were around 2500 tons doesnt even tip the scales as much as the LCS does and it is a destroyer.

@willbarnstead3194 2 жыл бұрын

It is crazy that they are still building these when there is an urgent need for the new frigates. All the work on these ships should stop now and additional frigate construction should start now.

@erikpienk 2 жыл бұрын

there is a thing called a contract and there are penalties when you leave one.... just saying it might be cheaper to continue than to stop....

@indyrock8148 2 жыл бұрын

I saw another movie where Austal was building a new steel ship yard. Possibly for new frigate?

@calcrappie8507 2 жыл бұрын

@@indyrock8148 Maybe, but the US has already selected the new frigates and they won't be Austral.

@indyrock8148 2 жыл бұрын

@@calcrappie8507 maybe Austral will contract build some. I understand the LDS problems were not manufacturing quality?

@mr.coffee6242 2 жыл бұрын

Canada should buy them to prepare an Arctic coastal defense squadron for when the Arctic thaws and opens up to international trade. Which is... Soon

@James-cb7nb 2 жыл бұрын

14:21 "aegis class destroyer" Uh what?

@Gonzo_Bubb 2 жыл бұрын

Arleigh Burke Class, has the Aegis radar and weapons system

@jakelilevjen9766 Жыл бұрын

I wonder how the mission set of the LCS overlaps with that of the Coast Guard, and whether they would be interested in taking over these ships from the Navy.