US Congress probably: "MAKE IT MODULAR AND MAKE IT LAME!" Follow for Updates: instagram.com/cappyarmy/ twitter.com/Cappyarmy

@michaelwang6125

3 ай бұрын

they need to upgrade the krappy ship to the level of the cappy XD

@djzrobzombie2813

3 ай бұрын

It's not in the red sea because cappy is acting like a simp

@THE-X-Force

3 ай бұрын

That "digital distortion" effect (that you use over & over again) is really visually annoying.

@eiennofantasy

3 ай бұрын

This needs to be made into a T-Shirt

@kimmogensen4888

3 ай бұрын

you have Amphibious assault ship, can't you fill them with any smaller patrol ships with a lot of weapons, and drones so they can be transpoted around where they are needed, and make yourself or buy rheinmetall "The Skyranger family" air defense, drones 1 shot from Oerlikon Millennium 35mm Naval Revolver Gun System, it can also be used mobile on land and is a drone killer at 5 km with is shot, it is cheap instead of expensive missiles, and there are about all types of threats currently known also drone swarm attack. And if you don't want to buy German, you can always be inspired by fine German design 🙃

They were retired because the navy couldn’t find the littoris.

@aes0p895

3 ай бұрын

damnit, you beat me by 3 minutes. lmao.

@BonsaiActual

3 ай бұрын

Nicely done lol

@The2ndFirst

3 ай бұрын

I see what you did there.

@youngwildcat08

3 ай бұрын

Top comment right here 😂

@The2ndFirst

3 ай бұрын

@@youngwildcat08 Mine was good. This was better.

Well stated... We wanted twice the boat at half the price and ended up with half the boat at twice the price.

@TheStormpilgrim

3 ай бұрын

I thought that's what every boat owner ended up with.

@bryancarlson5977

3 ай бұрын

I love how they built the bridge out of aluminum. It's like, let's put all the armor anywhere but where the skipper stands.

@MrTommy0201

3 ай бұрын

Only twice the price? Let’s say at least 4 times

@grahamstrouse1165

3 ай бұрын

@@bryancarlson5977Keeps the skipper alert…

@RailRoad188

3 ай бұрын

​@@TheStormpilgrimBWAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

9:17 "But problems during construction caused delays and significant cost overruns" while the guy has "HA HA HA" on his welding mask is a great meta commentary there :D

"Mom can we get corvettes? " "We have corvettes at home. " Corvettes at home:

@nairda55555

8 күн бұрын

why'd they get rid of them?

I was a US Navy officer, then worked in the defense industry and then worked as a consultant to DoD on Finance and Logistics. This might sound cynical, but MHO, based on experience, is that to understand things like this is not to look first at the mission, capability or "bells and whistles." Follow the money and look at career paths. Look at how much money is going to what contractors for different systems, and what kind of systems get people promoted to flag rank. Small ships with smaller price tags that can be built by second tier contractors don't have the political leverage of big, high ticket ships built by first tier contractors. Bigger ships that are platforms to get skippers promoted to admiral will be more likely to get support than ones that don't. Blue water command beats out brown water command every time. The CO of a destroyer is more likely to eventually get command of a cruiser than the CO of a littoral ship. That's how it really works.

@goldenhate6649

3 ай бұрын

The fact these weren't designed by a ship building company should have been the first red flag.

@dustintacohands1107

3 ай бұрын

Money

@ChopperChad

3 ай бұрын

Not how I remember it when I was a sailor in the early 90’s. These were career enhancing as the idea was they’d be commanded by an O3 which would make them desirable and competitive in future assignments. Like the Marines and the Army who command at the O3 level with follow on staff positions. This provides valuable leadership experience for future higher level Commands or assignments. I generally see your other points and it makes sense based on my limited experience.

@derricklarsen2919

3 ай бұрын

Sounds like the US navy might be as vulnerable as the old Spanish navy. Better take a look at some history.

@alesh2275

3 ай бұрын

It doesn’t explain why the farce went on too long and wasn’t checked.

I'll never forget working for Austal, welding on LCS and JHSV boats. All I could think was, "I don't think this is going to work like they think it is"

@robertgarcia217

3 ай бұрын

And it never did what it was intended to.

@tickticktickBOOOOM

3 ай бұрын

@@robertgarcia217 The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does. In this case, enrich corrupt politicians, executives, and admirals.

@JamesCQuint

3 ай бұрын

I used to walk my dog in the park across the river and watch y'all's progress. There are still a couple of hulls out there

@PushingFrames

3 ай бұрын

@@tickticktickBOOOOM I am a Plankowner for Independence LCS-2, and I felt that the whole time I was on this tour, 5+ years... and have felt vindicated ever since.

@BB-et8pl

3 ай бұрын

Tell us more. What were the issues you saw?

I was part of the final crew of the Freedom, she was a good boat overall for her last few years of commissioned life. While the rest of the class was restricted to 18 knots we were still fully mission capable because she and Fort Worth had a different combining gear design from the later ships. While on our final deployment we still managed to achieve some pretty fast speeds. The FREEDOM class also in particular have some of the lowest radar cross sections of any US Navy ship class which enable them to sneak up on enemies in EMCON. The trouble is that those jets are acoustically loud and she still has quite an impressive thermal signature when those big MT30's are running. In my opinion, scrapping those MT-30's and replacing them with a further two diesel engines and increasing fuel storage would be great for overall endurance. Combine that with installation of laser weaponary, replacing the main gun with the Leonardo Strales/Dart 76mm, adding SEWIP block III, adding those NSM's and a more effective point defense system would greatly enhance the Freedom class in general both in the Littoral zones and in blue water.

@Tyler-vw9bh

3 ай бұрын

I have no idea what much of that second paragraph means but sounds good to me. Somebody put this man in charge!

@paulbrown8216

3 ай бұрын

@MrBluedude73 - everything I've seen, heard, and read suggests that the ships are not seaworthy. We did the North Atlantic in 1977, aboard the USS Richard E. Byrd (DDG-23). We saw weather that approached the intensity of the infamous "Perfect Storm". Tell me, could the Freedom endure 80 ft seas, with a full gale blowing? We endured, while meeting all mission goals. France and Russia both experimented with that top heavy design, and both abandoned the design. The righting arms are broken aboard that ship, long before a proper destroyer is endangered by an extreme roll. Sure, I understand what "littoral" means. But politicians seem to think it means a ship doesn't have to be seaworthy.

@mantori762

3 ай бұрын

There are actually two lcs classes, Independence and Freedome.. , the Freedome have more issues. And mission modules kind of stalled

@Mrbluedude73

3 ай бұрын

@mantori762 Having served in the LCS program I have to disagree with your assessment. The Indy class has had very significant problems... so much so that LCS-2 NEVER deployed in her short career. LCS-1 deployed about 4 times in the 13 years she was in commission. The Navy's biggest holdup with the Freedom Class is the combining gear issues that resulted in speed reductions down to 18 knots.... that only affected the Freedom class hull numbers 5 and further.... Freedom and Fort Worth have combining gears that are not affected (different model than 5 AF). The thing is, 18 knots or 47 knots... you are not outrunning a cruise missile so who cares if they cannot use the gas turbines? The Indy class on the otherhand have significant issues with cracking hulls and once discovered they are speed limited to 12 knots. They also use even more non-standard gear than the Freedom Class which makes them even harder to integrate into the rest of the fleet in general than the Freedom's and they have very common water jet issues.

@Mrbluedude73

3 ай бұрын

@paulbrown8216 I didnt go through 80 foot seas with Freedom but yes she could do anything that a Arleigh Burke can do sea wise but because the draft is significantly less there would be a lot more tossing around. The fact that the Freedom class is both mono-hull AND uses steel for the main deck and below gives them a huge advantage in heavy seas compared to the all aluminum trimaran Indy's

That part near the end about the littoral combat ships being useful as test beds for other systems reminds me of the guy at a boxing gym who has perfected every technique of blocking punches with his face. That guy can't tell you what to do, but if you watch him spar, you sure as hell can learn what NOT to do.

@user-cv1pj2vv1u

3 ай бұрын

Yeah this fells less like there are any silver linings and it's just more of a lesson to be pointed out so you learn NOT what to do (the hard way, there's better ways to learn what works and what doesn't).

@grahamstrouse1165

2 ай бұрын

😁😁😁👍

@markyuresko

2 ай бұрын

I liked the idea of using LCS to screen good ships. Use it to block drones, drone targets. Please, automate the ship first so the crew doesn’t have to pay the price.

@user-cv1pj2vv1u

2 ай бұрын

The problem is, that it's not even suited for that. You'd be better off making small drones (air or boats) that are just chaff/ecm/sam/s2sm that could be recovered and actually keep up with the blue water fleet.@@markyuresko

Don’t you love it how none of these companies get penalized for going way over budget or downright failing on projects that cost the tax payers billions of dollars?

I was a designer for the LCS-1. It was a nightmare project. I was told at one point that if I couldn't work 60 hours a week I might as well stay home. The Freedom took a huge hit in weight when the Navy told us to switch from aluminum to steel for the haul which crushed early speed calcs. Crawling under the grating in the phone booth engine room was rough for me on shipchecks. I can't imagine how the crew deals with those engine rooms. Good sub training I guess

@guaposneeze

3 ай бұрын

The LCS program is gonna result in so many fantastic books about how (not) to manage an engineering project, and it's a real shame nobody will ever read those books or learn anything from the fate of the project. In the tech industry, I also worked on some "we're going to make a platform that solves every problem" meta-projects that didn't do anything, because every industry is constantly trying to reinvent that antipattern. Sigh.

@dannydaw59

3 ай бұрын

Which metal was more expensive? Steel or aluminum?

@timjfads

3 ай бұрын

@@dannydaw59 aluminum I believe but it is junk in combat

@Soupy_loopy

3 ай бұрын

Oh, so that's what LCS is. No wonder why they don't want anyone to know what they're working on. It's still crazy on these projects.

@Soupy_loopy

3 ай бұрын

​@guaposneeze nobody wants to read books about what doesn't work. They just want to know how to get rich quick. And if they're already rich, they want to squeeze a few more pennies of profits. These days, it's all about change. Nothing can stay the same. Once we get good at modular design, they will decide modular is old news. But if you're not up on whatever the current buzz words are, then you will probably be unemployed.

6:00 Yep, bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development. Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design but the Navy rejected it and continued to bleed money into the two LCS classes. Even their Heritage-class cutter is a slow, down-armed but effective LCS-type ship that is much cheaper than an LCS. Navy doesn't want that either.

@jacquesmassard9226

3 ай бұрын

wow i kind of just asked about this. thank you. this whole thing gives me a headache....

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

> bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development That's a facile attack. EVERYTHING in the military is bureaucratic, including the biggest successes (F-15? And more and more it looks like the F-35?) and biggest losers (what people thought of the F-35 10 years ago?). > Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design OK, which of the missions proposed for the LCS could be done by the Sentinel-class as it stood, and how many could it have been adapted to? How much would that adaption cost? Note the Sentinel-class is literally 1/10th the displacement.

@benlewis4241

Ай бұрын

@@lqr824 Agree with the former, but many ocean going minesweepers and patrol boats are built to similar displacements to the Sentinel class. Same with convoy escorts and missile boats. The Danish Flyvefisken-class would be comparable. That said the aphorism steel is cheap systems are expensive still holds.

@dmacarthur5356

Ай бұрын

The Heritage could be tweaked to fit Navy speed requirements at a fraction of the cost of a new ship design and build but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc.

@lqr824

Ай бұрын

@@dmacarthur5356 > but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc. Man, you're so cynical and jaded, that's so cool. Anyone in the US military that wanted money... wouldn't be in the US military. These guys would have much more pride in having shepharded a successful project through than they'll ever be at the idea of retiring in a 4,000 sq ft. house instead of 2,000. And the LCS is basically a failure, so it's not clear why a contractor would even want a top officer who was on the military side of that failure. The "tweak" you refer to is probably a figment of your imagination, but if it was so great, and so cheap, then that'd leave a lot of money for other projects from contractors you mention. You don't really understand that the limit on military spending is the budget Congress sets. Any dollar not spent on weapon system A is absolutely guaranteed to be spent on weapon system B, so no, going with a retrofit proposal certainly would not hurt a vendor to the point they decide not to hire someone. It's not generals or admirals that set the budget, it's congress. To the extent there's corruption somewhere, that's where you'd be better off looking. Finally, can you imagine anyone who'd do a better job as a director of a contractor than an ex-general or admiral? It's not as if such a chair is offered to a retiring officer as a payback for getting some fancy new military system built. There is some corruption in the US military, for a fact, but it's not the dead certainty that you portray.

Well done. I appreciate the deep dive into the history and facts. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.

I've been directly involved with repairs on these ships. Short sighted design, bad QA, and the Navy not learning from past mistakes concerning materials, ie Aluminum in ships structures. Aluminum's inability to flex leads to cracking. We saw this in the Aluminum superstructure of both CG and Fast Frigate. This is caused by torsional stress as the ship passes through waves and swells. The bow may be pushed to starboard while the stern is pulled to port. Steel hulls can flex while Aluminum to a far lesser degree. These all lead to failure. I think the base concept and I'm talking base concept is a good one but material choices have condemned this class of ship from the beginning.

@LeonAust

3 ай бұрын

Austals ferry's seemed to go ok

@dundonrl

3 ай бұрын

The Navy did learn from past experiences with aluminum, that's why the Arleigh Burke class DDG's only use aluminum in the mast. Too bad that the "newer" navy forgot that lesson!

@timtitus2532

3 ай бұрын

Oh yeah, the Arleigh Burke class Destoyers, best designed ships in the US Navy. Love em.

@dundonrl

3 ай бұрын

@@timtitus2532 I'm a plankowner on USS Momsen DDG-92 and retired while stationed on USS Halsey DDG-97. You're right, great ships!

@panzerabwerkanone

3 ай бұрын

Aluminum doesn't flex? Why are commercial aircraft built largely aluminum then? An aircraft most definitely flexes during flight, take-offs, and landings.

Navy wanted a little patrol boat, Congress pork barrelled it up to the LCS, and pork keeps it under construction.

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

this is a great way to put it actually

@Andy-te1mw

3 ай бұрын

I think they have to do cost overruns. I believe it's a law.

@NecroAsphyxia

3 ай бұрын

@@Taskandpurpose like many things in the military, a legitimately cool and potential idea was killed by senior military and gov politics...

@burnerjack01

3 ай бұрын

@@Andy-te1mwIt’s high stakes poker: draw the Government in so deep that it becomes almost inconceivable to pull the plug and take the loss. Therefore, it’s “all in” with other people’s money.

@jagermaestro1

3 ай бұрын

@@Taskandpurpose Is it? I am pretty sure 19-minute mark you said they don't want a little patrol boat. Even if this statement didn't mean bigger ships made for more serious combatants and instead meant just more "air-defense" like some in the comment section seem to be saying couldn't you install one where this ship was supposed to be module (in addition to the airburst function of the main cannon? Sounds like they asked for a ship, made the requirements ridiculous for things they didn't need (likely because they didn't know what they needed) and then decided they didn't want that ship. I mean just think about the purpose of anti-sub modules alone. What is the real point there if you were making a patrol vessel with no survivability? They stumble across an enemy sub that they also were pre-fitted to deal with. Sounds like someone did a brainstorm and just vomited out module names instead of thinking how they would actually be used. I think the navy doesn't have a clue what it is doing right now (but when really has it ever) and has no clue what to invest in. I think it might need a new ship in the future, but frankly isn't going to get one without all the same over-run. 65-70% of projects fail (opinion of management versus cost and product received), a new ship isn't going to play out dramatically different. I think this is a case of complaining about how something didn't work out and now trying to pass the blame onto others... a time-honored tradition shared by the military, congress and all of humanity alike.

Thank you for the eye opening report, I really feel sad after hearing everything that happened with this project.

Great job. This is an excellent breakdown of the whole LCS thing.

Another excellent piece. The LCS and Zumwalt surface combatants are both catastrophic failures, because in part they were designed when we were fighting people who literally had no navy of their own and as you pointed out, there was no perceived blue water threat. Both classes also violated a cardinal rule - do not incorporate too many new systems in a new platform. Finally, they were built in large numbers before we had a chance to prove just how worthless they were. As a former destroyerman I was delighted when I first learned we would be getting new small warships. But when I started learning of the specs I was dismayed. Why, oh why did we require 40 knot speeds? That forced so many other compromises in the design. I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray. You are absolutely right that Congress was more interested in job creation than getting the Navy effective warships. Thanks to the Hurculean efforts of sailors, these poorly designed ships are slowly being warped into reasonable, if limited, combatants.

@Angel9932

3 ай бұрын

Job creation? I think campaign contributions was misspelled. Otherwise I think you make some good points.

@Mike7O7O

3 ай бұрын

Amounts to the same thing. @@Angel9932

@Mike7O7O

3 ай бұрын

"I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray." Please do. Nice to hear it from the horse's mouth for once.

@deansmits006

3 ай бұрын

I'm curious if the lessons learned with Zumwalt and LCS will be applied toward a new destroyer class. We certainly were more conservative with the new frigates (Constellation class). If anything, we have a clear focus of who/what the new destroyer will counter (China, maybe Russia?). We know we don't need AGS, and Zummwalt has helped advance a few key technologies. We just may need larger Arleigh Burke's with the IPS Powertrain from Zummwalt, able to handle larger electrical power budget and space for upgrades in some systems. Don't need to reinvent the wheel, just evolve

@phiksit

3 ай бұрын

I worked on Freedom class as a trademan. I always felt the design was a moving target (always being revised / designed on the fly). I also felt like they were trying to shove 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag regarding the ship's systems, the automation, reduced crew manning idea and in general, overly complicated. Reduced manning also leads to overworked personnel and poor morale. And military contracts are the nation's biggest job program... taxpayer funded socialism for big biz... privatizing their profits and socializing loses.

Lesson: don't go into series production, BEFORE seatrials

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

hooooah

@reubensandwich9249

3 ай бұрын

There are six B21s in production right now

@matsv201

3 ай бұрын

China and russia do that kind of always thst is why there is some od 10 su57

@DeeEight

3 ай бұрын

It was the same thinking as with the F-35 program where they continued LRIP in spite of still, two decades later, not having finished development work. We now have over a thousand F-35s not all built to the same block version with the older ones needed expensive rebuilds to bring them to the latest block standard. On the other hand, Canada waiting as long as they did to order the F-35, in spite of being one of the senior contributing countries to the development funding, meant we'll be receiving jets to the latest block standard.

@baronvonlimbourgh1716

3 ай бұрын

The b21 raider is going in production right now. It barely has had any flight hours. Another very expensive string of problems waiting to happen.

Cappy I spent the last 12 years of my service in the Army. My first 6 years I spent in the Navy. Even spent a few in the Air reserve. I was on the USS Fife, DD991. When I joined the crew in 1986 the ship was in yard hands conducting improvements and ship life extension. They put a lot of different things on board, the biggest addition was the Vertical Launch System. They cut a huge hole in the forecastle. When we finally deployed the ship had a badly found hull and a permanent list (it leaned to one side), because the structure was weakened by the hole in the forecastle. In high seas we would roll perilously in that direction. We were deployed out of Yokosuka Japan. We went through at least two typhoons and one major storm off San Francisco while I was on board. We always had major breakages etc (even injuries) during these times. We spent many months in Japanese ship yards trying to fix the problem. While I was on board we were only deployed for actual sea duty for two years (I was on board from 1986 to 1990. There were all sorts of other problems. The ship was eventually used for target practice and sunk in 2003. Way sooner than it should. The Navy got rid of the Spruance class for good reason. However, one of the biggest problems was a lack of oversight of the the ship yards. At least a third of the yard workers were stoned or refusing to do any work at any given time. Some of them would call in bomb threats so they could go home early. All of these problems were known to the Navy. Yet the Navy was happy to approve design features for this new ship that repeated all the problems that occurred on the Fife (nicknamed Fire in the Forward Engine room). To make matters worse for the Navy they failed to give oversight in the ship yards a greater priority. I don't like using the word corruption, but I have to wonder if anyone has followed the money? What procurement officers, congressman, senators, and bureau of design officials got paid to look the other way (what Admirals)? Why didn't the Coast Guard given this duty? Why did the Navy have to have these ships? The USCG could have made better use of proven designs and more experienced crew in these types of duty. The Coasties would have been perfect for the job.

@grahamstrouse1165

2 ай бұрын

That’s a heckuva hat trick, mate!

@colerape

2 ай бұрын

@@grahamstrouse1165 Yeah missed the Marines and the Coast Guard. :P

That was a well researched and balancd view about the LCSs!

@LeonAust

3 ай бұрын

Not!

@michaelgowan7187

12 күн бұрын

Ah ...somewhat. the op forgot to mention the perry class frigates that were the replacements for the knox class. Also did not bring up that the austal hulls are based on proven ropax ferries. I worked on a high speed ferry ropax 240 feet in length. we had to do a hull structure inspection yearly . Yes cracks were found yearly and addressed. Part of the issue with independence class is that they modified a high speed ropax ferry design to what the navy wanted but missed some things in their stress analysis.

Let us be clear. The admirals in charge of each US fleet have unanimously REFUSED to use the littoral combat vessels in their intended roles and instead have assigned them as "goalkeepers" responsible for putting themselves between incoming missiles and carriers. The same admirals have deliberately withheld maintenance and sent them to do circles in arduous sea conditions they were not intended for.

@gallendugall8913

3 ай бұрын

Littoral ships should NEVER be part of a carrier group. Due to their (admittedly stupid) minimum manning status they are supposed to be either performing a littoral mission or be in port undergoing maintenance by contractors. The crew are not trained to do any but the most basic maintenance on these ships. Since being brought into USN service the ships have had zero hours of proper maintenance and zero hours of littoral deployment.

@gallendugall8913

3 ай бұрын

minimum manning is not a littoral mission requirement - that's pure corruption on the part of the design team

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

they are still trying to upgrade this thing with container missiles but it's likely not going anywhere, it's a real cluster *****

@jimwagner6260

3 ай бұрын

P.T. boats, anyone?

@pogo1140

3 ай бұрын

I just looked up the info on these ships, holy crap, the Navy would have been better off just buying Swedish Visby Class Corvettes

The Ivar Huitfeldt class is the result of a modularity program started by the Danish Navy in the 80s, is dirt cheap, can replace an engine underway (done once) and has been very successfully used for anti piracy with long mission times. And being designed with a "best commercial standard" with stupid high levels of redundancy it can be built by most commercial shipyards, not just specialists naval yards.

@rudivandoornegat2371

3 ай бұрын

Denmark sells/exports this technology now as SH Defense - The Cube

@DeeEight

3 ай бұрын

Yes but there isn't the level of corruption and graft in Denmark that there is in the USA or Canada in defence procurement. Denmark also doesn't see defence contracts as social assistance jobs programs to keep their citizens happy like american politicians do.

@the5gen

3 ай бұрын

Incidentally the original LCS module planning were based on the Danish StanFlex. The Navy just kept adding additional requirements and scope creep unfortunately derailed the deployment of these modules.

@Austin-cx2xe

3 ай бұрын

Proving something is capable is not the same as being able to do it operationally on a normal basis. It’s like saying the T-90 destroyed a BMP from 4 miles away once therefore its effective range is 4 miles.

@TB-zf7we

3 ай бұрын

They spent a lot of money on the modular ASW with towed array. I believe it never worked well and was never deployed. All of sudden your modular design is not so cost effective.

I remember seeing this in Sam Diego when I was in, I thought it was cool but it looked a little run down. I also got to see the zumwalt class destroyer going into dock. I’m not in the Navy anymore but it surprises me that neither of these ships have been successful.

This has been a great report. I know that I have searched “ what happened to the Littoral ships”? Several times. Finally, answered!

9:19 that welders helmet needs sone recognition cos thats shits fire 🔥

The LCS Class lacked air defense beyond self-defense and lacked offensive punch to even attack other ships. NSM missiles were later added to give it the ability to hit other ships, however it is still lacking air defense capability to deal with drones or cruise missiles attacking other ships. - As to design deficiencies and other issues is another whole set of factors making the LCS almost useless.

@damongraham1398

3 ай бұрын

The rolling airframe missiles are anti air.

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

true ture, it's only become clear to pretty much everyone in the last year or so that this thing is a real lemon. I heard they're recently trying to add container fired SM-6 missiles but it's too little to late.

@damongraham1398

3 ай бұрын

@@Taskandpurpose granted they are not perfect but they can work now. The last 5 or so do work. Pair them with EFT and have stocks at Djibouti, Aqaba, and Bahrain and the U.S. Navy could assign the destroyers to other missions.

@ur_quainmaster7901

3 ай бұрын

That is a lot of words to spell out 'hot garbage'.

@edl653

3 ай бұрын

Yes, RAM is anti-air but really only for self-defense. Consider it a longer-range CIWS, with missiles instead of 20 mm bullets. I have seen videos of CIWS engage subsonic cruise missiles successfully, but the missiles body/fuel and warhead still reached the ship and causing lots of damage to the ship including topside including critical equipment. The damage from a supersonic cruise missile would be significantly more, hence RAM development was needed. RAM can take out incoming air threat as a much greater distance than CIWS. Now if an LCS has to defend another ship that is a greater than 5-6 miles away, that other ship is out of luck. @@damongraham1398

The fact that they didn’t foresee modularity coming at the cost of damage resistance and control actually scares me.

@jackb4125

3 ай бұрын

That was the part that shocked me. Too fast to hit. Someone believed that? I can believe, "too cheap to matter", like a liberty ship. But sheesh, make it survivable!

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

I didn't understand this video to be talking specifically about modularity coming at the expense of damage controllability.

@MoA-Reload...

2 ай бұрын

These types of craft in civi service even have a higher standard of training to crew. I worked WPC Fast Craft and first ship I trained and worked on was an Incat 74 known locally as "Vomit Comet". My training for that 3200t fast cat was good for just about anything afloat because there is way more emphasis on Fire Fighting & Fire Prevention even for the cabin crew never mind deck and bridge. Their seakeeping is insane and they are fast and as long as you don't mind throwing your pax around, hilariously maneuverable BUT they also melt and burn scary fast if fire gets round the fire protection and I don't think an anti ship missile is going to be nice enough to make sure it sets a fire inside the boundary of integrated fire protection.

Right when we need these LCS in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, they are not even able to fulfil the mission they are designed for. Good Job MIC.

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

How was this the mission they were designed for?

@grahamstrouse1165

2 ай бұрын

@@lqr824Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at. Part of the problem is that the democratization of computing means has brought the cost of missiles and drones down to the point where even comparatively low-tech enemies can field dangerous anti-shipping weapons.

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

@@grahamstrouse1165 > Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at. What VERY SPECIFIC MISSION is needed here, though? It sounds like there's nothing actually happening at sea for an LCS to do. Minesweeping? No. Laying mines? No. ASW? No. Seal team insertion/retrieval? No. Launching torpedoes? No. Sure there's a low-tech enemy. It doesn't mean that's anything that needs doing that these boats are good for. You need to stop posting when you're drunk or high man, you're making a fool out of yourself.

Was a non-starter from the START - I flew off the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates between 1986 and 1999 - we understood back then that the Littoral boats were gonna be CRAP.

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

What specific problem did you see that was going to make the project crap?

Holy moley. I always thought it was strange when I noticed two different types of Littoral combat ships. Never put two and two together and realized the Navy went ahead with two designs for the same class!

@thor3279

3 ай бұрын

well sure! they're so cheap and capable, the more the merrier!

@user-cv1pj2vv1u

3 ай бұрын

Yeah sounds more like to me the people shaking hands under the table convinced their buddies to just get the navy to invest in both. I know lockheed has weight to throw around in some circles.

I think there's also a problem with modular design. If you have for example 3 different loadouts for different missions, it means that you need crew that can handle 3 different sets of equipment. Or 3 different crews. In both situations, training is gonna be the problem.

@Jeff55369

3 ай бұрын

Crew gets rotated out. I could easily see a scenario where a ship is moved from one role to another if there is need for it. Those decisions and implementation are pretty slow though, so the Navy has time to train a crew for the job before the ship makes it's way back to port to refit for the new mission.

@jgw9990

2 ай бұрын

​@Jeff55369 It's a gimmick which made the ships too expensive. They should have chosen 1 small ship design role and done that first, when it worked they could then broaden scope. That's how smarter nations build capacity. But no, America wanted a ship which could do everything everywhere.

@Jeff55369

2 ай бұрын

@@jgw9990It's doesn't do everything everywhere all at the same time. Modularity also allows you to use the same hull in different specialized roles, even if that ship ends up dedicated to that role. Theoretically that would keep costs down since you're using a lot of the same parts. the only real issue you have with this approach, is if the hull isn't appropriate for the roles assigned to it.

@jgw9990

2 ай бұрын

@@Jeff55369 Modularity adds complexity. You have to build a ship which can be taken apart. Of course that'll be more complicated and expensive.

@Jeff55369

2 ай бұрын

@@jgw9990 modularity is specifically so you don't have to take the ship apart. Just remove modules. For example: tanks are modular in that the turrets are removeable without having to do extensive work to do so. It's also the principle used in building computers. It's true that the navy, or the designers of these platforms, may have failed in this aspect, but if properly designed, modularity should simplify the design, not make it more complex. It has to be simple in order to work with various different platforms. Properly done, it should also speed up repair operations, because you can swap out the modules and do work on the damaged pieces of gear while it's not inside the the operational vehicle. Just because the concept was poorly implemented doesn't destroy the theory behind it.

Thank you for pronouncing the ship correctly! It’s astounding how many people report on these ships but can’t even get the word littoral correct!!!

The US Navy had a small group of ships, the Cyclone class , which could had done the job of the LCS, but they had decided on decommissioning this group of small ships able to operate in swallow water ways and sold them to various other countries navies in the Pacific Ocean near Taiwan and the Philippieans

@tigerland4328

3 ай бұрын

I was surprised that the US decommissioned the cyclone class. They were ideal for dealing with the threats of the gulf/red sea area particularly the Iranian fast missile boats

I'm surprised you didn't mention the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment. As for the armor protection of aluminum, you could compare it to the M113, with the added fun of sinking.

@jamesocker5235

3 ай бұрын

Failure to prototype and learn lessons made every lesson way more expensive as it had to be spread across units in production. Just stupid arrogant officers wanting to spend someone else money. Just sick.

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

Naval engineers have terabytes of data on the capabilities of the materials in a boat and know what to watch out for. The problem of the decks cracking isn't some general problem of the engineers being too stupid to know something that's basic info to you or me. It's going to be something very specific in either their materials data, or their calculation methodologies, or something like this. For instance you mention "the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment." OK, what specific alloys were used in the case you're referring to, what specific material property limits were there, and what was the actual stress applied? By what design methodology did this appear correct, when it actually wasn't? If you can't answer these questions, consider whether you indeed know what you're talking about.

@zacappleton474

2 ай бұрын

@@lqr824 : hey there, I may only be your Average KZread commenter, but that specific criticism of the LCS has been around for well over a decade. It’s definitely worth asking why our Average Infantryman didn’t address that in their video.

@grahamstrouse1165

2 ай бұрын

@@jamesocker5235We’ve screwed up nearly every major post-war military project since the end of the Cold War.

@jgw9990

2 ай бұрын

​@@grahamstrouse1165Yeah, because the military asks for next generation programmes which require levels of funding not available outside of the cold War. The ground combat vehicle was just absurd. 80 tonnes for an IFV, that's heavier than tanks, and costs about 4 times as much.

I’ve seen other videos about how bad these ships are, but this is by far the best. Much more in depth explanation. I think this is a great concept but just wasn’t done right.

Thanks again, very well explained! I would agree on the fact that they were not up to the many missions intended initially, because modularity can't solve it in the short term, as initially intended. But once it is decided what mission each kind of ship should perform, I believe they will work it out in spite of their limitations, teething problems or design shortcomings.

It's like a literal combat ship. The Gen Z of naval vessels

@Bezz407

3 ай бұрын

💀

With respect to crew size, the initial manning required a lot of maintenance to be performed by civilian contractors. For parts and service of many of the installed systems, the Navy is dependent on the respective contractor to perform the maintenance. Sailors don't possess all of the knowledge and references to performance maintenance that would be normally performed by Sailors of other ship classes LCS has a lot of proprietary hardware). This often required civilians to fly out to Singapore or to any other port the ship was at, to work on the ships while in a maintenance phase or if corrective work was needed. As a result the operating costs of these ships are among the highest in the fleet relative to crew size. Even with a crew size of 70, some the maintenance still has to be performed by off-hull personnel. To really get these ships self sufficient to meet all standards required of other ship classes, you need a crew size of around 100. The problem is that the early hulls of the Independence class didn't have enough berthing to house a crew of a 100. The Navy went into this with unrealistic expectations without any at sea testing of an unproven concept before going to full production.

@orbiradio2465

3 ай бұрын

I assumed that the LCS would be supported by a tender. But it looks like the US Navy retired all it's destroyer tender without replacement.

@phiksit

3 ай бұрын

I remember them having to redo / make more berthing space on Freedom class too.

A well designed and constructed hull is useful, regardless mission fit or transmission woes. Park them up and then find a use for them later.

unbelievably great podcast!

The U.S.S. Cole incident was caused by a lapse in operational security, not a lack of combat capability in littoral waters.

@lqr824

2 ай бұрын

Good point. Now that I think of it, were it a capability lack, we'd have had more Cole-type incidents but it was a one-off.

Trying to turn the LCS Lemons into Lemonade has been problematic at best. As a Surface Combatant this vessel either type is and has been a huge waste of public treasure, and denied the U.S. Navy of valuable Surface Combatants . . . particularly smaller ones that would perform the ESCORT Mission today. From over $36 to $60 Billion for acquisition depending upon whose numbers you run with . . . to about $100 Billion total when we include personnel and Operations & Maintenance supporting budget plus modifications since fielding . . . these platforms have cost the U.S. taxpayers an entire Frigate Fleet worth of treasure and we have little of nothing in comparatively relevant capability to show for it. You did a fine job of explaining just how bad the Little Crappy Ship really is. We cannot get rid of them fast enough, and we should only give them to our enemies . . . not our friends. Let the adversaries go broke trying to make them work.

@dominuslogik484

3 ай бұрын

I feel like for these small ships there should be some sort of joint developed ship across multiple nato nations to drive down costs. try to get france, germany, Italy, the UK&Australia, Japan and south Korea on board with the program and have them all able to do domestic production of the same class of small combat ship (frigate or destroyer).

@stephenpowstinger733

3 ай бұрын

I’ve heard our NATO allies make some pretty good small ships. Why not just buy these?

@battlefield3112011

3 ай бұрын

​@@stephenpowstinger733the new Constellation class frigates are based on European FREMM frigates.

@jmjones7897

3 ай бұрын

Steam turbines, pumps and Oakum. Helo pad, deck guns, VLS, towed sonar, well and elevator. Flex Tape. Motherfucking flex tape

@MultiCconway

3 ай бұрын

@@dominuslogik484 The Europeans and NATO actually have several standard programs and our FREMM Frigate is but one example.

Also the minesweepers have wood and fiberglass hulls because these things called magnetic mines which have been around for about a century, and nonmetallic hulls are much less likely to trigger them.

I just recently found and started watching T&P content and am impressed. You are now in my must watch content list, right up there with other space leaders like Ward Caroll and relative new comer (to me), WGOW Shipping. All credible and verifiable, non-hyped news - a refreshing and valued alternative to the nonsense, opinion biased Corp-Media infotainment BS that drove me here in the first place!

Correction: The Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates FFG-7 through FFG-61, were the replacement for the Knox Class Frigates and served in the US Fleet from 1977 through 2015.

@dundonrl

3 ай бұрын

Thinking the same thing!

@SiriusMined

3 ай бұрын

He makes a lot of mistakes

Anyone who watches Tex Talks Battletech will note some striking similarities between this story and the Baron-class Warship. Because Tex is an expert and knowing this stuff is his job and he draws on his experience to tell the story.

@warlynx5644

3 ай бұрын

Plus Battletech draws a lot of inspiration from reality, since the LCS is not the first instance of this type of production mismanagement. Sometimes what’s “good enough” is the best option.

@SoundBoy808

3 ай бұрын

Unexpected Battletech is always welcome. Go Roguetech! Those guys are amazing! If Battletech the video game is the LCS then RT is a full on Nuclear carrier group!

@davestier6247

3 ай бұрын

Shoulda just built Urbies

@Unacknowledged86

3 ай бұрын

The Warhammer video is my favorite tex talks. Def saw similarities myself.

@hoovie109

3 ай бұрын

BATTLETECH MENTIONED!!!!!!!!

I know things have changed since I was in the navy in the 1960s but back then a frigate was bigger than a destroyer. The hull designation was DL for destroyer leader. The frigate on which I served was later updated and reclassified as a cruiser.

Excellent reporting!!

Weren't the cracks from the fact that dissimilar metals were being used? Steel hulls with aluminum superstructures i believe. That's like metallurgy 101 level stuff.

@jimwilliams3494

3 ай бұрын

Nope, just poorly designed aluminum structures

This installment answered a lot questions I had about this class of ship. Thanks for putting it together.

In the 90s a Marine Reseach organization bought a twin hulled cat. The idea was to launch the ROV down between the hulls. There were cracks and it was "repaired/reinforced" but it ultimately worked.

I have always loved the "idea" of the LCS, particularly the Freedom class. I have always thought from the beginning that they should be mainly used by the Naval Special-warfare community (SEALs and the Special Warfare Combat Crewmen) as forward deployed mother/fire support ships ships. There are many Special warfare officers that need Command time and i think along with being a very useful launching/support platform for Special Operations it could also give Officers and Senior enlisted the Command time or Command Staff time they need to progress their carriers. I can also see the two classes of LCS's finding a home in the Coast Guard as the Cyclone class has been retired and have no replacement hulls to fill in the gap they are leaving.

TL, DW The trimaran hull is cracking at the seams. The other class has no ammunition for its guns, because government, and the engines transmission self destructs if you try to engage the turbines, so it’s stuck at slow speed.

@hphp31416

3 ай бұрын

Lockheed probably thought that if they could make transmission powering f35B lift fan then they can make transmission connecting diesel engines and gas turbines as well

The fact that they are building more of them baffles me.

Super cool concept and great looking!

Great report,thanks.

Thanks for this video! Really appreciate the quick run down of these ships as I always found them interesting. Good to have a overall story of why and how and what-not.

Your videos get better and better with every release. Outstanding.

Excellent analysis.

I got to view two of the Independence class last August. They were tied up at dock in Bremerton, Washington Naval yard. My guide during my visit, my grandson, serves on a SSBN. He expressed some tongue-in-cheek remarks on these boats. They're held in a low regard by those who know them.

Very much US industrial companies taking the navy for a ride. Maintenance being proprietary to company contractors and not navy sailors etc. Would have been much easier and cost effective to joint venture with any of many NATO Western allies. Haveing similar expertise in shallow waters operations. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Italy have ship building and operational experience in Baltic, Mediterranean seas etc

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

exactly, there was a blank check for stuff during the GWOT years and this is what we got .......no cool

@thecommentaryking

3 ай бұрын

Well in the end the UN Navy did chose an European design for the substitute for the LCS, the Franco-Italian FREMM

@bradz9413

3 ай бұрын

VISBY!

@riyaolin7907

3 ай бұрын

@@thecommentarykingwhich in fact new FFG going to be build by some company built LCS

@tango_uniform

3 ай бұрын

Once again, defense companies lobbied Congress to build something that had questionable capability. Much like the A-12.

Someone may have mentioned this - but the entire Perry Class (FFG7), some 60 odd Frigates, followed the Knox class. Although they're all out of service now, too.

if you want to see this ship up close, drive Highway 3 in bremerton wa. It's at their USNS right now. Strikingly beautiful ship from the view

One reason Freedom Class ship construction was continued was to keep the builder's yard active until they switch over to building the new Frigate design. But in a twist the yard in Marinette, WI were the Freedom Class is/was built is having problems hiring enough certified welders for construction to start.

At 20:43- Nice one. The way I heard it was- The floggings will continue until moral improves.

@fixman88

Ай бұрын

"Beatings will continue until morale improves." One of my supervisors at work actually has a pirate-themed shirt with that on it.

Probably said million times before but I really am hooked to your videos. Maybe not all info should be taken for granted but it’s delivered in a neutral manner and summarized in a way that I and a lot of people could understand. I don’t like news of conflicts and politics but the topic is just too important to ignore and anything military related can really change the livelihoods of people around the globe. Also important for We, the people, to know how the defense budget is and was being used and it confuses me why congress wants three more of the equivalent of fragile Ferraris with a hard speed limiter.

We have one of the new experimental littoral ships operating here in Panama City, Florida. The FSF (fast sea frame) is faster, has greater range, and draws less water than the LCS, plus it's actually modular.

I've see several of these docked at Seal Beach Weapons base recently, The Savannah (28) Oakland (24) Tulsa (16) and Manchester (14)

This is a great video, but I think it would be better if it was modular.

@ronjon7942

3 ай бұрын

And had less depth.

Meanwhile Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigates: “Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power!”

@gregs7562

3 ай бұрын

Fantastic bit of kit. Base for the new Royal Navy T31, the Polish navy Swordfish & Indonesian Red/White frigate. 👌

@SkywalkerWroc

3 ай бұрын

@@gregs7562 Swordfish (Miecznik) is a failure as well. Very poorly armed, too expensive for what they give, out of the 3 ships built only the prototype will have an actual armament - the two ships of the class will be nearly an empty hulls, ready to be armed in case of war (with the enemy that shall give the time for Marynarka Wojenna to arm their vessels... lmao), some of the weapons for the Swordfish still don't even exist in the exact variant that is planned for the vessel... and everything is already beyond schedule and over budget.

I always like and share your videos. Even if I don't like them.... 😂 but I've never not liked one of your videos. You have one of a few channels I can always say I like every video. 😎👍

Another banger of a video

Cappy is a beast!!! These videos are always so good!!!

As a soldier I never had a problem finding "the little man in the boat". Didn't realize seamen had that problem.

@grahamstrouse1165

2 ай бұрын

“Hey, Tom Cruise has Seaman on his back!”

Great report. My faith in people in leadership roles diminishes that much more. We'll win, not because we were better, but because we were less worse.

Good job and to all those that research with you

To put this in perspective a Coast guard 110 foot patrol boat can move faster than this ship was allowed to. The 110 class was made in 1985!

@bocadelcieloplaya3852

3 ай бұрын

exactly, modify the 11 class to have naval hellfire pods, three cwis modules, and a 57mm gun. Using the proven existing propulsion of the 110. Butt hey, Admirals need those cushy post-navy jobs.

Thanks for being informative without shoving your political opinions down the viewers throat like a lot of other military channels do ❤

@Taskandpurpose

3 ай бұрын

believe me its tempting to insert my own personal opinions and political views all the time so I get why people do it haha

@saltyfrosticles

3 ай бұрын

I appreciate it as well. It's great getting information without having to deal with the noise/hate. It's important, across the board, these days.

@BIGDRE805

3 ай бұрын

@@Taskandpurposeit’s appreciated that you don’t, it helps us uneducated folk

@SunFlowerSociety1984

3 ай бұрын

​@@Taskandpurposewould you be interested in maybe having a separate channel for more discussion of this nature and more of your own subject opinions? What happen to two bro 1 bunker?

@mcdrogo

3 ай бұрын

​​@@Taskandpurpose Thank you and your team for providing great videos that are both informative and entertaining. People here are right; keep the politics out. You would probably lose half your audience otherwise. Information, not indoctrination.😊

The ships are in Bremerton at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for cut up.

The LCS program must have had some really impressive power point slides early on.

your conclusion reming me of this old saying "the easiest thing to do with hard stuff, is to fail" but I agree with you, it's far from a zero sum game great work as usual :)

I see you mentioned the Knox class but forgot the Perry class. I also see the new Frigate being built looks a lot like an OHP.

Nice video Chris! There are rumors that we are going to get these ships here in Greece in the very near future! I hope at least to have resolved issues with their transmission- engine problems ! Here nobody is positive on getting them BUT they are going to give us as military aid paying of course as usual! I hope we will be more lucky and God helps us !

this gave me a idea could you do a video on the parts of the military that are in most dire need of improvement like how the us doesn't have near enough icebreaker capabilities especially since the artic is going to be of ever increasing importance in the years to come

Another thing to follow, is the DoD wants to expand its ship building and maintenance capacity, and Mobile, and Marinette are new "experienced" builder options. All the Destroyer and carrier yards are full-up, and the builders for the Freedom have the contracts for the new Constellation class Frigate

This is a really great point. The littorals haven't been safe for a LCS long before they were designed, not to mention today.

EXCELLENT VIDEO!! 👍🇺🇸

lcd has been a rollercoaster. I think you laid it out better than I have seen in these years of bs.

The simplest way for the USN to have gotten effective LCS would have been to get updated Corvettes and Frigates designed, the smaller to work closer to shore and chase small craft / drones the larger for asw / mine sweeping.

@Wick9876

3 ай бұрын

Yes. The primary role of an LCS is a carrier of a helicopter, drones, mine hunting USVs, and the like. Doing that doesn't require 40+ knots. The other role is Sreetfighter: a fast, heavily armed, cheap corvette. Trying to combine them was a mistake.

@jaquigreenlees

3 ай бұрын

@@Wick9876 yup, their decision to completely abolish corvettes and frigates instead of redesigning them for modern needs was a bad one.

@noneyabizz8337

3 ай бұрын

That'd be too cheap

I was thinking how much japan's mogami class frigates has so much better suitability for shallow/littorial water missions. It's cheap, fast, modular multi mission and wide array of capabilities. It has high stealth design, mine warfare, mine hunting , anti-submarine capabilities with electronic warfare as bonus. For weapons it has MK45 127mm gun for small boats and drones, 8 anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, seaRAM for ciws, 1 SH-60L helicopter, 2x UUV and USV and lastly a 16 cell mk41 vls which house type-03 SAM AA missile and Type-07 anti-submarine missile, the vls cell can also hold quad pack ESSM for total 64 missile for anti-air mission if required. More over it has link 22 capabilities, am advanced CIC so then can coordinate with destroyer. I think mogami class frigate would have been perfect for US Navy shallow water fleet.

@muktadirbhuyan7281

3 ай бұрын

I agree mogami is perfect for mission in the middle East. With its adavance sensor suite and electric warfare capacities can detect boats and drone in clusted littorial environment and it's armament are good as well the 127mm naval gun can take care of small boats, drones and slow missiles and quad packed 64 ESSM missile are enough for deal with anti- ship and cruise missile. It's helicopter can help in monitoring task. Honestly japan not participating in the operation is a shame, mogami could have contributed a lot in the middle East.

@thedemoninshadow8503

3 ай бұрын

Mogami is a damn good looking ship. More beautiful then my gf 😂 .

@iamnobody4574

3 ай бұрын

@@thedemoninshadow8503 😂😂😂😂 man make sure ur gf don't find out you are simping on a ship.

@Charles-A

3 ай бұрын

​@@iamnobody4574there's a whole ass franchise about anthropomorphic anime girl warships. And "Mogami" is a clumsy, tomboyish one prone to accidents. I'll spare you the details and just say, don't nuke a country twice.

@thedemoninshadow8503

3 ай бұрын

@@Charles-A I see we have a fellow shikikan here.

Turkey is implementing that modularity concept with the Hisar class OPVs whose design is based on the Ada class corvettes. Its main objective is coastal defense and patrols but in times of war it can be equipped with the same armament as the Ada class. Also funnily enough Freedom and Ada look kinda alike lol. Having a proven design that is also suitable for another purpose is a massive checkpoint for a new project. Sadly I think the US forgot how to build ships in that class after so many years focusing on the big girls and American frigates were damn good back in the day. I mean OHPs are still one of my fave designs ever.

When the USN were testing the idea of LCS they chartered an Incat 96 WPC fast craft direct from Incat. Iirc she was named HSV-X1 Joint Venture. They had her for over 5yrs and she was even deployed as fast transport. She's 96m long, 5700gt and tops out over 40knts. Apparently she did hit 50knts but that would be sea trials so light ship and driven like they stole it. The reason I know about her is I worked on several Incat WPC fast craft ferries and the operator owned Isle of Man Steam Packet company at the time and guess where Joint Venture ended up? She's now with IOM Steam packet as HSC Manannan operating out of Douglas harbour. As for their usefulness as military vessels, you can forget protection beyond don't get hit! Fast cats are build primarily of aluminium to keep the weight down. The advantages they do have is relatively shallow draft, really, really fast and as they're usually catamarans or trimarans their seakeeping and maneuverability is insane. Ships I spent most of my time on were Incat 74 and 81 and they were type rated to operate with passengers and load up to Force 9 weather. That's strong gale force and getting very bouncy. Passenger ferries over 4 times our weight would cancel at force 6 or 7. Roughest weather I've ever been in was a massive storm off the coast of Wales that was force 10-11. We were light ship taking Seacat Scotland(an Incat 74) from Bel to Dover to hand her over. At one point we had the cpt lashed to the chair at the wheel to stop him being thrown out it and the rest of us just hung on. We had a liferaft canister ripped from it's mount but beyond that we came through without a scratch. There were massive container ships and tankers 100,000t plus in the same storm and they got the crap kicked out of them and we were a 74m long, 3200t aluminium can powering through still maintaining 30-35knts. Another side point worth mentioning is in the wake of 9/11 there was a period of several years were there was a big concern that the next big target might be a fast cat. We're carrying up to 1200 pax, to fast to catch and board, to fast to run away from and if you're a conventional hull our size or bigger, to fast and maneuverable to get out of our way so the fear was if one was hijacked and someone decided to ram us into the side of a tanker... That was a fun time to work on those things.

Bring back the Iowa class and those smokin’ 16 inch of freedom

@HavocHerseim

3 ай бұрын

make the Montana class. show the world what a battleship can do.

@spudskie3907

3 ай бұрын

Go for the ultimate…the Tillman class!

The whole LCS program was a corrupt mess that made lots of money for key people.

@BB-et8pl

3 ай бұрын

Which is why Austal has sold the idea to the Australian government.

@highbrass3749

12 күн бұрын

So it was a government program.

I love this channel

Literally the Navy didn't want anyone knowing the name of the littoral ship.

The idea of this type of ship is actually a very good one. In fact, is great. The issue with it was the rush to implement it. In fact, I think this idea should be implemented as soon as possible once they work out all of the bugs so back to the drawing table, and then make this thing work.

@colemichae

3 ай бұрын

Too many politicians and Military staff wanting to retire into the shipbuilding industry. To do it correctly outsource all initially, and test 2 ships, you can add secret items after built. Have the secret bits planned eg weight size power requirements, cable ducting.

@dundonrl

3 ай бұрын

How many decades do you want to give them to "work the bugs out" obviously 20 years hasn't been enough!

It all boils down to who has the big "Shares in the Military Industrial Complex".

A couple of ships were based at Singapore's Changi naval base, at the mouth of the singapore straits & the south china sea.