Truth! I'm an old navy vet as well1992-2014, I was on a coastal mine hunter MHC-60 Cardinal (now with the Egyptian Navy I think). It was made of a fiberglass/kevlar composite (to flex when the mine explodes near by. That hull would not stop small arms fire, the only safe places on the ship in a gun fight was between the 2 engines or topside with me and my gun crews shooting back.
Ffg vet here. Should of made more ffgs and left these Things alone. A big waste of time and money we will never back. The navy is in bad shape with no work horse. The big design flaw I see is they tried to man these ships with 40 men. You need men to do work. 40 high enlisted and officers don’t use their hands.
This was an extremely positive view of the LCS. Other important aspects was that it was designed to not be maintained by the navy but by contractors which someone was sold on the idea of it being cheaper....but it wasn't (sounds like corruption to me). Both ships had structural issues, the modules had problems during development and many were abandoned (especially the anti-submarine warfare), the crew size ended up being too small (since it was sold as a lower operating cost ships) and had to be increased, etc etc.
Neoliberal ghouls try not to sell off our strategic resources and processes to contractors challenge (impossible). Seriously though, how TF someone thought handing over maintenance to a third party is beyond me. Definitely rings the corruption bell.
@@Blaze6108 I mean half of the politicians believe that private enterprise always does better than the government without thinking that it means giving monopolies for each subsystem (since they are the only ones that can support their tech), its good for the private companies but bad for our taxes... so it's an easy sell to the politicians and any project that moves forward would be a win for the admiral deciding this...
@@Necrotic99 Private Enterprise IS inherently more efficient. The problem is with the government not private Enterprise. Blame the government for overspending your tax dollars, not private contractors for accepting the money.
@@deuscoromat742 the point is that it's only efficient for itself (ie profits for its investors). If they have a semi monopoly, then it's not efficient for us (ie the consumer / government). And with so much cost plus programs, the incentive is shit for companies to be efficient.
@@Necrotic99 You have no grasp on economics. Right off the bat, wrong. -There is no such thing as a semi-Monopoly the term it doesn't make sense. Either it meets the definition of a monopoly or it doesn't. - Not all monopolies are bad for the consumer in fact, the vast majority of monopolies that exist now are competitive monopolies with low barriers to entry and differentiate themselves by pricing and marketing. - capitalism is an Incredibly predictable and efficient machine. It is impossible for government to be as efficient because the incentive structure does not exist. - you cannot blame private companies for simply accepting ludicrous government contracts; you can and should however, hold the government accountable for it's famous tendency to waste taxpayer money. - if we were to do a little test where you took away government contractors and government employees had to do all of the work outlined in the contract by themselves, the United States would go bankrupt after the third attempt. Stop blaming private Enterprise for a failure of the state.
The DoD sure knows how to waste money! I was in the army and still to this day don't understand why they changed from 5-tons to the LMTV class vehicles. The commercial world in the US has moved away from cab over designs because they are less efficient and harder to work on. Take into account that you have soldiers that forget things here and there and there was a BIG problem with the latches not being secured to hold the cab down and during hard breaking, many were having the cabs fold down and the drivers looking at the ground. Then the FMTV wrecker... this thing was supposed to be an upgrade to the HEMTT wrecker but failed epically. It was underpowered, you had to be lined up nearly perfect with the vehicle you were trying to grab, and again you have a cab over design that made it really difficult to work on. There was nothing wrong with the 5-ton design, just needed to have some upgraded components. The MTVR is a great vehicle that should have replaced the 5-ton design, it just came out after the Army decided to purchase a bunch of stupid LMTVs.
of course they do. they forced this design to morph so much from the original concept and purpose that it is hilarious they didn't expect it to fail. the ship got given soo many fucking hats it was supposed to wear that it isn't even funny. it's original task was too deal with patrol boats and smaller vessel. then it got given the anti sub, the troop carrier, and anti warship roles.
if I remember, many in the Navy were "No, we do not have a role for this, nope nope nope." And Congress and others, often with some tie in to the project, say "Oh yes you do need this!"
Umm yeah... the entire LCS is an abject failure as deemed by the US Navy. They are going to be replaced en masse by the new Frigate class which is due to be entering service in 2028(ish). LCS is a failure because their multi-role aspect never materialized. Only the surface warfare role ever actually worked but just barely. Most likely, these ships are going to be sold off to other navies. Oh, and the hulls are aluminum. Look at the M2 Bradley APCs for why aluminum armor is a bad idea.
Not to mention the engineering defects that result in hull cracks or the ridiculous custom missle systems that are now obsolete and the only available ammunition is whats remaining...and I dont even really follow this kind of news.
I'll see your LCS and raise you a Zumwalt. $22 billion and only 3 built. The gun doesn't work and the ammunition never flew as far. Program ended and gun will be removed and "stored" and WILL BE replace by hypersonic missiles WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. Naval architects say the hull design could roll over in certain wave patterns.
@@snuffle2269 oh don't even get me started on that giant waste of funding. I call it an "engineer's wet dream" because they wanted to put all the new and fancy stuff on board but never thought about testing the equipment and dealing with the integration. Nothing works correctly and from what I hear those 3 ships are going to probably end up being g either training and/or testing platforms. They will probably never be forward deployed.
@@johngormaley4231 They just took a sailor to court martial for the USS Bonhomme Richard fire despite being told not to by NCIS, not surprisingly they lost as there was no actual evidence against Seaman Mays. The Navy wanted to blame someone who wasn't an oficer for their incompetence when the incompetence was widespread among the officers on board and in command of their fleet. So you're right the Navy doesn't like to admit they were wrong, they haven't even publicly appologised to Seaman Mays for putting him and his family through hell. SECNAV should intervene personally and go clean house and appologise.
And Austal being under investigation for their juicy contract to build them. Even if the cracks could be fixed, it's doubtful they could get the money.
Exactly. I can’t believe this detail was left out. They are all effectively locked in port as the NAVY determined that they can’t exceed that speed and can only go out when the ocean conditions are calm and flat.
@@GoSlash27 The investigation is over a paperwork issue, specifically work packs... Every major shipyard has gone through the same "investigation". It had to do with the charging of hours worked by employees to different "work packs" associated with the ship. The investigations were created when another major shipyard was caught mischarging hours from one ship to another. So what you think you know, you probably don't.
@@timcobb1752 Navy veteran here, and...if you are ashamed to be assigned to these vessels as it means you are not good enough to actually go out to sea or command anything...if no one wants to serve on such a ship, it's a bad sign.
@@kittymervine6115 not sure who you are replying to here... but none of the sailors I knew were ashamed to be assigned to them. Also, in WWII sailors assigned to destroyers were often less proud of themselves than sailor assigned to battleships. And in the beginning sailors assigned to carriers also felt this way... History would later judge the functions of the other 2 ships far more important.
You forgot a couple of crucial things. The frames are cracking between the main hull and the outrigger hulls, and the Navy had to reduce their allowed top speed and sea state operations. Also, some of the mission modules never became compatible and/or operational. These things are an operational/financial/design boondoggle.
I stare at the Independence everyday when I wake up, as I live across the water from where it stays in Washington. This video is awesome! I've always wondered about this ship. Thank you so much!
Except hes completely wrong. These ships were a huge waste of money. They are being decommissioned, or at least used for training only now. The US tax payers took a bath on this one BIG TIME
Our military still needs to learn that a jack of all trades is in actuality a master of none. The LCS cannot do all things and be the best the same way an F22 cannot replace the role of the A10.
G'day Dark, The original, modern, innovative catamaran design which led to Austal’s trimaran that was redesigned as a warship for the USN, was developed in Tasmania by the local firm, InCat, back in the early 1980s. Only ever intended for high-speed, ocean going vehicular/passenger ferries, the InCat vessels became popular around the world. While working as a journalist on European assignments, I travelled as a guest of the UK company operating an InCat vessel from Wales across the Irish sea to Dublin's nearby seaport. The vessel, back then, could handle the sometimes volatile sea-states of the Irish Sea with some passenger discomfort but, generally, these large catamarans provided a stable, luxurious and rapid means of going from the UK to Ireland, with one's car as an option. The Perth (Australia) company Austal used this general concept and made an even larger trimaran passenger/car ferry craft that was eventually aimed at the potentially larger US market. Both InCat's vessels and Austal’s were evaluated by the US military with the Austal trimaran winning the military contracts. The company then opened a manufacturing facility in the US. Neither of these civilian craft, in their original designs, were ever intended as military vessels and so never had provision for any kind of protective armour plating which would have negated the vessels' speed and manoeuvrability. Both are made of aluminium which many conventional weapons systems will easily devastate and can actually 'set fire' to the ships' metal. That said, they have proven to be far more effective and useful than the USN's troubled 'Z Class' warships. Cheers, Bill H.
I’m actually surprised that our carriers don’t have a trimaran shape. I’d think it would be on another level. Be able to take direct hits to one side and still survive. Not to mention more runway space. And the gaps between the hulls could be used to drop or pick things up, including making discrete contact with subs, without over head observability.
I've toyed with this idea a bit myself. Much wider separation between main- and side-hulls would exaggerate the hull flexure under heavy waves... but I think it could be addressed in design, perhaps even using some "compliant structure" (allowed flexure) thinking. Of course you're eliminating the ability of the carrier ever to transit canals, but maybe this is acceptable.
@@SpamSucker I think the pros would put weigh the cons definitely. If we made just 2 of them, without cheeping out. I think we’d be good. I don’t think all flex issues would be reduced, do to how massive it would be. Because we wouldn’t want to go smaller. I’d think we’d want to create a whole new class of hyper carriers. If submarines could covertly dock between the hulls without being seen. Taking into account we might go bigger on subs marines as well.
A big reason why Carriers are the size they are is that if they were bigger in the beam they couldn't use the Panama or Suez canals and would have to go the long way around. It's the same reason why Tanks are the size and shape they are, they can't go over a certain size otherwise they couldn't be transported by trains.
@@shial1977 yes, I’m aware of the size issue in regards to ships and tanks. I believe we have 10 carriers at see at all times. I’d think if we made just 2 flagships. Immense in size and scope, a pacific and Atlantic one, we might really benefit from being able to shield subs and carry more planes and weapons… I’ve also thought about ways we might solve the tank issue. Maybe tracks that extend out and lock in place. But in reality, even if we could solve the tanks width issues. I don’t think we’d want too. Tanks are slowly going to become obsolete. Unless they evolve too being able to transition from flight to ground and park. That or walking robots. I know both sound out there. But in terms of cost. An f14 or a lower grade f16, even an Apache helicopter would probably be the better choice then a tank. And I’m only referring to actual tanks. Not personal carriers or other designated machines. Look at the first Iraq war. We destroyed all of Husains tanks with helicopters and planes. Idk, regretfully, I was never in the armed forces to have a better opinion.
For a time the US Navy was leasing 98m catamarans from a Tasmanian boat builder (my home state). On a crossing of the Panama canal in 2012 I saw one in its US Navy colours traveling in the other direction! One was eventually sunk by the Yemeni military in 2016.
I see a lot of comments that are all over the place on the LCS and the ships involved. Yes, the LCS concept has been abandoned. Yes, the Freedom-class LCS ships are being scrapped. NO, the Independence-class ships are NOT being scrapped. These tri-maran hulled ships are being retained, mainly because they are excellent helo platforms. If the Navy has any sense they will refit them with a tail and state-of-the-art ASW gear and re-designate them as ASW Frigates. Their speed and maneuverability plus that helo deck would make them excellent pickets for ASW work. The difficulty might be in providing the class with at least torpedo tubes for Mk46 or Mk50. I think the class is to light to accept even a minimal amount of VLS for ASROC, though it might be worth while to resurrect the old ASROC box launchers that were used on the Spruance class destroyers. However you accomplish it, this ship would make an excellent ASW platform and should be retained as such.
I like the idea but wouldn't they be kinda hard to use as an asw platform when having to have a tug around to move them when the engines crap out and flood? Otherwise it might work
@@jay6186 The engine on the Independence class are fine. The plating on the first four was a bit thin (and they are supposed to be reworked when the last of the class are completed in 2024). The Freedom class have the faulty gearboxes.
Not similar at all. Completely different issues with the F35 problems, which were mainly due to literally building the plane while they were still designing it, and which now most analysts would agree is a superior and amazingly effective weapon and worth it.
@@richardrodgers1883 The Bradley is loved by the soldiers that use it. It got a bad wrap due to a fictional movie based on a book by a guy that tried to actively sabotage the program due to a chip on his shoulder. Pentagon Wars was full of crap.
(6:37) "her minimal protruding parts reduce radar visibility". I also have very small "protruding parts" and it's good to learn that I can finally mention one aspect of this condition as being an advantage. So far the reaction from my dates has always been pointing, laughing, and telling me to get out of their house… looks like that's about to change!
The video is a bit confusing, referring to the Freedom class capabilities while showing pictures of Independence class. Also, there's lots of video of the mission modules available, but none were shown.
You missed a few things like the ships are so undercrewed that crews end up working 10 or 12? hour shifts instead of the standard 8 and the result is that they get completely stressed and strung out during a deployment, they are under armed with no antiship capability (they had to design a new lighter weight cruise missle for it). And the lockheeed version has these problems plus its a complete disaster. The propulsion system craps out and the ships where for a time compleltly unfixable. A fix has been found but lockheed refuses to take responsibility and fix the problem because its so expensive. Just like the future destoyer program the navy bought into vessels that where so new in concept they didn't bother to see if it would actually work before purchasing it. the whole project is a complete disaster.
The LCS is still using the Blue/Gold crews which may work on subs but is an utter failure on surface ships. Sometimes you have to wonder what these Admirals are smoking when they're getting paid off by defense contractors.
@@RealJeep That to my understanding is due to alternating mission packages, but... I can tell you the birthing spaces got a redesign and that's about it without treading into the I don't know what I can and can not talk about area
The LCS were designed as coastal defence ships. The US Navy is simply misusing them for deep water tasks they were never intended or designed for and looking surprised that they fail when abused. What these ships are designed for is patrolling the Mediterranean or Black Sea to keep tabs on the Russians - not the Pacific Ocean off China:
At the beginning of the video was pictured a British 1960/70’s Leander class frigate HMS Dido F104 or as we referred to her HMS Dildo! Plus an equally old wooden hull Ton class Minesweeper, (couldn’t see the pennant number it was too blurry) just wondering what they had to do with the heading subject of this film?
For coastal patrol duties the Navy needed a navalized Coast Guard ship. Instead they ordered these two mistakes. And kept throwing good money after bad
check out the new landing boats being built. SUPER EXPENSIVE, slow, does not carry enough, and being kept being built as it keeps a ship yard going. Watching a tour. of the shipyard and these landing craft, the concept of SIMPLE, CHEAP and FAST....all thrown out the window. People are being paid to built it, but the video it was clear to anyone watching this was a disaster of a design. the WWII design was genius and I'd rather be in one of those than these new monstrosities.
Independence class feels like it might have a mission one day, assuming the cracking issue can be dealt with. Long legs, huge flight bay, huge storage area, high speed. It seems like it might have a logistics role, maybe equip with VTOL cargo drones and have it do unmanned supply drops into amphibious operations areas? It has a competent enough air search radar that if you paired it up with some containerised ESSMs or a suitably equipped LUSV it could more or less self escort across the Pacific, assuming P-8 support. But, while that might be a useful niche capability for a naval SCS fight, it's very much lipstick on the pig of a failing programme, and it will only work if they can get the operating costs way down: probably by increasing the crew complement and getting rid of the contractor maintenance model.
2:14 Admiral Vernon Clark was my Commanding Officer aboard the First and Finest USS Spruance DD-963 1983-1985. He was a Commander back then and an amazing Ship's Captain. His Executive Officer was LT CDR Roughhead. Both became Chief of Naval Operations.
Got to see the Augusta under construction at Austal shipyard in Mobile AL and it is certainly an interesting looking ship. Thanks for the backstory on the class.
Living not far from Mobile, AL, I got to watch the Independence and Coronado being built. Every month or two, we would drive down and check out the progress from across the river. They are a fascinating ship to behold in person.
I don't even know where to begin with this boondoggle. The LCS, as per current sailors, stands for Little Crappy Ship. They're plagued with problems including the hulls cracking on the trimaran Independence class and the combining gear failures on both classes, relegating them to less than optimal speeds. The Navy has had to decommission several of them due to these failures and schedule others for lengthy shipyard stays to repair the combining gear issues. They have not lived up to the modular concept, have very poor survivability in combat and are a nightmare to maintain. Now that they're not playing Coast Guard in gray, the Navy wants to move on to our next conflict with the CCP who doesn't have these shallow water worries. One can only hope those who build ships can get their crap together soon!
It's all ridiculous defense spending based on pork-barrel politics. I used to live near Marinette, WI where the freedom class ships were built. Those have been an engineering disaster with its special combining gear transmission unable to do its function without destroying itself. Therefore the intended fast ship cannot be a fast ship. The Navy's solution is to retire these ships after only a few years of unreliable service and throw more money into a frigate designed and built by the same company, Fincantieri, that produced the expensive, short-lived, unreliable freedom class LCS.
If I remember, the NAVY did not want to have these at one point. It was "These are not going to work." BUT if you have contracts to build these, or work is underway, or Congress wants the jobs these ships bring to say Wisconsin...then the Navy gets these ships. Right now there is a modern landing craft, that is a piece of crap. Everyone knows it. Too expensive, too exposed, doesn't carry enough, slow...not like the landing craft built in Manitowoc along with submarines. It'e everything a landing craft should not be, but, it keeps being built because it's jobs. All any Navy or even boating person needs to do is look at the video on the craft to say "This is such a bad design and so expensive!"
These ships have their issues however everyone forgets that two variants exist. The initial video picture is not what Wisconsin is building. Wisconsin Marinette marine got the traditional monohull hull variant contract and austal usa built the independence class catamaran style lcs under contract. As far as these being terrible please educate yourself in the topic as the original ships were absolutely having issues as they were brand new propulsion systems for big ships. We have never used anything like a jet ski style propulsion which these use. Now this system makes them able to go into shallow littoral areas due to the fact that no prop will get stuck. These ships definitely didn't live up to their promise partly due to politicians wanting them to do more and more things which hasn't ever worked on any ships we designed. Everything has to have a primary purpose and you can't have everything. Also I agree they should have actually given these programs more time and tested them out before building one after another. That is also sadly politicians who are at fault as they pushed for this.
Reminds me of the Hydrofoils the Navy had back in the 1980s. They were supposed to be next great thing to replace patrol boats. Noisy and had a massive rooster tail when running at speed.
LCS 2 Independence and LCS 4 Coronado have been decommissioned and are now mothballed in Bremerton WA. As a former Recon Marine I love the concept of a stealthy support platform.
One also needs to take into consideration that the Navy never really knew what they wanted and so changed the Mission parameters of the ships until they were useless.
When I was on my 3rd ship (around 2014) coming back from deployment, we were delayed entering port because the Independence class ship lost power and using wood shoring (4×4s, I don't remember the length) to push against the Coronado Bridge because surprise surprise it broke down. It was somewhat comical too watch. During this delay our friends and families were waiting on the peer, though. I have a negative opinion about them. They Navy should have put their focus on a new frigate class instead rather doing it almost a decade later after the Oliver 'Hazard' Perry class was decommissioned. Would love to see a video on that class of frigate by the way. Love your videos.
Let's dismantle this one as total BS: (1) shores are a standard length of 12 feet. There is no place on an LCS where you could stand, let alone erect a shore to touch the bridge. (2) When entering port the Nav has a "Bridge time". That time is pretty much fixed, and tugs are standing by to prevent a ship from ever hitting the bridge and assist in getting them to the pier. This has been true since at least the early 90's. (3) Ships sea and anchor times are staggered so that 2-4 tugs are available throughout the ships transit time just in case one of them gets in trouble. Minor delays occur, but usually that means the next ship in line to enter the channel is directed to hold SD short of buoy 1SD. But yes...LCS is a crap show, and are good for nothing more than sucking up maintenance dollars.
@@dccs6009 Think what you want as BS, but I watched it happen. I currently work in construction, so I work with varying lengths of lumber. Hence I didn't remember to length of the shoring. The crew were sticking the shoring out from where chalks for mooring lines 1, 2, and 3 would be located on the port side. The tug(s)were not present at the start of the engineering casualty because they had already been cast off some time before it occurred. They did return quickly to help with situation. Again this is from what I remember happening back around 2014.
We need a two pronged approach to new ship development. First we need someone to ride herd on the military brass making change orders ! Second is contractors need to be held to original performance estimates.
There is so much misunderstanding by people online about the LCS program as a whole and how that led to the ships that it did. One of the big things is that the program requirements called for a minimum top speed of 40 knots with the ability to cross the Pacific Ocean unassisted. That is effectively unachievable with a steel hulled ship or even a conventional aluminium monohull ship. That is why the Independence-class uses an aluminium trimaran hull and the Freedom-class uses an aluminium planing hull. I should also address a lot of misinformation I’ve been seeing about the program as I have seen many people claiming it has been cancelled or that they’re all being scrapped. Both of these things are untrue. The Freedom-class ships are all to be put in reserve while the Independence-class are to stay in service, as they do still fulfil a few important roles which the Constellation-class will not. The only LCSs that are being scrapped at this stage are the first two ships of each class as they were used as test ships to identify issues which could then be addressed on the later ships of each class and therefore were not given the same upgrades as the later ships.
Didn't they just do a video about these ships not long ago talking about what a failure they was? I'm pretty sure I seen it on here or one the dark channels
I believe you're referring to the Freedom class ships, with the nine vessels being marked for disposal in 2023. This video is about the Independence class. Both are classes of littoral ships (meaning they remain close to the coast), and both have similar features with a "pointy" bow and a flat deck at the back with a helipad, but they are different. The Freedom class design is not a trimaran but a monohull, for a start.
I'm guessing in hindsight they should have built the hulls from steel instead of Aluminium given the cracks that have appeared. Because the ferry the independence class is based on doesn't sail in rougher sea states it wasn't subject to the same forces as the Independence class is, also the hull doesn't look exactly like the ferry, the ferry has a more gradual slope to the bow, probably providing more stability to the outer hulls.
Only the first four Freedom ships had an issue. The subsequent hulls had thicker plates in the location that cracked - which the first four are due to be retrofitted with once the building program is complete.
Yes I saw her occasionally in San Diego... The main problem with this type od ship is that she cannot carry an impressive firepower because they weigh too much... next, their 52Mm gun is a joke has no place in modern warfare... next you had better have a flat calm to go fast anywhere... even going fast in a moderate swell would be a very uncomfortable and scary experience... AND you did not mention the serious cracks fractures appearing around the hull... So, finally, they could maybe be used to frighten pirates off the coast of Arabia... however they are useless for anything else... All of this modular nonsense is because they dont have the size or boyancy to carry much of anything!!! Sillyness !!!
From what I’ve been hearing, rather than replacing the class on mass they are re-classifying the newest vessels that have all the issues nominally addressed which will serve in tandem with the constellation class frigate‘s. But to be honest they’re not an abject failure. They’re just trying to do too many things based on the initial design requirement. If for example the independence was reconfigured into a coastal support combat minesweeper with anti-submarine warfare capacity It could achieve that rule very effectively without the need to switch mission packages. It would also help If the Navy was allowed to get all the maintenance on the ships rather than contract really obligated to allow the manufacturer to do all the maintenance. That is an abject failure.
We're not going to be able to keep the Australian ships either. They're developing structural cracks that aren't fixable. Also, Austal USA is under investigation for the structure of this contract.
Only the first four Austal ships have issues with cracks. The later ones got thicker plates in that location and once the last of the new builds are delivered the ships will be put back in the slips and cracked plates will be cut out and replaced. Austal’s problem is they can either fix the existing ships or complete the building contract on time - same equipment required (the US Navy decided to go with the new build priority option).
@@allangibson8494 I didn't know how far one can go in their answer as to the cause of the issue. I know the issues have been rectified on later ships, but don't know how far one can go into the explanations for the issue without getting in legal trouble.
This is an unbelievably rosy talk on these disaster ships. You didn't explain anything about the gun that didn't work that was to be a match and show piece for this ship a new smart gun and shell that would replace the Uk smartshell we were using. Was suppose to cost 40k a shell ended up costing 800k a shell and the gun never truly worked. This was replaced by the idea the new railgun would be there and we all should know that project got mothballed a short time ago as it never reached the distance needed to be a functional weapon. You also failed to mention the ship would routinely damaging itself anytime the guns fired or it tried to go faster then 15 knots in any sort of ocean environment. Basically any wave activity and the ship could not more at speed. You didn't mention the massive corruption by the builder, the backroom deal to have the ships maintained only by a defence contractor. That they would have to take on water to fire weapons because the ships lacked the very stability they were supposed to have. Then had to pump that water out to move again meaning they were large windows of been vulnerable. These ship Cost more then you said with a lot more issues than you mentioned.
Well, some see it as a failure and some see it as a test run. I think its always to good to test the options, and weigh the results like what happened in the Falkland's war. Aluminum ships are a nice idea and could be cheap if kept as load lifters. They would have to be thicker, stronger wider etc.. and kept out of the water till used. Rafts to be dragged along with tiny motors to run them on to the beach. They could also carry Extra munitions, only useful to huge force travelling.
Problem is they are cracking and have to be maintained- repaired by contractors... guess how much they bill if you aren't at a particular contracted port in the U.S.
A "test run" does not build 35 pieces of crap to determine they are pieces of crap. You build 4, then you figure out ALL the problems before you build 31 more!
Towing barges is not an all-weather option, unless highly specialised tug/tow vessels are deployed. Fast vessels make utterly crappy towboats, and cannot do tug/pusher ops at all.
From "Tomorrow Never Dies"? I'll admit I was thinking the same thing. Though that ship, in the movie, was inspired by the Sea Shadow. Which was purely an experimental vessel to test if they can make stealth ships.
Actually that was a SWATH (small water plane area twin hull) - two hull design (basically two submarines in close formation with a deck between the sails). Austal build those too for deep water rough sea operations. Sea Shadow was a SWATH.
A minimal crew and aluminum armor means that one good hit by the enemy would disable the ship. Basically, the Navy's version of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicle.
@@Cole-ui8bi I read three books on that subject and read the Senate report cost figures. I like to be fully informed. The Bradley was government spending gone crazy and the Army engaged in fraud on a massive scale. It took almost twice as long to build the Bradley than the Apollo moon rocket program and spent almost 20% of what the entire moon program cost. For a troop transport.
About spending.... I agree on that part sometimes they just don't use it correctly and ended making something they'll pull out of service or cancel the contract like the Zumwalt
Interesting LCS has purpose but Trimaran built HVS? was used to move troops into war zone East Timor in 99 which was successful. But I believe LCS was rush into service before downpat of mission modules were design to carry. Lessons from OHP frigates weren’t carry through, new FFGX Constellation class is right choice but at a cost n size but better Sea keeping.
The problems for the LCS designs are essentially insurmountable. The FREEDOMs have unreliable power plants which cannot be repaired without a major trip to a shipyard. The INDEPENDENCE Class LCS has hull-cracking problems which cannot be fixed readily. Their top speeds have been limited to 15 knots. The sonar systems do not work. Both classes are dreadfully under armed and lack protection.
Ain't nothing wrong with the power plants, and if there are, that is not an Austal Issue. There were issues with the gear boxes on the freedoms, but that has NOTHING to do with the independence class ships.
It's odd to her the name U.S.S Independence and not seeing an aircraft carrier! I served on CV-62 during Desert Shield and did two West Pac deployments.
Showed a Leander class thats British , yes was only a small bit but I don’t get mistakes like that , especially when am sure you could of got videos of Oliver hazard perry or tycondarodas
This clip seemed to me very short on specifics in regard to the technical and performance reasons for the fall from grace. It was also rather poor at organising the material, making some of the comments about the Freedom class seem to pertain to the Indepence vessels, and vice versa. The cracking you refer to seems to be one of a number of critical issues which were not touched on.
Interesting ship, but the hull cracking and resultant restrictions really destroy the vessel for me. I'd rather the ship be something safer and more effective for our sailors.
The Royal Navy tried a vaguely similar model but were able to offload the design onto another set of mugs. Even after hooking the horses behind IS Navy HQ, it remains unlikely that they heard the laughter as the designer took the money and ran!
If the LCS is so hot, why did Swabbie Inc. try and pawn over 50 of the planned production run on to the Coast Guard? Well, that would be because if they could get the USCG [who wanted absolutely nothing to do with the LCS] to buy them, they'd get get two more Ford-class carriers out of it. The USCG had to work their asses off to not get stuck with these things.
@@georgebarnes8163 The Independence class is being refitted. The Freedom class they are less sure about (as they have to cut the entire bottom out of the ship to get to the gearbox). The Benchujigua Express, that these ships were scaled down versions of remains in service.
actually there's a lot more to this then just deciding to retire the ships early if you know anything about metallurgy you know what happens to aluminum under stress at low temperatures it becomes work hardened to an extent and develops cracks and in the case of a ship this size rather large ones to the point they make operating the ships dangerous . it the reason they re did the operations packages for all the ships they could not operate at speed because of the damage and are being kept in service tell the replacement come on line .
Need to be more adaptable to changes , the difficulty of these shows a very significant issue we seem to have trouble with!!!!!! Advisarys will take advantage of this
I really don’t understand how governments can sign a contract for $xxxx but are expected to pick up the bill for cost overruns, budget blowouts and delivery delays. If private industry worked like that they would go broke.
I don't particularly think these ships deserve all the hate. Lots of people forget these ships can opperate in shallower water than most ships with the same capabilities. I think they should be kept. Or used by the US coast gaurd.
Love the way this video starts off showing various pictures of the British Royal Navy yet talks about the US Navy! The media at it's best - hast got a clue what it's talking about [nor really cares] but sells the "story" anyway - and that's just what it is - a Story!
Independence class is awesome, except the cracking part. But rather than design, more like corruption gave way to substandard aluminium material that is supposed to withstand ship that big & at that much speed. Or the ship is just too big for aluminum at that much speed.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
As an old Navy vet, this is a great video. The problem is aluminum armor is an oxymoron. One enemy hit and this class would be toast.
I've heard ( rumor ) that a few of the LCS's have been found to have cracks in their frame work, but that the navy was trying to keep that hush hush.
This video is even worse than the cracked hulls of LCS
Truth! I'm an old navy vet as well1992-2014, I was on a coastal mine hunter MHC-60 Cardinal (now with the Egyptian Navy I think). It was made of a fiberglass/kevlar composite (to flex when the mine explodes near by. That hull would not stop small arms fire, the only safe places on the ship in a gun fight was between the 2 engines or topside with me and my gun crews shooting back.
@@RGMerkel We like to keep alot of things hush hush here in the Navy
Ffg vet here. Should of made more ffgs and left these Things alone. A big waste of time and money we will never back. The navy is in bad shape with no work horse. The big design flaw I see is they tried to man these ships with 40 men. You need men to do work. 40 high enlisted and officers don’t use their hands.
This was an extremely positive view of the LCS. Other important aspects was that it was designed to not be maintained by the navy but by contractors which someone was sold on the idea of it being cheaper....but it wasn't (sounds like corruption to me). Both ships had structural issues, the modules had problems during development and many were abandoned (especially the anti-submarine warfare), the crew size ended up being too small (since it was sold as a lower operating cost ships) and had to be increased, etc etc.
Neoliberal ghouls try not to sell off our strategic resources and processes to contractors challenge (impossible).
Seriously though, how TF someone thought handing over maintenance to a third party is beyond me. Definitely rings the corruption bell.
@@Blaze6108 I mean half of the politicians believe that private enterprise always does better than the government without thinking that it means giving monopolies for each subsystem (since they are the only ones that can support their tech), its good for the private companies but bad for our taxes... so it's an easy sell to the politicians and any project that moves forward would be a win for the admiral deciding this...
@@Necrotic99 Private Enterprise IS inherently more efficient. The problem is with the government not private Enterprise. Blame the government for overspending your tax dollars, not private contractors for accepting the money.
@@deuscoromat742 the point is that it's only efficient for itself (ie profits for its investors). If they have a semi monopoly, then it's not efficient for us (ie the consumer / government). And with so much cost plus programs, the incentive is shit for companies to be efficient.
@@Necrotic99
You have no grasp on economics. Right off the bat, wrong.
-There is no such thing as a semi-Monopoly the term it doesn't make sense. Either it meets the definition of a monopoly or it doesn't.
- Not all monopolies are bad for the consumer in fact, the vast majority of monopolies that exist now are competitive monopolies with low barriers to entry and differentiate themselves by pricing and marketing.
- capitalism is an Incredibly predictable and efficient machine. It is impossible for government to be as efficient because the incentive structure does not exist.
- you cannot blame private companies for simply accepting ludicrous government contracts; you can and should however, hold the government accountable for it's famous tendency to waste taxpayer money.
- if we were to do a little test where you took away government contractors and government employees had to do all of the work outlined in the contract by themselves, the United States would go bankrupt after the third attempt.
Stop blaming private Enterprise for a failure of the state.
I've seen this all through the years and the Navy sure knows how to waste money.
The DoD sure knows how to waste money! I was in the army and still to this day don't understand why they changed from 5-tons to the LMTV class vehicles. The commercial world in the US has moved away from cab over designs because they are less efficient and harder to work on. Take into account that you have soldiers that forget things here and there and there was a BIG problem with the latches not being secured to hold the cab down and during hard breaking, many were having the cabs fold down and the drivers looking at the ground. Then the FMTV wrecker... this thing was supposed to be an upgrade to the HEMTT wrecker but failed epically. It was underpowered, you had to be lined up nearly perfect with the vehicle you were trying to grab, and again you have a cab over design that made it really difficult to work on. There was nothing wrong with the 5-ton design, just needed to have some upgraded components. The MTVR is a great vehicle that should have replaced the 5-ton design, it just came out after the Army decided to purchase a bunch of stupid LMTVs.
of course they do. they forced this design to morph so much from the original concept and purpose that it is hilarious they didn't expect it to fail.
the ship got given soo many fucking hats it was supposed to wear that it isn't even funny. it's original task was too deal with patrol boats and smaller vessel. then it got given the anti sub, the troop carrier, and anti warship roles.
That is how the MIC works. Your tax dollars ->
Submariner here YEP but not in food. Army rejects.
if I remember, many in the Navy were "No, we do not have a role for this, nope nope nope." And Congress and others, often with some tie in to the project, say "Oh yes you do need this!"
Umm yeah... the entire LCS is an abject failure as deemed by the US Navy. They are going to be replaced en masse by the new Frigate class which is due to be entering service in 2028(ish). LCS is a failure because their multi-role aspect never materialized. Only the surface warfare role ever actually worked but just barely. Most likely, these ships are going to be sold off to other navies. Oh, and the hulls are aluminum. Look at the M2 Bradley APCs for why aluminum armor is a bad idea.
Not to mention the engineering defects that result in hull cracks or the ridiculous custom missle systems that are now obsolete and the only available ammunition is whats remaining...and I dont even really follow this kind of news.
I'll see your LCS and raise you a Zumwalt. $22 billion and only 3 built. The gun doesn't work and the ammunition never flew as far. Program ended and gun will be removed and "stored" and WILL BE replace by hypersonic missiles WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. Naval architects say the hull design could roll over in certain wave patterns.
@@snuffle2269 oh don't even get me started on that giant waste of funding. I call it an "engineer's wet dream" because they wanted to put all the new and fancy stuff on board but never thought about testing the equipment and dealing with the integration. Nothing works correctly and from what I hear those 3 ships are going to probably end up being g either training and/or testing platforms. They will probably never be forward deployed.
It’s a rare day when USN admits a mistake
@@johngormaley4231 They just took a sailor to court martial for the USS Bonhomme Richard fire despite being told not to by NCIS, not surprisingly they lost as there was no actual evidence against Seaman Mays. The Navy wanted to blame someone who wasn't an oficer for their incompetence when the incompetence was widespread among the officers on board and in command of their fleet. So you're right the Navy doesn't like to admit they were wrong, they haven't even publicly appologised to Seaman Mays for putting him and his family through hell. SECNAV should intervene personally and go clean house and appologise.
And I understand it's starting to crack apart
You forgot the whole part of their hull's cracking and then not being able to exceed like 15 knots. They're trash and can't be easily fixed.
And Austal being under investigation for their juicy contract to build them. Even if the cracks could be fixed, it's doubtful they could get the money.
Exactly. I can’t believe this detail was left out. They are all effectively locked in port as the NAVY determined that they can’t exceed that speed and can only go out when the ocean conditions are calm and flat.
@@GoSlash27 The investigation is over a paperwork issue, specifically work packs... Every major shipyard has gone through the same "investigation". It had to do with the charging of hours worked by employees to different "work packs" associated with the ship. The investigations were created when another major shipyard was caught mischarging hours from one ship to another. So what you think you know, you probably don't.
@@timcobb1752 Navy veteran here, and...if you are ashamed to be assigned to these vessels as it means you are not good enough to actually go out to sea or command anything...if no one wants to serve on such a ship, it's a bad sign.
@@kittymervine6115 not sure who you are replying to here... but none of the sailors I knew were ashamed to be assigned to them. Also, in WWII sailors assigned to destroyers were often less proud of themselves than sailor assigned to battleships. And in the beginning sailors assigned to carriers also felt this way... History would later judge the functions of the other 2 ships far more important.
You forgot a couple of crucial things. The frames are cracking between the main hull and the outrigger hulls, and the Navy had to reduce their allowed top speed and sea state operations. Also, some of the mission modules never became compatible and/or operational. These things are an operational/financial/design boondoggle.
I stare at the Independence everyday when I wake up, as I live across the water from where it stays in Washington. This video is awesome! I've always wondered about this ship. Thank you so much!
Except hes completely wrong. These ships were a huge waste of money. They are being decommissioned, or at least used for training only now. The US tax payers took a bath on this one BIG TIME
@@BVonBuescher who's wrong?
Oh, you were saying op was wrong. Well, I can confirm you are correct, as two of those ships are sitting in Bremerton right now withering away.
Thank you for providing cc on your uploads. I greatly appreciate it.
Our military still needs to learn that a jack of all trades is in actuality a master of none. The LCS cannot do all things and be the best the same way an F22 cannot replace the role of the A10.
That was the Sprucans
too bad the A-10 is a turkey...
As many of tomorrow’s wars will be asymmetric wars,its important to be modular & a jack of all trades so as to be flexible.
The A10 will get bodied by manpads.
The A10 requires complete Air Superiority or it is most vulnerable . They would be worthless in the Ukraine
Just gotta say I really appreciate the narrator taking the time to research how to properly say Mobile, AL.
I noticed that too lol.
G'day Dark, The original, modern, innovative catamaran design which led to Austal’s trimaran that was redesigned as a warship for the USN, was developed in Tasmania by the local firm, InCat, back in the early 1980s. Only ever intended for high-speed, ocean going vehicular/passenger ferries, the InCat vessels became popular around the world.
While working as a journalist on European assignments, I travelled as a guest of the UK company operating an InCat vessel from Wales across the Irish sea to Dublin's nearby seaport. The vessel, back then, could handle the sometimes volatile sea-states of the Irish Sea with some passenger discomfort but, generally, these large catamarans provided a stable, luxurious and rapid means of going from the UK to Ireland, with one's car as an option.
The Perth (Australia) company Austal used this general concept and made an even larger trimaran passenger/car ferry craft that was eventually aimed at the potentially larger US market. Both InCat's vessels and Austal’s were evaluated by the US military with the Austal trimaran winning the military contracts. The company then opened a manufacturing facility in the US.
Neither of these civilian craft, in their original designs, were ever intended as military vessels and so never had provision for any kind of protective armour plating which would have negated the vessels' speed and manoeuvrability.
Both are made of aluminium which many conventional weapons systems will easily devastate and can actually 'set fire' to the ships' metal. That said, they have proven to be far more effective and useful than the USN's troubled 'Z Class' warships.
Cheers, Bill H.
I’m actually surprised that our carriers don’t have a trimaran shape. I’d think it would be on another level. Be able to take direct hits to one side and still survive. Not to mention more runway space. And the gaps between the hulls could be used to drop or pick things up, including making discrete contact with subs, without over head observability.
I think you have something there !!! Mega upvotes !!!
I've toyed with this idea a bit myself. Much wider separation between main- and side-hulls would exaggerate the hull flexure under heavy waves... but I think it could be addressed in design, perhaps even using some "compliant structure" (allowed flexure) thinking. Of course you're eliminating the ability of the carrier ever to transit canals, but maybe this is acceptable.
@@SpamSucker I think the pros would put weigh the cons definitely. If we made just 2 of them, without cheeping out. I think we’d be good. I don’t think all flex issues would be reduced, do to how massive it would be. Because we wouldn’t want to go smaller. I’d think we’d want to create a whole new class of hyper carriers. If submarines could covertly dock between the hulls without being seen. Taking into account we might go bigger on subs marines as well.
A big reason why Carriers are the size they are is that if they were bigger in the beam they couldn't use the Panama or Suez canals and would have to go the long way around. It's the same reason why Tanks are the size and shape they are, they can't go over a certain size otherwise they couldn't be transported by trains.
@@shial1977 yes, I’m aware of the size issue in regards to ships and tanks. I believe we have 10 carriers at see at all times. I’d think if we made just 2 flagships. Immense in size and scope, a pacific and Atlantic one, we might really benefit from being able to shield subs and carry more planes and weapons…
I’ve also thought about ways we might solve the tank issue. Maybe tracks that extend out and lock in place. But in reality, even if we could solve the tanks width issues. I don’t think we’d want too. Tanks are slowly going to become obsolete. Unless they evolve too being able to transition from flight to ground and park. That or walking robots. I know both sound out there. But in terms of cost. An f14 or a lower grade f16, even an Apache helicopter would probably be the better choice then a tank. And I’m only referring to actual tanks. Not personal carriers or other designated machines. Look at the first Iraq war. We destroyed all of Husains tanks with helicopters and planes. Idk, regretfully, I was never in the armed forces to have a better opinion.
For a time the US Navy was leasing 98m catamarans from a Tasmanian boat builder (my home state). On a crossing of the Panama canal in 2012 I saw one in its US Navy colours traveling in the other direction! One was eventually sunk by the Yemeni military in 2016.
I see a lot of comments that are all over the place on the LCS and the ships involved. Yes, the LCS concept has been abandoned. Yes, the Freedom-class LCS ships are being scrapped. NO, the Independence-class ships are NOT being scrapped. These tri-maran hulled ships are being retained, mainly because they are excellent helo platforms. If the Navy has any sense they will refit them with a tail and state-of-the-art ASW gear and re-designate them as ASW Frigates. Their speed and maneuverability plus that helo deck would make them excellent pickets for ASW work. The difficulty might be in providing the class with at least torpedo tubes for Mk46 or Mk50. I think the class is to light to accept even a minimal amount of VLS for ASROC, though it might be worth while to resurrect the old ASROC box launchers that were used on the Spruance class destroyers. However you accomplish it, this ship would make an excellent ASW platform and should be retained as such.
I like the idea but wouldn't they be kinda hard to use as an asw platform when having to have a tug around to move them when the engines crap out and flood? Otherwise it might work
@@jay6186 The engine on the Independence class are fine. The plating on the first four was a bit thin (and they are supposed to be reworked when the last of the class are completed in 2024).
The Freedom class have the faulty gearboxes.
The LCS had the same problem as the F35 program. They tried to do to much with one platform, while using to much new and untested technology.
And don't forget the Bradley.
Not similar at all. Completely different issues with the F35 problems, which were mainly due to literally building the plane while they were still designing it, and which now most analysts would agree is a superior and amazingly effective weapon and worth it.
@@richardrodgers1883 The Bradley is loved by the soldiers that use it. It got a bad wrap due to a fictional movie based on a book by a guy that tried to actively sabotage the program due to a chip on his shoulder. Pentagon Wars was full of crap.
The best thing about the Independence class LCS was its futuristic appearance.
APPEARANCES CAN BE DECEIVING!!! This boat (heap of junk - see my comments above) only proves it.
If it worked it would have been done before. It looks cool, like Italian sports cars but need to constantly be repaired like them too.
'Futuristic'? Like the cyber truck, it looks like it was designed in the 1980s.
Which has zero to do with function or utility or efficiency.
Reminds me of the Hydrofoils (PHM) which though had high performance was retired.
"The greatest enemy to all navies, the treasury." -Perun
(6:37) "her minimal protruding parts reduce radar visibility". I also have very small "protruding parts" and it's good to learn that I can finally mention one aspect of this condition as being an advantage. So far the reaction from my dates has always been pointing, laughing, and telling me to get out of their house… looks like that's about to change!
Unfortunately, the claim is gender specific.
@@yt.personal.identification There are girls with the same issues slipping under your radar…
Stealth. No one even notices that you are there
Why do you think it was called a "Littorial" Class? Hardly any of the seamen out there can find it...
@@andrewpease3688 Indeed. It's a satisfactory method for injecting seamen into hot spots with minimal chance of detection.
The video is a bit confusing, referring to the Freedom class capabilities while showing pictures of Independence class. Also, there's lots of video of the mission modules available, but none were shown.
The mission modules were duds, especially the sonar system.
@@davidmurphy8190 The concept is good though, and lots of other navies are doing mission modules, particularly in Europe.
You missed a few things like the ships are so undercrewed that crews end up working 10 or 12? hour shifts instead of the standard 8 and the result is that they get completely stressed and strung out during a deployment, they are under armed with no antiship capability (they had to design a new lighter weight cruise missle for it).
And the lockheeed version has these problems plus its a complete disaster. The propulsion system craps out and the ships where for a time compleltly unfixable. A fix has been found but lockheed refuses to take responsibility and fix the problem because its so expensive.
Just like the future destoyer program the navy bought into vessels that where so new in concept they didn't bother to see if it would actually work before purchasing it. the whole project is a complete disaster.
They redesigned the birthing spaces to accommodate a much larger crew. Implemented re-designs aren't mentioned.
The LCS is still using the Blue/Gold crews which may work on subs but is an utter failure on surface ships. Sometimes you have to wonder what these Admirals are smoking when they're getting paid off by defense contractors.
@@RealJeep That to my understanding is due to alternating mission packages, but...
I can tell you the birthing spaces got a redesign and that's about it without treading into the I don't know what I can and can not talk about area
The LCS were designed as coastal defence ships. The US Navy is simply misusing them for deep water tasks they were never intended or designed for and looking surprised that they fail when abused.
What these ships are designed for is patrolling the Mediterranean or Black Sea to keep tabs on the Russians - not the Pacific Ocean off China:
I was wondering about the crew complement; I was on mine sweepers (MSO's) and we had 120 personnel and they were Tinney!
I remember growing up in the lower mainland one of these was just permanently anchored at the beach for like 8 years.
At the beginning of the video was pictured a British 1960/70’s Leander class frigate HMS Dido F104 or as we referred to her HMS Dildo! Plus an equally old wooden hull Ton class Minesweeper, (couldn’t see the pennant number it was too blurry) just wondering what they had to do with the heading subject of this film?
When I think of the Zumwalt, Freedom, and, Independence classes, the word dud comes to mind.
For coastal patrol duties the Navy needed a navalized Coast Guard ship. Instead they ordered these two mistakes. And kept throwing good money after bad
Mission creep of the worst kind. Oh, and trying to costcut in ways that increases the final pricetag, real smart.
check out the new landing boats being built. SUPER EXPENSIVE, slow, does not carry enough, and being kept being built as it keeps a ship yard going. Watching a tour. of the shipyard and these landing craft, the concept of SIMPLE, CHEAP and FAST....all thrown out the window. People are being paid to built it, but the video it was clear to anyone watching this was a disaster of a design. the WWII design was genius and I'd rather be in one of those than these new monstrosities.
@@kittymervine6115 …. You’d rather take a Higgins Boat?
Isn't the only bad part about the project the freedom class, I believe the Independence class would be successful in a niche circumstance?
@@winstonchurchill5892 Agreed, Independence would make a hell of a cutter if they could solve the hull cracking issue.
Independence class feels like it might have a mission one day, assuming the cracking issue can be dealt with. Long legs, huge flight bay, huge storage area, high speed. It seems like it might have a logistics role, maybe equip with VTOL cargo drones and have it do unmanned supply drops into amphibious operations areas? It has a competent enough air search radar that if you paired it up with some containerised ESSMs or a suitably equipped LUSV it could more or less self escort across the Pacific, assuming P-8 support.
But, while that might be a useful niche capability for a naval SCS fight, it's very much lipstick on the pig of a failing programme, and it will only work if they can get the operating costs way down: probably by increasing the crew complement and getting rid of the contractor maintenance model.
It was
2:14 Admiral Vernon Clark was my Commanding Officer aboard the First and Finest USS Spruance DD-963 1983-1985. He was a Commander back then and an amazing Ship's Captain. His Executive Officer was LT CDR Roughhead. Both became Chief of Naval Operations.
Got to see the Augusta under construction at Austal shipyard in Mobile AL and it is certainly an interesting looking ship. Thanks for the backstory on the class.
Living not far from Mobile, AL, I got to watch the Independence and Coronado being built. Every month or two, we would drive down and check out the progress from across the river. They are a fascinating ship to behold in person.
Sent from my Chinese tracked Iphone camera
Saw Santa Barbara out there on the river not too long ago. She looks pretty much completed.
I don't even know where to begin with this boondoggle. The LCS, as per current sailors, stands for Little Crappy Ship. They're plagued with problems including the hulls cracking on the trimaran Independence class and the combining gear failures on both classes, relegating them to less than optimal speeds. The Navy has had to decommission several of them due to these failures and schedule others for lengthy shipyard stays to repair the combining gear issues. They have not lived up to the modular concept, have very poor survivability in combat and are a nightmare to maintain. Now that they're not playing Coast Guard in gray, the Navy wants to move on to our next conflict with the CCP who doesn't have these shallow water worries. One can only hope those who build ships can get their crap together soon!
This is the earliest I have ever seen this channel upload a video
It's all ridiculous defense spending based on pork-barrel politics. I used to live near Marinette, WI where the freedom class ships were built. Those have been an engineering disaster with its special combining gear transmission unable to do its function without destroying itself. Therefore the intended fast ship cannot be a fast ship. The Navy's solution is to retire these ships after only a few years of unreliable service and throw more money into a frigate designed and built by the same company, Fincantieri, that produced the expensive, short-lived, unreliable freedom class LCS.
If I remember, the NAVY did not want to have these at one point. It was "These are not going to work." BUT if you have contracts to build these, or work is underway, or Congress wants the jobs these ships bring to say Wisconsin...then the Navy gets these ships. Right now there is a modern landing craft, that is a piece of crap. Everyone knows it. Too expensive, too exposed, doesn't carry enough, slow...not like the landing craft built in Manitowoc along with submarines. It'e everything a landing craft should not be, but, it keeps being built because it's jobs. All any Navy or even boating person needs to do is look at the video on the craft to say "This is such a bad design and so expensive!"
These ships have their issues however everyone forgets that two variants exist. The initial video picture is not what Wisconsin is building. Wisconsin Marinette marine got the traditional monohull hull variant contract and austal usa built the independence class catamaran style lcs under contract. As far as these being terrible please educate yourself in the topic as the original ships were absolutely having issues as they were brand new propulsion systems for big ships. We have never used anything like a jet ski style propulsion which these use. Now this system makes them able to go into shallow littoral areas due to the fact that no prop will get stuck. These ships definitely didn't live up to their promise partly due to politicians wanting them to do more and more things which hasn't ever worked on any ships we designed. Everything has to have a primary purpose and you can't have everything. Also I agree they should have actually given these programs more time and tested them out before building one after another. That is also sadly politicians who are at fault as they pushed for this.
Thanks for this report, I have been reading about how these ships were junk and that the program was being dropped, now I see what’s really happening.
Reminds me of the Hydrofoils the Navy had back in the 1980s. They were supposed to be next great thing to replace patrol boats. Noisy and had a massive rooster tail when running at speed.
Thanks for the interesting video!
LCS 2 Independence and LCS 4 Coronado have been decommissioned and are now mothballed in Bremerton WA.
As a former Recon Marine I love the concept of a stealthy support platform.
The need to get rid of 1&3 I work on these all the time they are piece of work
One also needs to take into consideration that the Navy never really knew what they wanted and so changed the Mission parameters of the ships until they were useless.
When I was on my 3rd ship (around 2014) coming back from deployment, we were delayed entering port because the Independence class ship lost power and using wood shoring (4×4s, I don't remember the length) to push against the Coronado Bridge because surprise surprise it broke down. It was somewhat comical too watch. During this delay our friends and families were waiting on the peer, though. I have a negative opinion about them. They Navy should have put their focus on a new frigate class instead rather doing it almost a decade later after the Oliver 'Hazard' Perry class was decommissioned.
Would love to see a video on that class of frigate by the way. Love your videos.
Let's dismantle this one as total BS: (1) shores are a standard length of 12 feet. There is no place on an LCS where you could stand, let alone erect a shore to touch the bridge. (2) When entering port the Nav has a "Bridge time". That time is pretty much fixed, and tugs are standing by to prevent a ship from ever hitting the bridge and assist in getting them to the pier. This has been true since at least the early 90's. (3) Ships sea and anchor times are staggered so that 2-4 tugs are available throughout the ships transit time just in case one of them gets in trouble. Minor delays occur, but usually that means the next ship in line to enter the channel is directed to hold SD short of buoy 1SD.
But yes...LCS is a crap show, and are good for nothing more than sucking up maintenance dollars.
@@dccs6009 Think what you want as BS, but I watched it happen. I currently work in construction, so I work with varying lengths of lumber. Hence I didn't remember to length of the shoring. The crew were sticking the shoring out from where chalks for mooring lines 1, 2, and 3 would be located on the port side. The tug(s)were not present at the start of the engineering casualty because they had already been cast off some time before it occurred. They did return quickly to help with situation. Again this is from what I remember happening back around 2014.
I would definitely like to see a video on the new ship class that is replacing these.
AweZome show Sir Thanks Sir
I get a kick out of the reduced radar visibility feature. They make so much noise a simple sonar array can pinpoint them for many miles.
At 11:04 on may see the cracks that occur between the bridge superstructure, and the hull. 😉
We need a two pronged approach to new ship development. First we need someone to ride herd on the military brass making change orders ! Second is contractors need to be held to original performance estimates.
Narrative nicely done. As usual, the background music helps "propel" the presentation.
I got to tour the USS Manchester, it was incredibly cool, I wish it just had some more guns tbh
How does this video have chapters with no chapter listing in the description? I thought the description listing was HOW you get chapters on a video?
There is so much misunderstanding by people online about the LCS program as a whole and how that led to the ships that it did.
One of the big things is that the program requirements called for a minimum top speed of 40 knots with the ability to cross the Pacific Ocean unassisted.
That is effectively unachievable with a steel hulled ship or even a conventional aluminium monohull ship.
That is why the Independence-class uses an aluminium trimaran hull and the Freedom-class uses an aluminium planing hull.
I should also address a lot of misinformation I’ve been seeing about the program as I have seen many people claiming it has been cancelled or that they’re all being scrapped. Both of these things are untrue.
The Freedom-class ships are all to be put in reserve while the Independence-class are to stay in service, as they do still fulfil a few important roles which the Constellation-class will not.
The only LCSs that are being scrapped at this stage are the first two ships of each class as they were used as test ships to identify issues which could then be addressed on the later ships of each class and therefore were not given the same upgrades as the later ships.
The high speed requirement never made a lick of sense to me. Even the Navy did not seem to understand why it was necessary.
Didn't they just do a video about these ships not long ago talking about what a failure they was? I'm pretty sure I seen it on here or one the dark channels
I believe you're referring to the Freedom class ships, with the nine vessels being marked for disposal in 2023. This video is about the Independence class. Both are classes of littoral ships (meaning they remain close to the coast), and both have similar features with a "pointy" bow and a flat deck at the back with a helipad, but they are different. The Freedom class design is not a trimaran but a monohull, for a start.
@@desmond-hawkins yeah your right...
There's been a dozen "influencers" who are repeating the same story on their channels instead of making the effort to create new content.
@@nobodyspecial4702 Most 'infuencers' aren't out to educate, and they generally aren't too bright. They are out to make money.
No, "dark channels" only profligate false light.
I'm guessing in hindsight they should have built the hulls from steel instead of Aluminium given the cracks that have appeared. Because the ferry the independence class is based on doesn't sail in rougher sea states it wasn't subject to the same forces as the Independence class is, also the hull doesn't look exactly like the ferry, the ferry has a more gradual slope to the bow, probably providing more stability to the outer hulls.
Only the first four Freedom ships had an issue. The subsequent hulls had thicker plates in the location that cracked - which the first four are due to be retrofitted with once the building program is complete.
The text-to-voice software is trying to be a bit too dramatic, but the topic is interesting and informative. ;)
Yes I saw her occasionally in San Diego... The main problem with this type od ship is that she cannot carry an impressive firepower because they weigh too much... next, their 52Mm gun is a joke has no place in modern warfare... next you had better have a flat calm to go fast anywhere... even going fast in a moderate swell would be a very uncomfortable and scary experience... AND you did not mention the serious cracks fractures appearing around the hull... So, finally, they could maybe be used to frighten pirates off the coast of Arabia... however they are useless for anything else... All of this modular nonsense is because they dont have the size or boyancy to carry much of anything!!! Sillyness !!!
As always a very good and informative video. Keep up the good work.
The ships became lager and more complicated as the contract went on...... for a ship that was supposed to be smaller, lighter, cheaper and faster.....
WHOA! That NEVER happens.
From what I’ve been hearing, rather than replacing the class on mass they are re-classifying the newest vessels that have all the issues nominally addressed which will serve in tandem with the constellation class frigate‘s. But to be honest they’re not an abject failure. They’re just trying to do too many things based on the initial design requirement. If for example the independence was reconfigured into a coastal support combat minesweeper with anti-submarine warfare capacity It could achieve that rule very effectively without the need to switch mission packages.
It would also help If the Navy was allowed to get all the maintenance on the ships rather than contract really obligated to allow the manufacturer to do all the maintenance. That is an abject failure.
New word of the day, hydrodynamical!
They are also high maintenance due to the aluminum construction, and the saltwater environment working on the aluminum.
Just taking a guess here... I'd bet the USCG would LOVE to get their hands on the decommissioned ships.
We're not going to be able to keep the Australian ships either. They're developing structural cracks that aren't fixable. Also, Austal USA is under investigation for the structure of this contract.
Only the first four Austal ships have issues with cracks. The later ones got thicker plates in that location and once the last of the new builds are delivered the ships will be put back in the slips and cracked plates will be cut out and replaced. Austal’s problem is they can either fix the existing ships or complete the building contract on time - same equipment required (the US Navy decided to go with the new build priority option).
@@allangibson8494 I didn't know how far one can go in their answer as to the cause of the issue. I know the issues have been rectified on later ships, but don't know how far one can go into the explanations for the issue without getting in legal trouble.
This is an unbelievably rosy talk on these disaster ships. You didn't explain anything about the gun that didn't work that was to be a match and show piece for this ship a new smart gun and shell that would replace the Uk smartshell we were using. Was suppose to cost 40k a shell ended up costing 800k a shell and the gun never truly worked. This was replaced by the idea the new railgun would be there and we all should know that project got mothballed a short time ago as it never reached the distance needed to be a functional weapon. You also failed to mention the ship would routinely damaging itself anytime the guns fired or it tried to go faster then 15 knots in any sort of ocean environment. Basically any wave activity and the ship could not more at speed. You didn't mention the massive corruption by the builder, the backroom deal to have the ships maintained only by a defence contractor. That they would have to take on water to fire weapons because the ships lacked the very stability they were supposed to have. Then had to pump that water out to move again meaning they were large windows of been vulnerable.
These ship Cost more then you said with a lot more issues than you mentioned.
Well, some see it as a failure and some see it as a test run. I think its always to good to test the options, and weigh the results like what happened in the Falkland's war. Aluminum ships are a nice idea and could be cheap if kept as load lifters. They would have to be thicker, stronger wider etc.. and kept out of the water till used. Rafts to be dragged along with tiny motors to run them on to the beach. They could also carry Extra munitions, only useful to huge force travelling.
Problem is they are cracking and have to be maintained- repaired by contractors... guess how much they bill if you aren't at a particular contracted port in the U.S.
they would need ships to protect them. right when someone wrote ALUMINUM, this thing was a failure.
A "test run" does not build 35 pieces of crap to determine they are pieces of crap. You build 4, then you figure out ALL the problems before you build 31 more!
You don’t test run 20 ships of a class
USN has Arleigh Burke’s and Ticonderogas that last decades longer than these pieces of garbage
Towing barges is not an all-weather option, unless highly specialised tug/tow vessels are deployed. Fast vessels make utterly crappy towboats, and cannot do tug/pusher ops at all.
It amazes me the amount of money the US just blows on its military
Little Rock was stuck in Montreal for 2 weeks after commission.. was blamed on ice in the St Lawrence..but actually was for repairs to the jet drive.
You mean 4 months. And any ship would have also unless it’s an ice breaker.
The three-hull design reminds me of the media mogul's stealth ship in a James Bond film with Pierce Brosnan and Jonathan Pryce.
From "Tomorrow Never Dies"? I'll admit I was thinking the same thing.
Though that ship, in the movie, was inspired by the Sea Shadow. Which was purely an experimental vessel to test if they can make stealth ships.
@@lewisvargrsonThank you!
Actually that was a SWATH (small water plane area twin hull) - two hull design (basically two submarines in close formation with a deck between the sails). Austal build those too for deep water rough sea operations.
Sea Shadow was a SWATH.
Radar-signature? How did the angled gunwales perform?
Can you do a video about Laffy(Benson class destroyer)
@Mr. Kim thanks for the encouragement
Was this tub not recently removed from service?
The only thing missing is the horse collar grille and bat wing tail lights....
That's Edsel for you young folks. 😁👍
If it was not for the defects and other things I could see them being perfect for the coast guard
A minimal crew and aluminum armor means that one good hit by the enemy would disable the ship. Basically, the Navy's version of the Army's Bradley fighting vehicle.
You really believe that Pentagon wars movie 🤣🤣
@@Cole-ui8bi I read three books on that subject and read the Senate report cost figures. I like to be fully informed. The Bradley was government spending gone crazy and the Army engaged in fraud on a massive scale. It took almost twice as long to build the Bradley than the Apollo moon rocket program and spent almost 20% of what the entire moon program cost. For a troop transport.
About spending.... I agree on that part sometimes they just don't use it correctly and ended making something they'll pull out of service or cancel the contract like the Zumwalt
Interesting LCS has purpose but Trimaran built HVS? was used to move troops into war zone East Timor in 99 which was successful. But I believe LCS was rush into service before downpat of mission modules were design to carry. Lessons from OHP frigates weren’t carry through, new FFGX Constellation class is right choice but at a cost n size but better Sea keeping.
What is the song used for this video it is awesome!
The problems for the LCS designs are essentially insurmountable. The FREEDOMs have unreliable power plants which cannot be repaired without a major trip to a shipyard. The INDEPENDENCE Class LCS has hull-cracking problems which cannot be fixed readily. Their top speeds have been limited to 15 knots. The sonar systems do not work. Both classes are dreadfully under armed and lack protection.
Ain't nothing wrong with the power plants, and if there are, that is not an Austal Issue. There were issues with the gear boxes on the freedoms, but that has NOTHING to do with the independence class ships.
An aluminum ship in salt water is just a ridiculously bad idea.
As a Navy vet, the entire “clitoal” class stunk.
Like a fish?
Give it to the coast gaurd they could make use for it in many ways
Clitoral combat is my favorite
who's doing the sound design for this channel?
Procurement and contract has destroyed these sadly before they even got started.
Interesting how all the old footage is of Royal Navy ships?
It's odd to her the name U.S.S Independence and not seeing an aircraft carrier! I served on CV-62 during Desert Shield and did two West Pac deployments.
Showed a Leander class thats British , yes was only a small bit but I don’t get mistakes like that , especially when am sure you could of got videos of Oliver hazard perry or tycondarodas
At least it looks pretty cool
Didn’t the design start to have cracks in the frame of the ship in multiple locations?
This clip seemed to me very short on specifics in regard to the technical and performance reasons for the fall from grace. It was also rather poor at organising the material, making some of the comments about the Freedom class seem to pertain to the Indepence vessels, and vice versa. The cracking you refer to seems to be one of a number of critical issues which were not touched on.
LCS = Little Chance of Survival.
I worked on the first 4 INDEPENDENCE class ones
What is the song in the intro?
Interesting ship, but the hull cracking and resultant restrictions really destroy the vessel for me. I'd rather the ship be something safer and more effective for our sailors.
The Royal Navy tried a vaguely similar model but were able to offload the design onto another set of mugs. Even after hooking the horses behind IS Navy HQ, it remains unlikely that they heard the laughter as the designer took the money and ran!
'
this navy ship must be keep continue service all the times...
never oldment / never retirement / never stopment
If the LCS is so hot, why did Swabbie Inc. try and pawn over 50 of the planned production run on to the Coast Guard?
Well, that would be because if they could get the USCG [who wanted absolutely nothing to do with the LCS] to buy them, they'd get get two more Ford-class carriers out of it.
The USCG had to work their asses off to not get stuck with these things.
Wow! D.S., 57 mph? Now that's booking, man!
closer to 15 mph with their cracked hulls which is the real reason they were decommissioned
Cracks were surface related way above water line
@@georgebarnes8163 Only the first four have been stored pending refit.
The later members of the class had much thicker plating in that location.
@@allangibson8494 They are not being refitted, the repair and refit cost exceeds their value
@@georgebarnes8163 The Independence class is being refitted. The Freedom class they are less sure about (as they have to cut the entire bottom out of the ship to get to the gearbox).
The Benchujigua Express, that these ships were scaled down versions of remains in service.
actually there's a lot more to this then just deciding to retire the ships early if you know anything about metallurgy you know what happens to aluminum under stress at low temperatures it becomes work hardened to an extent and develops cracks and in the case of a ship this size rather large ones to the point they make operating the ships dangerous . it the reason they re did the operations packages for all the ships they could not operate at speed because of the damage and are being kept in service tell the replacement come on line .
Saw this one for sale on Australian CL
Need to be more adaptable to changes , the difficulty of these shows a very significant issue we seem to have trouble with!!!!!! Advisarys will take advantage of this
I really don’t understand how governments can sign a contract for $xxxx but are expected to pick up the bill for cost overruns, budget blowouts and delivery delays. If private industry worked like that they would go broke.
It is private industry making these boats.
I don't think the Navy could plan its way out of a paper bag.
I don't particularly think these ships deserve all the hate. Lots of people forget these ships can opperate in shallower water than most ships with the same capabilities. I think they should be kept. Or used by the US coast gaurd.
Love the way this video starts off showing various pictures of the British Royal Navy yet talks about the US Navy! The media at it's best - hast got a clue what it's talking about [nor really cares] but sells the "story" anyway - and that's just what it is - a Story!
It's called B Roll.
220 millions, so about the price of 2-3 new jet fighters? Wow... that was an ambitious budget goal.
Independence class is awesome, except the cracking part. But rather than design, more like corruption gave way to substandard aluminium material that is supposed to withstand ship that big & at that much speed. Or the ship is just too big for aluminum at that much speed.