Put a SMR (Small Modular nuclear Reactor) into the hull of these boats and jack the mass of these Littoral Combat Ships to 14,000 tons to fill in for carrier escorts as well. (Just an idea)...
Not a bad idea, but at that tonnage it would be a DDGN(Destroyer, Guided Missile, Nuclear Powered). May be better to take an reactor used on a Virginia SSN and put it in a surface hull. And if you don't want to call it a destroyer, call it a cruiser. Bring back the CGNs with an emphasis on air defense.
I'm in favor of SMRs for long distance, long deployment times - but while nuclear power will last decades, ammunition, food, and fuel for non-nukes will still require frequent replenishment, along with "oilers" to bring the supplies. How do gas turbines compare with steam turbines? GTs are available up to 100,000 HP, half that of a battleship and may not require the warm up time of steam turbines! I do not know fuel consumption of GTs vs steam turbines.
The us navy can turn the ships they don't like to the coast guard, have the ships refurbished and painted white. This is a good platform to help maintain coastal security.
Ships have been declared a failure by the US Navy and will be retired. They don't meet level 3 survivability standards. The navy needs to stop building them and redirect the money into ships that actually add value to the fleet.
The problems were real but one other problem is people were expecting LCS to do things there were never designed to do. LCS were never suppose to fight near peer opponents. I still think LCS would work fine in the Red Sea, Aden and Persian Gulfs.
@@damongraham1398nope they work well in lower area the navy design them to work in coastal areas but the navy deploys them with Carrier strike groups which it can’t do as well as a Ford class FFG
@@neubauerjoseph They were never suppose to replace a frigate. The Cyclone patrol boats and Avenger mine hunters is what the LCS were to replace. I would group the LCS with the expeditionary fast transport (EPF) to rearm and refuel the LCS
The Navy is following in the foot steps of the Air Force. Its ships have to be a small, fast, powerful, maneuverable, shallow draft and fuel efficient. It must also have huge carrying capacity, handle rough seas, minimum radar cross section, multi helicopter compatible, ASW, AA, Cruise missile and gun equipped. No one ship can do everything and never will.
Waterjet propulsion is not quiet and is inappropriate for an Anti-Submarine Warfare platform, and one of the ship's mission modules was for ASW. These propulsion systems eat lots of fuel which makes their speed mostly irrelevant in the Pacific where you need long legs just to get around. The U.S. Navy all told has spent about tens of $Billion on this little project, and before it is all said and done this program will have cost the U.S. Navy about $100Billion that will provide little to no benefit . . . but the Military Industrial Complex got rich and many Navy careers were advanced basically destroying our Navy's combat power. We could have built an entire fleet of multi-warfare frigates for $100Billion. Concerning cracks in the hull . . . the problem persist and operational limitations have been placed on the vessels with respect to speed in higher sea-states. The MH-53E Sea Dragons should be replaced by MH-53K King Sea Dragons.
@@brianmarsh6592at 40 knots I don't think the Navy cares about submarines. It's faster than a torpedo and is meant for in and out military operations. It's not a friget nor a destroyer. I agree these ships were and are a complete failure, but maybe there building them better than the first lemon batches. They made a contract for many of these lemons so the Navy has to fall through with the program. Hopefully they figured out how to fix their downfall of these ships
I am happy they are trying to fix it. They will get it eventually. A boat is a boat, but some boats budget better. And this can reduce crew capacity so that is cool while retaining usefulness as a platform for observing events and perhaps intervening.
People tend to forget the innovation is important in R&D. And innovation is not always successful, it’s true that this class met with a lot of shortcomings, but what it brought is substantial lessons for the Shipbuilders and the Navy.
Very fast as adversary surface spy ships cannot keep up with them. They do have one flaw as they being made of aluminum have no armor and do consume a great amount of fuel because of its engines. It is very noisy and easily tracked.
I'm surprised it didn't get one of those mini nuclear reactors. Hopefully, we start seeing more of them in ships like these. They would have more power than they would ever need, enough for laser weapons, they would be faster, etc.
"This US Combat Ship will Change Everything?" Really? The US Navy is retiring ALL OF THEM. The only thing they will, hopefully, change is the thought and procurement processes that brought on such waste.
From a former USN Sailor, re: 9:15: it's MARK, MARK, MARK! It's not ever emm-kay. (Unless you're EU. If in/from the US, we say MARK. Even Speed Racer's car was the Mark V (Mark Five). As for what you at 4:26 call revolutionary "revolutionary" and an engine, the drop-down azimuthing thruster is not revolutionary. The Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class had (and any existing Taiwanese and Turkish squadrons still using them have) them since the late 70s. We called them APUs, or auxiliary propulsion units. They were useful for not just mooring and getting underway, and maneuvering in shallows, but they were also the "creep-home" propulsors. The FFG-7s were part of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Low-Mix, cheaper, more numerous, less-armed part of the Fleet. It was likely envisioned they FFG-s having a casualty in one or both gas turbines (colocated in the Main Engine Room (I saw them up close, photographed removal of them via the air intake ducts, and got to go inside the air intake enclosure at the 0-1 deck), they'd need to be able to creep home. The 650-hp thrusters were to provide propulsion. I served aboard one. I know personally because I took photos of them in the drydock in San Pedro in late 1986 or early 87. My ship used them for getting underway from and mooring to the pier. It's also not a "diesel engine extending..." A diesel engine doesn't itself operate in water. It needs air, and it isn't encased in anything allowing it into sea water, and it's heat alone would probably damage the engine in contact with water. The azimuthing thruster shaft telescopes downward on deployment. In the case of the FFG-7, there were two APUs. I forgot how fast the pair could move us, but 1300 hp APUs might move a Burke 10-11 kts if equipped. As for sneaking up, forget it. If a full-on, all-out war happens, and if Russia and China are cooperating with each other, they both will tattle on any detected US or enemy navy's units as targets of opportunity, and no LCS will be sinking anything by sneaking up. Drones, satellites, and other actionable intel sources will scour any atolls, fjords, and ambush points. 13:47... "Rib". Not "are-aych-eye-bee". 27:30 "Sanctions"? Did you mean "Stanchions"? Were the stanchions improperly welded? Perhaps they buckled and shifted excessive load-bearing capacity to adjacent stanchions, and if enough cracked and were sheathed, and the failures went undetected for months, then, things would progressively worsen until it became a really obvious problem. Early era Burkes had welding, structure, and rust issues, too. Plenty of post-delivery repairs were done on them. WRT recent issues, lately, it seems in the news that one or more welders intentionally introduced ooor welding into their work. 16: 20. Appreciate the barb, WRT combining gear: "over-ambitious piece of junk caused the bulk of LCS engineering problems..." Loll: 22:57 "Constellation Class Frigates years away..." as a FFG-7 is displayed...
@Fishrokk I embarrassingly sit corrected. Thanks for correcting me. I'll leave my incorrect assertion unedited, not attempt to revision historian wash out my stupid (should have double-checked before my arrogant assertion) error. Again. Thank you.
Q1: Isn't the littoral going to be a high risk battlefield zone?? Doesn't close to shore mean being close to land and air based enemy weapons?? Q2: Therefore, shouldn't the LCS be a robust hard-to-kill ship? Shouldn't it be designed with HIGH survivability?? Q3: If so, the HOW?? can aluminum be used?? Aluminum damages easily. Enemy munitions will damage it easily. Seems like a bad idea, to me.
1) They're intended as shallow water combat vessels. Historically, shallow water and confinement of the coast are a difficult area to control, police and navigate. Littoral zones are also at risk to hostile mines, infiltration or asymmetric threats to critical infrastructure and friendly forces. Even in the age of sail small warships like corvettes and sloops would preform this mission. They aren't going in alone unless needed, they will have a risk/reward assessment before being deployed 2) Slapping heavy armor on these ships would be counterproductive since most anti ship missiles can sink FAR heavier and better protected ships, but by making them light and maneuverable, they can hug shorelines and go into rivers and island archipelegoes to outrun larger ships. 3) Many armored vehicles APCs have aluminum hulls because the hulls aren't always the armor anymore, the armor is applied to the hulls. Aluminum makes them lighter and therefore able to carry more actual armor. Same with ships. These are NOT pocket battleships, meant to slug it out gun to gun with other similar ships, these are more akin to patrol cars and scouts.
The LCS were never meant to face near peer enemies. If the submarine warfare module had worked armor would not helped against a torpedo. The Freedom class has a steel hull.
@@arnulfomanuel6340 yeah, I like the concept behind them, and the roles they're filling now can't be performed by the larger destroyers. If they really can fix the hull cracking issue, the independence will be a great ship.
I worked in air defense for along time and I can tell you any defensive system can be overwhelmed and can be attacked from Beneath, these ships , should be able to fight above or below without having to reconfigure anything , little crappy ship is correct
You literally just made that up. Plenty of military vehicles and literally all modern military planes are made out of aluminum. Guess you wouldn't want to be in one of those either.
These ships were and are a waist of money. They contribute nothing to the blue water combat ships, they serious design flaws, they lack combat power and protection, the aluminum construction melts when there is a fire and can't withstand hits by missiles and torpedoes as any hits are catastrophic. Then Navy is decommissioning them early and tried to give them to the Coast Guard or Foreign buyers, but there have been no takers so far.
These ships have proven to be underwhelming and fall short of the Navy's expectations. Without meeting critical survivability standards, they are more of a liability than an asset. It's time for the Navy to rethink its strategy and focus resources on building vessels that truly enhance the fleet's capabilities.
People said the same thing about the F-14. Once they sorted it out, it was on the cutting edge of fighter plane tech. It seems like most new toys for the military always need refining before it's ready for prime time.
The US Navy has long forgotten how to specify and construct warships. The list of failed programs is long and embarassing, costing taxpayers mega billions with little to show for it. Apparently this type of senior leadership failure is no longer a career limiting move as it seems to be institutionalized behaviour. It is long past time for the responsibility for the acquistion and construction of naval ships to be transitioned outside Naval control and given to saner heads.
Just remember the revolving door - in and out of the private sector/military. Failing project always need at new competent project executive with relevant insight (from the opposite side of the tabel)
Congressional meddling has already caused far too many problems in this fiasco of a program. Having people outside the Navy telling the Navy what ships they need is not the answer here.
A standardized SMR can be "plugged" into any ship or shore-related power system and just as well pulled out and put into any other ship or power system required for use to provide power to an emergency as in hurricane disasters...
@@Barefoot433 I was playing off the joke of comparing the pronounciation to the way people always say that "rumored" program.. anyways, I am always happy to learn something new.
@@Bellthorian 40 core crew (8 officers, 32 enlisted) plus up to 35 mission crew. 40 is the minimum, but more realistically on a regular basis, many more).
LCS in general and this vessel specifically are part of one of the biggest waste of money the USN has spent. It's under armed and under sensored. These vessels did "change" one thing: the Navy's budget.
Ships cannot hide from satellites. The steel hulls are a great idea, Navy should use them on prototypes and service vessels. US needs large autoloading deck guns - Large projectiles can hold mammoth explosive charges, electronics, etc, and are more compact than missiles, allowing massive fragmentation coverage against hypersonic missiles..
thats cool they fixed what seems to be the problems with the last ship of this design. I think its a cool ass design. Its just sad the contractors were the ones that really messed things up with the ship.
If you have ten types of weapons modules, you need to provide training for ten types of weapons modules and maintain proficiency in handling ten types of weapons modules. Are we going to have ten crews (I guess it would start with red and blue and then go through the spectrum or a box of Crayola crayons.) The primary function of our fleet is to protect our allies, not attack China and Russia. By the way, we don't have enough people in the Navy to man our current fleet. I rank this down there with the DD 1000 Zumwalt.
Yeah, they'll change everything... If they can ever stop them falling apart! Oh and they've already had to drop the ASW system from the design because they couldn't make it work. These things are like a modern version of the Fairmile ML. A cheap boat made to make its navy look bigger than it actually is.
Little Crappy $hip. Instead of building small ships with small abilities, the Navy should be: 1) doubling the CWIS mounts on every existing vessel 2) Developing re-loading systems that can load "six packs" into the VL bays, instead of one super low missile at a time. Or, completely containerize the loading into 40' modified shipping containers that can hold at least 24 missiles each. 3) get the "new" frigates up and running, pronto. And make it a project for at least 50. That's just a starting point. With the anticipated improvements in Chinese missiles systems, and their well-known plan to saturate US ships with more missiles than we can destroy, who in their right mind thinks that littoral combat ships are value added. Better to take care of the Coast Guard on its own merits than waste Navy money this.
They do not carry enough fire power for defense or offense. It is embarrassing the decisions the navy makes. #1 they need to build ships that can not deliver the firepower to take out a type 55 destroyer
if science/tech can innovate, find an inexpensive way to miniaturize the nuclear reactors..... the power output can be increased.... laser get added.... make the frame stronger, and make these suckers even faster
Please spare me the ridiculous brochure hype. There's a reason why they are called "Little Crappy Ships." Inadequate radar and weapons, unreliable, too small of a crew for a warship are some of the reasons. They are ships in search of a mission. As an old submarine sailor, I'm embarrassed that the Navy would waste money on these useless ships.
The other thing that I would want on this vessel lasers, with a nuclear power plant you have unlimited power for lasers, a laser hitting a ship plane of any kind kills that particular vehicle, an unlike the movies lasers you don't see the beam from the laser, the other thing I would put on this more drones, and I pair them with Amanda drone, they would give this ship a very lethal, you wouldn't be just fighting the ship you be fighting a manta drone that could have everything from torpedoes to mines to mine an area to being able to reconnaissance and find targets for your ship to engage.
I would make this ship a little bit bigger, not much but just enough so you can have more sailors on board to do the maintenance and other necessary functions for this ship give me the ship could be a game changer for the Navy of the United States, but only if they married it up to have manta ray drones forward deployment, think about what the ship could do if it had two to three manta rays attached to it each Monterey would have a different mission, incapability, that would make these ships, a force multiplier
For being 8 days old why don’t they know this ship was script after 2 done and one almost done ( done now ) . This is more than a crappy little ship and a huge failure . It was one of the worst money pits
Steam with one of two engines and well under 20 knots ... Not any thing like the speed of the fleet..... When with the fleet there will be no choice but to hurry... Was tactic to hurry and weave to produce less chance for Submarines to target surface combatants... With todays submarines capable of excessive speed slowing of the fleet is very dangerous... The following stragglers will soon run out of fuel at speed and be alone at low speed... Can't fall off and hunt the shallows... That is where ship killer missiles will abound. Not meant to slug it out this is not a place to be. Even drones will hunt the shallows... The big fail is the Aluminum Super structure and plug and play modules... Any fire,,, any fire,,, warps the superstructure... In a real fire from military strike repair may not be possible... What yeoman decided aluminum was a good idea..... Even low grade fires are catastrophic... When an enemy sees one up close they will try to burn her down... Durable is not aluminum... And Aluminum did not come out of his mouth once... The real waste is you could have built real hulls in this wasted time ... A thing of the past hull cracking.. Flexing can work harden Iron... but not aluminum... The years can only be hard... Why because he says. there will never be a fire on these ships... ????? They should have built new frigates years earlier instead of this experimental tuna boat... but I been wrong a lot before.... I think the enemy made its way into the procurement process to suggest Aluminum... Why not Aluminum Zeppelins ... They experimented with years of construction the Military could not spare... They could have built Frigates at leisure and with quality... Now in haste they buy from foreigners...
18 часов назад
these ships are junk.!! my navy son was on one . they can't be sailed faster than 15 knots because the hull cracks and comes apart. it was a great idea , but the material that was used in the design is not what is needed for the service that is projected by the navy .
peace time 99 min crew w/a digital prt printer on board. If 3 ships guarding an Island or area, then crappy ships air resupplied ok.4 months war time hot manning fine. But peace Time just 3months good enough. Need2 be able to go up 2 120 as needed. It needs to 2 two pieces front snout backs into or shoots out front large mobile escape race drag ship. Parts AT Ready On 3x diff ships. Steel tube lowest to highest deck able to hide in, climb up to every level, that's fire shrapnel safe. Knose 2x layer Heavy will help balance the load
GOOD MORNING SARAH DEAR I DID NOT SEE A PUSH ALERT FROM YOU THIS MORNING EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS YOU POSTED THIS 2 HOURS AGO I JUST SAW SOMETHING RIGHT NOW BUT I WILL NOW WATCH AND DO A RUNNING COMMENTARY DAVID ADAM GRENIS CURRENTLY IN HOUSTON TEXAS
Who designed this, did they not see what happened to HMS Sheffield in the Falklands! HMS Sheffield burned just with the fuel from the missile that hit it. With Thermite missiles the Alluminium hull is the fuel
Individual Interchangable package....With technology getting smaller, the LCS can do everything. The problem is resistance to automation. The Navy needs to make it fully automated as well as developing it toward making it into a DRONE. Manpower need to redirected to the Aircarft Carrier battle groups.
This class of ship is a joke... the Navy stopped development and has already decommissioned most because they are a failure. How did this channel not know this?
Electromagnetic submarine/hovercraft with superintensity lasers and nuclear magnetic repulse shields will soon be deployed. Oh, they will have greenhouses on board to promote sustainability and non-gender-specific rooms of rest.
Maybe the NAVY needs to certified if for larger aircraft like the OV22, H46, MH 53, AV8B and the F35B. They could refuel these aircraft... I think the intern politics is prevent this certification...they sure like spending other people money...
@@rgloria40 The U.S. Navy had to make custom landing spots for the F-35B. Those custom made landing spots are probably not on the Independence LCS. The MV-22 could fit folded. It is only 1 foot taller then the SH-60. The Stallion and Knight may be too wide for the hanger doors. The probably could only land but not be carried inside.
@rgloria40 Brother (Sister?), all of the aircraft in this list that you say the Navy needs to get certified have already been flown, or are currently being flown, by the U.S. Navy and/or Marines. Some of the aircraft that you listed are so old that they actually have already been retired. 😅
@@pike100 The Navy has a high turn over rate. Certification for the pilot and the flight deck crew is a form of training and "certification." You're never been in the military I see... This certification is sent up the chain of command to plan and fulfill the nation commitments. Things don't just happen. Certification and Recertification is just the way things are even in the real world. No wonder with people with your thought process cause us to lose a 4 billion dollar F35b aircraft carrier in 2020 in port due to a fire...Can't fight a fire????
The LCS is a 3000 ton patrol craft, not a war ship. These ships will never be exposed to any threat greater than a small patrol craft w/ a light machine gun.
That seagoing trash, cant defend itself. Wakehomingntoepedoes, rocket propelled torpedoes, Heavyweight Antiship missiles, make this pure shit scrap metal. I take extreme pride in being a battleship sailor of rhe Cold War since it taught me how a vessel is built protected and armed.
@@brianboye8025 (It's a reason why we still have those big dreadnought battleships on each coast of our country...and it's damn sure not for a museum piece... USS NEW JERSEY USS WISCONSIN USS TEXAS USS MISSOURI USS ALABAMA USS IOWA USS MASSACHUSETTS USS NORTH CAROLINA And no mistake about it...they are well kept in combat ready condition. And they're all still analog...
💥Download War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus! ► Use my link - playwt.link/beyondmilitary #ad
Put a SMR (Small Modular nuclear Reactor) into the hull of these boats and jack the mass of these Littoral Combat Ships to 14,000 tons to fill in for carrier escorts as well. (Just an idea)...
Not a bad idea, but at that tonnage it would be a DDGN(Destroyer, Guided Missile, Nuclear Powered). May be better to take an reactor used on a Virginia SSN and put it in a surface hull. And if you don't want to call it a destroyer, call it a cruiser. Bring back the CGNs with an emphasis on air defense.
I'm in favor of SMRs for long distance, long deployment times - but while nuclear power will last decades, ammunition, food, and fuel for non-nukes will still require frequent replenishment, along with "oilers" to bring the supplies. How do gas turbines compare with steam turbines? GTs are available up to 100,000 HP, half that of a battleship and may not require the warm up time of steam turbines! I do not know fuel consumption of GTs vs steam turbines.
@@Echowhiskeyone Served on a CGN. U.S.S. Arkansas CGN41. Virginia class cruiser. '90-'94.
The us navy can turn the ships they don't like to the coast guard, have the ships refurbished and painted white. This is a good platform to help maintain coastal security.
They would be amazing for the Coast Guard!
Not if it costs too much to maintain
Ships have been declared a failure by the US Navy and will be retired. They don't meet level 3 survivability standards. The navy needs to stop building them and redirect the money into ships that actually add value to the fleet.
Not all are being retired. The better ones will be kept for mine hunters since we have really old mine hunters
Did you watch the video? Issues have been dealt with
The problems were real but one other problem is people were expecting LCS to do things there were never designed to do. LCS were never suppose to fight near peer opponents. I still think LCS would work fine in the Red Sea, Aden and Persian Gulfs.
@@damongraham1398nope they work well in lower area the navy design them to work in coastal areas but the navy deploys them with Carrier strike groups which it can’t do as well as a Ford class FFG
@@neubauerjoseph They were never suppose to replace a frigate. The Cyclone patrol boats and Avenger mine hunters is what the LCS were to replace. I would group the LCS with the expeditionary fast transport (EPF) to rearm and refuel the LCS
The Navy is following in the foot steps of the Air Force. Its ships have to be a small, fast, powerful, maneuverable, shallow draft and fuel efficient. It must also have huge carrying capacity, handle rough seas, minimum radar cross section, multi helicopter compatible, ASW, AA, Cruise missile and gun equipped. No one ship can do everything and never will.
Waterjet propulsion is not quiet and is inappropriate for an Anti-Submarine Warfare platform, and one of the ship's mission modules was for ASW. These propulsion systems eat lots of fuel which makes their speed mostly irrelevant in the Pacific where you need long legs just to get around. The U.S. Navy all told has spent about tens of $Billion on this little project, and before it is all said and done this program will have cost the U.S. Navy about $100Billion that will provide little to no benefit . . . but the Military Industrial Complex got rich and many Navy careers were advanced basically destroying our Navy's combat power. We could have built an entire fleet of multi-warfare frigates for $100Billion.
Concerning cracks in the hull . . . the problem persist and operational limitations have been placed on the vessels with respect to speed in higher sea-states.
The MH-53E Sea Dragons should be replaced by MH-53K King Sea Dragons.
I agree
Its lack of anti-submarine capabilities because of its turbine engines makes it almost totally useless as a weapon platform period. I agree with you 💯
@@brianmarsh6592at 40 knots I don't think the Navy cares about submarines. It's faster than a torpedo and is meant for in and out military operations. It's not a friget nor a destroyer. I agree these ships were and are a complete failure, but maybe there building them better than the first lemon batches. They made a contract for many of these lemons so the Navy has to fall through with the program. Hopefully they figured out how to fix their downfall of these ships
I am happy they are trying to fix it. They will get it eventually. A boat is a boat, but some boats budget better. And this can reduce crew capacity so that is cool while retaining usefulness as a platform for observing events and perhaps intervening.
They already fix sum
@@LSmoney215 that is fantastic they are working out then.
People tend to forget the innovation is important in R&D. And innovation is not always successful, it’s true that this class met with a lot of shortcomings, but what it brought is substantial lessons for the Shipbuilders and the Navy.
correct and informed innovation... Not throwing money into holes in the water...
None of which have proved useful to the Navy unless you include the lesson learns was it was a huge mistake to even build them.
Very fast as adversary surface spy ships cannot keep up with them. They do have one flaw as they being made of aluminum have no armor and do consume a great amount of fuel because of its engines. It is very noisy and easily tracked.
Besides those points it's a good ship?😊
I'm surprised it didn't get one of those mini nuclear reactors. Hopefully, we start seeing more of them in ships like these. They would have more power than they would ever need, enough for laser weapons, they would be faster, etc.
Very good very comprehensive video
There's nothing bod about this design; will go down in history as a gigantic failure. All USN CNO should have to testify why this was a good idea.
"This US Combat Ship will Change Everything?" Really? The US Navy is retiring ALL OF THEM. The only thing they will, hopefully, change is the thought and procurement processes that brought on such waste.
LCS (Lost, Confused & Scared). 😂😂😂
From a former USN Sailor, re: 9:15: it's MARK, MARK, MARK! It's not ever emm-kay. (Unless you're EU. If in/from the US, we say MARK. Even Speed Racer's car was the Mark V (Mark Five).
As for what you at 4:26 call revolutionary "revolutionary" and an engine, the drop-down azimuthing thruster is not revolutionary. The Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class had (and any existing Taiwanese and Turkish squadrons still using them have) them since the late 70s. We called them APUs, or auxiliary propulsion units. They were useful for not just mooring and getting underway, and maneuvering in shallows, but they were also the "creep-home" propulsors. The FFG-7s were part of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Low-Mix, cheaper, more numerous, less-armed part of the Fleet. It was likely envisioned they FFG-s having a casualty in one or both gas turbines (colocated in the Main Engine Room (I saw them up close, photographed removal of them via the air intake ducts, and got to go inside the air intake enclosure at the 0-1 deck), they'd need to be able to creep home. The 650-hp thrusters were to provide propulsion.
I served aboard one. I know personally because I took photos of them in the drydock in San Pedro in late 1986 or early 87. My ship used them for getting underway from and mooring to the pier.
It's also not a "diesel engine extending..." A diesel engine doesn't itself operate in water. It needs air, and it isn't encased in anything allowing it into sea water, and it's heat alone would probably damage the engine in contact with water.
The azimuthing thruster shaft telescopes downward on deployment. In the case of the FFG-7, there were two APUs. I forgot how fast the pair could move us, but 1300 hp APUs might move a Burke 10-11 kts if equipped.
As for sneaking up, forget it. If a full-on, all-out war happens, and if Russia and China are cooperating with each other, they both will tattle on any detected US or enemy navy's units as targets of opportunity, and no LCS will be sinking anything by sneaking up. Drones, satellites, and other actionable intel sources will scour any atolls, fjords, and ambush points.
13:47... "Rib". Not "are-aych-eye-bee".
27:30 "Sanctions"? Did you mean "Stanchions"? Were the stanchions improperly welded? Perhaps they buckled and shifted excessive load-bearing capacity to adjacent stanchions, and if enough cracked and were sheathed, and the failures went undetected for months, then, things would progressively worsen until it became a really obvious problem. Early era Burkes had welding, structure, and rust issues, too. Plenty of post-delivery repairs were done on them. WRT recent issues, lately, it seems in the news that one or more welders intentionally introduced ooor welding into their work.
16: 20. Appreciate the barb, WRT combining gear: "over-ambitious piece of junk caused the bulk of LCS engineering problems..."
Loll: 22:57 "Constellation Class Frigates years away..." as a FFG-7 is displayed...
Dude, Speed Racer's car was the Mach 5.
@Fishrokk I embarrassingly sit corrected.
Thanks for correcting me. I'll leave my incorrect assertion unedited, not attempt to revision historian wash out my stupid (should have double-checked before my arrogant assertion) error.
Again. Thank you.
Q1: Isn't the littoral going to be a high risk battlefield zone?? Doesn't close to shore mean being close to land and air based enemy weapons??
Q2: Therefore, shouldn't the LCS be a robust hard-to-kill ship? Shouldn't it be designed with HIGH survivability??
Q3: If so, the HOW?? can aluminum be used?? Aluminum damages easily. Enemy munitions will damage it easily.
Seems like a bad idea, to me.
1) They're intended as shallow water combat vessels. Historically, shallow water and confinement of the coast are a difficult area to control, police and navigate. Littoral zones are also at risk to hostile mines, infiltration or asymmetric threats to critical infrastructure and friendly forces. Even in the age of sail small warships like corvettes and sloops would preform this mission. They aren't going in alone unless needed, they will have a risk/reward assessment before being deployed
2) Slapping heavy armor on these ships would be counterproductive since most anti ship missiles can sink FAR heavier and better protected ships, but by making them light and maneuverable, they can hug shorelines and go into rivers and island archipelegoes to outrun larger ships.
3) Many armored vehicles APCs have aluminum hulls because the hulls aren't always the armor anymore, the armor is applied to the hulls. Aluminum makes them lighter and therefore able to carry more actual armor. Same with ships. These are NOT pocket battleships, meant to slug it out gun to gun with other similar ships, these are more akin to patrol cars and scouts.
The Bradley fighting vehicle is aluminum about an inch thick and it's a tank killer don't underestimate ballistic aluminum
The LCS were never meant to face near peer enemies. If the submarine warfare module had worked armor would not helped against a torpedo. The Freedom class has a steel hull.
ALREADY. OBSOLETE ! THE. ENTIRE. CONCEPT. IS. A. FAILURE !
Concept is good they just have to correct all the flaws just like thef35 after addressing all the flaws turned out to be a super plane!!
@@arnulfomanuel6340 yeah, I like the concept behind them, and the roles they're filling now can't be performed by the larger destroyers. If they really can fix the hull cracking issue, the independence will be a great ship.
People said the same thing about the F-14. Once they sorted it out, it was the king of the sky's.
I worked in air defense for along time and I can tell you any defensive system can be overwhelmed and can be attacked from
Beneath, these ships , should be able to fight above or below without having to reconfigure anything , little crappy ship is correct
NOPE! aluminum alloys when LIT UP burns uncontrollably even under water.
I'd rather be dodging rounds in a RHIB!
You literally just made that up.
Plenty of military vehicles and literally all modern military planes are made out of aluminum. Guess you wouldn't want to be in one of those either.
You're thinking of magnesium. Aluminum doesn't burn, but it does melt.
These ships were and are a waist of money. They contribute nothing to the blue water combat ships, they serious design flaws, they lack combat power and protection, the aluminum construction melts when there is a fire and can't withstand hits by missiles and torpedoes as any hits are catastrophic.
Then Navy is decommissioning them early and tried to give them to the Coast Guard or Foreign buyers, but there have been no takers so far.
These ships have proven to be underwhelming and fall short of the Navy's expectations. Without meeting critical survivability standards, they are more of a liability than an asset. It's time for the Navy to rethink its strategy and focus resources on building vessels that truly enhance the fleet's capabilities.
People said the same thing about the F-14. Once they sorted it out, it was on the cutting edge of fighter plane tech. It seems like most new toys for the military always need refining before it's ready for prime time.
The hull cracking and the transmission gear problems have been solved??
Yes.
No.
Maybe. Now we have it covered.
The US Navy has long forgotten how to specify and construct warships. The list of failed programs is long and embarassing, costing taxpayers mega billions with little to show for it. Apparently this type of senior leadership failure is no longer a career limiting move as it seems to be institutionalized behaviour. It is long past time for the responsibility for the acquistion and construction of naval ships to be transitioned outside Naval control and given to saner heads.
Only politics seem to limit their careers now
Just remember the revolving door - in and out of the private sector/military. Failing project always need at new competent project executive with relevant insight (from the opposite side of the tabel)
Congressional meddling has already caused far too many problems in this fiasco of a program. Having people outside the Navy telling the Navy what ships they need is not the answer here.
A standardized SMR can be "plugged" into any ship or shore-related power system and just as well pulled out and put into any other ship or power system required for use to provide power to an emergency as in hurricane disasters...
LCS 😂 the biggest waste of naval expenditures in the history of the Navy. Billions of dollars worth of garbage. 🤦🏾♂️
Well 100% of innovation/invention has no guarantee when plan is put to paper….
Aren't these the ones that are just dock in southern Cali for not being worth a damn? Worst investment ever i thought maybe it's a different ship?🤷
The MIC made a fortune on taxpayers expence - its a great investment just send more money and the unicorn willl fly by...
Just remember, people said the same thing about the F-14. Once they sorted it out, it was the king of the sky's.
Sounds Great But I wish it would be made of steel and ceramics or titanium!
That would be bada**!
MK is pronounced as Mark, not “M.K.”
more like M.K. Ultra Boat.
You are correct.
@@aurorauplinks You are incorrect.
@@Barefoot433 I was playing off the joke of comparing the pronounciation to the way people always say that "rumored" program.. anyways, I am always happy to learn something new.
Aluminum garbage can.
They shouldn't retire them due to the price but transfer them to the coast guard make them coast guard cutters.
She requires too much man power to give to the coast guard.
@@legionmartin No it does not, it requires 40 crew to operate, which is less than a coast guard cutter.
@@Bellthorian 40 core crew (8 officers, 32 enlisted) plus up to 35 mission crew. 40 is the minimum, but more realistically on a regular basis, many more).
LCS in general and this vessel specifically are part of one of the biggest waste of money the USN has spent. It's under armed and under sensored. These vessels did "change" one thing: the Navy's budget.
In the time it takes to replace them, explore making them drone swarm carriers.
You didn't explain the hull cracks solution. You simply said they are fixed. Details would be nice.
Ships cannot hide from satellites. The steel hulls are a great idea, Navy should use them on prototypes and service vessels. US needs large autoloading deck guns - Large projectiles can hold mammoth explosive charges, electronics, etc, and are more compact than missiles, allowing massive fragmentation coverage against hypersonic missiles..
BTW our riverine patrol craft have water jets.
thats cool they fixed what seems to be the problems with the last ship of this design. I think its a cool ass design. Its just sad the contractors were the ones that really messed things up with the ship.
Litoral, literally means coast. These ship are meant for shallow water fighting.
So did they fix the hull cracking problems? You don't turn out a super ship if it can't even fulfill it's prime job of keeping water out.
If you have ten types of weapons modules, you need to provide training for ten types of weapons modules and maintain proficiency in handling ten types of weapons modules. Are we going to have ten crews (I guess it would start with red and blue and then go through the spectrum or a box of Crayola crayons.) The primary function of our fleet is to protect our allies, not attack China and Russia. By the way, we don't have enough people in the Navy to man our current fleet. I rank this down there with the DD 1000 Zumwalt.
During a time of war, only two types of naval vessels exist: 1) submarines; and 2) targets.
Yeah, they'll change everything... If they can ever stop them falling apart! Oh and they've already had to drop the ASW system from the design because they couldn't make it work. These things are like a modern version of the Fairmile ML. A cheap boat made to make its navy look bigger than it actually is.
Little Crappy $hip. Instead of building small ships with small abilities, the Navy should be:
1) doubling the CWIS mounts on every existing vessel
2) Developing re-loading systems that can load "six packs" into the VL bays, instead of one super low missile at a time. Or, completely containerize the loading into 40' modified shipping containers that can hold at least 24 missiles each.
3) get the "new" frigates up and running, pronto. And make it a project for at least 50.
That's just a starting point.
With the anticipated improvements in Chinese missiles systems, and their well-known plan to saturate US ships with more missiles than we can destroy, who in their right mind thinks that littoral combat ships are value added. Better to take care of the Coast Guard on its own merits than waste Navy money this.
That ship is a complete loss. There is no way to fix a horrible concept that has already been manufactured. Ditch it now.
No it not they many of the problems do your research
They do not carry enough fire power for defense or offense. It is embarrassing the decisions the navy makes. #1 they need to build ships that can not deliver the firepower to take out a type 55 destroyer
Those guns are only on the freedom class
Yes Powerrrr
What about her defenses tho??? How would she fair against a single type52 ?
if science/tech can innovate, find an inexpensive way to miniaturize the nuclear reactors..... the power output can be increased.... laser get added.... make the frame stronger, and make these suckers even faster
Please spare me the ridiculous brochure hype. There's a reason why they are called "Little Crappy Ships." Inadequate radar and weapons, unreliable, too small of a crew for a warship are some of the reasons. They are ships in search of a mission. As an old submarine sailor, I'm embarrassed that the Navy would waste money on these useless ships.
They should be re-classed as corvettes.
The other thing that I would want on this vessel lasers, with a nuclear power plant you have unlimited power for lasers, a laser hitting a ship plane of any kind kills that particular vehicle, an unlike the movies lasers you don't see the beam from the laser, the other thing I would put on this more drones, and I pair them with Amanda drone, they would give this ship a very lethal, you wouldn't be just fighting the ship you be fighting a manta drone that could have everything from torpedoes to mines to mine an area to being able to reconnaissance and find targets for your ship to engage.
One last thing
I would make this ship a little bit bigger, not much but just enough so you can have more sailors on board to do the maintenance and other necessary functions for this ship give me the ship could be a game changer for the Navy of the United States, but only if they married it up to have manta ray drones forward deployment, think about what the ship could do if it had two to three manta rays attached to it each Monterey would have a different mission, incapability, that would make these ships, a force multiplier
Another thing. How will this platform survive a drone swarm attack?
You guys need to edit your material. Lots of mistakes and bad information
No one can waste money like the USA navy
Buddy, how about the entire US government! I'm hoping this DOGE dept can do what they claim.
These ships are CRACKING if they use the power they were designed for and are limited to a fraction if rhe speed.
This video is BOGUS
OMG! You said Litoral correctly. Twice even! Now say Nuclear.
Sayy, Total shot in the dark here....
Sounds like politics has made maintenance a cluster fuck.Glad to hear the Navy has it almost all sorted out..
Thanks
I thought they scrapped them all.
Should have just went with frigates.
Did anyone else see it in port Aransas in cc?
Modern versions of The Merrimack..
For being 8 days old why don’t they know this ship was script after 2 done and one almost done ( done now ) . This is more than a crappy little ship and a huge failure . It was one of the worst money pits
good video
MK is pronounced as Mark, not. “M.K.”
the LCS? the little crappy ships?
Learn to communicate?
This ship is so expensive to maintain if this ship go to Philippine navy they cannot afford to maintain this
Steam with one of two engines and well under 20 knots ... Not any thing like the speed of the fleet..... When with the fleet there will be no choice but to hurry... Was tactic to hurry and weave to produce less chance for Submarines to target surface combatants... With todays submarines capable of excessive speed slowing of the fleet is very dangerous... The following stragglers will soon run out of fuel at speed and be alone at low speed... Can't fall off and hunt the shallows... That is where ship killer missiles will abound. Not meant to slug it out this is not a place to be. Even drones will hunt the shallows...
The big fail is the Aluminum Super structure and plug and play modules... Any fire,,, any fire,,, warps the superstructure... In a real fire from military strike repair may not be possible...
What yeoman decided aluminum was a good idea..... Even low grade fires are catastrophic... When an enemy sees one up close they will try to burn her down...
Durable is not aluminum... And Aluminum did not come out of his mouth once... The real waste is you could have built real hulls in this wasted time ...
A thing of the past hull cracking.. Flexing can work harden Iron... but not aluminum... The years can only be hard... Why because he says. there will never be a fire on these ships... ????? They should have built new frigates years earlier instead of this experimental tuna boat... but I been wrong a lot before....
I think the enemy made its way into the procurement process to suggest Aluminum... Why not Aluminum Zeppelins ... They experimented with years of construction the Military could not spare... They could have built Frigates at leisure and with quality... Now in haste they buy from foreigners...
these ships are junk.!! my navy son was on one . they can't be sailed faster than 15 knots because the hull cracks and comes apart. it was a great idea , but the material that was used in the design is not what is needed for the service that is projected by the navy .
To make them fuel-efficient why not just make them nuclear,
God bless America 🇺🇸. We remember pearl harbor and the battan March and China 😮
Already mothballed. Spend the money or loose it
A another underarmed U.S. Navy ship
Transfer these girly boats to the Coast Guard.
Interesting - Darn - much so - 🤓😎🥸🤠😈
So high tech and a computer virus , killed it!😆😆😆
Too bad they don't work
peace time 99 min crew w/a digital prt printer on board. If 3 ships guarding an Island or area, then crappy ships air resupplied ok.4 months war time hot manning fine. But peace Time just 3months good enough. Need2 be able to go up 2 120 as needed. It needs to 2 two pieces front snout backs into or shoots out front large mobile escape race drag ship. Parts AT Ready On 3x diff ships. Steel tube lowest to highest deck able to hide in, climb up to every level, that's fire shrapnel safe. Knose 2x layer Heavy will help balance the load
GOOD MORNING SARAH DEAR I DID NOT SEE A PUSH ALERT FROM YOU THIS MORNING EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS YOU POSTED THIS 2 HOURS AGO I JUST SAW SOMETHING RIGHT NOW
BUT I WILL NOW WATCH AND DO A RUNNING COMMENTARY
DAVID ADAM GRENIS CURRENTLY IN HOUSTON TEXAS
Interesting clip. Static artificial voice and inappropriate sensationalized music detracts from message and makes for an obnoxious video.
Okay this is incorrect the image is of a Zumwalt with dual 30mm, not an Independence.
9 9
Who designed this, did they not see what happened to HMS Sheffield in the Falklands! HMS Sheffield burned just with the fuel from the missile that hit it. With Thermite missiles the Alluminium hull is the fuel
It's an ai narrator.
you're like the internet explorer. But for weapons.
LCS Failed. End of story.
Individual Interchangable package....With technology getting smaller, the LCS can do everything. The problem is resistance to automation. The Navy needs to make it fully automated as well as developing it toward making it into a DRONE. Manpower need to redirected to the Aircarft Carrier battle groups.
This class of ship is a joke... the Navy stopped development and has already decommissioned most because they are a failure. How did this channel not know this?
Electromagnetic submarine/hovercraft with superintensity lasers and nuclear magnetic repulse shields will soon be deployed. Oh, they will have greenhouses on board to promote sustainability and non-gender-specific rooms of rest.
At 8:07 what military currently uses biplanes? I still think an aerostat would be a great addition to LCS
Maybe the NAVY needs to certified if for larger aircraft like the OV22, H46, MH 53, AV8B and the F35B. They could refuel these aircraft... I think the intern politics is prevent this certification...they sure like spending other people money...
@@rgloria40 The U.S. Navy had to make custom landing spots for the F-35B. Those custom made landing spots are probably not on the Independence LCS. The MV-22 could fit folded. It is only 1 foot taller then the SH-60. The Stallion and Knight may be too wide for the hanger doors. The probably could only land but not be carried inside.
@@damongraham1398 mmm...The lies the fake STEM Degree management told Congress....They could still land and refuel...just need the certification...
@rgloria40 Brother (Sister?), all of the aircraft in this list that you say the Navy needs to get certified have already been flown, or are currently being flown, by the U.S. Navy and/or Marines. Some of the aircraft that you listed are so old that they actually have already been retired. 😅
@@pike100 The Navy has a high turn over rate. Certification for the pilot and the flight deck crew is a form of training and "certification." You're never been in the military I see... This certification is sent up the chain of command to plan and fulfill the nation commitments. Things don't just happen. Certification and Recertification is just the way things are even in the real world. No wonder with people with your thought process cause us to lose a 4 billion dollar F35b aircraft carrier in 2020 in port due to a fire...Can't fight a fire????
This is gabbage boat
LCS - little crappy ships
Can it dodge a hypersonics?😅😅
Hypersonics are media driven BS. Ukraine shoots them down all the time.
The LCS is a 3000 ton patrol craft, not a war ship. These ships will never be exposed to any threat greater than a small patrol craft w/ a light machine gun.
No matter how "fast" a boat is ---
IT IS SLOW compared to a missile.
Not sold. This is LCS -- Little, Crappy, and Stupid.
Everyone wants to play War as long as you have nothing to loose like your life
The US Navy isn't for everyone, so your comment is just weird.
Too bAd the hull cracks
Fixed.
It's a piece of crap give it to the coast guard or the PI Navy
This is being cancelled. It's a piece of crap.
That seagoing trash, cant defend itself. Wakehomingntoepedoes, rocket propelled torpedoes, Heavyweight Antiship missiles, make this pure shit scrap metal. I take extreme pride in being a battleship sailor of rhe Cold War since it taught me how a vessel is built protected and armed.
The whole concept is just crap. These ships cannot take a hit and are not stealthy enough to avoid detection from an alert enemy.
The value of your evaluation is so stealthy it is believed to be nonexistent.
They can’t take a punch.
taking a punch from a modern cruise missile is kind of difficult.
@@aurorauplinks That’s why I still like battleships.
No ships can take the punch that modern missiles and torpedoes can deliver.
So what video game do you play that makes you love battleships? We can't man a battleship.
This is why the US Navy is running as fast as possible to unmanned naval ships.
Billions spent...but the old Iowa class battleships could blow them outta the water with one shell....make it make sense DOD?
Sure, let's follow all the other countries with battleships. BTW, that is sarcasm.
@@brianboye8025 (It's a reason why we still have those big dreadnought battleships on each coast of our country...and it's damn sure not for a museum piece...
USS NEW JERSEY
USS WISCONSIN
USS TEXAS
USS MISSOURI
USS ALABAMA
USS IOWA
USS MASSACHUSETTS
USS NORTH CAROLINA
And no mistake about it...they are well kept in combat ready condition. And they're all still analog...