I wonder if the issue with cracks in the hulls of the tri-maran were fixed. Last I heard they were speed limited and a no go for ops in sea state 3 or above.
That is probably why the US Navy is turning those beer cans into mine warfare ships. During peace time, a mine warfare ship does not really need to do long deployments to the other side of the world.
Anybody else feel like "large MINIMALLY manned surface vessel" would be the way to go, at least for a while, as opposed to "large unmanned"? Like, a small, rotating compliment of 9 or 10 or however many sailors to be just enough to respond if/as needed, for contingencies and that could competently operate the vessel should the automated systems be down for any reason? The idea of there being even the most slight of chances, no matter how improbable, of a blue team unmanned missile magazine boat being hacked used to launch on whatever target they will and there not even being crew members aboard who could cut power or otherwise intervene just does not sit well with me.
So the ASW mission pack for LCS is gone. No surprise, given that Constellation will probably get that portfolio. I kind of like the idea of the Independence sub-class getting the Mine Warfare nod (provided their mine hunting capabilities actually work). Not as enthusiastic about the Freedom sub-class' role since they're anemic surface combatants without something like NSM onboard. However as a gunboat deployable in the anti-pirate and other low-threat missions (like the Brits do with their River-class OPVs), I could see them working out.
@@AugmentedGravity TLDR; If we have to have LCS and the MCM fit works, then okay, the USN needs something to replace the Avenger class and can even host helicopter mine sweeping missions. The ASW pack was never a good fit to the hull. The ASuW pack is goofy but might work as a low-threat mission gunboat.
Freedom Class has speed restrictions due to combining gear failure. The Independence Class continues to have structural cracks and cannot be deployed in all weather. It also has speed restrictions. This makes those LCS totally useless for hunting subs. If a sub is foolish enough to be in the area, maybe the ship's helicopter can track it down. The USN should just scrap all of those "ships" instead of, after 15 years, attempting to find something those can do.
first, Constellation-class really have addition FFBNW 16 VLS, not 100% but still more than 80% chance second, because it's frigate, not destroyer, more VLS doesn't mean better, so better build more and more AB than build some Constellation with 64 VLS
Can't be done without a major hull redesign which is definitely not happening. So 32 it is. VLS isn't the end all and be all. Those 16 NSM's might not launch vertically but what does that matter? No AB's have that NSM capability. Or the sub hunting with CAPTAS VDS. Two very unique and very important capabilities.
@@leftycosta1899NSM range is only 250 km, don't get me wrong I like NSM as it is stealthy, smart and can fly with 1 m altitude, but I want the frigate has more option for longer anti ship missle.
Would love for someone to ask why zumwalt hull is not being used for ddg-x rather than starting from scratch again! Seems like zumwalt is performing very well at sea and difficult to track. Get the proper weapons on there and start building 10 of those now. I am a big fan of arleigh Burke, but we are building a platform that is essentially maxed out. Can’t add future lasers because spy-6 is sucking up the remaining power the Burke was able to produce. Zumwalt has plenty of power available and plenty of hull space for weapons.
Zumwalt is a significantly bigger ship whose entire foredeck was designed for the two useless AGS turrets. Even with EMD costs included, the TCO for DDG-X is probably much less.
The new hull design appears to take key elements from the zumwalt. The only rendering currently available doesn’t show it in the water, but if you want to see what it looks like in the water, look for the “USS DDG(x)” from modern warships, they do a pretty good job of showing what it’ll look like in the water. This is all to say, the new ship looks like it takes the best from the zumwalt (rcs reduction) and Arleigh Burke (deck space and stability) to make a really good ship.
Zumwalt was designed for the long obsolete role of ship to shore bombardments. That role was obsolete after the Korean War, but the US Congress did not understand that.
@@PrimarchX the new ddg-x is going to be bigger. Probably a lot bigger to house the power requirements and I would expect bigger weapons load including hypersonic weapons. I expect it will not cost anywhere close to the AB. Yes, AGS is a waste, but they are adding hypersonic weapons to zumwalt so using that space a deck gun and more vls tubes is not out of the question since it already has mk-57 vls installed.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 that rendering is not what the actual ddg-x will look like. It is a conversation drawing from someone in the pentagon to brainstorm ideas and come up with requirements. The War Zone did an article on that image and made it clear it was not what it will look like. They are definitely going to use a lot of zumwalt technology and base a lot off the zumwalt. Which makes you wonder why we have to spend all this money and time to start over when the hull of the zumwalt has been successful.
How about a replacement for the Ticonderoga class CLG’s. 3 overpriced Zumwalts are actually CLG’s but need working 6” gun mounts. A practical stealth, reasonably priced CLG needs to be designed (not on a Spruance class hull and propulsion) and built!
@@willw8011 The Ticonderoga is really a stretched Spruance class destroyer just like the DDG(X) is really a stretched next generation, aka Flight IV, destroyer.
You know, the Navy really does need a “littoral combat ship” It should be somewhere between the size of a FFG and a DDG, have like 72 VLS cells, and be designed to *actually* control the littorals. Pack it with TLAMs and SM-6.
I agree. The nice thing about FFG-62 is that it's all mature tech and space/power for new tech to grow in. I'm hoping the USN sticks with this concept - start with what works and build in space to grow.
The DDG(X) is supposed to be a larger and more capable destroyer to counter the PLA Navy Type 55, which was supposed to counter the Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, the US Navy does not have a budget for the next-generation Future Cruiser Project to replace the Ticonderoga class. It sort of got merged with the DDG(X) with a larger destroyer with more weapon capabilities as well as room for future weapons like hypersonic missiles. As for the Zumwalt, the US Navy planned on using them as large-capacity missile carriers like the original Land Attack Destroyer Program since it was a destroyer loaded with land attack missiles but with very minimal crew facilities or combat systems. It was supposed to be guided into combat by an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The Constellation class FFG was designed to counter a large number of PLA Navy Type 54A frigates. Ironically, the PLA Navy just laid down the hull for the new Type 54B frigate, which is similar to the Constellation class in design, capabilities, and weapons. Two of these important are the upgraded phase array radar and the larger amount of missile launchers like those on the Constellation class.
@@bolivianem the ddgx hasn’t been made yet, however many vls are on it a great many will be reduced by three with next gen missiles that combine three cells
@@seanpruitt6801 Since the navy is lacking behind in ship numbers, we're going Russian style which is put any missile system on any ship that can hold it.
@@seanpruitt6801 5:20 The Admiral says the the 15 members of the Independence class was be equipped with the mine warfare package. This class has exhibited hull fatigue, so I assume this package is to put them to work in a less rigorous way.
OK------. Why do So many DDG's have no Ram launcher in the vacant weapons spot ahead of the Bridge??? Facing the Chinese in the next few years our DDG's need as many point defense Mounts as we can stuff on them... Preferably the RAM's!!! The Phalanx is just SO OVER Matched and worthless against the new Hypersonic missiles that give the Phalanx only a second to target them with only an effective range of 1,000 meters. With only a 1,000 meters to engage, even if the Phalanx hits and kills the diving missile the Warhead still has a good chance of hitting the ship.
They are over matched by this generation of weapons, but removing all of them altogether in favor of point defense geared wholly & solely for the highest tier threats, it leaves the kind of gap we're seeing more & more in modern platforms against simpler threats. Swarms and wave assaults can simply deplete magazines and leave a platform altogether defenseless against whatever might follow. I absolutely agree that wherever a weapon can go, a weapon should go, but we must be careful not to blind ourselves to one threat for fear of another, which necessitates adequate defenses to handle any & all comers. And that likely means we'll need to start getting more creative & flexible. Eventually, we're simply gonna be all out of hard mounts for additional weapons to address lower tier threats in order to maintain adequate point defenses (e.g. 2 RAM launchers per hull) against top tier threats, so bringing a mobile Centaurian or another containerized autocannon system intended for base or airfield defense on land onto the deck and figuring out how to make it work out at sea to fill the gap, might not be a great option, but also might be necessary.
"Larger launchers"? Than what? The Mk41? The Mk57? A onesie/twosie for large hypersonic weapons? How about learning from the Chinese on their Type 055s. The Mk41 is going to restrict us for decades to come. The USN is screwing the pooch -again- by not using the Zumwalt hull for the DDG(X).
There is a new launcher being developed. It is called large missile vertical launch systems (LMVLS). www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2023/2023/01/us-navy-sets-out-capability-imperatives-for-ddgx/
@@NavalNews Yeah, I knew about the CPS they're stuffing in the Zumwalts. I was hoping for a multipurpose VLS with larger cells. Think SK's VLS II or the system in the Type 055s. Both dwarf even the Mk57s when it comes to cell size. Northrop Grumman's Modular Launch System was interesting.
@@NavalNews those launchers are way smaller than what the Chinese have…we need bigger launchers that hold more missiles…or better yet a bigger destroyer….a destroyer should be able to bring 120 missiles to a fight whether it’s air defense or anti ship warfare
The Constellation will deliver in FY26?! It's a frigate, not the next-gen DDG. If the USN and the national ship-building capacity across various firms can't do better than a basic combatant built and fielded in under 3 years, then the United States will simply continue to fall behind the PLAN in terms of combat-ready hulls. I find it hard to believe that we can no longer design a sturdy and modular hull that is capable of growth when adding near-future systems and which is also for multi-mission deployments- until I remember that the DoD generally has a horrific procurement process where the incentives for cost-control and accountability are either nearly non-existent or poorly enforced due to politics, commercial exploitation and corruption.
The PLA just laid down the hull for their Type 54B frigate, a design that is an improvement on the previous Type 54A but with larger weapon capacities and phase array radar like the Constellation class. This is also why despite all the supposed outrage with the LCS, the US Navy is still keeping them to operate in a lower intensive area like the 4th Fleet that operates in Latin American waters. As the Admiral explained in the video, they are still operating the LCS in the 2nd and the 6th Fleet of Atlantic Fleets, as well as the 3rd and 7th Fleet of the Pacific Fleets, as well as the 5th Fleets of US Central Command. So, despite all the problems you heard about the LCS, the US Navy is still keeping a large chunk of these ships. Remember, there is probably pressure from the Chief of Naval Operations to increase the size of the US Navy's ships. Not all ships are bigger ships like frigates, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even submarines. You would also find in most navies of the world, the backbone is mostly smaller ships like the LCS.
@@bermanmo6237 My comment was about the significant dysfunction that exists in the US ship building infrastructure (spanning the requirements of a skilled workforce, materials procurement and systems integration). Betcha the PLAN won't take three years to put the Type 54B hull into the water...
@@thomasromanelli2561 in the US, protecting the profitability of the ship builders is the highest priority. the second priority is keeping the bank accounts of politicians, admirals growing. Making modular, flexible ships would commoditized warship production thus lowering profit margins. Everyone in the military industrial complex want to keep the development of military systems at the "boutique' levels where they can overcharge the tax payers. If a weapon platform doesn't end up costing at least twice as much as originally projected and 50% late, then something is wrong. PLAN is communist/socialist so they can be efficient but the US is capitalist and we are govern by the sacred golden rule "charge more, give less".
You got that right, politics ! They are weakening the U.S.. Do t think we'll have e to worry about Russia, they had to get a carrier from China. Thiers is still gotta be towed! Lol
I love the way N96 calls the Connie a small ship. Its freaking 7200 tons. Its basically an ABI.
I wonder if the issue with cracks in the hulls of the tri-maran were fixed. Last I heard they were speed limited and a no go for ops in sea state 3 or above.
That is probably why the US Navy is turning those beer cans into mine warfare ships.
During peace time, a mine warfare ship does not really need to do long deployments to the other side of the world.
Anybody else feel like "large MINIMALLY manned surface vessel" would be the way to go, at least for a while, as opposed to "large unmanned"? Like, a small, rotating compliment of 9 or 10 or however many sailors to be just enough to respond if/as needed, for contingencies and that could competently operate the vessel should the automated systems be down for any reason? The idea of there being even the most slight of chances, no matter how improbable, of a blue team unmanned missile magazine boat being hacked used to launch on whatever target they will and there not even being crew members aboard who could cut power or otherwise intervene just does not sit well with me.
So the ASW mission pack for LCS is gone. No surprise, given that Constellation will probably get that portfolio. I kind of like the idea of the Independence sub-class getting the Mine Warfare nod (provided their mine hunting capabilities actually work). Not as enthusiastic about the Freedom sub-class' role since they're anemic surface combatants without something like NSM onboard. However as a gunboat deployable in the anti-pirate and other low-threat missions (like the Brits do with their River-class OPVs), I could see them working out.
?
@@AugmentedGravity You have a question?
@@PrimarchX all of it
@@AugmentedGravity TLDR; If we have to have LCS and the MCM fit works, then okay, the USN needs something to replace the Avenger class and can even host helicopter mine sweeping missions. The ASW pack was never a good fit to the hull. The ASuW pack is goofy but might work as a low-threat mission gunboat.
Freedom Class has speed restrictions due to combining gear failure. The Independence Class continues to have structural cracks and cannot be deployed in all weather. It also has speed restrictions.
This makes those LCS totally useless for hunting subs. If a sub is foolish enough to be in the area, maybe the ship's helicopter can track it down.
The USN should just scrap all of those "ships" instead of, after 15 years, attempting to find something those can do.
Looking good 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
Dear Admiral, Please put 48 or 64 vls for the frigate.
first, Constellation-class really have addition FFBNW 16 VLS, not 100% but still more than 80% chance
second, because it's frigate, not destroyer, more VLS doesn't mean better, so better build more and more AB than build some Constellation with 64 VLS
Can't be done without a major hull redesign which is definitely not happening. So 32 it is. VLS isn't the end all and be all. Those 16 NSM's might not launch vertically but what does that matter? No AB's have that NSM capability. Or the sub hunting with CAPTAS VDS. Two very unique and very important capabilities.
@@baotrungnguyen3301 I still want 64 or 48 vls cos more room to put vla missle and option for lrsm or block v tomahawk
@@leftycosta1899NSM range is only 250 km, don't get me wrong I like NSM as it is stealthy, smart and can fly with 1 m altitude, but I want the frigate has more option for longer anti ship missle.
@@jonathan6009 so better build more AB, there's no reason to build Constellation with too much vls
Good stuff.
Would love for someone to ask why zumwalt hull is not being used for ddg-x rather than starting from scratch again! Seems like zumwalt is performing very well at sea and difficult to track. Get the proper weapons on there and start building 10 of those now. I am a big fan of arleigh Burke, but we are building a platform that is essentially maxed out. Can’t add future lasers because spy-6 is sucking up the remaining power the Burke was able to produce. Zumwalt has plenty of power available and plenty of hull space for weapons.
Zumwalt is a significantly bigger ship whose entire foredeck was designed for the two useless AGS turrets. Even with EMD costs included, the TCO for DDG-X is probably much less.
The new hull design appears to take key elements from the zumwalt.
The only rendering currently available doesn’t show it in the water, but if you want to see what it looks like in the water, look for the “USS DDG(x)” from modern warships, they do a pretty good job of showing what it’ll look like in the water. This is all to say, the new ship looks like it takes the best from the zumwalt (rcs reduction) and Arleigh Burke (deck space and stability) to make a really good ship.
Zumwalt was designed for the long obsolete role of ship to shore bombardments. That role was obsolete after the Korean War, but the US Congress did not understand that.
@@PrimarchX the new ddg-x is going to be bigger. Probably a lot bigger to house the power requirements and I would expect bigger weapons load including hypersonic weapons. I expect it will not cost anywhere close to the AB. Yes, AGS is a waste, but they are adding hypersonic weapons to zumwalt so using that space a deck gun and more vls tubes is not out of the question since it already has mk-57 vls installed.
@@anguswaterhouse9255 that rendering is not what the actual ddg-x will look like. It is a conversation drawing from someone in the pentagon to brainstorm ideas and come up with requirements. The War Zone did an article on that image and made it clear it was not what it will look like. They are definitely going to use a lot of zumwalt technology and base a lot off the zumwalt. Which makes you wonder why we have to spend all this money and time to start over when the hull of the zumwalt has been successful.
How about a replacement for the Ticonderoga class CLG’s. 3 overpriced Zumwalts are actually CLG’s but need working 6” gun mounts. A practical stealth, reasonably priced CLG needs to be designed (not on a Spruance class hull and propulsion) and built!
The DDG(x) will do that. It will have 128 mk41 VLS and it will weigh more than a Ticonderoga.
BTW, the Ticonderoga is not really a CG.
@@willw8011 I agree with you about the TICO’s.
@@willw8011 The Ticonderoga is really a stretched Spruance class destroyer just like the DDG(X) is really a stretched next generation, aka Flight IV, destroyer.
You know, the Navy really does need a “littoral combat ship”
It should be somewhere between the size of a FFG and a DDG, have like 72 VLS cells, and be designed to *actually* control the littorals. Pack it with TLAMs and SM-6.
Honestly a big fan of the upcomming Constellation clas FFG, but i’m not so sold on the new DDG(X), especially not its design.
I hope the final design is a bit more...inspiring.
I agree. The nice thing about FFG-62 is that it's all mature tech and space/power for new tech to grow in. I'm hoping the USN sticks with this concept - start with what works and build in space to grow.
Why?
@@user-dq1je7zy3p why what
The DDG(X) is supposed to be a larger and more capable destroyer to counter the PLA Navy Type 55, which was supposed to counter the Ticonderoga class cruisers. However, the US Navy does not have a budget for the next-generation Future Cruiser Project to replace the Ticonderoga class. It sort of got merged with the DDG(X) with a larger destroyer with more weapon capabilities as well as room for future weapons like hypersonic missiles. As for the Zumwalt, the US Navy planned on using them as large-capacity missile carriers like the original Land Attack Destroyer Program since it was a destroyer loaded with land attack missiles but with very minimal crew facilities or combat systems. It was supposed to be guided into combat by an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
The Constellation class FFG was designed to counter a large number of PLA Navy Type 54A frigates. Ironically, the PLA Navy just laid down the hull for the new Type 54B frigate, which is similar to the Constellation class in design, capabilities, and weapons. Two of these important are the upgraded phase array radar and the larger amount of missile launchers like those on the Constellation class.
🌎🌍🌏BOBOY VALIDA🌎🌍🌏🇵🇭💪🦅🇵🇸💪🦅🇺🇸💪🦅🇲🇽💪🦅🇦🇷💪🦅🇨🇦💪🦅🇬🇱💪🦅🇮🇷💪🦅🇹🇷💪🦅ASEAN💪🦅
Yes admiral sir, please change the design of the DDGX and increase its VLS capacity…….. god bless you
Especially when the US Navy does not hae the budget to buy a larger size future cruiser type ship.
the DDG(X) is designed with 2 and a half packs of VLS witch is 32 more missiles than the current cruisers
@@bolivianem the ddgx hasn’t been made yet, however many vls are on it a great many will be reduced by three with next gen missiles that combine three cells
Scrapped the shitty hawk too, for pennies on the dollar
What kind of bunks are they putting in that new ship? They never seem to care!
Independence class is reduced to heavily armed minesweepers from under-armed fishery protection ships.
A model of public funds being well spent.
Since when does a mine sweeper have 34 VLS cells?
@@seanpruitt6801 Since the navy is lacking behind in ship numbers, we're going Russian style which is put any missile system on any ship that can hold it.
@@seanpruitt6801 5:20 The Admiral says the the 15 members of the Independence class was be equipped with the mine warfare package.
This class has exhibited hull fatigue, so I assume this package is to put them to work in a less rigorous way.
@@Rob_F8F it is using a mine sweeper configuration. But it’s designed to be a multi role ship not a single function ship.
@@sithlord66.12 we are lacking hull numbers but adding lethality packages to ships is nothing new at all.
OK------. Why do So many DDG's have no Ram launcher in the vacant weapons spot ahead of the Bridge??? Facing the Chinese in the next few years our DDG's need as many point defense Mounts as we can stuff on them... Preferably the RAM's!!! The Phalanx is just SO OVER Matched and worthless against the new Hypersonic missiles that give the Phalanx only a second to target them with only an effective range of 1,000 meters. With only a 1,000 meters to engage, even if the Phalanx hits and kills the diving missile the Warhead still has a good chance of hitting the ship.
I noticed that but I think it’s to install laser systems. But they should have them installed until lasers are ready
They are over matched by this generation of weapons, but removing all of them altogether in favor of point defense geared wholly & solely for the highest tier threats, it leaves the kind of gap we're seeing more & more in modern platforms against simpler threats. Swarms and wave assaults can simply deplete magazines and leave a platform altogether defenseless against whatever might follow. I absolutely agree that wherever a weapon can go, a weapon should go, but we must be careful not to blind ourselves to one threat for fear of another, which necessitates adequate defenses to handle any & all comers. And that likely means we'll need to start getting more creative & flexible. Eventually, we're simply gonna be all out of hard mounts for additional weapons to address lower tier threats in order to maintain adequate point defenses (e.g. 2 RAM launchers per hull) against top tier threats, so bringing a mobile Centaurian or another containerized autocannon system intended for base or airfield defense on land onto the deck and figuring out how to make it work out at sea to fill the gap, might not be a great option, but also might be necessary.
Because USN already having ESSMs, while the chinese dont have similiar quadpack SAM system and going to their own RAMs
I feel like they need a heavy ship to pack air defense systems on it or we can go with a lot of small missile boats for point defense
"Larger launchers"? Than what? The Mk41? The Mk57? A onesie/twosie for large hypersonic weapons? How about learning from the Chinese on their Type 055s. The Mk41 is going to restrict us for decades to come. The USN is screwing the pooch -again- by not using the Zumwalt hull for the DDG(X).
There is a new launcher being developed. It is called large missile vertical launch systems (LMVLS). www.navalnews.com/event-news/sna-2023/2023/01/us-navy-sets-out-capability-imperatives-for-ddgx/
@@NavalNews Yeah, I knew about the CPS they're stuffing in the Zumwalts. I was hoping for a multipurpose VLS with larger cells. Think SK's VLS II or the system in the Type 055s. Both dwarf even the Mk57s when it comes to cell size. Northrop Grumman's Modular Launch System was interesting.
I think the Navy had some cutbacks for a couple terms, didn't they start building DDGX IN2009 OR 10?
@@NavalNews those launchers are way smaller than what the Chinese have…we need bigger launchers that hold more missiles…or better yet a bigger destroyer….a destroyer should be able to bring 120 missiles to a fight whether it’s air defense or anti ship warfare
IS DDG(X) POWERFUL ?
The DDGX IS A BAD MF, soo. As they get all the kinks out. We also have vessels that are unmanned, their ran like a drone.
The Constellation will deliver in FY26?! It's a frigate, not the next-gen DDG. If the USN and the national ship-building capacity across various firms can't do better than a basic combatant built and fielded in under 3 years, then the United States will simply continue to fall behind the PLAN in terms of combat-ready hulls.
I find it hard to believe that we can no longer design a sturdy and modular hull that is capable of growth when adding near-future systems and which is also for multi-mission deployments- until I remember that the DoD generally has a horrific procurement process where the incentives for cost-control and accountability are either nearly non-existent or poorly enforced due to politics, commercial exploitation and corruption.
The PLA just laid down the hull for their Type 54B frigate, a design that is an improvement on the previous Type 54A but with larger weapon capacities and phase array radar like the Constellation class. This is also why despite all the supposed outrage with the LCS, the US Navy is still keeping them to operate in a lower intensive area like the 4th Fleet that operates in Latin American waters. As the Admiral explained in the video, they are still operating the LCS in the 2nd and the 6th Fleet of Atlantic Fleets, as well as the 3rd and 7th Fleet of the Pacific Fleets, as well as the 5th Fleets of US Central Command. So, despite all the problems you heard about the LCS, the US Navy is still keeping a large chunk of these ships. Remember, there is probably pressure from the Chief of Naval Operations to increase the size of the US Navy's ships. Not all ships are bigger ships like frigates, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and even submarines. You would also find in most navies of the world, the backbone is mostly smaller ships like the LCS.
@@bermanmo6237 My comment was about the significant dysfunction that exists in the US ship building infrastructure (spanning the requirements of a skilled workforce, materials procurement and systems integration). Betcha the PLAN won't take three years to put the Type 54B hull into the water...
@@thomasromanelli2561 in the US, protecting the profitability of the ship builders is the highest priority. the second priority is keeping the bank accounts of politicians, admirals growing. Making modular, flexible ships would commoditized warship production thus lowering profit margins. Everyone in the military industrial complex want to keep the development of military systems at the "boutique' levels where they can overcharge the tax payers. If a weapon platform doesn't end up costing at least twice as much as originally projected and 50% late, then something is wrong. PLAN is communist/socialist so they can be efficient but the US is capitalist and we are govern by the sacred golden rule "charge more, give less".
You got that right, politics ! They are weakening the U.S.. Do t think we'll have e to worry about Russia, they had to get a carrier from China. Thiers is still gotta be towed! Lol
corruption in action.... crazy that they would give the contracts to the same company's that completely failed on the lcs