Agree...The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program tried to incorporate too many advanced, 'futuristic' features all at once. Additionally, Congress complicated things by choosing to fund both designs (the Freedom and Independence classes) rather than selecting one, which led to..."challenges". Unfortunately, with the new Constellation-class frigate program, it seems we may be repeating some of these mistakes by not fully applying lessons learned from the more successful Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) ships. The ESB program's success shows the value of a simpler, more focused design approach that prioritizes practical needs over experimental features and really adopting the off-the-shelf ship design vs. trying to modify it a million ways.
@@mjk9388The constellation class could work, if they stuck with building on top of the FREMM frigates. Then everyone wanted changes made when the project already set off
They are very vague on the propulsion plant. Tough to be roll on roll off and have propulsion for these speeds. Its why the only real vessels similar to this are much bigger. MSVL, French EDA-R, and soon the Japanese version of MSVL. Those are also displacement hulls because a small planning hull with heavy gear in even a calm ocean is going to be rough.
i like it, nice idea ... looks like a bigger vary of the STRB 90, where the front opens up to release soldiers, this for vehicles now, but i think perfect would be a vary for a single tank and arrmored vehicles ... also the ramp should be flatter, could imagine soldiers running up and down could become a trip hazard ... also do i have to mind on the landing crafts in the normandy in WW2, where soldiers were killed by leaving the vehicle, which led to the development of rear-doors, so an armored plate or something protective would be good
looks very nice but this is very niche as it is bigger than the Swedish CB90 craft to land small commando unit discretely and quickly, but smaller than other typical landing crafts (LCAC, Edar, etc..) which can deploy tanks, trucks, IFV etc.... looking at the video this only seems to be able to fit an ATV or small 4x4, maybe a JTLV at best, but certainly not an APC, IFV, tank, SPG artillery, Himars etc.... either way it is either too big or too small my 2 cents
It's a niche requirement. A stealthy landing craft which excludes hover craft or most existing landing craft with the ability to deliver infantry and light vehicles for rapid raiding
This is where I started getting into landing craft. Assault boats need to move vehicles in way too many scenarios. trick is if you go this route you build too small a box and the vehicle needs to be too light. You end up moving Polaris type vehicles as are seen here. Might work great for special operations, but the Marines will need something uncovered and hence less stealthy.
@@admiralmallard7500 Yes, but right now they are really too big and too expensive, designed for M1s. We need a landing craft to move on water what a C-130 moves by air.
3:13 Almost anything human scale (scale seems off 3:06?) and above will soon be 'uncrewable' by virtue - worst case - of having human-scale adapters operating manual controls. It must be a dodgy decision currently to deliberately *add* uncrewed operation as an optional feature to larger vehicles. I'm surprised we haven't yet seen even a peek of a demo featuring a handful of someone's teleoperated 'humanoid' prototypes manning different stations on a marine or ground craft. I think there are naval command deck simulators not far from me that would be an ideal first place to test that idea out...
![[ENG SUB] ⚓ #FDI Ep 01: Power at sea](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j5IE16s5sek/mqdefault.jpg)
The pop up turrets, very 1980's toys.
Anything with “Littoral” is going to trigger bad memories of the LCS Program…
This.
Agree...The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program tried to incorporate too many advanced, 'futuristic' features all at once. Additionally, Congress complicated things by choosing to fund both designs (the Freedom and Independence classes) rather than selecting one, which led to..."challenges". Unfortunately, with the new Constellation-class frigate program, it seems we may be repeating some of these mistakes by not fully applying lessons learned from the more successful Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) ships. The ESB program's success shows the value of a simpler, more focused design approach that prioritizes practical needs over experimental features and really adopting the off-the-shelf ship design vs. trying to modify it a million ways.
@@mjk9388The constellation class could work, if they stuck with building on top of the FREMM frigates. Then everyone wanted changes made when the project already set off
@@tatonoot1950 Totally agree
Just because US companies failed doesn't necessarily mean everybody else would in this regard 🚢
Always appreciate your work! I’d love to do something like this!
They are very vague on the propulsion plant. Tough to be roll on roll off and have propulsion for these speeds. Its why the only real vessels similar to this are much bigger. MSVL, French EDA-R, and soon the Japanese version of MSVL. Those are also displacement hulls because a small planning hull with heavy gear in even a calm ocean is going to be rough.
Please build prototype LSC, it's a great conceptual design
i like it, nice idea ... looks like a bigger vary of the STRB 90, where the front opens up to release soldiers, this for vehicles now, but i think perfect would be a vary for a single tank and arrmored vehicles ...
also the ramp should be flatter, could imagine soldiers running up and down could become a trip hazard ... also do i have to mind on the landing crafts in the normandy in WW2, where soldiers were killed by leaving the vehicle, which led to the development of rear-doors, so an armored plate or something protective would be good
No mention of 'raiding'. Has there been a doctrine change?
She-Jean-Peeng is watching 🧐 no joke, unblinking!!
looks very nice
but this is very niche as it is bigger than the Swedish CB90 craft to land small commando unit discretely and quickly, but smaller than other typical landing crafts (LCAC, Edar, etc..) which can deploy tanks, trucks, IFV etc....
looking at the video this only seems to be able to fit an ATV or small 4x4, maybe a JTLV at best, but certainly not an APC, IFV, tank, SPG artillery, Himars etc....
either way it is either too big or too small
my 2 cents
It's a niche requirement. A stealthy landing craft which excludes hover craft or most existing landing craft with the ability to deliver infantry and light vehicles for rapid raiding
So the strike craft is, in a way, a larger complimentary version of the CB90? Cool!
This is where I started getting into landing craft. Assault boats need to move vehicles in way too many scenarios. trick is if you go this route you build too small a box and the vehicle needs to be too light. You end up moving Polaris type vehicles as are seen here. Might work great for special operations, but the Marines will need something uncovered and hence less stealthy.
@@jm2453Larger landing crafts will still be needed to complement stuff like LSC
@@admiralmallard7500 Yes, but right now they are really too big and too expensive, designed for M1s. We need a landing craft to move on water what a C-130 moves by air.
3:13 Almost anything human scale (scale seems off 3:06?) and above will soon be 'uncrewable' by virtue - worst case - of having human-scale adapters operating manual controls. It must be a dodgy decision currently to deliberately *add* uncrewed operation as an optional feature to larger vehicles. I'm surprised we haven't yet seen even a peek of a demo featuring a handful of someone's teleoperated 'humanoid' prototypes manning different stations on a marine or ground craft.
I think there are naval command deck simulators not far from me that would be an ideal first place to test that idea out...
🤔Achei fantástico , para o Brazil usar na Amazônia contra narcotraficantes e garinpeiros.
vive le Dixmude!
That whole exchange at about 3:15 hits hard. It's not "futuristic;" it's the literal near future. We all know. We can all picture it.
The stupid bae keeps geting contracts while small businesses in usa are wiping their asses its just not fair
Littoral Just needs a c at the beginning 😂
Lol
Errr umm errrrrr
Greek subs please❤
This just smells like they are looking for a gov contract and then 10 yrs of developement. Grunts should be designing this, not some guy in a suit.
Taking their suggestions sure…. Designing 🤨….nay
@adamhodgson8851 *consulting.
Just another boutique, overpriced and over-engineered item
Jesus is king
Devil in disguise...
This whole endtime nonsense gets on my nerves. Get a grip
@@daikucoffee5316 Are you guys bots?
@ I’m anything you want me to be sweetie 😘
@XavierVavasseur , We’re Still Waiting on for Your piece on the Type 052C/D destroyer…🧯