Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3tSp1oo Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free: 500 doubloons, 1.5 million credits, 7 Days of Premium Account time, and a ship! Applicable to new users only.
@kskeel1124
10 ай бұрын
Canada's entire military is a failure and a joke...
@johns70
8 ай бұрын
It would do great in the Baltic Sea. Sell 2-4 of the Freedom class to Sweden.
@Cris-xy2gi
11 ай бұрын
My father was in a position where he tasked assets out to hunt narcos subs... he said the LCS's were by far the most unreliable platform. Near-constantly down for maintenance and unable to be sortied.
@allangibson8494
11 ай бұрын
Wrong application. Like using an aircraft carrier to chase smugglers.
@dominuslogik484
11 ай бұрын
@@allangibson8494 the LCS are literally supposed to be used in the (littorals which is near coastal waters) and against asymmetric threats which means they were supposed to chase after non peer militant threats such as small boats and the like. so that was the closest to their actual purpose possible.
@Cris-xy2gi
9 ай бұрын
@@allangibson8494 They were designed to deal with coastal threats so yes actually this is supposed to be within it’s mission set.
@allangibson8494
9 ай бұрын
@@Cris-xy2gi And the US Navy has been using them as DESTROYERS to chase submarines in the Pacific. As to having problems with hull cracks, the entire Iowa class battleships had severe hull cracking problems (they had welded patches put on in the 1980’s when they were recommissioned and a number of WW2 cruisers had similar issues (including one losing it’s forward third of its hull).
@Cris-xy2gi
9 ай бұрын
@@allangibson8494 The USN is decommissioning most of them and the remaining ones are being turned into dedicated mine sweepers, not sub hunters. They definitely aren't being used as destroyers. And what does the Iowa have to do with any of this?
@BravoCheesecake
11 ай бұрын
The navy needs to stop building 30 ships just to test new concepts like Aluminum hulls, low RCS designs and composite mast/sensor arrays.
@xmeda
11 ай бұрын
It is not about testing :D :D It is just taxpayer money draining. Nothing else. You can observe this on most US weapons/systems. Overpriced junk unusable anywhere but some sealclubbing style of invasions.
@tedferkin
11 ай бұрын
Indeed, I think the situation was more one of an engineering failure than a concept. I've worked on a military project, where again they wanted the world fitted into a kitchen sink. Once we convinced them to pair down the initial objectives, things finally started to move, only twenty years behind schedule. What needs to happen is the military guys who are going to be operating these systems and engineers need to sit down and create a workable set of criteria, then work out costs. At that point the managers and politicians can get involved, and not before.
@米空軍パイロット
11 ай бұрын
The USN should repeat the success of the V-boat program where they built 5 different classes of submarine prototypes for 9 boats total. Then after a decade of development, the best model was mass produced.
@Echowhiskeyone
11 ай бұрын
@@tedferkin Engineering and modules. Many modules either came to the fleet not working or never made it to the fleet because they did not work.
@complexblackness
11 ай бұрын
@@米空軍パイロットjust looked up the program. It could work.
@NJbldragon
11 ай бұрын
I remember making an essay about how bad these would be in a conflict for college like a decade ago. I'm amazed and horrified at how correct I was even with loose knowledge of navy vessels.
@sli-fox
11 ай бұрын
I would take a decommissioned Freedom class and turn it into my personal yacht.
@mastathrash5609
11 ай бұрын
You can probably find something more reliable in the same style on the civilian market for about the same price I would bet.
@sli-fox
11 ай бұрын
@@mastathrash5609 Just wouldn’t be the same.
@mastathrash5609
11 ай бұрын
@@sli-fox that's fair honestly. If you gave it a good home, I say right on. 👍 honestly it would make a pretty sweet mcmansion-boat. Edit ( It probably would have more room than a lot of houses tbh. Long as you find a place to park it.)
@Blearu
11 ай бұрын
Good luck with the maintenance, not fun when the A/C goes down for an entire day in the summer heat or when one of the generators goes down in the most inconvenient times.
@sli-fox
11 ай бұрын
@@Blearu if the AC went down, I’ll relax in the pool while my minions perform repairs.
@1977Yakko
11 ай бұрын
The suggestion of "give them to the Coast Guard" has been floated but they don't want them either. The maintenance debacle these ships are make that cost prohibitive.
@patrickradcliffe3837
11 ай бұрын
It was a BAD idea from the start. When I saw the specs while I was still in the canoe club knew it would never live up to the hype. Most of my fellow shipmates wondered why they didn't just bring the OHP frigates back they were way more capable and been specialized for specific missions and left that way.
@syjiang
11 ай бұрын
Look at how the contract was written, which state the builder/maintenance provider is based in and which senator sits on the committee overseeing Navy budget and one would know why they keep building these lemons. Navy can't even perform their own maintenance as the ship tech was proprietary and have to contract civilian vendors to come do maintenance. At least it seems the navy is learning the lessons from LCS and Zumwalt procurement.
@DIREWOLFx75
11 ай бұрын
"It was a BAD idea from the start." Oh no, the basic idea was just fine(as is mentioned, other nations have done similar stuff without problem, Denmark, Sweden etc). But they were trying to put cruiser level packages of ability into a corvette/frigate. And then had engineers that appears to have spent more time smoking something interesting than doing basic math to make sure things connected properly together.
@jgw9990
10 ай бұрын
@DIREWOLFx75 Denmark and Sweden don't have to cross an ocean to reach the battlefield. America's geography means they innately need larger longer range ships.
@DIREWOLFx75
10 ай бұрын
@@jgw9990 That has absolutely ZERO to dow with all the epic level failures these ships have. Quite the opposite even! The modular design attempt was laughably inept. With the Swedish Visby corvettes, despite the much smaller size, which is a severe issue for this, the modular design worked as conceptualised, even if they essentially dumped the ability to quickchange modules as it was simply not useful enough to be worth it. But USA, even with all that much extra space, utterly failed to achieve something even halfway as functional. "America's geography means they innately need larger longer range ships." Really? USA is not an island nation. USA have no real enemies anywhere remotely near their coasts. No, USAs geography has absolutely nothing to do with it. USAs aggressive and psychopathic imperialism have everything to do with it. Behaving like the absolute worst combination of imperial Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium and UK.
@jgw9990
10 ай бұрын
@@DIREWOLFx75 Ah yes. I saw your raving comments in other places. I have nothing to say to you.
@jasnix
11 ай бұрын
The USN didn't take a page from the others navies (Not invented here syndrome) that successfully implemented the modular sensor and weapons (dutch I think). The short version is that you need more R&D to pull this off, as well as a ton of design and iteration to pull off, and a well hammered out messaging protocol for the modules to communicate with each other as well as the CIC. They never did that ground work.
@dwwolf4636
11 ай бұрын
Danish : Stanflex.
@rocketassistedgoat1079
11 ай бұрын
I think you might be right. The French spent 1 million man hours designing the FDI frigate (what will replace the FREMM, at least at the shipyards), which is a feature. The Dutch wouldn't be far off with their Iver Hann..isk.... modular corvette cruiser.
@gumpyoldbugger6944
9 ай бұрын
Even the older modular system of the very humble and small Kingston-class coastal patrol ships of the RCN were better designed and implemented.
@MartinRivers26
9 ай бұрын
You beat me to it. I was thinking much the same thing.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
You’re thinking of the Danes, but yeah.
@texasranger24
11 ай бұрын
Design by comittee rarely goes well. Meanwhile, the "interim" solutions of ready and market available products purchased to replace the desaster after a few months tend to live for a long time. The M16 was an interim solution and became the greatest and one of the most used and produced rifles ever.
@dominuslogik484
11 ай бұрын
actually the M16 was not an interim solution, it was the hated and "over designed" rifle of its day but by the M16A2 it was a solid and reliable platform that became what we know today. the army and a lot of the military high brass fought against its adoption tooth and nail in the 60s
@widescreennavel
11 ай бұрын
If you know boats, you know two hulls are twice the trouble if they are as autonomous and widely separated as the hulls on these Littoral ships. The bending moments at sea must be enormous, leading to strains and forces exceeding what any material is capable of holding. They need to fire the computer that designed these ships. A human being would know that there's no way to keep two hulls connected without cracking and bending eventually.
@michaelbatson8170
11 ай бұрын
I heard that they built it where two different types of metal touching each other. Then it just so happens that when those metals touch, corrosion starts . So both the metals eat or melt each other. With the one spot they come together,is the main spot to hold the ship together. American military leaders are trying to bridge the gap of shallow water and slightly deeper water patrol boats. That they just don’t have. The cyclone patrol boats had filled the spot, but no longer do.
@AndrewinAus
11 ай бұрын
Galvanic corrosion on the Independence Class. Aluminium allowed to touch steel in the presence of a conductor like salt water causes the reaction. They had to try solutions like using sacrificial anodes to try and deal with it.
@johntrottier1162
11 ай бұрын
Not really that surprising a story. The US Defense Department goes through this about every 40 years. Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" rode into town in 1960 shouting to the rooftops about how they were going to "clean up the waste in the Pentagon. The flagship project was going to be the "Universal Fighter". It would do air superiority, bombing and recon for the Air Force. For the Navy it would launch off a carrier, do fleet defense, escort strike missions, and for the Marine Corps it would do close air support. The result was the F-111 Aardvark, the bastard child the Air force tried to find a place for and never could. The Navy and Marine Corp bailed out when the weight went over what a carrier could support and had to start their projects over. Billions went down that rat hole, and the LCS ships just follow the tradition of promising anything and every thing to get the contract and then failing miserably to deliver.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
Sorta, kinda. The F-111 was eventually salvaged. Though. Turned out they made great EW platforms and missile trucks.
@jgw9990
3 ай бұрын
The Aardvark performed really well in combat though
@2sudonim
11 ай бұрын
How can you talk about the LCS without mentioning the utter corruption that obviously went into all stages of this program?
@Levisnteeshirt1
11 ай бұрын
Had to be ,, they could have extended the life of all of the FFGs and rearmed them for what they wasted on these things
@rocketassistedgoat1079
11 ай бұрын
Let me guess...a MAGA conspiracy theorist, right?
@2sudonim
11 ай бұрын
@@rocketassistedgoat1079 I'm a radical leftist Black activist, a vegan, and a pacifist. I'm the part opposite of a MAGAt. And it's not a conspiracy theory. The procurement was quite nakedly corrupt.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
@@rocketassistedgoat1079No, this has nothing to do with MAGA. The LCS was regarded as a boondoggle by the late ‘00s. Stopping one of these white elephant programs once it gets going is just a nightmare. Doesn’t matter who’s in office.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
That’s what happens when you start spreading contracts around to dozens of different Congressional districts. It becomes Too Big To Fail.
@FoxtrotYouniform
11 ай бұрын
the Independence Class breaks my heart, because it is _exactly_ the ship my inner 7 year old has always wanted to exist, and it is total poopy dookie
@GeofftheIronwolf
11 ай бұрын
The Navy tried to give a ship smaller than a Corvette the combat capabilities of a cruiser and are shocked it failed. Idiots.
@jesusdiaz3776
11 ай бұрын
Mmmm no. the Navy made a frigate sice and destroyer like operation cost "warship" with the combat capabilities of a fkn OPV. 😅
@HD-mp6yy
11 ай бұрын
@@laughingowl7896The Zumwalts are nearly Battleships they are over the Washington treaty limit for cruisers and only 3000t lighter than the HMS Dreadnought. NATO should really revise ship classification.
@aymonfoxc1442
11 ай бұрын
Other countries have succeeded and exceeded the capabilities of the USN's old cruisers with newer, smaller vessels.
@HingerlAlois
11 ай бұрын
They‘re larger than the Sa’ar 6 class corvettes (based on the Braunschweig class of the German Navy) of the Israeli Navy.
@GeofftheIronwolf
11 ай бұрын
@@HingerlAlois ok so I got the size wrong. Mea Culpa. The rest of the point still stands. They tried to do too much with too little hull. Plain and simple
@knowahnosenothing4862
11 ай бұрын
Anyone making an aluminum warship didn't learn from the Falklands war. They catch fire and burn like beer cans.
@cjthebeesknees
11 ай бұрын
The corvette/frigate sized ships is a nominal and in theory, economic idea on paper, having a small strategic fleet of ships like that to serve in various roles would be viable if not for plenty of corruption mixed with greedy manufacturers and apathetic sympathies. Aesthetic wise too, looked modular and modern. The look good and “cool” category ultimately scored high marks but that’s about the only notable success in this debacle.
@dwwolf4636
11 ай бұрын
Yer giving them too much credit Matsimus. It never made sense. It had 3 roles. ASW. Minehunting. Small craft hunting. 2 out of those 3 roles do not require 3500-4000 ton ships moving at >48 knots. = Wasted space and money. Hell those 2 requirements are diametrically opposed to noise and speed. The last one is probably better served by either making a 50 - 60 yard-ish ship that you forward deploy. 76mm OM gun, guided ammo. SEARAM self defense. Drones for spotting and lasing. Spear/Brimstone class missiles. Or adding small/medium sized drones with a multi use missile like Martlett. Or adding those drones to normal ships and adding the Martlets to the autocannon RWS most US warships already have. Engineering wise they shouldve built prototypes and tested the heck out of em. The only thing the LCS contract was is a "extract money from taxpayers" scheme.
@SA-xf1eb
11 ай бұрын
US Mil likes to reinvent the wheel. They could have just modified the Visby-class or Hamina class to USN specs.
@thalo215
11 ай бұрын
that would have been vastly cheaper and vastly better vessels
@gumpyoldbugger6944
9 ай бұрын
The only branch ofthe US military who are willing and ready to adopt foreign military designs and equipment ia the US Marine Corp., all others are loathe to follow suite.
@zemog1025
11 ай бұрын
The LCS's and the Zummwalt's are perfect examples of what happens when a force lost its focus after the Cold War. The USN was never and has never been a littoral combat force, it is a high seas navy. The US has the Coast Guard for the littoral role, the littoral role is a coastal patrol role and not a global projection or expeditionary one. Back in the 80s the USN developed the excellent Pegasus PGM hydrofoil boats for a littoral patrol/denial role and the Navy could not figure out why they built them and shelved them after a few years, sound familiar? The big difference was that there were only 6 Pegasus class PGM's built and not 32 boats that don't work and have no real mission, the cause being too much available funding and being pushed into a mission that the Navy does not traditionally perform or highly compromised in the missions that the Navy doe perform.
@raptorshootingsystems3379
5 ай бұрын
The Pegasus hydrofoils sat down in Key West basically supplementing the coast guard. They were an evolution of many generations of hydrofoil development and they did work. Other than high fuel consumption, the only flaw was the blue water navy likes their big ships with lots of firepower. Similarly, the U.S. Air Force likes fast fighters and strategic bombers, not CAS like the A-10 which they have tried to cancel for decades. Of course, a big reason the Cheyenne attack was killed was the USAF didn’t want the U.S. Army having such a fast attack helicopter.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
I can't believe we're still making more of these things...There are 4 or 5 more of them under construction.
@RobertCraft-re5sf
11 ай бұрын
I honestly believe there are bad actors just trying to make money and don't want us to have good ships.
@shannonkohl68
11 ай бұрын
Let's be honest. The LCS was conceived as a way for the Navy to increase their share of the defense budget back when it looked like fighting terrorists was the only thing the US military would ever do again. It was a stupid idea then and plenty of people pointed that out at the time. But bureaucrats and politicians never let the fact that a project was stupid get in the way of spending the money of future taxpayers. And I don't want to just pick on the Navy, the USAF and Army have done plenty of this in the past.
@pickititllneverheal9016
11 ай бұрын
When they build a self healing hull. Let me know. 😂
@Hybris51129
11 ай бұрын
The more roles you give a vessel the higher tonnage that vessel needs to be to accomplish that. I remember growing up and seeing all the navy recruiting ads featuring these ships and even as a teenager with a then modest knowledge of naval history had trouble pinning down what it was meant to do. Launch helicopters? A small carrier coukd do that much better. Launch spec ops teams? A submarine is a lot more stealthy of a platform. Missile boat? How many reloads can you pack on such a small ship? The thing is that when I think of countering China or Russia it's going to be carrier fleets doing the heavy lifting with submarines being the daggers that find and exploit the gaps in the armor.
@DIREWOLFx75
11 ай бұрын
"The thing is that when I think of countering China or Russia it's going to be carrier fleets doing the heavy lifting with submarines being the daggers that find and exploit the gaps in the armor." Carriers are sitting ducks targets when the opposition have high quality hypersonics. Heck, even the Russian supersonic missiles are guaranteed death for USN carrier groups. Just need more of them. There's a reason why Russia(and China) prefer supersonic missiles to the subsonics that is the common in USN. And in the last 10 years, Russia have already shown that even its BIG SSBNs are perfectly capable of disappearing from USN detection as they please. And now that USA have stupidly made certain that Russia and China will be close allies for the foreseeable future, Russian submarine and ASW tech is going to trickle into China. And the ONLY area where Chinese navy is clearly inferior to USN is submarine and ASW tech. China already have 8 Type 055 DDGs active, and after US officers openly talked about "war with China before 2025" last year, as well as all the nasty revelations about USA, Nato and EU due to their Ukraine disaster, China has essentially DOUBLED its spending on fleet buildup. And China has around 10 times the industrial production ability of USA. Countering Russia? Hah! Countering China? *lol* ROFLMAO!!! Just like all other conflicts started by the Washington kakistocratic oligarchy, it will end in disaster when they try. Just the fact that USA screwed Europe over means that soon, there will be no allies in Europe with any meaningful military forces to help the US world hegemony retain its stranglehold on Earth. Well, good riddance to bad rubbish. Couldn't have happened to a more evil and deserving bully. I just hope i survive the calamity.
@Hybris51129
11 ай бұрын
@@DIREWOLFx75 Europe has done all the work to screw themselves over. They decided to outsource their defense to the US so they can enjoy their "social safety nets" and it's coming to bite them. Beyond that there is a fair amount of truth to your statements. The USN is behind on missile tech. That said how many and of what quality the Chinese hypersonic missiles is still a unknown factor. They could turn out to be no more than a paper tiger at least until the bugs are worked out later in a conflict. Besides that if you really think that the US is a bully then you really don't know what a real bully can be considering our consistent half assed efforts over the last 50+ years.
@johnnyenglish583
11 ай бұрын
but these ships weren't designed to counter China, they were designed for asymmetrical threats, mostly attacking targets inland or possibly defending against a weaker, less developed, much smaller navy of countries like Iraq, Yemen, pirates on the Horn of Africa etc.
@dominuslogik484
11 ай бұрын
@@DIREWOLFx75 TL;DR "America bad" is his entire rant and he unironically believes Russia and china at their word which is hilarious and doesn't need explanation.
@dominuslogik484
11 ай бұрын
@@johnnyenglish583 yep, they are from the era of the war on terror and their mission scope was too specific yet simultaneously too complex.
@HD-mp6yy
11 ай бұрын
I call them Sims-Class 2.0 the USN should stop trying to designing destroyers with more capabilities than their displacement suggest. Well is stip beats the Mark 14 so the LCS isn't the worst mistake of the USN.
@tzenzhongguo
11 ай бұрын
US Navy Clitoral combat ship. 🤣🤣🤣
@Valkyrie9000
11 ай бұрын
I'm just glad nobody died trying to use these things in combat.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
Yet.
@dustybricks113
11 ай бұрын
The concept was ahead of its time, but it tried to be everything at once. Combine this with multiple untested, unproven technologies, along with congressional backing, made it a failure before it was built. A fast, corvette with a lethal arsenal that could be flexable enough to do what larger ships couldn't was the intent. This is a gap in most navies around the world in my opinion. Large navies neglect it while trying to over compensate with ever larger more cappable, more expensive ships. While smaller navies that have great corvettes lack the larger ships to back them up in an operational theater. There is a limit a corvette can carry, so each choice is amplified if not done properly. These ships can't protect themselves in a open battle environment, and would pose a little threat. Therefor the money could be spent on other ships that actually might be able to not fall apart when sailing in moderate seas. The Japanese showed naval historians this about a hundred years ago with ships that sank themselves. They learned, why can't we?😊
@nicholassmidsmid2808
5 ай бұрын
Very little on the mechanical side is new and the level of incompetence required to stuff such basic things up makes me wonder how many people lost there jobs, oh I forgot this is America we are talking about you get promoted for stuff like this
@KNETTWERX
11 ай бұрын
Just a thought here… Our ship builders and Navy tried to do something so radical and different too quickly. They should have done 2 of each hull, and tested them extensively before making anymore. Only once we perfected the design would we build more. The US does not operate corvette class ships (let’s face it, these are corvettes) and has zero experience in the design and operation of them. We also fell into the blunder of trying to make these limited space ships a sort of transformer by switching modules and take up more missions than feasible. I know the mine sweepers and mine warfare ships are in limited supply in the US Navy, but I personally think we could do better with purpose built platforms, and converting older amphibious ships that are no longer used or needed for their original roll. (For example an LPH was used as a mine warfare ship in the past, and from all accounts very successfully. The ability to launch multiple helicopters to sweep for mines was a great idea.) My personal opinion is that the LCS platform should have been limited in scope and mission sets to just a few. In particular they would have excelled at (if perfected) at counter piracy, counter narcos, and costal patrol missions not in the theatre of war. They had potential to be special ops platforms to launch SEALs and Raiders, do VBSS (Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure) on suspicious civilian vessels, chase down Somali pirates, and hunt for narco subs.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
Modern amphibs are the size of WWII aircraft carriers…
@phil20_20
11 ай бұрын
The whole concept was headed south from the moment they named it. It's a corvette, dammit! (And a lousy one at that) This was, and still is, one of the worst pork barrel projects ever to make it through Congress.
@trob1173
4 ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure some politicians and others in the MIC got rather wealthy building a bunch of ships and modular systems that couldn't/wouldn't be usable.
@mcyte314
11 ай бұрын
The LCS never had potential. Numerous conceptual flaws were obvious from the very beginning. Such as the inadequate armament both for offense ans self-defense. Others were obvious once you started thinking about that. Like expecting the crews to excel the same way at different specialized tasks swarm killing and mine warfare. Others were less obvious such as the various mechanical problems.
@BluefootOnEire
11 ай бұрын
Way too many innovations being tried on a new two new platforms. We're getting little to nothing for a cost comparable to a DDG.
@perelfberg7415
11 ай бұрын
I find one of the major issues here in this program was the inability to deal with the complexity that com from the size. They just dod not have enough experience in building small ship woth the missions moules. Early on US had interest in Visby corbvets that are very similar in concept. Though that fell out as there was no interest in sharing technology as the ships needed to be built in US and swedish capacity was way to low for the number of hulls. Another issue that probably killed the success with the LCS class was was the model of having private companies running the upkeep on the ship. The navy can not them self do prioritys to cut costs and there os an extra middle hand. Some what the same issues as to the lockeedmartin aircrafts.
@bush_wookie_9606
11 ай бұрын
I think we have entered another great leap in technology age, just like in 1950's with the jet era. Look how far countries went with design in less than 20 years. By the time something entered service it was already outdated.
@johngriffiths118
11 ай бұрын
Hint : drones
@TheNinjaDC
11 ай бұрын
The only good thing to come from this blunder is the Constellation Class frigate meant to replace this failure.
@jonshaffer5793
11 ай бұрын
I'd say the Zumwalt class was an even bigger fail. So much money poured in for very little capability.
@muzikizfun
9 ай бұрын
These ships aren't warships but floating targets. In order to be called a warship, it needs to have some serious weapons. As constructed, they lack a real punch.
@Marinealver
11 ай бұрын
New no longer means better. More often it means they found a lower bidder.
@videoviewer2008
11 ай бұрын
No good excuse for transmissions that don't work. And after cancelling about every mission package, the ships don't have much use unfortunately.
@hoplophobia7014
11 ай бұрын
I did a lot of the work related to the water jets, shaft lines, hydraulics, and controls on the odd class for Rolls Royce They are absolutely horrible vessels, just a disgusting waste of money, camouflage welfare for LM and Fic
@johngriffiths118
11 ай бұрын
What ! No beak dipping for BAE ?
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
@@johngriffiths118Brits weren’t cut in on this one.
@DIREWOLFx75
11 ай бұрын
The naval version of the F-35... Essentially, they're an epic level of engineering failure and incompetence. Hoardes upon hoardes of the problems of these ships were not only predictable, but actually PREDICTED. The concept was MOSTLY perfectly fine, though the ships should have started out 1-2kt heavier from the start, but the execution, the designs are just hilarious showings of inability. Just the problems with integrating systems from the different modules, it just makes you go WTF!?!?!. Seriously, they can put the pieces together on a permanent basis and make them work, but NOT make them interchangeable??? And hull integrity? What? USA has been building ships for a few hundred years and still have trouble figuring out how to calculate how to make the hull strong enough for its purpose? The degree of fail is mindboggling. And very representative of the US military industry overall.
@bennuredjedi
11 ай бұрын
This is another fact of how the MIC controls the DOD. Why literally build two of the same vessels for the same purpose instead of qualifying one or the other during the procurement phase like any other platform,down selecting to the one that fits that need?! So now stuck with dozens of useless vessels for the USN, nah gib them to the USCG instead of DHS/USCG pouring more money into the MIC with its OPC program. The MIC needs to be put in check
@billestew7535
11 ай бұрын
This kind of thing worries me about the AOPS ships and Kingston class of the RCN, ships that have been originally tasked to do a certain job, but do not have sufficient armament or capability to be warships, I realize the Kingstons are long in the tooth and were supposed to be minesweeper/ patrol and training vessels but their replacements should be actual warships that can be part of a NATO Naval Squadron and not be an embarrassment. Speed, range, seakeeping, and strike capability are what is required and the government we get in Canada in the next election cycle has to pull its heads out of its nethers and recruit and retain sailors it is not a matter of money it's how the money they do get is spent and up to now it has been pathetic, designing and building a warship that can't get into a gunfight is a waste of money. If the AOPS are supposed to play a constabulary role in the north then let the R.C.M.P crew them.
@tylerandrews4375
11 ай бұрын
Canadian: “500 million a ship. Ha silly Americans.” Looks at Canada’s new frigates with a price tag of 5.6 billion each.
@richardgray7480
11 ай бұрын
Ya, I get what you are saying, but... First the Canadian Surface Combatants are more than just frigates. They perform multiple missions, but unlike the LCS, they are twice the size of our current frigates and have the room for it (just... call it a bit of a squeeze). They'd be over the Washington treaty limits for cruisers, and no one wants to call them "destroyers" for PR reasons. Secondly they are building out the yard capacity. If you add the cost of new naval yards into the project then yes it looks ridiculous. But we will have more yard capacity, and that's something we need.
@greglee1587
11 ай бұрын
Down here in Australia, we just commissioned USS Australia which was newly built. I think they said they were made cause of so much Piracy. This is because the pirates were using fast moving skips, and NAV was always getting there too late.
@AndrewinAus
11 ай бұрын
USS Canberra I think you will find.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
You’re not going to outrun pirate speedboats with frigates or corvettes. You need human intelligence identify, locate, analyze & anticipate the enemy, long-range sensors to track them and corvettes or frigates to deal with them kinetically. Trying to outrun speedboats with 3-5k tonne warships is just silly. 🙂
@jgw9990
3 ай бұрын
@@grahamstrouse1165Or you could have the warship launch the helicopter it has to sink them with a rocket or autocannon... Being that the helicopter is going to be at least 5x faster than any boat A true counter piracy vessels more or less just needs a couple of helicopters with decent range.
@bornagaingeek7279
11 ай бұрын
A certain amount of irony, that ships built to be adaptable couldn't adapt to the stategic shift in priorities and threats. Also, perhaps one of the lessons learnd would b to limit the number of ships orderd, at leat in the first batch. If they'd built 5 or 6, the issues raised would be quickly ralised without further commitment. Then the solutions could be built into the following designs. Presumably these would better suit smaller navies that aren't flanked by massive oceans, have a narrower scope of tasks, and predominately operate in a defencive posture. If the engineering issues could be rectified, they might be well employed in low theat areas to free up dedicated warships. A theater that requires pressance and diplomatc reassureance, but not a destroyer. They might even do well in the coast guard. Otherwise, perhaps the export market is the best option to recoup funds whilst upgrading friendly nations.
@ashvandal5697
11 ай бұрын
In hindsight, modular shop design seems like a problem for much smaller navies. If you want a ship to do something well, the ship needs to be optimized to perform that role, and the crew also needs to be optimized to perform that role, and that matters a lot on a small ship. The us navy is large, and can afford to make ships specifically for a role and then attach them to tasks forces as needed for the mission. That’s how we do things. All that being said, the LCSs were just flawed hull designs and poor project management coupled with scatterbrained mission requirements of the navy common during the GWoT period. So many projects failed because we took our eye off peer competition and decided we were gonna do low intensity conflict forevermore, which was poor grand strategy. The whole US Military needs to get its shit together in terms of mission planning for equipment needs, so that it can approach industry with realistic needs that can be set in stone.
@jesusdiaz3776
11 ай бұрын
I think SIGMA 10514 with the mexican POLA comfiguration was better for the LCS concept.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
That thing's more a lightly armed frigrate than anything. For some reason USN decided LCS needed to be fast, like 40kn+ fast.
@hydra8845
11 ай бұрын
The idea of modular jack of all trades war equipment, needs to stop being a thing. The ultimate idea of trying to save money will end up, actually costing more money and lives in the long run.
@MrBandholm
11 ай бұрын
It works for the Danish navy... It is also a pretty sound concept, but why invent something from new, when others have made it work?
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
For an example of a successful JOAT project, look at the F-16. Doesn't specialize is anything, but seems to be capable of doing everything one can expect of a fighter or attack jet and reasonably well. It should be studied as a successful example before people embark on further JOAT projects. The LCS ships should be studied as one of the most dismal failures before embarking on another JOAT project.
@k53847
9 ай бұрын
@@namyun2743 The F-16 design team motto was "Not a pound for air to ground." It was explicitly designed as the worlds best visual range air superiority fighter. The fact that it became multi-role is due to the quality of the design, not that it was designed for that.
@namyun2743
9 ай бұрын
@@k53847 And the F-16 handled that mission creep incredibly well. For the lack of baked-in air-to-ground when it started, It ended up with ALL the air-to-ground in the end. The LCS? It couldn't even get it's first modular mission package sorted out.
@k53847
9 ай бұрын
@@namyun2743 Well, the first iteration of the mine clearing module apparently violated the laws of physics. It included a sled that the MH-60 couldn't tow, at least safely. I have no idea how they did that.
@richardthomas4471
11 ай бұрын
Solution: Sell the LCS to Australia, apparently they'll buy anything.
@geoff-lukebihler6157
11 ай бұрын
....... sigh throws wallet at shitty ship
@iangerahty3422
11 ай бұрын
If they were given to us for free we still couldn’t afford to feed them.
@robertopiedimonte2078
9 ай бұрын
not only for the ammount of problems LCS provide, but the whole concept, plus both the resulting big fat ships (by 3 to 5 times to much the original idea)
@debratakahara2494
10 ай бұрын
I’ve always thought the LCS ships would be vulnerable and are underarmed. The navy should’ve just built a new class of frigate instead that could do everything the LCS can plus more.
@adrianbooth438
11 ай бұрын
A new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier actually costs less than what was spent on these bath toys.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
The Ford is also a boondoggle but the per unit cost is about lot more than your realize. We’re talking 13-15 billion dollars per boat and the costs aren’t going down…
@Andy81ish
11 ай бұрын
I think the idea of being able to change the role of any vessel is going to make things hard. What I would like to see is a ship design that has all the minimum requirements for all tasks (air defense, anti-sub, etc) and then have the ability to add 'Mission Enhancement modules' which might simply be a place for two 20' shipping containers. Then if you are going to do anti-piracy, add two 20' accommodation containers for pirate prisoners. You are going to do anti-sub work, load a second UH-60 Romeo in the place of the two 20' containers to give you more airtime searching. You are going to support long range surveillance or want to extend loitering time, add a 20' fuel container (that you can pipe into the ships existing 'at sea replenishment fitting'). Basically, the two (or more) 20' containers use existing civilian containers and, while they may need ship power (cold room container for frozen food to extend endurance), don't need to connect to the ships Combate Information System as the ship already has all the basic systems on it already. But you can add a couple of containers to make it better or last longer at a specific mission if you like. And those containers are off the shelf civilian models that the navy can purchase at any port around the world if they want to upgrade a specific capacity.
@robertharper3754
11 ай бұрын
There is a system like what you describe, but it is made by European company, so the US didn't/won't touch it.
@stereomaster4231
7 ай бұрын
Video starts at 2:43 ... Omg that was an ordeal of an intro ad
@_Matsimus_
7 ай бұрын
Glad you liked it bud lol
@iainburgess8577
11 ай бұрын
As an operational class? Maybe. But there's a Lot of viable development that Will feed into refits & future classes. What & how, i have no clue; but lessons learned are always useful.
@MuffHam
11 ай бұрын
It feels like this ship was designed to fail. It was a money pit. Meant to line peoples pockets.
@vn01208503
10 ай бұрын
that is one, also US needs new model to sell. Something new and way different than previous version. The previous line up was almost peak and perfect, but they can't just sell it anymore
@j.4354
9 ай бұрын
Spent some time working with the USN and you always see the new LCS in Harbour never out or joining in exercises remember coming into Harbour and a fire was announced over their pipes (broadcasting apparatus) next door to us, even the Saratoga class still rocking up from time to time and going strong and those things have fire power strapped to them.
@knightflyer909
11 ай бұрын
You forget the PRIMARY purpose for these large defense projects: to make money for CEOs and retired admirals. Ideas such as crew survival or providing effective defense systems for the country are just to quaint to have a place this sort of discussion.
@MickyChowMein69
11 ай бұрын
Yeah I heard one of those wing things got a massive crack up it. I saw footage where you could see the action of the waves made it a weak spot in the design. Should have been taken account for in the fabrication. Maybe the welders were hungover that day. Point is a clear design fault. They are right to bring the class out of service.
@NyaReyes-wp9xj
20 күн бұрын
personal perspective; realize the capabilities of a piece of equipment... A soccer mom minivan isn't intended to be a Dakar Rally entry. The LCS is capable of fulling a specific niche role ... brown water high speed sneak and peak for small unit action. A Destroyer isn't built to sneak around in shallow waters hauling unconventional and low density small land units. This whole multi mission shenanigans is kinda Murican Achilles heel. B-52 bomber has been around forever doing one mission set better than all comers. End of sermon, exit soap box stage left
@eouzcuemarz3114
11 ай бұрын
The Independence and freedom class LCS were praised long before it was being built, that was then. 😊
@craigmorris4083
11 ай бұрын
@9:37......is that....Saylor the sailor? 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😁😁
@Condor1970
11 ай бұрын
They should really pull all the high end weapons systems, and convert them over for the US Coast Guard. They would make excellent command ships for large swaths of the shoreline, and tons of interior space to focus on search and rescue operations.
@syjiang
11 ай бұрын
too expensive to maintain for the coast guard
@MrBandholm
11 ай бұрын
Why do you hate the Coastguard? The Coastguard have some of the most capabel ships in US inventory, they don't need that LCS crap
@damenster
11 ай бұрын
I just dont understand why they just didn't go for a Corvette. These ship, just like the Dutch Holland class are under armed and dont really have enough crew. A good corvette would have been beter, without asking a lot more.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
The speed. Both models of the LCS are 40kn+ capable according to paper specs. From the design they look like they're designed to patrol foreign shores like the south China sea and respond quickly to local hot spots.
@damenster
11 ай бұрын
@namyun2743 speed is not really a good reason. That is hull design and engine/propulsion power. I believe that the LCS ships have big hull problems. I would not send these send these ship beyond coastal patrol, anti drug and piracy operations (something where the Holland class is designed for). These ship are still under armed and lag a proper crew. Sending them to active warzone might be suicide for these ships.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
@@damenster I can't say I understand USN doctrine on the use of the LCS, but that crazy speed has been a core requirement since the project started and I believe is part of the reason why the ship has problems. The Holland-class at 21.5kn is too slow for USN operations much less whatever was planned for the LCS. It looks like both of the LCS are getting offensive weaponry in the form of NSM launchers. They will probably be replaced with the Constellation frigates and drone missile boats like the Ranger.
@mrjumbly2338
11 ай бұрын
These ships may not be what anyone thought they would be. I think there is a place for such ships. They are not the first ship class to disappoint. the Freedoms I see as large PT boats for hopping around the Philippines and Indonesia Island chains. The Independence types of those flight decks look to be very useful for deployment of drones and Marine landing support. they are about the same size as the Oliver hazards and the Knox classes, the Knox's were not highly thought of also, but were used. great sum up, For the time beings the Independance Class may be held longer than the Freedoms.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
Dude, PT boats were disposable, about 70-80 foot long and made from wood.
@mrjumbly2338
4 ай бұрын
@@grahamstrouse1165 The LCS is a patrol boat, what do you think littoral means? Shallow water operations. Now they need torpedo launchers. They also could work side by side with the Landing Ship Medium distributed operations for cover and operational support.
@Pincer88
11 ай бұрын
I wonder how the Pentagon and industry keep getting away with astronomical delays, cost overruns, lingering malfunctions and design flaws.The LCS isn't the only program, it's only one in a long list that indicates there's a trend here. Remember the toilets of the USS Gerald Ford? The EMALS catapult system, the Zumwalt? The KC-76 Pegasus, the woes of the F-35 with its concurrency setup, etc., etc. I'd say there's something fundamentally rotten in the procurement process. If you want to stay in any race, first thing you need to do is to improve on your basic condition before even thinking about record breaking achievements. And looking from abroad, it seems to me that's where the process - not only in the US by the way - goes woefully pear shaped. I get the distinct impression that the process is 'top heavy' (lots of managers, accountants, lawyers, shareholders, politicians, and generals/admirals involved, hardly any engineers or experienced, senior blue collar workers). It looks like departments such as PR, sales, legal, accounting & financial have taken over the design and manufacturing forces if not in actual turnover and numbers then in prevalence. If that impression is correct, what happened seems to be the exact opposite of what Richard P. Feynman has said: "For a technology to be successful, reality must take precedence over PR, for nature cannot be fooled." While nature cannot be fooled - proven many a program now - politicians and top ranking military staff can. The genuine innovation seems to be political engineering rather than actual engineering. And while innovative, 'disruptive' technologies indeed often suffer from teething problems, ones that last decades and yield almost obscene dividends to shareholders are truly unprecedented in history. One may ask the question if somehow defense contractors - like banks - have become to big to fail and too powerful to be held accountable.
@ph11p3540
9 ай бұрын
Of course the Danish know all about modular ships. They invented Lego
@willfrankunsubscribed
11 ай бұрын
Frankly, given it's design and role, I'm almost surprise that they're talking of scrapping them, instead of handing them off to the Coast Guard.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
Coast Guard don't want them. And rightly so, they get their own ships custom built to their specifications.
@willymac5036
6 ай бұрын
The LCS was built because there were high ranking officers (we are talking 3 and 4 star admirals) at the Pentagon who actually believed that the days of high end state on state warfare were over, and the foreseeable future would be states combatting terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. These decisions were being made at the same time that China was commissioning blue water naval ships at an astonishing rate. Any officer that thought that the LCS was a GOOD idea should immediately be relieved of duty and forced to retire. The entire LCS program was the biggest waste of time and money in the US Navy’s history.
@TacoSallust
11 ай бұрын
This was a stupid idea from back when I was in and the Navy was trying to sell this dumb concept to Congress.
@mattpeacock5208
11 ай бұрын
LCS was a bad idea from the get-go. It's just that simple.
@MrBandholm
11 ай бұрын
The concept was good, for another navy... The Danes, the Swedes, the Finns and the Italians could have (and have) made excellent ships from the concept, but in no way would they build batches of 30 ships, only to find out it was badly made, and overcomplicated.
@mosesgoldbergshekelstien1520
11 ай бұрын
Bad times happen when the military goes from building the most reliable ship for the job to building the most expensive ship for the job to line up jobs for brass post service I wonder how many admirals got jobs at Lockheed and Austal
@Terryray123
11 ай бұрын
Let's Change Something else...
@tgsgardenmaintenance4627
11 ай бұрын
The US appear to be unable to build a good small warship, though excelling at large warships! The complete opposite to the Russians, they appear to be able to build extremely powerful small warships, up to frigates, but nothing any larger than that! My guess is that the US has always had an offensive posture, while the Russians have always had a defensive posture! ???
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
True.
@mrjumbly2338
23 күн бұрын
Since the video was produce, I think there has been significant improvements to the program, they are retiring the Blue / Gold structure teaching the crews to do their own maintenance and repairs, sounds like they are increasing the crewing to make that happen these are a good ship and there is a place for them. There is plenty of space in these for modularity other than the what was planned. I hope to officially hear more about these. Sounds like some are getting the power plant replaced too. stand by these are not dead yet.
@honfmeilingfleet957
11 ай бұрын
in Modern Warships i use LCS class Ship for Kamikaze
@Knot_Sean
9 ай бұрын
The navy should invest toward the research of semi-submersible ships*(wether they can fully submerge like a german U-Boat or semi-submerge), a ship that can reduce there radar cross section, Appearance and generally being more stealthy in operations, This would be great for our merchant or auxiliary/ supply vessels during a conflict which would be a prime target for the enemy to attempt to attack. Vessels like them could stacked with goods and defensive weapons.
@wk7337
11 ай бұрын
AT-802u video? Follow up on your light attack video?
@TerryTurner
11 ай бұрын
It was doomed from the start.😶
@okisdr
11 ай бұрын
Now that they are placing a container based SAM in the back of it i think it might be able to become relevant again. Hopefully modular container based system will be more common soon and she can carry some anti ship missiles aswell.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
It can carry a few weapons now but it’s always gonna be weakly armed.
@cedhome7945
11 ай бұрын
The words of queen song come to mind,I want it all and I want it now !
@AlexSDU
11 ай бұрын
Instead of scraping the ships, why don't they sell them to other countries, especially countries with many islands like those in South East Asia? At least they could get back some of the money back from the LCS program.
@KaptenS1
11 ай бұрын
Denmark?? Kockums is not in Denmark. USN and Northrop Grumman personal were present during hull 1 and 2 constitution of the Visby class in the 90s. Kockums were to build the carbon fiber hulls for Northrop Grumman. Swedish ministers went to the US lobbing for the project. There is much more.
@MrBandholm
11 ай бұрын
The FLEX-sytem (the modular design of changing the ships roles) is a Danish thing.
@KaptenS1
11 ай бұрын
@@MrBandholm Thanks for the information. I changed careers in 2000.
@charlesmaurer6214
8 ай бұрын
On new concepts do 2 or 3 only and try at least 2 or 3 versions from different makers. After testing best ideas from each can be refined into the production models and the prototypes if useable can still be used in roles they are suited for and help develope other concepts as test beds like the stealth ship that was largely copied for bond in Tommorow never dies. Many concepts are themselves are not bad but are not practical en mass. The replacement for the Greyhound with a tilt rotor with as safety record so bad even some officals are banned from going on them despite being in the fleet to shuttle high officals around.
@sundragon7703
9 ай бұрын
What the US Navy needed though the DoD would never admit it was ships used by the Scandinavian navies...small, fast, economical, design-proven corvette/frigate-sized vessels that are NATO-compatible.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
Agreed
@cbr2317
11 ай бұрын
It's supposed to be a Jack of all trades, master of none. Sadly, it wasn't even a Jack it was a Tristan. NOTE: If you are named Tristan, please blame your parents.
@Terryray123
11 ай бұрын
Lockheed Cash System
@surters
11 ай бұрын
Now they will be missing the mass of small ships to keep Iran honest.
@ChristianSamsel
11 ай бұрын
The DGX feels like a worse fail
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
In some ways it is; costlier per hull, but LCS has way more hulls. Freedom-class may be salvageable though, they just need a new combiner gear. Not like the Independence-class which has a weak hull.
@ameritoast5174
11 ай бұрын
@@namyun2743 If I remember correctly they are retiring the freedom class ships and will maintain a sizable number of independence class LCS ships.
@namyun2743
11 ай бұрын
@@ameritoast5174 From what I am reading, both of them are going to be gradually downsized until there are none left. The Freedom-class has the combining gear issue which appears to be class-wide, but the Independence has the hull-cracking issue which I predict will be found to be a class-wide issue as well. The ones that get decommissioned later will allegedly get NSMs.
@juniorleslie4804
9 ай бұрын
While faster than most warships, they were not going to outrun the slowest anti ship missiles. Lol
@mohammedsaysrashid3587
11 ай бұрын
It was a wonderful video that was labeled to the failure points of this US designed warship ...thanks for sharing
@dmac7128
3 ай бұрын
In an ideal world, procurement should have been limited to 4 ships. The first examples of each class should have been prototypes and the second of each would be the final reference design. Testing would have revealed early on the problems with them and they could have been worked out. Plus it may have turned out that the mission packages were more suited to one class or another . They would have made choices to designate one type for surface warfare and the other for mine warfare and ASW. Only after the designs have been validated, crew manning, and mission packages finalized should they have gone to full production. There were too many unproven concepts and requirements to be met. At worst we would have wasted money on 4 ships. At best, we would have a better force of LCSs that are more capable of performing the missions for which it was built. In the end we would have ended up with about a dozen ships half of which designated as minesweepers and other as small surface warfare combatants. This is in fact how things are turning out. The LCS may yet turn out to be decent minesweepers. The real loss is in opportunity costs. All the money spent on these could have used to procure the next generation destroyers or be put into other proven programs in need of money.
@treebush
11 ай бұрын
please give them to canada any floating ship will be a benefit to our navy lol
@BillLaBrie
4 ай бұрын
Not such a failure. Contractors definitely didn’t think so.
@kgroovr
9 ай бұрын
This is what happens when requirements are set by think tank's, sponsored by corporations. Corruption, Corruption, Corruption. Apply it to all the project's this century, and you have the costliest, ineffective military ever.
@NSASpyVan
9 ай бұрын
Danish Navy cannot make mistakes, every single Euro spent has to mean something. America has so much money that they can make mistakes left and right and just spend money until it's fixed.
@situationalawarenes
9 ай бұрын
You do not send a lcs over to Asia-Pacific.
@bermanmo6237
11 ай бұрын
The Danish Navy successfully uses the same concept of swappable mission module. Still do.
@grahamstrouse1165
4 ай бұрын
The Danes STANFLEX modules are a lot simpler & less ambitious, which is why they work.
@bryanshoemaker6120
11 ай бұрын
From ships to Jets. What happened, why are we doing this? Before you would just make one or three of The craft. Test it to death and then use what you learned to make something good. I know the F-35 is the results of politicians getting involved, the amount of time and money that we had to dump into that thing just to make it usable, it's mind-boggling. Don't suppose politician had something to do with the design of these ships?
Пікірлер