This is a very positive and optimistic forecast for a program that had quite the uhhh dynamic beginning. I guess we could agree at this point that we started from the bottom....now.....we're here. 🎉
Excellent! These ships get bad press but I can understand exactly what capabilities they bring especially in light of their highly trained companies. Nearly all "unwanted " ships end up punching way above their weight and serve way longer than expected
@@kenwphoto They F-111ed the fleet. Instead of a new MCM, PC, and FFG we got LCS. I am still hot for what we could do with a PC that would be follow on production for Bollinger Lockport as FRC production runs out.
Everything in stages...Pretty soon there is going to be a stage where a really smart service member(s)/team who can either 3d print a major component or make or lathe a main reduction gear.... It is not like it has happen before for the US NAVY in recent history (computer, smartphone, CDMA, TV display and etc...). Ops, I think the LCS contractors call it a transmission gear for the water jet. LCS are more automated than most other combatant; no wonder the "Union" mentality to get rid of man power. However, why not make them into drones. The Navy already has made drones out aircraft and missile....ah...must be the wooden steering wheel requirement.
Just make sure it is light enough since they didn't design the module weights around what things actually weigh. That is oft undiscussed miss that is a huge part of the challenge.
Could your ecosphere giving you a hint? I am ordinary LST alumni.. a LST configure at the time with the bare basic and a Naval Warfare Library, Engineering Tech Manuals and Rating Books. I think you need to learn the basic before you move to advance function of the US NAVY...as well getting the right STEM Degree and advance degree.
I would loved to have served on an LCS. They weren't around when I was in (1968-'72). I served in a carrier, deck division, mess cook, and then data processing. I left the Navy in February, 1972 as a DP2 (predecessor to the IT rating). DPs didn't serve in the small boys. ITs do. I was just a couple generations too early. I know there have been a bunch of nay sayers about the LCS program. Some are right here watching this. But, it's still a new program and I think it's still viable as RAdm LeClair, Capt. Crawford, & Capt. Haney all indicate. I remember when Trump went aboard Ford and basically told them they should tear out the new cats and replace them with steam. It takes time to fully develop these programs and find their perfect niche.
The math on Ford works. The challenge with LCS is the Freedoms will never have a rational propulsion plant nor range with gas available, nor speed flexibility. Only making 14-15 knots clean on diesels means they are going to need to light an MT30 too often and end up out of gas.
Seems like we don't have enough boats right now and are having trouble getting them built and serviced. Crews can do things with boats they weren't built to do. You can chop em' up and weld and bolt things onto em' and move this piece over there and give em' new gear and electronics and all kinds of things people not out there doing it can't imagine. We have a bunch of these hulls that maybe did not come out of the yard highlining, but I can't believe they are all not seaworthy and useless. When all you smarmy clevers that like to blame this one and that one and ride that sweet wave of sanctimony endorphins can get our shipyards up and rolling out the varsity combatants, let everybody know. Until that time, why don't you take a breath and let the crews do what they can with what they have? You might be surprised at the results.
You are correct sir. I have been one of the ten of thousands of internet users who have for years now physically prevented LCS crews from reaching their ships and preventing them from doing anything. I feel so badly now. Your complaint is compelling not at all mere ravings directed at some odd strawman.
@@kurtwicklund8901 No one is handing a crew a credit card with order to go McGyver / A-team this thing to do x-objective. There is the missing link to a certain extent. Simpler ship would be a better starting point.
During bootcamp in the 90's we were told the Navy would no longer use aluminum in combat vessels due to a fire onboard a ship with an aluminum superstructure that cause heavy damage. Why would the Navy go back on that decision? Also a number of these large aluminum vessels are having structural stress cracks or failures.
They never stopped using aluminum. Burke has a steel deckhouse, but still has plenty of aluminum and a composite hangar. You'll always have to make your peace with either aluminum or composites depending on how you want to balance the holy trinity.
Cost to operate the LCS is way too high for the Coast Guard. IDK what the NSCs cost per year to operate but the older WHECs were somewhere around $10 million each. A single LCS is $80 million.
Cost to operate the LCS is way too high is in itself the biggest failure this program ever faced when its capability and "cheap" cost were exaggerated to the moon in the 2000s.
This sounds pretty much line current command talking “the party line” on the LCS. I think the discussion of these ships is more objectively discussed on the SUB BRIEF site.
One other thing has been nagging me from the interview. Keeping the gear inside the mission bay is good for the gear. How is i for the crews? I say this because I doubt air flow through the mission areas is great nor would such large areas have AC. Might we be better off with lighter, cheaper ships that stow the gear on deck as is common with most of the rest of the ships in the entire world? An awning for shade and the actual sea breeze from sailing might improve morale, save some money, and add to our combat effectiveness. I've seen pics and video on at lest LCS-1 class deployments showing the internal temperatures of the ship being well over 100 degrees. We added AC o our ships after WWII as a lesson learned from the real war experience gained in the Pacific.
I have always supported teh need for a ship like an LCS. Even if it isn't survivable in a high intensity conflict, it can free up destroyers for the high intensity conflicts. What I objected to was the charlie foxtrot that was the Design-Build program, followed by the mission creep.The program was executed poorly, criminally so in my opinion. The LCS (both classes) are what we have now and the issue here is how to best utilize them until we get something better.
I do like how optimistic this video is for the LCS program but I have to say most of the pluses that are mentioned are just not true. Speed, survivability, firepower, functionality are all things that these ships lack because of poor design. They lack speed because at high speeds their hulls crack, they lack survivability because of their aluminum hull and their open interior making DC a nightmare if they do get hit, firepower is extremely lacking even against targets that they are designed to fight against, and functionality because these modules you talk about are not being constructed take forever to install and don't work at the end of the day. This isn't to say they're useless, everything can have a use. We could have just found a way better ship to make than these two ships. I'm in San Diego right now and I have talked with LCS guys before and they hate it, they feel like place holders, they want to fight but the ships they are stuck on can not fight effectively
They are not useless, just like a new class of Iowa BBs each mounting nine 5" guns in triple turrets would not he useless... Just not close to worth the cost.
You're right if only half of a class of ship tries to crack in half then I guess we can call that a successful craft. It's only marginally worse than the Burke class which suffer none of these problems
I think the hull cracking has a solution. I'd also not fault aluminum. The rest, yeah, a problem. Why design more ship to drop in a weapon that could have just been deck mounted, for instance. We need Mk 38 mod IVs on these and Zumwalt, not the Mk 46.
Why not do that with an EPF? It already has 146 berths vs LCS trying to grow to 112. Plus where will Freedom put any useful gear? The 4 M2 stations on EPF can be upgraded to RWS-4 mounts which can now fire APKWS. Put an RPS-40/42 radar on it and put the ships to work. Maybe fit a bit more protection later.
@@DM-mv4eq agreed EPF would work. Freedom class LCS would only carry enough Marines that would fit inside what ever number of ACV could be carried by the Freedom class LCS in the maritime mission bay. The two bays forward of the maritime mission bay would house the Marines and their equipment. I do not know what the dimensions of the bays are but with the crane I am guessing 4 ACVs could be carried inside the maritime mission bay. To be clear I am thinking of the Freedom class LCS like an ACV carrier not as a humanitarian relief vessel.
@@damongraham1398 There is nothing the LCS was designed to move beyond 10250kg and an ACV weighs about 30,000kg. The back ramp is not wide enough nor carry the weight.
so people who are saying that the LCS will fail have not been on board and talked to crew members. Every single new ship has had issues. The only ship to not have massive issues were the burke class destroyers
Constellation class FFG will replace the LCS in the coming years. The only viable use for the LCS was determined to be as mine countermeasure ships due to the aluminum hull.
the FFG-62 wont get to IOC until at least 2030 just announced 3 year delay. The LCS had before and has NOW viable missions. Aluminum hulls has NOTHING to do with it. In point of fact, dual hulls are more survivable from torpedo and mine strikes because there are TWO
Logic and natural progression says Taiwan, Philipinnes, South korea and even Japan would end in chinese sphere of influence. As minor partners. USA must accept that and be ready.
My dream for the Freedom class: equipped with a improved Trophy system. The U.S. Army directed energy weapon for anti air defense. Does the ACV fit through the maritime mission bay doors? If so, say 4 ACV, a Marine unit could conduct inspections.
@@damongraham1398 If it did, why stick an ACV down a hole with a shore crane which will hen need a shore crane to remove? Aside from the notion of having a 5 knot land vehicle chasing ships?
The US NAVY should not decommission the LCS FREEDOM CLASS. The are a few options for the FREEDOM class: option 1, upgrade the defences of the LCS FREEDOM CLASS so it can serve as part of a fleet. Option 2, transfer the ships to the US Coast guard. Option 3, Convert the ships into unmanned surveillance ships. Option 4, Convert the ships into drone carriers (surveillance/patrol). Option 5, give the ships to asian allies or Tawian. Option 6. Give the ships to allies willing to petrol the horn of Africa and seuz canal. Option 7. Use the ships as training/supply ships.
The USN NEEDS surface combatants in case you have read anything. Paying for upgrades is part of option one. Converting the LCS-1 to motherships is doable and cheaper
Option 8 is to make it fully or semi autonomous with two or three Drone AI. Most cargo tanker could be considered semi autonomous with less than 20 personnel.
Okay so the Little Crappy Ships (as some sailers call them ) have some future in the navy . The question is why is the navy continues to decommissioning them after 1 and2 years of service? And is it true that the freedom class were going to be sold to Taiwan?
I believe the youngest LCS to be decommissioned was after 5 years of service. And no, there haven’t been any sales of the LCS to any foreign country as of now. Greece announced their interest in acquiring them, but they haven’t been purchased.
Historically, this normal path for various new platforms of the US Navy. This is not new. For example, several early jets had very similar service life. A couple were called ENSIGN Killers.
I’m so confused. I’ve seen videos detailing how these LCS are being g decommissioned already, yet here they’re talking about new ones coming into service? Aren’t there purportedly some severe problems with these platforms that limits their functionality in a manner that makes their actual service doubtful?
Sounds like they should be combined in service, one of each deployed together, as opposed to separated. It sounds like a fleet commander would want an LCS with them so provide additional flexibility based on the mission modules. Smart.
This is a lot of rah, rah, bull. The navy has serious issues with more than LCS ships. Manpower is down, discipline terrible, and war fighting ability questionable. Some tough outside the box thinking admiral needs to take control and restore America’s navy.
There is a lot of wishful thinking here. The modules have never been completed. The ships should be completed and equipped and best they can be for a verity of missions. With additional space built for crew berthing to keep enough crew members on board to ensure the ships are properly maintained. Their biggest advantage is there big flight decks to allow large or multiple helicopters to be operated.
If all this is true, why are we decommissioning them? Why are we pushing the Constellation frigates instead? “little crappy ship” didn’t just come out of the blue.
Yep. I would include the black sea. It does not make economical sense to use a 5 million missile to destroy a $500 dollar DJ drone or counter pirates. The operating cost of F35 and the carrier battle group is cost prohibited. LCS has a 3 inch automated gun....It also has AA missile too.
@@DM-mv4eq I think that most people recognize that the government have long figuring out the habits of X-GEN for over 30 years.... For example, back then manager use to count the number of keystrokes to gauge productivity. In fact, they recorded key stokes to develop applications. If your just thinking about AI now....The Movie Terminator came out over 30 years ago. I think your late to the party to be considered "SMART." It either normal or your dumb.
27:19 Does that really pay off? How does it pay off? It is radically different. Is it radically better? It looks foolish to me to break up that radically more streamlined bow with an......anchor. Why didn't they make that anchor stow away behind some fairing?.....for crying out loud.
Well, it sounds like they're bringing the program around. The big remaining question is of course procurement. I've been dabbling with designing a Corvette, slash Frigate, on my own from reading the papers, and I've been arriving at similar attributes to the LCS program. I favor a few differences, those being more hulls that are less expensive rather than emphasizing modularity, to be mediated between the two concepts. I think aluminum alloys, as well as steel have progressed to a point far beyond what was available when these were designed, so I'll beg off that one. Suffice to say there definitely should not be any more cracking hulls! I like the idea of UAVs making more space available, and I would probably sacrifice one of the Seahawk Bays for smaller craft, either aerial, watercraft, or more defense against multiple drone swarm threats.
I.E., Blue/Gold the ships instead of the crew. Leave the other one in port for maintenance. Use more robots, etc. Your problem is you need more hands. AI doesn't have hands, but robots do.
Fan boys for a system that should never been built tied up shopyards that could have produced the navy we need Navy of the past made too many strategic mistakes This cast makes me mad
just daily as crew training ship both for manoeuvres and maintenance considering US Navy admit LCS haven't capabilities to be deployed in Red Sea. Mine warfare it's ok instead of trash it, but VLS without radars is something you could do it with LCU or LCAC and a container 🤣 not to mention what happened to russian ships without an opponent Navy 🤯, then I quit the clip
@@leewahler3058 LCS are deployed even more then you stated, but now it is needed for Houti crisis US Navy admit no LCS will be employed in the Red Sea because it is unable to face treats in the area, even european navys starts to quitely admit their Frigates have a limiting factor in VLS numbers despite all capabilities are ok, thus we can say LCS are not combat ships! Anti-mine ships hull numbers/pennant number starts with an A (for auxiliary) ... I'll stop it here because it's more then enough
@@leewahler3058 Centcom is a big place. The Gulf actually has more of the things LCS was designed to fight right now than the Red Sea. Although the fact they aren't entirely ready for UAVs is a giant miss.
This is a very positive and optimistic forecast for a program that had quite the uhhh dynamic beginning.
I guess we could agree at this point that we started from the bottom....now.....we're here. 🎉
Nice to hear good things about the LCS.
That’s called “procurement spin” I think. 🤔
Excellent! These ships get bad press but I can understand exactly what capabilities they bring especially in light of their highly trained companies. Nearly all "unwanted " ships end up punching way above their weight and serve way longer than expected
Yeah, ship design does not matter. No matter how bad the design or individual hull, the USN always will win. On this principle we thus build our navy.
They should have built more cyclone class PC’s
@@kenwphoto They F-111ed the fleet. Instead of a new MCM, PC, and FFG we got LCS. I am still hot for what we could do with a PC that would be follow on production for Bollinger Lockport as FRC production runs out.
Everything in stages...Pretty soon there is going to be a stage where a really smart service member(s)/team who can either 3d print a major component or make or lathe a main reduction gear.... It is not like it has happen before for the US NAVY in recent history (computer, smartphone, CDMA, TV display and etc...). Ops, I think the LCS contractors call it a transmission gear for the water jet. LCS are more automated than most other combatant; no wonder the "Union" mentality to get rid of man power. However, why not make them into drones. The Navy already has made drones out aircraft and missile....ah...must be the wooden steering wheel requirement.
They are a multimillion wotrh for nothing crap !!! 😢
Habitabiliy modules have been built into freight containers for Decades. We have them on the T-AGS in '90s
"Tons of space..." yes, because none of the mission modules work!
Just make sure it is light enough since they didn't design the module weights around what things actually weigh. That is oft undiscussed miss that is a huge part of the challenge.
Could your ecosphere giving you a hint? I am ordinary LST alumni.. a LST configure at the time with the bare basic and a Naval Warfare Library, Engineering Tech Manuals and Rating Books. I think you need to learn the basic before you move to advance function of the US NAVY...as well getting the right STEM Degree and advance degree.
I would loved to have served on an LCS. They weren't around when I was in (1968-'72). I served in a carrier, deck division, mess cook, and then data processing. I left the Navy in February, 1972 as a DP2 (predecessor to the IT rating). DPs didn't serve in the small boys. ITs do. I was just a couple generations too early. I know there have been a bunch of nay sayers about the LCS program. Some are right here watching this. But, it's still a new program and I think it's still viable as RAdm LeClair, Capt. Crawford, & Capt. Haney all indicate. I remember when Trump went aboard Ford and basically told them they should tear out the new cats and replace them with steam. It takes time to fully develop these programs and find their perfect niche.
The math on Ford works. The challenge with LCS is the Freedoms will never have a rational propulsion plant nor range with gas available, nor speed flexibility. Only making 14-15 knots clean on diesels means they are going to need to light an MT30 too often and end up out of gas.
Thank you.
I was happy to welcome the Indy Blue crew back to Mayport
I thought they were decommissioning some of them because they were breaking down
Seems like we don't have enough boats right now and are having trouble getting them built and serviced. Crews can do things with boats they weren't built to do. You can chop em' up and weld and bolt things onto em' and move this piece over there and give em' new gear and electronics and all kinds of things people not out there doing it can't imagine. We have a bunch of these hulls that maybe did not come out of the yard highlining, but I can't believe they are all not seaworthy and useless. When all you smarmy clevers that like to blame this one and that one and ride that sweet wave of sanctimony endorphins can get our shipyards up and rolling out the varsity combatants, let everybody know. Until that time, why don't you take a breath and let the crews do what they can with what they have? You might be surprised at the results.
Agree 100%!
You are correct sir. I have been one of the ten of thousands of internet users who have for years now physically prevented LCS crews from reaching their ships and preventing them from doing anything. I feel so badly now. Your complaint is compelling not at all mere ravings directed at some odd strawman.
@@kurtwicklund8901 No one is handing a crew a credit card with order to go McGyver / A-team this thing to do x-objective. There is the missing link to a certain extent. Simpler ship would be a better starting point.
To avoid the smirks, they should be called “sea line” ships. They patrol near the “line” where the land meets the sea.
⭐️
This is good to hear…….
During bootcamp in the 90's we were told the Navy would no longer use aluminum in combat vessels due to a fire onboard a ship with an aluminum superstructure that cause heavy damage. Why would the Navy go back on that decision? Also a number of these large aluminum vessels are having structural stress cracks or failures.
They never stopped using aluminum. Burke has a steel deckhouse, but still has plenty of aluminum and a composite hangar. You'll always have to make your peace with either aluminum or composites depending on how you want to balance the holy trinity.
What about putting Fire Scout MQ-8C on the LCS-1 variants for ISR
i heard suggestions of LCS's transferred to the USCG instead of being decommissioned. any thoughts?
Cost to operate the LCS is way too high for the Coast Guard. IDK what the NSCs cost per year to operate but the older WHECs were somewhere around $10 million each. A single LCS is $80 million.
@@williammagoffin9324 thanks for clearing that up. nice to have knowledgeable individuals here. again, thanks!
Cost to operate the LCS is way too high is in itself the biggest failure this program ever faced when its capability and "cheap" cost were exaggerated to the moon in the 2000s.
NOT going to happen
This sounds pretty much line current command talking “the party line” on the LCS. I think the discussion of these ships is more objectively discussed on the SUB BRIEF site.
One other thing has been nagging me from the interview. Keeping the gear inside the mission bay is good for the gear. How is i for the crews? I say this because I doubt air flow through the mission areas is great nor would such large areas have AC. Might we be better off with lighter, cheaper ships that stow the gear on deck as is common with most of the rest of the ships in the entire world? An awning for shade and the actual sea breeze from sailing might improve morale, save some money, and add to our combat effectiveness. I've seen pics and video on at lest LCS-1 class deployments showing the internal temperatures of the ship being well over 100 degrees. We added AC o our ships after WWII as a lesson learned from the real war experience gained in the Pacific.
Are both variants still using contracted M&R?
I have always supported teh need for a ship like an LCS. Even if it isn't survivable in a high intensity conflict, it can free up destroyers for the high intensity conflicts. What I objected to was the charlie foxtrot that was the Design-Build program, followed by the mission creep.The program was executed poorly, criminally so in my opinion.
The LCS (both classes) are what we have now and the issue here is how to best utilize them until we get something better.
I do like how optimistic this video is for the LCS program but I have to say most of the pluses that are mentioned are just not true. Speed, survivability, firepower, functionality are all things that these ships lack because of poor design. They lack speed because at high speeds their hulls crack, they lack survivability because of their aluminum hull and their open interior making DC a nightmare if they do get hit, firepower is extremely lacking even against targets that they are designed to fight against, and functionality because these modules you talk about are not being constructed take forever to install and don't work at the end of the day.
This isn't to say they're useless, everything can have a use. We could have just found a way better ship to make than these two ships. I'm in San Diego right now and I have talked with LCS guys before and they hate it, they feel like place holders, they want to fight but the ships they are stuck on can not fight effectively
They are not useless, just like a new class of Iowa BBs each mounting nine 5" guns in triple turrets would not he useless... Just not close to worth the cost.
@@kurtwicklund8901 Read my full comment. I say they aren’t useless just that we can do better than the LCS
Yes the AL hulls crack, that can be repaired at some expense, ONLY applies to LCS-2
You're right if only half of a class of ship tries to crack in half then I guess we can call that a successful craft. It's only marginally worse than the Burke class which suffer none of these problems
I think the hull cracking has a solution. I'd also not fault aluminum. The rest, yeah, a problem. Why design more ship to drop in a weapon that could have just been deck mounted, for instance. We need Mk 38 mod IVs on these and Zumwalt, not the Mk 46.
I hope the idea of Freedom class being a Marine carrier is one of the ideas they will try? A sea cavalry in the Red sea looks to me like a good idea.
Why not do that with an EPF? It already has 146 berths vs LCS trying to grow to 112. Plus where will Freedom put any useful gear? The 4 M2 stations on EPF can be upgraded to RWS-4 mounts which can now fire APKWS. Put an RPS-40/42 radar on it and put the ships to work. Maybe fit a bit more protection later.
@@DM-mv4eq agreed EPF would work. Freedom class LCS would only carry enough Marines that would fit inside what ever number of ACV could be carried by the Freedom class LCS in the maritime mission bay. The two bays forward of the maritime mission bay would house the Marines and their equipment. I do not know what the dimensions of the bays are but with the crane I am guessing 4 ACVs could be carried inside the maritime mission bay. To be clear I am thinking of the Freedom class LCS like an ACV carrier not as a humanitarian relief vessel.
@@damongraham1398 There is nothing the LCS was designed to move beyond 10250kg and an ACV weighs about 30,000kg. The back ramp is not wide enough nor carry the weight.
so people who are saying that the LCS will fail have not been on board and talked to crew members. Every single new ship has had issues. The only ship to not have massive issues were the burke class destroyers
Bring back Destroyer Tenders so sailors can maintain their own ships. Decommissioning them was the dumbest move ever made by the US Navy.
good to see the Navy getting smarter about cranes and davits
Do both variant have sufficient storerooms to hold more parts and stores?
Constellation class FFG will replace the LCS in the coming years. The only viable use for the LCS was determined to be as mine countermeasure ships due to the aluminum hull.
the FFG-62 wont get to IOC until at least 2030 just announced 3 year delay. The LCS had before and has NOW viable missions. Aluminum hulls has NOTHING to do with it. In point of fact, dual hulls are more survivable from torpedo and mine strikes because there are TWO
❤
Logic and natural progression says Taiwan, Philipinnes, South korea and even Japan would end in chinese sphere of influence. As minor partners. USA must accept that and be ready.
The United States should not provide aircraft modernization to Türkiye, it should be prevented from providing aircraft modernization to Türkiye
Why?
My dream for the Freedom class: equipped with a improved Trophy system. The U.S. Army directed energy weapon for anti air defense. Does the ACV fit through the maritime mission bay doors? If so, say 4 ACV, a Marine unit could conduct inspections.
Won't fit and could not take the weight.
@@DM-mv4eq by how much it would not fit? Are you saying an ACV would sink a Freedom class LCS?
@@damongraham1398 Not sink, but wouldn't fit in to start.
@@DM-mv4eq There is a hatch on the flight deck. Will it fit through there?
@@damongraham1398 If it did, why stick an ACV down a hole with a shore crane which will hen need a shore crane to remove? Aside from the notion of having a 5 knot land vehicle chasing ships?
The US NAVY should not decommission the LCS FREEDOM CLASS. The are a few options for the FREEDOM class: option 1, upgrade the defences of the LCS FREEDOM CLASS so it can serve as part of a fleet. Option 2, transfer the ships to the US Coast guard. Option 3, Convert the ships into unmanned surveillance ships. Option 4, Convert the ships into drone carriers (surveillance/patrol). Option 5, give the ships to asian allies or Tawian. Option 6. Give the ships to allies willing to petrol the horn of Africa and seuz canal. Option 7. Use the ships as training/supply ships.
The USN NEEDS surface combatants in case you have read anything. Paying for upgrades is part of option one. Converting the LCS-1 to motherships is doable and cheaper
Option 8 is to make it fully or semi autonomous with two or three Drone AI. Most cargo tanker could be considered semi autonomous with less than 20 personnel.
Okay so the Little Crappy Ships (as some sailers call them ) have some future in the navy . The question is why is the navy continues to decommissioning them after 1 and2 years of service? And is it true that the freedom class were going to be sold to Taiwan?
I believe the youngest LCS to be decommissioned was after 5 years of service. And no, there haven’t been any sales of the LCS to any foreign country as of now. Greece announced their interest in acquiring them, but they haven’t been purchased.
Historically, this normal path for various new platforms of the US Navy. This is not new. For example, several early jets had very similar service life. A couple were called ENSIGN Killers.
I’m so confused. I’ve seen videos detailing how these LCS are being g decommissioned already, yet here they’re talking about new ones coming into service? Aren’t there purportedly some severe problems with these platforms that limits their functionality in a manner that makes their actual service doubtful?
Yes, they are being decommissioned and commissioned. The combining gear issue has been fixed.
Sounds like they should be combined in service, one of each deployed together, as opposed to separated. It sounds like a fleet commander would want an LCS with them so provide additional flexibility based on the mission modules. Smart.
do the LCS have Naval Reserve units associated?
Good Question.
Lemme guess ... As artificial reefs? As new soft drink cans? I give up.
We're still talking about the modules huh? Which ones.........
This is a lot of rah, rah, bull. The navy has serious issues with more than LCS ships. Manpower is down, discipline terrible, and war fighting ability questionable. Some tough outside the box thinking admiral needs to take control and restore America’s navy.
IIRC, they were most recently being considered as anchors for the Ford class carriers.
There is a lot of wishful thinking here.
The modules have never been completed.
The ships should be completed and equipped and best they can be for a verity of missions.
With additional space built for crew berthing to keep enough crew members on board to ensure the ships are properly maintained. Their biggest advantage is there big flight decks to allow large or multiple helicopters to be operated.
If all this is true, why are we decommissioning them? Why are we pushing the Constellation frigates instead? “little crappy ship” didn’t just come out of the blue.
My hope for the Freedom class is that each and everyone of them are deployed to the Red Sea.
Where have we faced swarm boats and sea mines there?
@@DM-mv4eq with the right software changes the Longbow and Rim can be anti air missiles and the marines could be use to protect or retake ships.
Yep. I would include the black sea. It does not make economical sense to use a 5 million missile to destroy a $500 dollar DJ drone or counter pirates. The operating cost of F35 and the carrier battle group is cost prohibited. LCS has a 3 inch automated gun....It also has AA missile too.
@@rgloria40 You have to be an AI. GIGO
@@DM-mv4eq I think that most people recognize that the government have long figuring out the habits of X-GEN for over 30 years.... For example, back then manager use to count the number of keystrokes to gauge productivity. In fact, they recorded key stokes to develop applications. If your just thinking about AI now....The Movie Terminator came out over 30 years ago. I think your late to the party to be considered "SMART." It either normal or your dumb.
So these LCS ships are being sent to the Red Sea to protect shipping?
27:19 Does that really pay off? How does it pay off? It is radically different. Is it radically better?
It looks foolish to me to break up that radically more streamlined bow with an......anchor. Why didn't they make that anchor stow away behind some fairing?.....for crying out loud.
Why do navy officers wear cammo pattern? That is just silly.
Qapla'!
Well, it sounds like they're bringing the program around. The big remaining question is of course procurement. I've been dabbling with designing a Corvette, slash Frigate, on my own from reading the papers, and I've been arriving at similar attributes to the LCS program. I favor a few differences, those being more hulls that are less expensive rather than emphasizing modularity, to be mediated between the two concepts. I think aluminum alloys, as well as steel have progressed to a point far beyond what was available when these were designed, so I'll beg off that one. Suffice to say there definitely should not be any more cracking hulls! I like the idea of UAVs making more space available, and I would probably sacrifice one of the Seahawk Bays for smaller craft, either aerial, watercraft, or more defense against multiple drone swarm threats.
I.E., Blue/Gold the ships instead of the crew. Leave the other one in port for maintenance. Use more robots, etc. Your problem is you need more hands. AI doesn't have hands, but robots do.
Fan boys for a system that should never been built tied up shopyards that could have produced the navy we need
Navy of the past made too many strategic mistakes
This cast makes me mad
Wait.....they stopped making them, didn't they? I thought they were going to end the LCS program. No???
Biggest waste of money ever.......aside from the Zumwalts that is!
Lost opportunity
*¡the military must prioritize before wasting taxpayers money!* - 12:00 pm Pacific DayLight Savings Time on Tuesday, 9 April 2024 on a leap year
The Navy is employing the Little Crappy Ships?
just daily as crew training ship both for manoeuvres and maintenance considering US Navy admit LCS haven't capabilities to be deployed in Red Sea.
Mine warfare it's ok instead of trash it, but VLS without radars is something you could do it with LCU or LCAC and a container 🤣 not to mention what happened to russian ships without an opponent Navy 🤯, then I quit the clip
wrong two LCS are already deployed to CENTCOM
@@leewahler3058
LCS are deployed even more then you stated, but now it is needed for Houti crisis US Navy admit no LCS will be employed in the Red Sea because it is unable to face treats in the area, even european navys starts to quitely admit their Frigates have a limiting factor in VLS numbers despite all capabilities are ok, thus we can say LCS are not combat ships!
Anti-mine ships hull numbers/pennant number starts with an A (for auxiliary)
... I'll stop it here because it's more then enough
@@leewahler3058 Centcom is a big place. The Gulf actually has more of the things LCS was designed to fight right now than the Red Sea. Although the fact they aren't entirely ready for UAVs is a giant miss.