you have Amphibious assault ship, can't you fill them with any smaller patrol ships with a lot of weapons, and drones so they can be transpoted around where they are needed, and make yourself or buy rheinmetall "The Skyranger family" air defense, drones 1 shot from Oerlikon Millennium 35mm Naval Revolver Gun System, it can also be used mobile on land and is a drone killer at 5 km with is shot, it is cheap instead of expensive missiles, and there are about all types of threats currently known also drone swarm attack. And if you don't want to buy German, you can always be inspired by fine German design 🙃
I was a US Navy officer, then worked in the defense industry and then worked as a consultant to DoD on Finance and Logistics. This might sound cynical, but MHO, based on experience, is that to understand things like this is not to look first at the mission, capability or "bells and whistles." Follow the money and look at career paths. Look at how much money is going to what contractors for different systems, and what kind of systems get people promoted to flag rank. Small ships with smaller price tags that can be built by second tier contractors don't have the political leverage of big, high ticket ships built by first tier contractors. Bigger ships that are platforms to get skippers promoted to admiral will be more likely to get support than ones that don't. Blue water command beats out brown water command every time. The CO of a destroyer is more likely to eventually get command of a cruiser than the CO of a littoral ship. That's how it really works.
Not how I remember it when I was a sailor in the early 90’s. These were career enhancing as the idea was they’d be commanded by an O3 which would make them desirable and competitive in future assignments. Like the Marines and the Army who command at the O3 level with follow on staff positions. This provides valuable leadership experience for future higher level Commands or assignments. I generally see your other points and it makes sense based on my limited experience.
I've been directly involved with repairs on these ships. Short sighted design, bad QA, and the Navy not learning from past mistakes concerning materials, ie Aluminum in ships structures. Aluminum's inability to flex leads to cracking. We saw this in the Aluminum superstructure of both CG and Fast Frigate. This is caused by torsional stress as the ship passes through waves and swells. The bow may be pushed to starboard while the stern is pulled to port. Steel hulls can flex while Aluminum to a far lesser degree. These all lead to failure. I think the base concept and I'm talking base concept is a good one but material choices have condemned this class of ship from the beginning.
The Navy did learn from past experiences with aluminum, that's why the Arleigh Burke class DDG's only use aluminum in the mast. Too bad that the "newer" navy forgot that lesson!
Aluminum doesn't flex? Why are commercial aircraft built largely aluminum then? An aircraft most definitely flexes during flight, take-offs, and landings.
I was a designer for the LCS-1. It was a nightmare project. I was told at one point that if I couldn't work 60 hours a week I might as well stay home. The Freedom took a huge hit in weight when the Navy told us to switch from aluminum to steel for the haul which crushed early speed calcs. Crawling under the grating in the phone booth engine room was rough for me on shipchecks. I can't imagine how the crew deals with those engine rooms. Good sub training I guess
The LCS program is gonna result in so many fantastic books about how (not) to manage an engineering project, and it's a real shame nobody will ever read those books or learn anything from the fate of the project. In the tech industry, I also worked on some "we're going to make a platform that solves every problem" meta-projects that didn't do anything, because every industry is constantly trying to reinvent that antipattern. Sigh.
@guaposneeze nobody wants to read books about what doesn't work. They just want to know how to get rich quick. And if they're already rich, they want to squeeze a few more pennies of profits. These days, it's all about change. Nothing can stay the same. Once we get good at modular design, they will decide modular is old news. But if you're not up on whatever the current buzz words are, then you will probably be unemployed.
I was part of the final crew of the Freedom, she was a good boat overall for her last few years of commissioned life. While the rest of the class was restricted to 18 knots we were still fully mission capable because she and Fort Worth had a different combining gear design from the later ships. While on our final deployment we still managed to achieve some pretty fast speeds. The FREEDOM class also in particular have some of the lowest radar cross sections of any US Navy ship class which enable them to sneak up on enemies in EMCON. The trouble is that those jets are acoustically loud and she still has quite an impressive thermal signature when those big MT30's are running. In my opinion, scrapping those MT-30's and replacing them with a further two diesel engines and increasing fuel storage would be great for overall endurance. Combine that with installation of laser weaponary, replacing the main gun with the Leonardo Strales/Dart 76mm, adding SEWIP block III, adding those NSM's and a more effective point defense system would greatly enhance the Freedom class in general both in the Littoral zones and in blue water.
@mantori762 Having served in the LCS program I have to disagree with your assessment. The Indy class has had very significant problems... so much so that LCS-2 NEVER deployed in her short career. LCS-1 deployed about 4 times in the 13 years she was in commission. The Navy's biggest holdup with the Freedom Class is the combining gear issues that resulted in speed reductions down to 18 knots.... that only affected the Freedom class hull numbers 5 and further.... Freedom and Fort Worth have combining gears that are not affected (different model than 5 AF). The thing is, 18 knots or 47 knots... you are not outrunning a cruise missile so who cares if they cannot use the gas turbines? The Indy class on the otherhand have significant issues with cracking hulls and once discovered they are speed limited to 12 knots. They also use even more non-standard gear than the Freedom Class which makes them even harder to integrate into the rest of the fleet in general than the Freedom's and they have very common water jet issues.
@paulbrown8216 I didnt go through 80 foot seas with Freedom but yes she could do anything that a Arleigh Burke can do sea wise but because the draft is significantly less there would be a lot more tossing around. The fact that the Freedom class is both mono-hull AND uses steel for the main deck and below gives them a huge advantage in heavy seas compared to the all aluminum trimaran Indy's
I always thought one of the best roles for these would be to carry a bunch of NSM or ATACMS/HIMARS/PrSM, take them to the deck and you have a missile arsenal boat that is small, cheap and "steathy" and fast....Unfortunately, it's working out that way.
I'm a welder by trade but have NO experience with welding salt water ships, (or ships of any kind) I can well imagine that the corrosive salt water is an issue, I wonder what kinds of technology and techniques are used to mitigate this?🤔
@ronaldfreitag Pretty sure it's just thick hulls and regular cleaning. US ships which come into port from a long mission clearly have corrosion on the hulls, but get refurbed in dockyard.
Another excellent piece. The LCS and Zumwalt surface combatants are both catastrophic failures, because in part they were designed when we were fighting people who literally had no navy of their own and as you pointed out, there was no perceived blue water threat. Both classes also violated a cardinal rule - do not incorporate too many new systems in a new platform. Finally, they were built in large numbers before we had a chance to prove just how worthless they were. As a former destroyerman I was delighted when I first learned we would be getting new small warships. But when I started learning of the specs I was dismayed. Why, oh why did we require 40 knot speeds? That forced so many other compromises in the design. I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray. You are absolutely right that Congress was more interested in job creation than getting the Navy effective warships. Thanks to the Hurculean efforts of sailors, these poorly designed ships are slowly being warped into reasonable, if limited, combatants.
"I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray." Please do. Nice to hear it from the horse's mouth for once.
I'm curious if the lessons learned with Zumwalt and LCS will be applied toward a new destroyer class. We certainly were more conservative with the new frigates (Constellation class). If anything, we have a clear focus of who/what the new destroyer will counter (China, maybe Russia?). We know we don't need AGS, and Zummwalt has helped advance a few key technologies. We just may need larger Arleigh Burke's with the IPS Powertrain from Zummwalt, able to handle larger electrical power budget and space for upgrades in some systems. Don't need to reinvent the wheel, just evolve
I worked on Freedom class as a trademan. I always felt the design was a moving target (always being revised / designed on the fly). I also felt like they were trying to shove 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag regarding the ship's systems, the automation, reduced crew manning idea and in general, overly complicated. Reduced manning also leads to overworked personnel and poor morale. And military contracts are the nation's biggest job program... taxpayer funded socialism for big biz... privatizing their profits and socializing loses.
@@Andy-te1mwIt’s high stakes poker: draw the Government in so deep that it becomes almost inconceivable to pull the plug and take the loss. Therefore, it’s “all in” with other people’s money.
@@Taskandpurpose Is it? I am pretty sure 19-minute mark you said they don't want a little patrol boat. Even if this statement didn't mean bigger ships made for more serious combatants and instead meant just more "air-defense" like some in the comment section seem to be saying couldn't you install one where this ship was supposed to be module (in addition to the airburst function of the main cannon? Sounds like they asked for a ship, made the requirements ridiculous for things they didn't need (likely because they didn't know what they needed) and then decided they didn't want that ship. I mean just think about the purpose of anti-sub modules alone. What is the real point there if you were making a patrol vessel with no survivability? They stumble across an enemy sub that they also were pre-fitted to deal with. Sounds like someone did a brainstorm and just vomited out module names instead of thinking how they would actually be used. I think the navy doesn't have a clue what it is doing right now (but when really has it ever) and has no clue what to invest in. I think it might need a new ship in the future, but frankly isn't going to get one without all the same over-run. 65-70% of projects fail (opinion of management versus cost and product received), a new ship isn't going to play out dramatically different. I think this is a case of complaining about how something didn't work out and now trying to pass the blame onto others... a time-honored tradition shared by the military, congress and all of humanity alike.
6:00 Yep, bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development. Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design but the Navy rejected it and continued to bleed money into the two LCS classes. Even their Heritage-class cutter is a slow, down-armed but effective LCS-type ship that is much cheaper than an LCS. Navy doesn't want that either.
> bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development That's a facile attack. EVERYTHING in the military is bureaucratic, including the biggest successes (F-15? And more and more it looks like the F-35?) and biggest losers (what people thought of the F-35 10 years ago?). > Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design OK, which of the missions proposed for the LCS could be done by the Sentinel-class as it stood, and how many could it have been adapted to? How much would that adaption cost? Note the Sentinel-class is literally 1/10th the displacement.
@@lqr824 Agree with the former, but many ocean going minesweepers and patrol boats are built to similar displacements to the Sentinel class. Same with convoy escorts and missile boats. The Danish Flyvefisken-class would be comparable. That said the aphorism steel is cheap systems are expensive still holds.
The Heritage could be tweaked to fit Navy speed requirements at a fraction of the cost of a new ship design and build but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc.
@@dmacarthur5356 > but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc. Man, you're so cynical and jaded, that's so cool. Anyone in the US military that wanted money... wouldn't be in the US military. These guys would have much more pride in having shepharded a successful project through than they'll ever be at the idea of retiring in a 4,000 sq ft. house instead of 2,000. And the LCS is basically a failure, so it's not clear why a contractor would even want a top officer who was on the military side of that failure. The "tweak" you refer to is probably a figment of your imagination, but if it was so great, and so cheap, then that'd leave a lot of money for other projects from contractors you mention. You don't really understand that the limit on military spending is the budget Congress sets. Any dollar not spent on weapon system A is absolutely guaranteed to be spent on weapon system B, so no, going with a retrofit proposal certainly would not hurt a vendor to the point they decide not to hire someone. It's not generals or admirals that set the budget, it's congress. To the extent there's corruption somewhere, that's where you'd be better off looking. Finally, can you imagine anyone who'd do a better job as a director of a contractor than an ex-general or admiral? It's not as if such a chair is offered to a retiring officer as a payback for getting some fancy new military system built. There is some corruption in the US military, for a fact, but it's not the dead certainty that you portray.
Cappy I spent the last 12 years of my service in the Army. My first 6 years I spent in the Navy. Even spent a few in the Air reserve. I was on the USS Fife, DD991. When I joined the crew in 1986 the ship was in yard hands conducting improvements and ship life extension. They put a lot of different things on board, the biggest addition was the Vertical Launch System. They cut a huge hole in the forecastle. When we finally deployed the ship had a badly found hull and a permanent list (it leaned to one side), because the structure was weakened by the hole in the forecastle. In high seas we would roll perilously in that direction. We were deployed out of Yokosuka Japan. We went through at least two typhoons and one major storm off San Francisco while I was on board. We always had major breakages etc (even injuries) during these times. We spent many months in Japanese ship yards trying to fix the problem. While I was on board we were only deployed for actual sea duty for two years (I was on board from 1986 to 1990. There were all sorts of other problems. The ship was eventually used for target practice and sunk in 2003. Way sooner than it should. The Navy got rid of the Spruance class for good reason. However, one of the biggest problems was a lack of oversight of the the ship yards. At least a third of the yard workers were stoned or refusing to do any work at any given time. Some of them would call in bomb threats so they could go home early. All of these problems were known to the Navy. Yet the Navy was happy to approve design features for this new ship that repeated all the problems that occurred on the Fife (nicknamed Fire in the Forward Engine room). To make matters worse for the Navy they failed to give oversight in the ship yards a greater priority. I don't like using the word corruption, but I have to wonder if anyone has followed the money? What procurement officers, congressman, senators, and bureau of design officials got paid to look the other way (what Admirals)? Why didn't the Coast Guard given this duty? Why did the Navy have to have these ships? The USCG could have made better use of proven designs and more experienced crew in these types of duty. The Coasties would have been perfect for the job.
9:17 "But problems during construction caused delays and significant cost overruns" while the guy has "HA HA HA" on his welding mask is a great meta commentary there :D
The Ivar Huitfeldt class is the result of a modularity program started by the Danish Navy in the 80s, is dirt cheap, can replace an engine underway (done once) and has been very successfully used for anti piracy with long mission times. And being designed with a "best commercial standard" with stupid high levels of redundancy it can be built by most commercial shipyards, not just specialists naval yards.
Yes but there isn't the level of corruption and graft in Denmark that there is in the USA or Canada in defence procurement. Denmark also doesn't see defence contracts as social assistance jobs programs to keep their citizens happy like american politicians do.
Incidentally the original LCS module planning were based on the Danish StanFlex. The Navy just kept adding additional requirements and scope creep unfortunately derailed the deployment of these modules.
Proving something is capable is not the same as being able to do it operationally on a normal basis. It’s like saying the T-90 destroyed a BMP from 4 miles away once therefore its effective range is 4 miles.
They spent a lot of money on the modular ASW with towed array. I believe it never worked well and was never deployed. All of sudden your modular design is not so cost effective.
The LCS Class lacked air defense beyond self-defense and lacked offensive punch to even attack other ships. NSM missiles were later added to give it the ability to hit other ships, however it is still lacking air defense capability to deal with drones or cruise missiles attacking other ships. - As to design deficiencies and other issues is another whole set of factors making the LCS almost useless.
true ture, it's only become clear to pretty much everyone in the last year or so that this thing is a real lemon. I heard they're recently trying to add container fired SM-6 missiles but it's too little to late.
@@Taskandpurpose granted they are not perfect but they can work now. The last 5 or so do work. Pair them with EFT and have stocks at Djibouti, Aqaba, and Bahrain and the U.S. Navy could assign the destroyers to other missions.
Yes, RAM is anti-air but really only for self-defense. Consider it a longer-range CIWS, with missiles instead of 20 mm bullets. I have seen videos of CIWS engage subsonic cruise missiles successfully, but the missiles body/fuel and warhead still reached the ship and causing lots of damage to the ship including topside including critical equipment. The damage from a supersonic cruise missile would be significantly more, hence RAM development was needed. RAM can take out incoming air threat as a much greater distance than CIWS. Now if an LCS has to defend another ship that is a greater than 5-6 miles away, that other ship is out of luck. @@damongraham1398
I remember reading about these designed back in 2003. A bunch of red flags stood out to me then. The price for one thing, I didn't think you could fit out one of those ships (install all the machinery, like engines, and pumps, and piping) for 200 mil, let alone build the whole thing first. Then there was the "manning." I read the navy was planning on having 40 people, but each person was going to hold 3 jobs. Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? Sailors work 12 hour shifts as is, lets triple their work load! Lastly, the whole "module" thing... Where were we going to keep all these modules? Over seas at the ports they were guarding? So the people the modules were designed to fight could find out what they were? Possibly even mess with them? Or was each boat just supposed to travel 3k miles back to the only port that hold all of them? Last thing about the module thing, that increases the weight. A piece of equipment built into the boat is it's own weight. The whole module mount needs to be structurally built to handle every module type, then the mod itself needs extra bracing in it for support in both storage and use. Oh, and the whole module thing, I knew back then, it meant that only the company could fix or work on them. Turns out that was true for the whole damn ship. I messaged a buddy about the cracks, and was told the company said the ship had to return to port and have contractors weld them back up when they got fixed. Turns out the contract said the navy will pay for all maintenance for these stupid things. I've heard the sailors are not allowed to even paint the damn things... And now that it's proven they don't last, let's double the number we have. In the 1950s, we wanted to know if "X" idea would work, so the government would build a tiny version, and test it. Then they would build a full size version, but only one, and run it for a few years. So the next version would be better in every way. CV-1, the first aircraft carrier functioned, but had many problems, non of which were repeated on later carriers. SSN-571, the first nuclear submarine worked well, but had many problems. It was the only SSN built like it, every one built since is very different, all fixing the found problems. CVN-65 was the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and again, had several issues that were not repeated on future vessels (like having 8 nuclear reactors for some reason...) But these morons dead ass said "we will just build a shit tons of them and it'll be fine." But it was not fine. But the good news is, now that we have 20 years of test data to work with, we might have a shot at building these things properly. The navy might have an actual shot at receiving a good product next time.
That part near the end about the littoral combat ships being useful as test beds for other systems reminds me of the guy at a boxing gym who has perfected every technique of blocking punches with his face. That guy can't tell you what to do, but if you watch him spar, you sure as hell can learn what NOT to do.
Yeah this fells less like there are any silver linings and it's just more of a lesson to be pointed out so you learn NOT what to do (the hard way, there's better ways to learn what works and what doesn't).
I liked the idea of using LCS to screen good ships. Use it to block drones, drone targets. Please, automate the ship first so the crew doesn’t have to pay the price.
The problem is, that it's not even suited for that. You'd be better off making small drones (air or boats) that are just chaff/ecm/sam/s2sm that could be recovered and actually keep up with the blue water fleet.@@markyuresko
Was a non-starter from the START - I flew off the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates between 1986 and 1999 - we understood back then that the Littoral boats were gonna be CRAP.
Trying to turn the LCS Lemons into Lemonade has been problematic at best. As a Surface Combatant this vessel either type is and has been a huge waste of public treasure, and denied the U.S. Navy of valuable Surface Combatants . . . particularly smaller ones that would perform the ESCORT Mission today. From over $36 to $60 Billion for acquisition depending upon whose numbers you run with . . . to about $100 Billion total when we include personnel and Operations & Maintenance supporting budget plus modifications since fielding . . . these platforms have cost the U.S. taxpayers an entire Frigate Fleet worth of treasure and we have little of nothing in comparatively relevant capability to show for it. You did a fine job of explaining just how bad the Little Crappy Ship really is. We cannot get rid of them fast enough, and we should only give them to our enemies . . . not our friends. Let the adversaries go broke trying to make them work.
I feel like for these small ships there should be some sort of joint developed ship across multiple nato nations to drive down costs. try to get france, germany, Italy, the UK&Australia, Japan and south Korea on board with the program and have them all able to do domestic production of the same class of small combat ship (frigate or destroyer).
@@lqr824Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at. Part of the problem is that the democratization of computing means has brought the cost of missiles and drones down to the point where even comparatively low-tech enemies can field dangerous anti-shipping weapons.
@@grahamstrouse1165 > Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at. What VERY SPECIFIC MISSION is needed here, though? It sounds like there's nothing actually happening at sea for an LCS to do. Minesweeping? No. Laying mines? No. ASW? No. Seal team insertion/retrieval? No. Launching torpedoes? No. Sure there's a low-tech enemy. It doesn't mean that's anything that needs doing that these boats are good for. You need to stop posting when you're drunk or high man, you're making a fool out of yourself.
The US Navy had a small group of ships, the Cyclone class , which could had done the job of the LCS, but they had decided on decommissioning this group of small ships able to operate in swallow water ways and sold them to various other countries navies in the Pacific Ocean near Taiwan and the Philippieans
I was surprised that the US decommissioned the cyclone class. They were ideal for dealing with the threats of the gulf/red sea area particularly the Iranian fast missile boats
Don’t you love it how none of these companies get penalized for going way over budget or downright failing on projects that cost the tax payers billions of dollars?
Ummm ok, so an Independence class is less than a billion dollars. Also, the problem with trying to blame the yards for the over runs, shows that you don't know how the contracts work. Basically every time the navy wants to change things, that is done as an additional contract, each contract must be completed, therefore you must build the ship one way, then change it. I have seen things like fire extinguishers moved 5 times.... These changes add to the cost of the original contract and show up as a cost over run, as it costs more than originally projected.... And an LCS costs less than 1 f-35 anyways.
Good luck getting the defense industry to sign onto moonshot projects when you penalize them for not doing the impossible while their hands are tied by constantly-changing requirements and politicians. 😂
@@jjpaq I’d rather not spend money on weapons to destroy foreign countries while we are having cost of living crisis at home. Maybe you guys love playing petty tyrants but many of us just want to live our lives without being taxed so you can play war.and the defense companies don’t want a part in building the next doomsday device without qualified immunity then great. That will be one fewer reason for the federal government to steal from us.
Petty tyrants covering for the defense industry while there’s a cost of living crisis at home is astonishing. How about you personally pay for the R&D for the military? I’d rather keep the money I need to feed my loved ones.
@@enemyofYTemployees I mean, if you're calling random UA-cam commenters "petty tyrants" you might be a _tad_ overdramatic. My point is that everybody's acting according to their incentives under the current system. There _are_ procurement scenarios with penalties for delivering late or changing price, or where goods are purchased at a fixed price. Those tend to be where the product already exists, manufacturing is in place with the kinks smoothed out, and the agency buying them knows exactly how many they need and when and where they want them delivered. But when the request is "hey, we need a ship that's never been built before with seven conflicting must-have objectives, how much will it cost and how long will it take", anybody who believes the initial quote is more of a fool than the guy providing it. I'd love to see reduced military spending, but you achieve that by not creating these slush-fund projects in the first place, not opening the purse strings for a completely new weapons program and then trying to bring it in on time and under budget. They're pushing so many boundaries of engineering, physics, and materials science that you'll end up with nothing to show for whatever your investment was up to the cutoff point.
The “ modularity” diagram suggests a new term for these - “ Mr. Potatoe Ship”. Maybe they can add a small flight deck to launch the Osprey ( for Marines wishing to be buried at sea).
That was the part that shocked me. Too fast to hit. Someone believed that? I can believe, "too cheap to matter", like a liberty ship. But sheesh, make it survivable!
These types of craft in civi service even have a higher standard of training to crew. I worked WPC Fast Craft and first ship I trained and worked on was an Incat 74 known locally as "Vomit Comet". My training for that 3200t fast cat was good for just about anything afloat because there is way more emphasis on Fire Fighting & Fire Prevention even for the cabin crew never mind deck and bridge. Their seakeeping is insane and they are fast and as long as you don't mind throwing your pax around, hilariously maneuverable BUT they also melt and burn scary fast if fire gets round the fire protection and I don't think an anti ship missile is going to be nice enough to make sure it sets a fire inside the boundary of integrated fire protection.
With respect to crew size, the initial manning required a lot of maintenance to be performed by civilian contractors. For parts and service of many of the installed systems, the Navy is dependent on the respective contractor to perform the maintenance. Sailors don't possess all of the knowledge and references to performance maintenance that would be normally performed by Sailors of other ship classes LCS has a lot of proprietary hardware). This often required civilians to fly out to Singapore or to any other port the ship was at, to work on the ships while in a maintenance phase or if corrective work was needed. As a result the operating costs of these ships are among the highest in the fleet relative to crew size. Even with a crew size of 70, some the maintenance still has to be performed by off-hull personnel. To really get these ships self sufficient to meet all standards required of other ship classes, you need a crew size of around 100. The problem is that the early hulls of the Independence class didn't have enough berthing to house a crew of a 100. The Navy went into this with unrealistic expectations without any at sea testing of an unproven concept before going to full production.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment. As for the armor protection of aluminum, you could compare it to the M113, with the added fun of sinking.
Failure to prototype and learn lessons made every lesson way more expensive as it had to be spread across units in production. Just stupid arrogant officers wanting to spend someone else money. Just sick.
Naval engineers have terabytes of data on the capabilities of the materials in a boat and know what to watch out for. The problem of the decks cracking isn't some general problem of the engineers being too stupid to know something that's basic info to you or me. It's going to be something very specific in either their materials data, or their calculation methodologies, or something like this. For instance you mention "the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment." OK, what specific alloys were used in the case you're referring to, what specific material property limits were there, and what was the actual stress applied? By what design methodology did this appear correct, when it actually wasn't? If you can't answer these questions, consider whether you indeed know what you're talking about.
@@lqr824 : hey there, I may only be your Average UA-cam commenter, but that specific criticism of the LCS has been around for well over a decade. It’s definitely worth asking why our Average Infantryman didn’t address that in their video.
@@grahamstrouse1165Yeah, because the military asks for next generation programmes which require levels of funding not available outside of the cold War. The ground combat vehicle was just absurd. 80 tonnes for an IFV, that's heavier than tanks, and costs about 4 times as much.
Holy moley. I always thought it was strange when I noticed two different types of Littoral combat ships. Never put two and two together and realized the Navy went ahead with two designs for the same class!
Yeah sounds more like to me the people shaking hands under the table convinced their buddies to just get the navy to invest in both. I know lockheed has weight to throw around in some circles.
Ah ...somewhat. the op forgot to mention the perry class frigates that were the replacements for the knox class. Also did not bring up that the austal hulls are based on proven ropax ferries. I worked on a high speed ferry ropax 240 feet in length. we had to do a hull structure inspection yearly . Yes cracks were found yearly and addressed. Part of the issue with independence class is that they modified a high speed ropax ferry design to what the navy wanted but missed some things in their stress analysis.
It was the same thinking as with the F-35 program where they continued LRIP in spite of still, two decades later, not having finished development work. We now have over a thousand F-35s not all built to the same block version with the older ones needed expensive rebuilds to bring them to the latest block standard. On the other hand, Canada waiting as long as they did to order the F-35, in spite of being one of the senior contributing countries to the development funding, meant we'll be receiving jets to the latest block standard.
Anyone who watches Tex Talks Battletech will note some striking similarities between this story and the Baron-class Warship. Because Tex is an expert and knowing this stuff is his job and he draws on his experience to tell the story.
Plus Battletech draws a lot of inspiration from reality, since the LCS is not the first instance of this type of production mismanagement. Sometimes what’s “good enough” is the best option.
Unexpected Battletech is always welcome. Go Roguetech! Those guys are amazing! If Battletech the video game is the LCS then RT is a full on Nuclear carrier group!
Very much US industrial companies taking the navy for a ride. Maintenance being proprietary to company contractors and not navy sailors etc. Would have been much easier and cost effective to joint venture with any of many NATO Western allies. Haveing similar expertise in shallow waters operations. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Italy have ship building and operational experience in Baltic, Mediterranean seas etc
TL, DW The trimaran hull is cracking at the seams. The other class has no ammunition for its guns, because government, and the engines transmission self destructs if you try to engage the turbines, so it’s stuck at slow speed.
Lockheed probably thought that if they could make transmission powering f35B lift fan then they can make transmission connecting diesel engines and gas turbines as well
Correction: The Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates FFG-7 through FFG-61, were the replacement for the Knox Class Frigates and served in the US Fleet from 1977 through 2015.
Weren't the cracks from the fact that dissimilar metals were being used? Steel hulls with aluminum superstructures i believe. That's like metallurgy 101 level stuff.
Probably said million times before but I really am hooked to your videos. Maybe not all info should be taken for granted but it’s delivered in a neutral manner and summarized in a way that I and a lot of people could understand. I don’t like news of conflicts and politics but the topic is just too important to ignore and anything military related can really change the livelihoods of people around the globe. Also important for We, the people, to know how the defense budget is and was being used and it confuses me why congress wants three more of the equivalent of fragile Ferraris with a hard speed limiter.
@@Taskandpurposewould you be interested in maybe having a separate channel for more discussion of this nature and more of your own subject opinions? What happen to two bro 1 bunker?
@@Taskandpurpose Thank you and your team for providing great videos that are both informative and entertaining. People here are right; keep the politics out. You would probably lose half your audience otherwise. Information, not indoctrination.😊
USS Augusta was christened in Eastport Maine. We visited Eastport and got a tour of her. Cool ship with a small professional crew . I liked the bridge control stations.
Honestly, I've been involved in a few government programs trying to implement modern software suites and I can tell you that they pay crap, hire completely ignorant programmers who will work for low wages and lock everything down so tight that you can't get anything done anyway. I've vocalized my concerns multiple times and fully believe we are a good 10 - 20 years behind China, Russia and even North Korea. They just get it done and don't have to dance around for 5 years to get a 2 month project approved. They also unfortunately have the concept that All Engineers are also Software Engineers because they can spell the programming language C and C++ and get "Hello World!" to run in each. WOW!! We need huge help in the actual tech and software field.
The Cole was caused by the good idea fairies in the State Dept. thinking the would be spreading good will in Yemen by using it as a refueling depot. I was in Navy on a Knox class in mid 80’s. Never did we go somewhere just to take on fuel, that is what you have unrep for.
@@josephknaak9034 No that's not why, fairies don't exist except in your imagination. It's called lack of situational awareness and a failure in security.
At 22:48 (and b4 and after) water comes out of a small round section on the deck, within the first 5 to 10 feet of the bow. It obviously being pushed through the boat by the momentum of the ship. My question is - Why is water allowed to come inside that boat, that then must be let out of the boat? Tks
I just recently found and started watching T&P content and am impressed. You are now in my must watch content list, right up there with other space leaders like Ward Caroll and relative new comer (to me), WGOW Shipping. All credible and verifiable, non-hyped news - a refreshing and valued alternative to the nonsense, opinion biased Corp-Media infotainment BS that drove me here in the first place!
Someone may have mentioned this - but the entire Perry Class (FFG7), some 60 odd Frigates, followed the Knox class. Although they're all out of service now, too.
I think there's also a problem with modular design. If you have for example 3 different loadouts for different missions, it means that you need crew that can handle 3 different sets of equipment. Or 3 different crews. In both situations, training is gonna be the problem.
Crew gets rotated out. I could easily see a scenario where a ship is moved from one role to another if there is need for it. Those decisions and implementation are pretty slow though, so the Navy has time to train a crew for the job before the ship makes it's way back to port to refit for the new mission.
@Jeff55369 It's a gimmick which made the ships too expensive. They should have chosen 1 small ship design role and done that first, when it worked they could then broaden scope. That's how smarter nations build capacity. But no, America wanted a ship which could do everything everywhere.
@@jgw9990It's doesn't do everything everywhere all at the same time. Modularity also allows you to use the same hull in different specialized roles, even if that ship ends up dedicated to that role. Theoretically that would keep costs down since you're using a lot of the same parts. the only real issue you have with this approach, is if the hull isn't appropriate for the roles assigned to it.
@@jgw9990 modularity is specifically so you don't have to take the ship apart. Just remove modules. For example: tanks are modular in that the turrets are removeable without having to do extensive work to do so. It's also the principle used in building computers. It's true that the navy, or the designers of these platforms, may have failed in this aspect, but if properly designed, modularity should simplify the design, not make it more complex. It has to be simple in order to work with various different platforms. Properly done, it should also speed up repair operations, because you can swap out the modules and do work on the damaged pieces of gear while it's not inside the the operational vehicle. Just because the concept was poorly implemented doesn't destroy the theory behind it.
There's a lot missing here. A huge reason why they were granted lower survivability status was the low radar cross section of their hulls. Furthermore, there was somewhat of a mutiny in the ranks where captains and CPOs didn't want to command them due to the low number of crew needed. (In other words, lower prestige). The precision munition for the Bofors gun was sabotaged by congressmen who slashed the order quantity so that the cost per round would look ridiculously high. Kind of like how the F-22 program would have had a much lower total cost per airframe if they had manufactured the full quantity of them specified originally. The teething problems weren't seriously more significant than what happened while they were rolling out the new Ford class of carriers. (Doesn't anyone remember the controversy about the catapults with those?) No - the death of the littoral combat ships is an inside job. And now that we need them again in the Red Sea (but don't have them), this sabotage approaches the threshold of treason.
As a USN Veteran..... onboard KNOX-class (FF) and O.H. PERRY-class (FFG), I must say........ for an Army-guy.... You hit it RIGHT On-Da-NOSE!!! I was, an Operations Specialist (OS) and was PRETTY Familiar with ASW. In my last couple of years, they were training me and a couple of others on my CIC team to do a Plethora of different tasks...some not involving my rate in the Navy... Fire Control, Sonar Tech, Electronics Warfare, etc... I was wondering, "why are they training me in things I have NO Knowledge about and training on this stuff like Every-other-week??" Well, it was they were retiring my FFG ( because like you said FFs were already retired AFTER the 'Gulf War' )... BUT WE STILL HAD FFGs!!! Well, I got out as they were lifting our 'one-arm bandit' ( our missile launcher off our FFG ) and they were getting ready to transfer the Rest of the team I was training with ( they actually STOPPED my training after I told them my INTENTIONS of Retirement ). I was Lucky... for the three (3) guys that left my last unit, they got stuck on a LCS.......... A N D Boy, they things they would say and the things that THEY would have to do, was Quite something......but again, You hit it, "On-Da-NOSE!!" USN Veteran 84 - 05 ">>. LONG LIVE ...... DA FRIGATES !!!!
Another thing to follow, is the DoD wants to expand its ship building and maintenance capacity, and Mobile, and Marinette are new "experienced" builder options. All the Destroyer and carrier yards are full-up, and the builders for the Freedom have the contracts for the new Constellation class Frigate
I know things have changed since I was in the navy in the 1960s but back then a frigate was bigger than a destroyer. The hull designation was DL for destroyer leader. The frigate on which I served was later updated and reclassified as a cruiser.
Thanks for this video! Really appreciate the quick run down of these ships as I always found them interesting. Good to have a overall story of why and how and what-not.
exactly, modify the 11 class to have naval hellfire pods, three cwis modules, and a 57mm gun. Using the proven existing propulsion of the 110. Butt hey, Admirals need those cushy post-navy jobs.
In WWII, we had PT boats. They could maneuver in shallow water. They were cheap. They were fast. They were nearly impossible to hit. and their torpedoes were capable of seriously damaging or sinking a capital ship. Modular? the entire boat was a module. IMO, a modern analog for the PT boat, with modern materials, detection and weapons, would be effective against speed boat swarms and as screening elements for larger vessels. If they need to be updated, just scrap the thing and build a new one.
I got to view two of the Independence class last August. They were tied up at dock in Bremerton, Washington Naval yard. My guide during my visit, my grandson, serves on a SSBN. He expressed some tongue-in-cheek remarks on these boats. They're held in a low regard by those who know them.
@@gregs7562 Swordfish (Miecznik) is a failure as well. Very poorly armed, too expensive for what they give, out of the 3 ships built only the prototype will have an actual armament - the two ships of the class will be nearly an empty hulls, ready to be armed in case of war (with the enemy that shall give the time for Marynarka Wojenna to arm their vessels... lmao), some of the weapons for the Swordfish still don't even exist in the exact variant that is planned for the vessel... and everything is already beyond schedule and over budget.
The simplest way for the USN to have gotten effective LCS would have been to get updated Corvettes and Frigates designed, the smaller to work closer to shore and chase small craft / drones the larger for asw / mine sweeping.
Yes. The primary role of an LCS is a carrier of a helicopter, drones, mine hunting USVs, and the like. Doing that doesn't require 40+ knots. The other role is Sreetfighter: a fast, heavily armed, cheap corvette. Trying to combine them was a mistake.
After 9-11 the LCS was for green water border patrol missions. It was never planned for blue waters. But in 2010 or so the US Navy hat the great idea to use LCS as a pseudo-frigate.
Since the US Navy is stuck with the ships. Making each type focus on on type of mission is a lot better then module design. They should have just made a ship design to take on Subs and a ship design to take on pirates. With anti air and anti surface defenses.
Storing and swapping out modules does not sound like pit stops to me. The changing crew competencies associated with the different modules has my head spinning. It’s a nightmare.
I remember seeing this in Sam Diego when I was in, I thought it was cool but it looked a little run down. I also got to see the zumwalt class destroyer going into dock. I’m not in the Navy anymore but it surprises me that neither of these ships have been successful.
Thanks again, very well explained! I would agree on the fact that they were not up to the many missions intended initially, because modularity can't solve it in the short term, as initially intended. But once it is decided what mission each kind of ship should perform, I believe they will work it out in spite of their limitations, teething problems or design shortcomings.
Yeah we have a bunch of them in San Diego and on a 'military tour' we found out that the ships hauls of the LCS 3 haul... were even bullet proof and a small craft with a .50 could totally take these things out. Our government is JACKED!
I was thinking how much japan's mogami class frigates has so much better suitability for shallow/littorial water missions. It's cheap, fast, modular multi mission and wide array of capabilities. It has high stealth design, mine warfare, mine hunting , anti-submarine capabilities with electronic warfare as bonus. For weapons it has MK45 127mm gun for small boats and drones, 8 anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, seaRAM for ciws, 1 SH-60L helicopter, 2x UUV and USV and lastly a 16 cell mk41 vls which house type-03 SAM AA missile and Type-07 anti-submarine missile, the vls cell can also hold quad pack ESSM for total 64 missile for anti-air mission if required. More over it has link 22 capabilities, am advanced CIC so then can coordinate with destroyer. I think mogami class frigate would have been perfect for US Navy shallow water fleet.
I agree mogami is perfect for mission in the middle East. With its adavance sensor suite and electric warfare capacities can detect boats and drone in clusted littorial environment and it's armament are good as well the 127mm naval gun can take care of small boats, drones and slow missiles and quad packed 64 ESSM missile are enough for deal with anti- ship and cruise missile. It's helicopter can help in monitoring task. Honestly japan not participating in the operation is a shame, mogami could have contributed a lot in the middle East.
@@iamnobody4574there's a whole ass franchise about anthropomorphic anime girl warships. And "Mogami" is a clumsy, tomboyish one prone to accidents. I'll spare you the details and just say, don't nuke a country twice.
The idea of this type of ship is actually a very good one. In fact, is great. The issue with it was the rush to implement it. In fact, I think this idea should be implemented as soon as possible once they work out all of the bugs so back to the drawing table, and then make this thing work.
Too many politicians and Military staff wanting to retire into the shipbuilding industry. To do it correctly outsource all initially, and test 2 ships, you can add secret items after built. Have the secret bits planned eg weight size power requirements, cable ducting.
Long story short: U.S. Navy took 19th century-Russian concept of a guardian ship (smaller, cheaper destroyer with less equipment), and made everything wrong - it's not a way smaller, it doesn't have less equipment, and it's several times more expensive then destroyers, nice)
I’ve seen other videos about how bad these ships are, but this is by far the best. Much more in depth explanation. I think this is a great concept but just wasn’t done right.
Great report. That whole modularity thing is ridiculous. I think they should all be able to hunt subs and sweep mines if that's where they operate. They should all support special warfare because they're closer to where the troops need to go. But they need to be survivable and defensive. I guess we have now forgotten to build warships
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorhimars is not expected to be air defence, f35 is not expected to be cargo aircraft, Abrams is not expected to hunt submarines while LCS had many to many requirements
In boot camp in the 90's we were told the Navy would not use aluminum in combat vessels any longer due to heavy damage during a fire onboard a ship that had an aluminum superstructure. Don't know why they went back on that decision.
This is where the USCG needs to be reinstated as a member of the military forces, and not just domestic security. Essentially, of the top five navies in the world, the USA has two of the largest combat fleets: the USN and the USCG. And while the USCG does have a presence in the Middle East, it is minimal. Yet the USCG, historically, has been the primary patrol force for the US Armed Forces in the littoral zone. The USMC does the beachhead and landings, the USN does the open ocean crossings, the USCG makes sure the coast is clear...literally. In the past, the USN has also maintained small coastal craft, but not for ongoing patrol like this; rather, they have had fast attack craft with a specific strategic purpose in mind (as torpedo boats, mine hunters, or SF support vessels). Yet the political focus of the last few decades that the USCG is a domestic security force, and not a part of the larger US military forces, means all that littoral focus and specialization has been shoved in a cupboard with no-one wanting to look at it. For the littoral space to change, the approach to what the USCG is and what it needs to do also needs to go backwards, to the era where it, alongside the USN, was a global maritime force, and not just tied to specific US domestic interests. That's not to say it's domestic interests don't matter, but it should never have been isolated to JUST the Dept of Homeland Security. Rather, the old dual-hat approach was necessary for the USA to maintain it's global interests.
Last I heard, the frigates were making a comeback. What strikes me is what happens when a few of these ships get crosswise of somebody else's navy and we have littorals going down with all hands. The Battle off Samar may not be a one-off.
I served on DD-977 and then FFG-11 before I retired in 93. Could not let the class pass on without mention. Baby Brother was on a Knox Class, USS Alwin I believe that is how it is spelled.
The OPH's were built to a low cost design that didn't do anything, other than convoy escort, well. They lacked room for future growth and were not designed to stand duty as part of a carrier group. They were meant to act as second line escorts for tankers, container ships and troop transports. They had a basic AAW capability, minimal ASuW capability, and decent ASW capability. Their main design threat being soviet submarines. They got pressed into other roles because they were the least valuable ships left in the fleet after the massive class retirements in the mid 90s, and even in the 80s were assigned jobs where it was thought they would be protected by other more capable ships in a fleet. The two that suffered combat damage were only saved by their crews and by being in the persian gulf.. in relatively calm and shallow litoral waters to begin with. If they'd been in the indian ocean during a storm when they damaged they'd have sunk for sure. Samuel B Roberts (the one that struck the mine) had the benefit of a replenishment ship nearby who's CH-46 helicopters helped ferry fire fighting equipment and portable pumps over and take off wounded. As it is the mine destroyed the engine room, tore both turbines off their mounts and broke the ship's keel. She had to be sealifted back to the USA and the repairs involved cutting out the entire 315 ton engine room module, jacking a new one up in place and welding the hull back together. The sealift and repairs combined for about $91 million dollars for a ship that originally cost about $125 million. It also took 13 months in the shipyard to do the work, plus the several weeks bringing the ship back from the gulf. Stark had only one of the two exocet warheads actually detonate and again fortunately friendly ships were nearby (namely a pair of Charles F Adams class DDGs) and she was close enough to Bahrain to make it there on her own power, while escorted by those two destroyers.
I agree, after coming from a Spruance Class Destroyer, I felt they were not the best ships ever build. I felt safer on the Old Essex Class carrier I was on early on in my career. The 76mm Gun would fire five or six rounds before it broke and I only saw one successful missile launch in the 4 1/2 years I was on her. Some of the wounded on the Sammy B were shipmates of mine on the Briscoe and where the missile that hit the Stark was instrumental in major changes to the Damage control on the rest of the class. Some William valves in the firemain were re-designated to Circle X-ray. The damage to the crew quarters was very personal to the enlisted there and the damage to the Chief's quarters ended just forward of my locker in the Chief's Quarters. The locker just forward of mine was destroyed on the Stark. We were very interested in the damage reports to both ships seeing what was comparable to our little home.
I can remember, okay I’m getting old. After HS I went to welding school and and in between refinery (Petro-chem) jobs I’d work the ship yards down on the Gulf. Worked on one that was, we were told anyways it was a sub killer. Oh ya this was like 1997. Anyways that’s was just there short term but they were building this state of the art boat and it was funky. Had those super narrow pontoons that went deep in the water. Always wondered what happened to that boat. Was it ever even used or was it repurposed, maybe sold. Is it sitting in some shipyard rotting away today. They were building two and it was kind of medium security project. We were told what it was but it was no secret build. It was a little bit before the internet took off, shortly later the one badass sub was sunk from Russia and that really kind of redirected their Navy. Anyways it was one of these funky designed boats so they have been at re designing navy ships for a good while now
US Congress probably: "MAKE IT MODULAR AND MAKE IT LAME!"
Follow for Updates: instagram.com/cappyarmy/
twitter.com/Cappyarmy
they need to upgrade the krappy ship to the level of the cappy XD
It's not in the red sea because cappy is acting like a simp
That "digital distortion" effect (that you use over & over again) is really visually annoying.
This needs to be made into a T-Shirt
you have Amphibious assault ship, can't you fill them with any smaller patrol ships with a lot of weapons, and drones so they can be transpoted around where they are needed, and make yourself or buy rheinmetall "The Skyranger family" air defense, drones 1 shot from Oerlikon Millennium 35mm Naval Revolver Gun System, it can also be used mobile on land and is a drone killer at 5 km with is shot, it is cheap instead of expensive missiles, and there are about all types of threats currently known also drone swarm attack. And if you don't want to buy German, you can always be inspired by fine German design 🙃
I was a US Navy officer, then worked in the defense industry and then worked as a consultant to DoD on Finance and Logistics. This might sound cynical, but MHO, based on experience, is that to understand things like this is not to look first at the mission, capability or "bells and whistles." Follow the money and look at career paths. Look at how much money is going to what contractors for different systems, and what kind of systems get people promoted to flag rank. Small ships with smaller price tags that can be built by second tier contractors don't have the political leverage of big, high ticket ships built by first tier contractors. Bigger ships that are platforms to get skippers promoted to admiral will be more likely to get support than ones that don't. Blue water command beats out brown water command every time. The CO of a destroyer is more likely to eventually get command of a cruiser than the CO of a littoral ship. That's how it really works.
The fact these weren't designed by a ship building company should have been the first red flag.
Money
Not how I remember it when I was a sailor in the early 90’s. These were career enhancing as the idea was they’d be commanded by an O3 which would make them desirable and competitive in future assignments. Like the Marines and the Army who command at the O3 level with follow on staff positions. This provides valuable leadership experience for future higher level Commands or assignments. I generally see your other points and it makes sense based on my limited experience.
Sounds like the US navy might be as vulnerable as the old Spanish navy. Better take a look at some history.
It doesn’t explain why the farce went on too long and wasn’t checked.
I've been directly involved with repairs on these ships. Short sighted design, bad QA, and the Navy not learning from past mistakes concerning materials, ie Aluminum in ships structures. Aluminum's inability to flex leads to cracking. We saw this in the Aluminum superstructure of both CG and Fast Frigate. This is caused by torsional stress as the ship passes through waves and swells. The bow may be pushed to starboard while the stern is pulled to port. Steel hulls can flex while Aluminum to a far lesser degree. These all lead to failure. I think the base concept and I'm talking base concept is a good one but material choices have condemned this class of ship from the beginning.
Austals ferry's seemed to go ok
The Navy did learn from past experiences with aluminum, that's why the Arleigh Burke class DDG's only use aluminum in the mast. Too bad that the "newer" navy forgot that lesson!
Oh yeah, the Arleigh Burke class Destoyers, best designed ships in the US Navy. Love em.
@@timtitus2532 I'm a plankowner on USS Momsen DDG-92 and retired while stationed on USS Halsey DDG-97. You're right, great ships!
Aluminum doesn't flex? Why are commercial aircraft built largely aluminum then? An aircraft most definitely flexes during flight, take-offs, and landings.
I was a designer for the LCS-1. It was a nightmare project. I was told at one point that if I couldn't work 60 hours a week I might as well stay home. The Freedom took a huge hit in weight when the Navy told us to switch from aluminum to steel for the haul which crushed early speed calcs. Crawling under the grating in the phone booth engine room was rough for me on shipchecks. I can't imagine how the crew deals with those engine rooms. Good sub training I guess
The LCS program is gonna result in so many fantastic books about how (not) to manage an engineering project, and it's a real shame nobody will ever read those books or learn anything from the fate of the project.
In the tech industry, I also worked on some "we're going to make a platform that solves every problem" meta-projects that didn't do anything, because every industry is constantly trying to reinvent that antipattern. Sigh.
Which metal was more expensive? Steel or aluminum?
@@dannydaw59 aluminum I believe but it is junk in combat
Oh, so that's what LCS is. No wonder why they don't want anyone to know what they're working on. It's still crazy on these projects.
@guaposneeze nobody wants to read books about what doesn't work. They just want to know how to get rich quick. And if they're already rich, they want to squeeze a few more pennies of profits. These days, it's all about change. Nothing can stay the same. Once we get good at modular design, they will decide modular is old news. But if you're not up on whatever the current buzz words are, then you will probably be unemployed.
I was part of the final crew of the Freedom, she was a good boat overall for her last few years of commissioned life. While the rest of the class was restricted to 18 knots we were still fully mission capable because she and Fort Worth had a different combining gear design from the later ships. While on our final deployment we still managed to achieve some pretty fast speeds. The FREEDOM class also in particular have some of the lowest radar cross sections of any US Navy ship class which enable them to sneak up on enemies in EMCON. The trouble is that those jets are acoustically loud and she still has quite an impressive thermal signature when those big MT30's are running.
In my opinion, scrapping those MT-30's and replacing them with a further two diesel engines and increasing fuel storage would be great for overall endurance. Combine that with installation of laser weaponary, replacing the main gun with the Leonardo Strales/Dart 76mm, adding SEWIP block III, adding those NSM's and a more effective point defense system would greatly enhance the Freedom class in general both in the Littoral zones and in blue water.
I have no idea what much of that second paragraph means but sounds good to me. Somebody put this man in charge!
There are actually two lcs classes, Independence and Freedome.. , the Freedome have more issues. And mission modules kind of stalled
@mantori762 Having served in the LCS program I have to disagree with your assessment. The Indy class has had very significant problems... so much so that LCS-2 NEVER deployed in her short career. LCS-1 deployed about 4 times in the 13 years she was in commission. The Navy's biggest holdup with the Freedom Class is the combining gear issues that resulted in speed reductions down to 18 knots.... that only affected the Freedom class hull numbers 5 and further.... Freedom and Fort Worth have combining gears that are not affected (different model than 5 AF). The thing is, 18 knots or 47 knots... you are not outrunning a cruise missile so who cares if they cannot use the gas turbines?
The Indy class on the otherhand have significant issues with cracking hulls and once discovered they are speed limited to 12 knots. They also use even more non-standard gear than the Freedom Class which makes them even harder to integrate into the rest of the fleet in general than the Freedom's and they have very common water jet issues.
@paulbrown8216 I didnt go through 80 foot seas with Freedom but yes she could do anything that a Arleigh Burke can do sea wise but because the draft is significantly less there would be a lot more tossing around. The fact that the Freedom class is both mono-hull AND uses steel for the main deck and below gives them a huge advantage in heavy seas compared to the all aluminum trimaran Indy's
I always thought one of the best roles for these would be to carry a bunch of NSM or ATACMS/HIMARS/PrSM, take them to the deck and you have a missile arsenal boat that is small, cheap and "steathy" and fast....Unfortunately, it's working out that way.
"Mom can we get corvettes? "
"We have corvettes at home. "
Corvettes at home:
why'd they get rid of them?
ha, that's hilarious and true!
I'm a welder by trade but have NO experience with welding salt water ships, (or ships of any kind) I can well imagine that the corrosive salt water is an issue, I wonder what kinds of technology and techniques are used to mitigate this?🤔
@ronaldfreitag Pretty sure it's just thick hulls and regular cleaning. US ships which come into port from a long mission clearly have corrosion on the hulls, but get refurbed in dockyard.
This feels like Star Wars irl
They were retired because the navy couldn’t find the littoris.
damnit, you beat me by 3 minutes. lmao.
Nicely done lol
I see what you did there.
Top comment right here 😂
@@youngwildcat08 Mine was good. This was better.
Another excellent piece. The LCS and Zumwalt surface combatants are both catastrophic failures, because in part they were designed when we were fighting people who literally had no navy of their own and as you pointed out, there was no perceived blue water threat. Both classes also violated a cardinal rule - do not incorporate too many new systems in a new platform. Finally, they were built in large numbers before we had a chance to prove just how worthless they were. As a former destroyerman I was delighted when I first learned we would be getting new small warships. But when I started learning of the specs I was dismayed. Why, oh why did we require 40 knot speeds? That forced so many other compromises in the design. I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray. You are absolutely right that Congress was more interested in job creation than getting the Navy effective warships. Thanks to the Hurculean efforts of sailors, these poorly designed ships are slowly being warped into reasonable, if limited, combatants.
Job creation? I think campaign contributions was misspelled. Otherwise I think you make some good points.
Amounts to the same thing. @@Angel9932
"I could go on and on about the failings of the class which are even worse than what you portray." Please do. Nice to hear it from the horse's mouth for once.
I'm curious if the lessons learned with Zumwalt and LCS will be applied toward a new destroyer class. We certainly were more conservative with the new frigates (Constellation class). If anything, we have a clear focus of who/what the new destroyer will counter (China, maybe Russia?). We know we don't need AGS, and Zummwalt has helped advance a few key technologies. We just may need larger Arleigh Burke's with the IPS Powertrain from Zummwalt, able to handle larger electrical power budget and space for upgrades in some systems. Don't need to reinvent the wheel, just evolve
I worked on Freedom class as a trademan. I always felt the design was a moving target (always being revised / designed on the fly). I also felt like they were trying to shove 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag regarding the ship's systems, the automation, reduced crew manning idea and in general, overly complicated. Reduced manning also leads to overworked personnel and poor morale.
And military contracts are the nation's biggest job program... taxpayer funded socialism for big biz... privatizing their profits and socializing loses.
Navy wanted a little patrol boat, Congress pork barrelled it up to the LCS, and pork keeps it under construction.
this is a great way to put it actually
I think they have to do cost overruns. I believe it's a law.
@@Taskandpurpose like many things in the military, a legitimately cool and potential idea was killed by senior military and gov politics...
@@Andy-te1mwIt’s high stakes poker: draw the Government in so deep that it becomes almost inconceivable to pull the plug and take the loss.
Therefore, it’s “all in” with other people’s money.
@@Taskandpurpose Is it? I am pretty sure 19-minute mark you said they don't want a little patrol boat. Even if this statement didn't mean bigger ships made for more serious combatants and instead meant just more "air-defense" like some in the comment section seem to be saying couldn't you install one where this ship was supposed to be module (in addition to the airburst function of the main cannon? Sounds like they asked for a ship, made the requirements ridiculous for things they didn't need (likely because they didn't know what they needed) and then decided they didn't want that ship. I mean just think about the purpose of anti-sub modules alone. What is the real point there if you were making a patrol vessel with no survivability? They stumble across an enemy sub that they also were pre-fitted to deal with. Sounds like someone did a brainstorm and just vomited out module names instead of thinking how they would actually be used.
I think the navy doesn't have a clue what it is doing right now (but when really has it ever) and has no clue what to invest in. I think it might need a new ship in the future, but frankly isn't going to get one without all the same over-run. 65-70% of projects fail (opinion of management versus cost and product received), a new ship isn't going to play out dramatically different.
I think this is a case of complaining about how something didn't work out and now trying to pass the blame onto others... a time-honored tradition shared by the military, congress and all of humanity alike.
6:00 Yep, bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development. Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design but the Navy rejected it and continued to bleed money into the two LCS classes. Even their Heritage-class cutter is a slow, down-armed but effective LCS-type ship that is much cheaper than an LCS. Navy doesn't want that either.
wow i kind of just asked about this. thank you. this whole thing gives me a headache....
> bureaucratic thinking drove the LCS development
That's a facile attack. EVERYTHING in the military is bureaucratic, including the biggest successes (F-15? And more and more it looks like the F-35?) and biggest losers (what people thought of the F-35 10 years ago?).
> Years later, the USCG even offered its Sentinel-class cutter as a modern patrol boat design
OK, which of the missions proposed for the LCS could be done by the Sentinel-class as it stood, and how many could it have been adapted to? How much would that adaption cost? Note the Sentinel-class is literally 1/10th the displacement.
@@lqr824 Agree with the former, but many ocean going minesweepers and patrol boats are built to similar displacements to the Sentinel class. Same with convoy escorts and missile boats.
The Danish Flyvefisken-class would be comparable.
That said the aphorism steel is cheap systems are expensive still holds.
The Heritage could be tweaked to fit Navy speed requirements at a fraction of the cost of a new ship design and build but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc.
@@dmacarthur5356 > but that wouldn't get an Admiral a nice board position at Raytheon, BAE, Gen Dyn, etc.
Man, you're so cynical and jaded, that's so cool.
Anyone in the US military that wanted money... wouldn't be in the US military. These guys would have much more pride in having shepharded a successful project through than they'll ever be at the idea of retiring in a 4,000 sq ft. house instead of 2,000. And the LCS is basically a failure, so it's not clear why a contractor would even want a top officer who was on the military side of that failure. The "tweak" you refer to is probably a figment of your imagination, but if it was so great, and so cheap, then that'd leave a lot of money for other projects from contractors you mention. You don't really understand that the limit on military spending is the budget Congress sets. Any dollar not spent on weapon system A is absolutely guaranteed to be spent on weapon system B, so no, going with a retrofit proposal certainly would not hurt a vendor to the point they decide not to hire someone. It's not generals or admirals that set the budget, it's congress. To the extent there's corruption somewhere, that's where you'd be better off looking. Finally, can you imagine anyone who'd do a better job as a director of a contractor than an ex-general or admiral? It's not as if such a chair is offered to a retiring officer as a payback for getting some fancy new military system built. There is some corruption in the US military, for a fact, but it's not the dead certainty that you portray.
Cappy I spent the last 12 years of my service in the Army. My first 6 years I spent in the Navy. Even spent a few in the Air reserve. I was on the USS Fife, DD991. When I joined the crew in 1986 the ship was in yard hands conducting improvements and ship life extension. They put a lot of different things on board, the biggest addition was the Vertical Launch System. They cut a huge hole in the forecastle. When we finally deployed the ship had a badly found hull and a permanent list (it leaned to one side), because the structure was weakened by the hole in the forecastle. In high seas we would roll perilously in that direction. We were deployed out of Yokosuka Japan. We went through at least two typhoons and one major storm off San Francisco while I was on board. We always had major breakages etc (even injuries) during these times. We spent many months in Japanese ship yards trying to fix the problem. While I was on board we were only deployed for actual sea duty for two years (I was on board from 1986 to 1990. There were all sorts of other problems. The ship was eventually used for target practice and sunk in 2003. Way sooner than it should. The Navy got rid of the Spruance class for good reason. However, one of the biggest problems was a lack of oversight of the the ship yards. At least a third of the yard workers were stoned or refusing to do any work at any given time. Some of them would call in bomb threats so they could go home early. All of these problems were known to the Navy. Yet the Navy was happy to approve design features for this new ship that repeated all the problems that occurred on the Fife (nicknamed Fire in the Forward Engine room). To make matters worse for the Navy they failed to give oversight in the ship yards a greater priority. I don't like using the word corruption, but I have to wonder if anyone has followed the money? What procurement officers, congressman, senators, and bureau of design officials got paid to look the other way (what Admirals)? Why didn't the Coast Guard given this duty? Why did the Navy have to have these ships? The USCG could have made better use of proven designs and more experienced crew in these types of duty. The Coasties would have been perfect for the job.
That’s a heckuva hat trick, mate!
@@grahamstrouse1165 Yeah missed the Marines and the Coast Guard. :P
9:17 "But problems during construction caused delays and significant cost overruns" while the guy has "HA HA HA" on his welding mask is a great meta commentary there :D
The Ivar Huitfeldt class is the result of a modularity program started by the Danish Navy in the 80s, is dirt cheap, can replace an engine underway (done once) and has been very successfully used for anti piracy with long mission times. And being designed with a "best commercial standard" with stupid high levels of redundancy it can be built by most commercial shipyards, not just specialists naval yards.
Denmark sells/exports this technology now as SH Defense - The Cube
Yes but there isn't the level of corruption and graft in Denmark that there is in the USA or Canada in defence procurement. Denmark also doesn't see defence contracts as social assistance jobs programs to keep their citizens happy like american politicians do.
Incidentally the original LCS module planning were based on the Danish StanFlex. The Navy just kept adding additional requirements and scope creep unfortunately derailed the deployment of these modules.
Proving something is capable is not the same as being able to do it operationally on a normal basis. It’s like saying the T-90 destroyed a BMP from 4 miles away once therefore its effective range is 4 miles.
They spent a lot of money on the modular ASW with towed array. I believe it never worked well and was never deployed. All of sudden your modular design is not so cost effective.
The LCS Class lacked air defense beyond self-defense and lacked offensive punch to even attack other ships. NSM missiles were later added to give it the ability to hit other ships, however it is still lacking air defense capability to deal with drones or cruise missiles attacking other ships. - As to design deficiencies and other issues is another whole set of factors making the LCS almost useless.
The rolling airframe missiles are anti air.
true ture, it's only become clear to pretty much everyone in the last year or so that this thing is a real lemon. I heard they're recently trying to add container fired SM-6 missiles but it's too little to late.
@@Taskandpurpose granted they are not perfect but they can work now. The last 5 or so do work. Pair them with EFT and have stocks at Djibouti, Aqaba, and Bahrain and the U.S. Navy could assign the destroyers to other missions.
That is a lot of words to spell out 'hot garbage'.
Yes, RAM is anti-air but really only for self-defense. Consider it a longer-range CIWS, with missiles instead of 20 mm bullets. I have seen videos of CIWS engage subsonic cruise missiles successfully, but the missiles body/fuel and warhead still reached the ship and causing lots of damage to the ship including topside including critical equipment. The damage from a supersonic cruise missile would be significantly more, hence RAM development was needed. RAM can take out incoming air threat as a much greater distance than CIWS. Now if an LCS has to defend another ship that is a greater than 5-6 miles away, that other ship is out of luck. @@damongraham1398
I remember reading about these designed back in 2003. A bunch of red flags stood out to me then. The price for one thing, I didn't think you could fit out one of those ships (install all the machinery, like engines, and pumps, and piping) for 200 mil, let alone build the whole thing first. Then there was the "manning." I read the navy was planning on having 40 people, but each person was going to hold 3 jobs. Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? Sailors work 12 hour shifts as is, lets triple their work load! Lastly, the whole "module" thing... Where were we going to keep all these modules? Over seas at the ports they were guarding? So the people the modules were designed to fight could find out what they were? Possibly even mess with them? Or was each boat just supposed to travel 3k miles back to the only port that hold all of them? Last thing about the module thing, that increases the weight. A piece of equipment built into the boat is it's own weight. The whole module mount needs to be structurally built to handle every module type, then the mod itself needs extra bracing in it for support in both storage and use.
Oh, and the whole module thing, I knew back then, it meant that only the company could fix or work on them. Turns out that was true for the whole damn ship. I messaged a buddy about the cracks, and was told the company said the ship had to return to port and have contractors weld them back up when they got fixed. Turns out the contract said the navy will pay for all maintenance for these stupid things. I've heard the sailors are not allowed to even paint the damn things...
And now that it's proven they don't last, let's double the number we have.
In the 1950s, we wanted to know if "X" idea would work, so the government would build a tiny version, and test it. Then they would build a full size version, but only one, and run it for a few years. So the next version would be better in every way. CV-1, the first aircraft carrier functioned, but had many problems, non of which were repeated on later carriers. SSN-571, the first nuclear submarine worked well, but had many problems. It was the only SSN built like it, every one built since is very different, all fixing the found problems. CVN-65 was the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, and again, had several issues that were not repeated on future vessels (like having 8 nuclear reactors for some reason...) But these morons dead ass said "we will just build a shit tons of them and it'll be fine."
But it was not fine.
But the good news is, now that we have 20 years of test data to work with, we might have a shot at building these things properly. The navy might have an actual shot at receiving a good product next time.
Thank you for the eye opening report, I really feel sad after hearing everything that happened with this project.
That part near the end about the littoral combat ships being useful as test beds for other systems reminds me of the guy at a boxing gym who has perfected every technique of blocking punches with his face. That guy can't tell you what to do, but if you watch him spar, you sure as hell can learn what NOT to do.
Yeah this fells less like there are any silver linings and it's just more of a lesson to be pointed out so you learn NOT what to do (the hard way, there's better ways to learn what works and what doesn't).
😁😁😁👍
I liked the idea of using LCS to screen good ships. Use it to block drones, drone targets. Please, automate the ship first so the crew doesn’t have to pay the price.
The problem is, that it's not even suited for that. You'd be better off making small drones (air or boats) that are just chaff/ecm/sam/s2sm that could be recovered and actually keep up with the blue water fleet.@@markyuresko
Was a non-starter from the START - I flew off the Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates between 1986 and 1999 - we understood back then that the Littoral boats were gonna be CRAP.
What specific problem did you see that was going to make the project crap?
Trying to turn the LCS Lemons into Lemonade has been problematic at best. As a Surface Combatant this vessel either type is and has been a huge waste of public treasure, and denied the U.S. Navy of valuable Surface Combatants . . . particularly smaller ones that would perform the ESCORT Mission today. From over $36 to $60 Billion for acquisition depending upon whose numbers you run with . . . to about $100 Billion total when we include personnel and Operations & Maintenance supporting budget plus modifications since fielding . . . these platforms have cost the U.S. taxpayers an entire Frigate Fleet worth of treasure and we have little of nothing in comparatively relevant capability to show for it.
You did a fine job of explaining just how bad the Little Crappy Ship really is. We cannot get rid of them fast enough, and we should only give them to our enemies . . . not our friends. Let the adversaries go broke trying to make them work.
I feel like for these small ships there should be some sort of joint developed ship across multiple nato nations to drive down costs. try to get france, germany, Italy, the UK&Australia, Japan and south Korea on board with the program and have them all able to do domestic production of the same class of small combat ship (frigate or destroyer).
I’ve heard our NATO allies make some pretty good small ships. Why not just buy these?
@@stevepowsinger733the new Constellation class frigates are based on European FREMM frigates.
Steam turbines, pumps and Oakum.
Helo pad, deck guns, VLS, towed sonar, well and elevator. Flex Tape.
Motherfucking flex tape
@@dominuslogik484 The Europeans and NATO actually have several standard programs and our FREMM Frigate is but one example.
Well done. I appreciate the deep dive into the history and facts. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.
Right when we need these LCS in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, they are not even able to fulfil the mission they are designed for. Good Job MIC.
How was this the mission they were designed for?
@@lqr824Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at. Part of the problem is that the democratization of computing means has brought the cost of missiles and drones down to the point where even comparatively low-tech enemies can field dangerous anti-shipping weapons.
@@grahamstrouse1165 > Operating near-shore against relatively low-tech enemies? That is kinda what they were expected to be good at.
What VERY SPECIFIC MISSION is needed here, though? It sounds like there's nothing actually happening at sea for an LCS to do. Minesweeping? No. Laying mines? No. ASW? No. Seal team insertion/retrieval? No. Launching torpedoes? No. Sure there's a low-tech enemy. It doesn't mean that's anything that needs doing that these boats are good for. You need to stop posting when you're drunk or high man, you're making a fool out of yourself.
The US Navy had a small group of ships, the Cyclone class , which could had done the job of the LCS, but they had decided on decommissioning this group of small ships able to operate in swallow water ways and sold them to various other countries navies in the Pacific Ocean near Taiwan and the Philippieans
I was surprised that the US decommissioned the cyclone class. They were ideal for dealing with the threats of the gulf/red sea area particularly the Iranian fast missile boats
Don’t you love it how none of these companies get penalized for going way over budget or downright failing on projects that cost the tax payers billions of dollars?
Ummm ok, so an Independence class is less than a billion dollars. Also, the problem with trying to blame the yards for the over runs, shows that you don't know how the contracts work. Basically every time the navy wants to change things, that is done as an additional contract, each contract must be completed, therefore you must build the ship one way, then change it. I have seen things like fire extinguishers moved 5 times.... These changes add to the cost of the original contract and show up as a cost over run, as it costs more than originally projected.... And an LCS costs less than 1 f-35 anyways.
Good luck getting the defense industry to sign onto moonshot projects when you penalize them for not doing the impossible while their hands are tied by constantly-changing requirements and politicians. 😂
@@jjpaq I’d rather not spend money on weapons to destroy foreign countries while we are having cost of living crisis at home. Maybe you guys love playing petty tyrants but many of us just want to live our lives without being taxed so you can play war.and the defense companies don’t want a part in building the next doomsday device without qualified immunity then great. That will be one fewer reason for the federal government to steal from us.
Petty tyrants covering for the defense industry while there’s a cost of living crisis at home is astonishing. How about you personally pay for the R&D for the military? I’d rather keep the money I need to feed my loved ones.
@@enemyofYTemployees I mean, if you're calling random UA-cam commenters "petty tyrants" you might be a _tad_ overdramatic.
My point is that everybody's acting according to their incentives under the current system. There _are_ procurement scenarios with penalties for delivering late or changing price, or where goods are purchased at a fixed price. Those tend to be where the product already exists, manufacturing is in place with the kinks smoothed out, and the agency buying them knows exactly how many they need and when and where they want them delivered.
But when the request is "hey, we need a ship that's never been built before with seven conflicting must-have objectives, how much will it cost and how long will it take", anybody who believes the initial quote is more of a fool than the guy providing it.
I'd love to see reduced military spending, but you achieve that by not creating these slush-fund projects in the first place, not opening the purse strings for a completely new weapons program and then trying to bring it in on time and under budget. They're pushing so many boundaries of engineering, physics, and materials science that you'll end up with nothing to show for whatever your investment was up to the cutoff point.
9:19 that welders helmet needs sone recognition cos thats shits fire 🔥
The “ modularity” diagram suggests a new term for these - “ Mr. Potatoe Ship”. Maybe they can add a small flight deck to launch the Osprey ( for Marines wishing to be buried at sea).
Floating coffin launching flying coffins --the coffinception
The fact that they didn’t foresee modularity coming at the cost of damage resistance and control actually scares me.
That was the part that shocked me. Too fast to hit. Someone believed that? I can believe, "too cheap to matter", like a liberty ship. But sheesh, make it survivable!
I didn't understand this video to be talking specifically about modularity coming at the expense of damage controllability.
These types of craft in civi service even have a higher standard of training to crew. I worked WPC Fast Craft and first ship I trained and worked on was an Incat 74 known locally as "Vomit Comet". My training for that 3200t fast cat was good for just about anything afloat because there is way more emphasis on Fire Fighting & Fire Prevention even for the cabin crew never mind deck and bridge. Their seakeeping is insane and they are fast and as long as you don't mind throwing your pax around, hilariously maneuverable BUT they also melt and burn scary fast if fire gets round the fire protection and I don't think an anti ship missile is going to be nice enough to make sure it sets a fire inside the boundary of integrated fire protection.
With respect to crew size, the initial manning required a lot of maintenance to be performed by civilian contractors. For parts and service of many of the installed systems, the Navy is dependent on the respective contractor to perform the maintenance. Sailors don't possess all of the knowledge and references to performance maintenance that would be normally performed by Sailors of other ship classes LCS has a lot of proprietary hardware). This often required civilians to fly out to Singapore or to any other port the ship was at, to work on the ships while in a maintenance phase or if corrective work was needed. As a result the operating costs of these ships are among the highest in the fleet relative to crew size.
Even with a crew size of 70, some the maintenance still has to be performed by off-hull personnel. To really get these ships self sufficient to meet all standards required of other ship classes, you need a crew size of around 100. The problem is that the early hulls of the Independence class didn't have enough berthing to house a crew of a 100. The Navy went into this with unrealistic expectations without any at sea testing of an unproven concept before going to full production.
I assumed that the LCS would be supported by a tender. But it looks like the US Navy retired all it's destroyer tender without replacement.
I remember them having to redo / make more berthing space on Freedom class too.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment. As for the armor protection of aluminum, you could compare it to the M113, with the added fun of sinking.
Failure to prototype and learn lessons made every lesson way more expensive as it had to be spread across units in production. Just stupid arrogant officers wanting to spend someone else money. Just sick.
Naval engineers have terabytes of data on the capabilities of the materials in a boat and know what to watch out for. The problem of the decks cracking isn't some general problem of the engineers being too stupid to know something that's basic info to you or me. It's going to be something very specific in either their materials data, or their calculation methodologies, or something like this. For instance you mention "the combination of steel and aluminum in the LCS superstructure as the source of the cracking, in a saline environment." OK, what specific alloys were used in the case you're referring to, what specific material property limits were there, and what was the actual stress applied? By what design methodology did this appear correct, when it actually wasn't? If you can't answer these questions, consider whether you indeed know what you're talking about.
@@lqr824 : hey there, I may only be your Average UA-cam commenter, but that specific criticism of the LCS has been around for well over a decade. It’s definitely worth asking why our Average Infantryman didn’t address that in their video.
@@jamesocker5235We’ve screwed up nearly every major post-war military project since the end of the Cold War.
@@grahamstrouse1165Yeah, because the military asks for next generation programmes which require levels of funding not available outside of the cold War. The ground combat vehicle was just absurd. 80 tonnes for an IFV, that's heavier than tanks, and costs about 4 times as much.
Holy moley. I always thought it was strange when I noticed two different types of Littoral combat ships. Never put two and two together and realized the Navy went ahead with two designs for the same class!
well sure! they're so cheap and capable, the more the merrier!
Yeah sounds more like to me the people shaking hands under the table convinced their buddies to just get the navy to invest in both. I know lockheed has weight to throw around in some circles.
That was a well researched and balancd view about the LCSs!
Not!
Ah ...somewhat. the op forgot to mention the perry class frigates that were the replacements for the knox class. Also did not bring up that the austal hulls are based on proven ropax ferries. I worked on a high speed ferry ropax 240 feet in length. we had to do a hull structure inspection yearly . Yes cracks were found yearly and addressed. Part of the issue with independence class is that they modified a high speed ropax ferry design to what the navy wanted but missed some things in their stress analysis.
This has been a great report. I know that I have searched “ what happened to the Littoral ships”? Several times. Finally, answered!
Lesson: don't go into series production, BEFORE seatrials
hooooah
There are six B21s in production right now
China and russia do that kind of always thst is why there is some od 10 su57
It was the same thinking as with the F-35 program where they continued LRIP in spite of still, two decades later, not having finished development work. We now have over a thousand F-35s not all built to the same block version with the older ones needed expensive rebuilds to bring them to the latest block standard. On the other hand, Canada waiting as long as they did to order the F-35, in spite of being one of the senior contributing countries to the development funding, meant we'll be receiving jets to the latest block standard.
The b21 raider is going in production right now. It barely has had any flight hours.
Another very expensive string of problems waiting to happen.
Anyone who watches Tex Talks Battletech will note some striking similarities between this story and the Baron-class Warship. Because Tex is an expert and knowing this stuff is his job and he draws on his experience to tell the story.
Plus Battletech draws a lot of inspiration from reality, since the LCS is not the first instance of this type of production mismanagement.
Sometimes what’s “good enough” is the best option.
Unexpected Battletech is always welcome. Go Roguetech! Those guys are amazing! If Battletech the video game is the LCS then RT is a full on Nuclear carrier group!
Shoulda just built Urbies
The Warhammer video is my favorite tex talks. Def saw similarities myself.
BATTLETECH MENTIONED!!!!!!!!
Very much US industrial companies taking the navy for a ride. Maintenance being proprietary to company contractors and not navy sailors etc. Would have been much easier and cost effective to joint venture with any of many NATO Western allies. Haveing similar expertise in shallow waters operations. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Italy have ship building and operational experience in Baltic, Mediterranean seas etc
exactly, there was a blank check for stuff during the GWOT years and this is what we got .......no cool
Well in the end the UN Navy did chose an European design for the substitute for the LCS, the Franco-Italian FREMM
VISBY!
@@thecommentarykingwhich in fact new FFG going to be build by some company built LCS
Once again, defense companies lobbied Congress to build something that had questionable capability. Much like the A-12.
Thanks!
Great job. This is an excellent breakdown of the whole LCS thing.
TL, DW
The trimaran hull is cracking at the seams. The other class has no ammunition for its guns, because government, and the engines transmission self destructs if you try to engage the turbines, so it’s stuck at slow speed.
Lockheed probably thought that if they could make transmission powering f35B lift fan then they can make transmission connecting diesel engines and gas turbines as well
Correction: The Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates FFG-7 through FFG-61, were the replacement for the Knox Class Frigates and served in the US Fleet from 1977 through 2015.
Thinking the same thing!
He makes a lot of mistakes
Weren't the cracks from the fact that dissimilar metals were being used? Steel hulls with aluminum superstructures i believe. That's like metallurgy 101 level stuff.
Nope, just poorly designed aluminum structures
Thank you for pronouncing the ship correctly! It’s astounding how many people report on these ships but can’t even get the word littoral correct!!!
A well designed and constructed hull is useful, regardless mission fit or transmission woes. Park them up and then find a use for them later.
Probably said million times before but I really am hooked to your videos.
Maybe not all info should be taken for granted but it’s delivered in a neutral manner and summarized in a way that I and a lot of people could understand.
I don’t like news of conflicts and politics but the topic is just too important to ignore and anything military related can really change the livelihoods of people around the globe.
Also important for We, the people, to know how the defense budget is and was being used and it confuses me why congress wants three more of the equivalent of fragile Ferraris with a hard speed limiter.
Thanks for being informative without shoving your political opinions down the viewers throat like a lot of other military channels do ❤
believe me its tempting to insert my own personal opinions and political views all the time so I get why people do it haha
I appreciate it as well. It's great getting information without having to deal with the noise/hate. It's important, across the board, these days.
@@Taskandpurposeit’s appreciated that you don’t, it helps us uneducated folk
@@Taskandpurposewould you be interested in maybe having a separate channel for more discussion of this nature and more of your own subject opinions? What happen to two bro 1 bunker?
@@Taskandpurpose
Thank you and your team for providing great videos that are both informative and entertaining.
People here are right; keep the politics out. You would probably lose half your audience otherwise.
Information, not indoctrination.😊
It's like a literal combat ship.
The Gen Z of naval vessels
💀
USS Augusta was christened in Eastport Maine. We visited Eastport and got a tour of her. Cool ship with a small professional crew . I liked the bridge control stations.
Honestly, I've been involved in a few government programs trying to implement modern software suites and I can tell you that they pay crap, hire completely ignorant programmers who will work for low wages and lock everything down so tight that you can't get anything done anyway. I've vocalized my concerns multiple times and fully believe we are a good 10 - 20 years behind China, Russia and even North Korea. They just get it done and don't have to dance around for 5 years to get a 2 month project approved. They also unfortunately have the concept that All Engineers are also Software Engineers because they can spell the programming language C and C++ and get "Hello World!" to run in each. WOW!! We need huge help in the actual tech and software field.
The U.S.S. Cole incident was caused by a lapse in operational security, not a lack of combat capability in littoral waters.
Good point. Now that I think of it, were it a capability lack, we'd have had more Cole-type incidents but it was a one-off.
The Cole was caused by the good idea fairies in the State Dept. thinking the would be spreading good will in Yemen by using it as a refueling depot. I was in Navy on a Knox class in mid 80’s. Never did we go somewhere just to take on fuel, that is what you have unrep for.
@@josephknaak9034 No that's not why, fairies don't exist except in your imagination. It's called lack of situational awareness and a failure in security.
Your videos get better and better with every release. Outstanding.
This installment answered a lot questions I had about this class of ship. Thanks for putting it together.
At 22:48 (and b4 and after) water comes out of a small round section on the deck, within the first 5 to 10 feet of the bow.
It obviously being pushed through the boat by the momentum of the ship.
My question is - Why is water allowed to come inside that boat, that then must be let out of the boat?
Tks
I just recently found and started watching T&P content and am impressed. You are now in my must watch content list, right up there with other space leaders like Ward Caroll and relative new comer (to me), WGOW Shipping. All credible and verifiable, non-hyped news - a refreshing and valued alternative to the nonsense, opinion biased Corp-Media infotainment BS that drove me here in the first place!
Someone may have mentioned this - but the entire Perry Class (FFG7), some 60 odd Frigates, followed the Knox class.
Although they're all out of service now, too.
I think there's also a problem with modular design. If you have for example 3 different loadouts for different missions, it means that you need crew that can handle 3 different sets of equipment. Or 3 different crews. In both situations, training is gonna be the problem.
Crew gets rotated out. I could easily see a scenario where a ship is moved from one role to another if there is need for it. Those decisions and implementation are pretty slow though, so the Navy has time to train a crew for the job before the ship makes it's way back to port to refit for the new mission.
@Jeff55369 It's a gimmick which made the ships too expensive. They should have chosen 1 small ship design role and done that first, when it worked they could then broaden scope. That's how smarter nations build capacity. But no, America wanted a ship which could do everything everywhere.
@@jgw9990It's doesn't do everything everywhere all at the same time. Modularity also allows you to use the same hull in different specialized roles, even if that ship ends up dedicated to that role. Theoretically that would keep costs down since you're using a lot of the same parts.
the only real issue you have with this approach, is if the hull isn't appropriate for the roles assigned to it.
@@Jeff55369 Modularity adds complexity. You have to build a ship which can be taken apart. Of course that'll be more complicated and expensive.
@@jgw9990 modularity is specifically so you don't have to take the ship apart. Just remove modules. For example: tanks are modular in that the turrets are removeable without having to do extensive work to do so. It's also the principle used in building computers.
It's true that the navy, or the designers of these platforms, may have failed in this aspect, but if properly designed, modularity should simplify the design, not make it more complex. It has to be simple in order to work with various different platforms.
Properly done, it should also speed up repair operations, because you can swap out the modules and do work on the damaged pieces of gear while it's not inside the the operational vehicle.
Just because the concept was poorly implemented doesn't destroy the theory behind it.
The fact that they are building more of them baffles me.
There's a lot missing here. A huge reason why they were granted lower survivability status was the low radar cross section of their hulls. Furthermore, there was somewhat of a mutiny in the ranks where captains and CPOs didn't want to command them due to the low number of crew needed. (In other words, lower prestige). The precision munition for the Bofors gun was sabotaged by congressmen who slashed the order quantity so that the cost per round would look ridiculously high. Kind of like how the F-22 program would have had a much lower total cost per airframe if they had manufactured the full quantity of them specified originally.
The teething problems weren't seriously more significant than what happened while they were rolling out the new Ford class of carriers. (Doesn't anyone remember the controversy about the catapults with those?) No - the death of the littoral combat ships is an inside job. And now that we need them again in the Red Sea (but don't have them), this sabotage approaches the threshold of treason.
Concept guy: This is a cheap and small disposable ship.
Navy: lets make it super expensive and it has to survive as well as a destroyer
At 20:43- Nice one. The way I heard it was- The floggings will continue until moral improves.
"Beatings will continue until morale improves." One of my supervisors at work actually has a pirate-themed shirt with that on it.
As a USN Veteran..... onboard KNOX-class (FF) and O.H. PERRY-class (FFG), I must say........ for an Army-guy.... You hit it RIGHT On-Da-NOSE!!!
I was, an Operations Specialist (OS) and was PRETTY Familiar with ASW. In my last couple of years, they were training me and a couple of others on my CIC team to do a Plethora of different tasks...some not involving my rate in the Navy... Fire Control, Sonar Tech, Electronics Warfare, etc... I was wondering, "why are they training me in things I have NO Knowledge about and training on this stuff like Every-other-week??" Well, it was they were retiring my FFG ( because like you said FFs were already retired AFTER the 'Gulf War' )... BUT WE STILL HAD FFGs!!!
Well, I got out as they were lifting our 'one-arm bandit' ( our missile launcher off our FFG ) and they were getting ready to transfer the Rest of the team I was training with ( they actually STOPPED my training after I told them my INTENTIONS of Retirement ).
I was Lucky... for the three (3) guys that left my last unit, they got stuck on a LCS.......... A N D Boy, they things they would say and the things that THEY would have to do, was Quite something......but again, You hit it, "On-Da-NOSE!!"
USN Veteran
84 - 05
">>. LONG LIVE ...... DA FRIGATES !!!!
Another thing to follow, is the DoD wants to expand its ship building and maintenance capacity, and Mobile, and Marinette are new "experienced" builder options.
All the Destroyer and carrier yards are full-up, and the builders for the Freedom have the contracts for the new Constellation class Frigate
3:25 dd you say deep draft holes?
I know things have changed since I was in the navy in the 1960s but back then a frigate was bigger than a destroyer. The hull designation was DL for destroyer leader. The frigate on which I served was later updated and reclassified as a cruiser.
Thanks for this video! Really appreciate the quick run down of these ships as I always found them interesting. Good to have a overall story of why and how and what-not.
As a soldier I never had a problem finding "the little man in the boat". Didn't realize seamen had that problem.
“Hey, Tom Cruise has Seaman on his back!”
To put this in perspective a Coast guard 110 foot patrol boat can move faster than this ship was allowed to. The 110 class was made in 1985!
exactly, modify the 11 class to have naval hellfire pods, three cwis modules, and a 57mm gun. Using the proven existing propulsion of the 110. Butt hey, Admirals need those cushy post-navy jobs.
In WWII, we had PT boats. They could maneuver in shallow water. They were cheap. They were fast. They were nearly impossible to hit. and their torpedoes were capable of seriously damaging or sinking a capital ship. Modular? the entire boat was a module.
IMO, a modern analog for the PT boat, with modern materials, detection and weapons, would be effective against speed boat swarms and as screening elements for larger vessels. If they need to be updated, just scrap the thing and build a new one.
I got to view two of the Independence class last August. They were tied up at dock in Bremerton, Washington Naval yard. My guide during my visit, my grandson, serves on a SSBN. He expressed some tongue-in-cheek remarks on these boats. They're held in a low regard by those who know them.
I see you mentioned the Knox class but forgot the Perry class. I also see the new Frigate being built looks a lot like an OHP.
Meanwhile Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigates: “Look at what they need to mimic a fraction of our power!”
Fantastic bit of kit. Base for the new Royal Navy T31, the Polish navy Swordfish & Indonesian Red/White frigate.
👌
@@gregs7562 Swordfish (Miecznik) is a failure as well. Very poorly armed, too expensive for what they give, out of the 3 ships built only the prototype will have an actual armament - the two ships of the class will be nearly an empty hulls, ready to be armed in case of war (with the enemy that shall give the time for Marynarka Wojenna to arm their vessels... lmao), some of the weapons for the Swordfish still don't even exist in the exact variant that is planned for the vessel... and everything is already beyond schedule and over budget.
The simplest way for the USN to have gotten effective LCS would have been to get updated Corvettes and Frigates designed, the smaller to work closer to shore and chase small craft / drones the larger for asw / mine sweeping.
Yes. The primary role of an LCS is a carrier of a helicopter, drones, mine hunting USVs, and the like. Doing that doesn't require 40+ knots. The other role is Sreetfighter: a fast, heavily armed, cheap corvette. Trying to combine them was a mistake.
@@Wick9876 yup, their decision to completely abolish corvettes and frigates instead of redesigning them for modern needs was a bad one.
That'd be too cheap
After 9-11 the LCS was for green water border patrol missions. It was never planned for blue waters. But in 2010 or so the US Navy hat the great idea to use LCS as a pseudo-frigate.
Since the US Navy is stuck with the ships. Making each type focus on on type of mission is a lot better then module design. They should have just made a ship design to take on Subs and a ship design to take on pirates. With anti air and anti surface defenses.
Storing and swapping out modules does not sound like pit stops to me. The changing crew competencies associated with the different modules has my head spinning. It’s a nightmare.
@@mostlynew Because we can't use our cell phones to do half the stuff we do. Nobody can target a target with multiple warhead types doing the lifting.
I remember seeing this in Sam Diego when I was in, I thought it was cool but it looked a little run down.
I also got to see the zumwalt class destroyer going into dock. I’m not in the Navy anymore but it surprises me that neither of these ships have been successful.
Cappy is a beast!!! These videos are always so good!!!
Thanks again, very well explained! I would agree on the fact that they were not up to the many missions intended initially, because modularity can't solve it in the short term, as initially intended. But once it is decided what mission each kind of ship should perform, I believe they will work it out in spite of their limitations, teething problems or design shortcomings.
Yeah we have a bunch of them in San Diego and on a 'military tour' we found out that the ships hauls of the LCS 3 haul... were even bullet proof and a small craft with a .50 could totally take these things out. Our government is JACKED!
I was thinking how much japan's mogami class frigates has so much better suitability for shallow/littorial water missions. It's cheap, fast, modular multi mission and wide array of capabilities. It has high stealth design, mine warfare, mine hunting , anti-submarine capabilities with electronic warfare as bonus. For weapons it has MK45 127mm gun for small boats and drones, 8 anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, seaRAM for ciws, 1 SH-60L helicopter, 2x UUV and USV and lastly a 16 cell mk41 vls which house type-03 SAM AA missile and Type-07 anti-submarine missile, the vls cell can also hold quad pack ESSM for total 64 missile for anti-air mission if required. More over it has link 22 capabilities, am advanced CIC so then can coordinate with destroyer.
I think mogami class frigate would have been perfect for US Navy shallow water fleet.
I agree mogami is perfect for mission in the middle East. With its adavance sensor suite and electric warfare capacities can detect boats and drone in clusted littorial environment and it's armament are good as well the 127mm naval gun can take care of small boats, drones and slow missiles and quad packed 64 ESSM missile are enough for deal with anti- ship and cruise missile. It's helicopter can help in monitoring task. Honestly japan not participating in the operation is a shame, mogami could have contributed a lot in the middle East.
Mogami is a damn good looking ship. More beautiful then my gf 😂 .
@@thedemoninshadow8503 😂😂😂😂 man make sure ur gf don't find out you are simping on a ship.
@@iamnobody4574there's a whole ass franchise about anthropomorphic anime girl warships. And "Mogami" is a clumsy, tomboyish one prone to accidents. I'll spare you the details and just say, don't nuke a country twice.
@@Charles-A I see we have a fellow shikikan here.
The idea of this type of ship is actually a very good one. In fact, is great. The issue with it was the rush to implement it. In fact, I think this idea should be implemented as soon as possible once they work out all of the bugs so back to the drawing table, and then make this thing work.
Too many politicians and Military staff wanting to retire into the shipbuilding industry.
To do it correctly outsource all initially, and test 2 ships, you can add secret items after built.
Have the secret bits planned eg weight size power requirements, cable ducting.
How many decades do you want to give them to "work the bugs out" obviously 20 years hasn't been enough!
This is a great video, but I think it would be better if it was modular.
And had less depth.
Long story short: U.S. Navy took 19th century-Russian concept of a guardian ship (smaller, cheaper destroyer with less equipment), and made everything wrong - it's not a way smaller, it doesn't have less equipment, and it's several times more expensive then destroyers, nice)
@22:49 why is there a blow hole at the front of the ship, showering the windows constantly with water?
I’ve seen other videos about how bad these ships are, but this is by far the best. Much more in depth explanation. I think this is a great concept but just wasn’t done right.
Bring back the Iowa class and those smokin’ 16 inch of freedom
make the Montana class. show the world what a battleship can do.
Go for the ultimate…the Tillman class!
World War II proved that battleships were obsolete. Air superiority is how you won wars.
@@spudskie3907 if you’re going for “ultimate“ I wouldn’t name a class after an NFL player who was killed by friendly fire
It all boils down to who has the big "Shares in the Military Industrial Complex".
Australian navy should buy some of these vessels from the usa excellent vessels for patrol work in northern Australia waters.
tell me why i just now realized that THIS is the ship from cars 2 with a cannon on the front instead of laser guided missiles
The whole LCS program was a corrupt mess that made lots of money for key people.
Which is why Austal has sold the idea to the Australian government.
So it was a government program.
Great report. That whole modularity thing is ridiculous. I think they should all be able to hunt subs and sweep mines if that's where they operate. They should all support special warfare because they're closer to where the troops need to go. But they need to be survivable and defensive. I guess we have now forgotten to build warships
If we have learned anything about military equipment design in the last 20 years, it's that all-rounders never work out.
HIMARS work great, so does the M1A2 Abrams , F-35 had teething problems but that's mostly sorted now. Nimitz class carriers work good too
@@SelfProclaimedEmperorhimars is not expected to be air defence, f35 is not expected to be cargo aircraft, Abrams is not expected to hunt submarines while LCS had many to many requirements
In boot camp in the 90's we were told the Navy would not use aluminum in combat vessels any longer due to heavy damage during a fire onboard a ship that had an aluminum superstructure. Don't know why they went back on that decision.
Great report. My faith in people in leadership roles diminishes that much more. We'll win, not because we were better, but because we were less worse.
Adm. Clark must be super jazzed that his name is permanently attached to the LCS.
😬
Congress members not wanting to lose jobs in their district is why the V-22 Osprey is still in operation even though it’s a death trap.
But. But, just think how many families those dead aircrew support . . . . .
It's a good sound bite but it's not accurate any longer. The Osprey are in wide use, with very low failure rates now.
They should give these to the Coast Guard (after it's fixed). Seem like a perfect fit for its role.
hard to run down a drug smuggler in a cigarette race boat if you only go 15knots
Why do you hate the Coast Guard?
😂 I don’t hate the coast guard. I mean after all the problems are resolved😅
This is where the USCG needs to be reinstated as a member of the military forces, and not just domestic security. Essentially, of the top five navies in the world, the USA has two of the largest combat fleets: the USN and the USCG. And while the USCG does have a presence in the Middle East, it is minimal. Yet the USCG, historically, has been the primary patrol force for the US Armed Forces in the littoral zone. The USMC does the beachhead and landings, the USN does the open ocean crossings, the USCG makes sure the coast is clear...literally. In the past, the USN has also maintained small coastal craft, but not for ongoing patrol like this; rather, they have had fast attack craft with a specific strategic purpose in mind (as torpedo boats, mine hunters, or SF support vessels). Yet the political focus of the last few decades that the USCG is a domestic security force, and not a part of the larger US military forces, means all that littoral focus and specialization has been shoved in a cupboard with no-one wanting to look at it. For the littoral space to change, the approach to what the USCG is and what it needs to do also needs to go backwards, to the era where it, alongside the USN, was a global maritime force, and not just tied to specific US domestic interests. That's not to say it's domestic interests don't matter, but it should never have been isolated to JUST the Dept of Homeland Security. Rather, the old dual-hat approach was necessary for the USA to maintain it's global interests.
Last I heard, the frigates were making a comeback.
What strikes me is what happens when a few of these ships get crosswise of somebody else's navy and we have littorals going down with all hands. The Battle off Samar may not be a one-off.
Litorally (see what I did there) everyone knew this thing was an absolutely POS from the jump.
; )
Bummed these didnt live up to the promises, couldve been a nice addition to the navy. Especially with the current red sea issues
You missed the OH Perry Class of Guided Missile Frigates.
I was just gonna mention that too.
I served on DD-977 and then FFG-11 before I retired in 93. Could not let the class pass on without mention. Baby Brother was on a Knox Class, USS Alwin I believe that is how it is spelled.
Yeah, they lasted after the Knox’s didn’t they?
The OPH's were built to a low cost design that didn't do anything, other than convoy escort, well. They lacked room for future growth and were not designed to stand duty as part of a carrier group. They were meant to act as second line escorts for tankers, container ships and troop transports. They had a basic AAW capability, minimal ASuW capability, and decent ASW capability. Their main design threat being soviet submarines. They got pressed into other roles because they were the least valuable ships left in the fleet after the massive class retirements in the mid 90s, and even in the 80s were assigned jobs where it was thought they would be protected by other more capable ships in a fleet. The two that suffered combat damage were only saved by their crews and by being in the persian gulf.. in relatively calm and shallow litoral waters to begin with. If they'd been in the indian ocean during a storm when they damaged they'd have sunk for sure. Samuel B Roberts (the one that struck the mine) had the benefit of a replenishment ship nearby who's CH-46 helicopters helped ferry fire fighting equipment and portable pumps over and take off wounded. As it is the mine destroyed the engine room, tore both turbines off their mounts and broke the ship's keel. She had to be sealifted back to the USA and the repairs involved cutting out the entire 315 ton engine room module, jacking a new one up in place and welding the hull back together. The sealift and repairs combined for about $91 million dollars for a ship that originally cost about $125 million. It also took 13 months in the shipyard to do the work, plus the several weeks bringing the ship back from the gulf. Stark had only one of the two exocet warheads actually detonate and again fortunately friendly ships were nearby (namely a pair of Charles F Adams class DDGs) and she was close enough to Bahrain to make it there on her own power, while escorted by those two destroyers.
I agree, after coming from a Spruance Class Destroyer, I felt they were not the best ships ever build. I felt safer on the Old Essex Class carrier I was on early on in my career. The 76mm Gun would fire five or six rounds before it broke and I only saw one successful missile launch in the 4 1/2 years I was on her. Some of the wounded on the Sammy B were shipmates of mine on the Briscoe and where the missile that hit the Stark was instrumental in major changes to the Damage control on the rest of the class. Some William valves in the firemain were re-designated to Circle X-ray. The damage to the crew quarters was very personal to the enlisted there and the damage to the Chief's quarters ended just forward of my locker in the Chief's Quarters. The locker just forward of mine was destroyed on the Stark. We were very interested in the damage reports to both ships seeing what was comparable to our little home.
I've see several of these docked at Seal Beach Weapons base recently, The Savannah (28) Oakland (24) Tulsa (16) and Manchester (14)
I can remember, okay I’m getting old. After HS I went to welding school and and in between refinery (Petro-chem) jobs I’d work the ship yards down on the Gulf. Worked on one that was, we were told anyways it was a sub killer. Oh ya this was like 1997. Anyways that’s was just there short term but they were building this state of the art boat and it was funky. Had those super narrow pontoons that went deep in the water. Always wondered what happened to that boat. Was it ever even used or was it repurposed, maybe sold. Is it sitting in some shipyard rotting away today. They were building two and it was kind of medium security project. We were told what it was but it was no secret build. It was a little bit before the internet took off, shortly later the one badass sub was sunk from Russia and that really kind of redirected their Navy. Anyways it was one of these funky designed boats so they have been at re designing navy ships for a good while now