I like your content but your map graphics that constantly spin/rotate and spin are distracting and nauseating without adding value. I do hope you are able to increase your video output volume.
My good buddy PO3 S.M.York served aboard another Lewis Puller named ship. The missile frigate FFG-23 Lewis B.Puller. Long since decommissioned and now serving in the Egyptian navy.
It’s amazing how the US developed an amazing system of logistics to not only overwhelm Japan in the Pacific Theatre but simultaneously doing the same supplying Europe. When the US has its back against the wall and with effective leadership can accomplish anything.
In the modern era the US has lost its logistics edge. It’s takes a decade to build one super carrier and several years to refit or repair the same carrier. The navy has been retiring and decommissioning classes and ships from 50 years ago and even some ships from the modern fleet. They cannot match Chinese ship production if they wanted to. In a war situation it would be even worse. If America has three carriers currently in refit and not deployable and another three are needed in other theatres that leaves only half of Americas functional carriers available for a hypothetical war in the pacific. If half of those carriers take battle damage or must simply withdraw to resupply that’s only around three functional carriers in the pacific at any given time. America cannot afford to lose a single military asset in a big war because their logistics would break down immediately otherwise. (It would take years to reinforce any major losses such as a carrier or even destroyer/cruiser) With a war with China, China has the advantage in that America would be attacking and invading and would lose too much of their logistics capability in transit to the pacific from missile strikes, air strikes, and submarine strikes to make fighting in that region next to impossible. American military hegemony is dependent entirely on technology at, this point they cannot even rely on logistics in the modern era. At least not to the extant they had during the Second World War or even the Cold War. China may not have the same technological and weapons capability advantage as America but they do have some of the best logistics in the world. So much so that much of North America and Europe are dependent on Chinese logistics even if not in a strictly military sense. In a modern pacific war America must win early on because they cannot sustain any losses. It’s not impossible America would win in that situation especially if they used the nuclear option but it is highly likely they would lose a quick war and be forced to the negotiating table before they even lose half of their capability simply because they cannot sustain that same capability indefinitely especially not in a war with a near peer like China. This analysis ignores american allies in the region but in my opinion that is another conversation. American logistics facilitated through allied regional countries is not a guarantee in a modern pacific war and that is truly the deciding factor in a modern sino American war. America must ship logistics and assets across the pacific to effectively fight. China does not and in a war of attrition China has the advantage and America has been losing that advantage for the better part of half a century now. America is on the decline and China is on the rise. As time goes on they will not be considered so evenly matched and america will be at a disadvantage.
@@Frizzleman Disagree China on the rise. They are on the precipice of a demographic implosion. With good leadership the US has amazingly fast ability to snap back and lead.
@@Frizzleman November 30, 2023 - It is alway nice to see evidence that the CCP's propaganda arms are monitoring channels like this one. I would be quite surprised to know that you are not an operative and/or employee of the Chinese military. In your one sided "discussion" of a possible Sino/U.S.A. conflict. You conveniently leave out so many variables, that it is obvious as to what your intent is. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but what people chose to believe, and what is actually true. Is quite different. You may be right, and China may indeed prove victorious in a conflict with the U.S.A. AND.. its allies. However, the bottom line in war is... "Who sucks the least.. is the victor."😁😉
Only so many solutions available when it comes to fuel. When we have different propulsion sources and don’t need to refuel then it won’t be so much distance as a time issue.
Oh, so that’s what those strange looking ship superstructures were! I thought they were clumsy looking vulnerable cargo ships, but now we know… looks can be deceiving. Those things are actually bad ass mobile moving supply bases and communications-coordination centers with a complement of drones, aircraft, and repair facilities. Just stay clear of typhoons!
I was a summer hire with GD after college and was treated great. So many complain about the military industrial complex while they stand protected by the best tech weapons and military by far in the world. Retired Army and ARNG. Salute GD and similar companies. Thank God we have you.
When our unit was doing jungle operations. all we required was a resupply every ten days by helicopter or parachute (usually heli) and nothing else, we found our own water, which was never delivered to us. Everything had to be carried on our backs, so the resupply was not huge and we sometimes had lightweight rations which could be bulked up with rainforest water, so logistically we were not a great burden on the base-wallahs. Most days we had some patrolling to do, so the weight of our rucksacks needed to be kept down to 50 lb or less though occasionally we carried a lot more. In theory we could have kept this up almost indefinitely if casualties were low, though in practice we were only in the jungle for about 6 weeks before returning to base for a rest.
hey, great video as always, just one thing: at 20:00 you say "khartoum, the capital of south Sudan" which is incorrect. Khartoum is the capital of normal Sudan, the capital of south Sudan would be Juba😊
November 30, 2023 - As one of many sayings regarding the subject says. "Logistics ain't sexy, but it wins or loses wars." I've know about this class of ship since they started commissing them. However, this video's detailed examination of the vessel class is very enlightinging and I intend to archive it for future reference since real world wargaming is my most important hobby.
@@ram_sankar I'm sorry but I offered a couple of companie's websites but apparently Kamome deleted my comments. I guess it is against their rules. I suggest doing Google searches for information about companies you may be interested. Stay well.😊
@@swell07_ 🤔?? Sir.. if your comments are a criticism of my spelling and punctuation. I admit it. I suck at those things, but I try my best to be coherent in my written comments.😊
The use cases for the ESB program are near bottomless. However, they will be used primarily as support vessels and for humanitarian needs. That said, not all of the fleet is owned by Sea Lift Command. You also left out an extremely important detail. The first few hulls were semi submersable so that you could launch various boats and barges off of the lower mission deck. Each hull has been slightly different, not just from lessons learned but in large portions of the design. The flight deck for example was added a few hulls into the program. That said, it could be the perfect platform to develop into a drone mothership in the future, if on the large size.
You are conflating the MLP’s with the ESB’s. ESB 3 was made with incomplete MLP 3 hull when MPSRON 3 was disbanded but they are completely separate classes of ships with different missions. The ESB’s are actually commission, warships while the MLPs are assigned military sea lift command and are USNS shipping
@@ronhmclaughlin you're unconflating them. It's an extension of the same program. Not all of the ESBs are commissioned either. Just look at the Puller in the video, yellow/blue stripes on the stack. 👍👍
First of all, excellent video: clear, concise, and with custom visuals to boot. Great job. Second, these are absolutely remarkable. How have I never heard of these?! That networking effect is clearly there to support emergent AI technologies, redundant kill-chains for missles/anti-missile weaponry, and just general inter-connectivity etc over *huge* areas of empty space. And the fact that they're essentially floating office buildings/fuel depots means they're infinitely more difficult to track/strike/reach than, say, an immovable naval base sitting on an island. Wild. One of those things that seems so obvious in retrospect. Edit: They have desalinization processors too?! I know where I'm going when the zombie apocalypse hits. 🙃
@headoverheels88 Those desalinators are key. I’m going there, too! But wait a minute… actually all US NAVY ships have them. So just go for the Supply ships which have more as much food as they do ammo. Food will be so we can eat and live. Ammo is what we feed to the enemy… or zombies.
As MacGregor has pointed out - in naval warfare today anything but a submarine is an easy target awaiting immediate destruction. Today in the Russo-Ukraine conflict very often it is impossible for a detachment of a few soldiers to deploy undetected and without being targeted and eliminated by an FPV drone or artillery strike. And you still believe that these giants can go anywhere near a conflict zone without being instantly detected and blown out of the water? Only an American stuck in the thinking of WWII doctrine can see anything else but big fat targets in surface ships like those.
An LHA is capable of carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) with up to 1,900 troops when fully loaded. The America-class LHA ships, such as the USS America (LHA 6), have a crew of 1,059 (65 officers) and can carry 1,687 troops (plus an additional 184 in a surge situation). An ESB has a crew of 64, and can carry up to 250 marines or other special forces.
The 'Sea Base' concept has been around for a while now, the first time I came across the Idea was in the James Cobb novel 'Sea Fighters' where three huge barges complete with accommodation and maintenance services that were fastened together, and they could service helos, armed hovercraft, drones, with a tethered radar aerostat/video surveillance systems.
@@Kamome163 Taiwan as the new Kaliningrad? Kaliningrad is a heavly armed part of Russia. Do you assume Taiwan has been taken over by China and is an adversary to the US?
@@TurboJor The comparison between Kaliningrad and Taiwan is not political but a security one, as they both are similar to islands surrounded by potentially hostile countries making them flashpoints of conflicts
Ice cream barges lol they were originally concrete mixing barges converted to make ice cream theres a whole wikipedia page with magazine images of soldiers looking at the ship in harbor "look theres the ice cream factory"
@@Trolden01yes we did BRL Barge Refridgerated Large, Ice Cream Barge en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge look stuff up before you talk and make yourself look foolish and disrespect the ice cream barge veterans
@@Trolden01yes we did, The craft, a concrete barge acquired from the U.S. Army and worth one million dollars,[1][2] was able to create 10 US gallons (38 L) of ice cream every seven minutes, or approximately 500 US gal (1,900 L) per shift, and could store 2,000 US gal (7,600 L).[3][4] It was employed in the USN's Western Pacific area of operations, at one point anchored at Naval Base Ulithi.[5] These ships were intended to raise the morale of U.S. troops overseas by producing ice cream at a fast rate. The army built three concrete barges of their own, specifically for making ice cream theres magazine ads showing them in photos, ice cream barges BRL officially,
Sounds like the ESB ships are the new mass produced carrier escort ships from WW2. Ones used in battles like Lyte Gulf where six were attacked and fended off a large battle group where even one of those ships alone weighed more than the combined US fleet, Taffy 3, and survived.
Hopefully they are no going to be shortsighted and get rid of the Asterix after they have the new Joint Support Ships built. Even if it's not kept as very hardened ship, it can at least be kept around (perhaps rebranded as a coast guard ship) for things like arctic sealift in summer months and disaster relief missions whenever those arise, so that frees up the military ships for more dangerous waters.
With what we're doing to the world they won't need one. That Ice is all but gone for a good part of the year. They could legit just order a hull and make their own ship. There is something about how vanilla this idea is that I'm starting to think we've figured out that civilian industry can supply the navy with some really cool toys.
@@arminius6506 Leaving aside the question of nuclear arms. Sure, Canada does need to expand its armed forces but I think a central pillar of that should be it's Arctic capabilities considering it is a Arctic nation with a sizable territory in the Arctic circle. I think it's undeniable that the Arctic will only grow in economic and geopolitical importance as the sea ice recedes year after year so Canada ought to take its northern domain more seriously.
Excellent report. Please do a follow up on any proposed AA and AS weapons that could be deployed on Puller type vessels as well. At a MINIMUM these are too valuable to lack self defense.
All that extra power production calls out for emerging laser weaponry. These ships should have their own short range and close in anti air defense capabilities. But I'd imagine they'd have a Burke or Constitution class escort in wartime conditions.
Given the power production surplus, likely some kind of laser defence for anti-drone/missile. Also likely backed up by 1-2 SeaRam systems, which have similar mounting requirements to the standard gun based Phalanx systems but much better range.
I have to note with some irony that at 4:15, you mention the ship as a former Alaska-class tanker, yet while remarking on the "tyranny of distance" at 3:09 you don't address the active bases in Alaska, notably Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and EIelson AFB, both of which are less than 3,500 miles from Tokyo.
It’s in contrast to the 10,000 miles shown from “the mainland US.” General Billy Mitchell said Alaska was the most strategically important place in the world.
SUPER DUPER Graphics!!! 'Atlantic Conveyor'....Now THAT is a ship I haven't heard in a L O N G Time!!! Yes, ESBs are going to be Very Vital in providing logistical support of Operations Anywhere there is water...but Should ( or MayBe have ) a video on ESDs = Expeditionary Transfer Dock Ship, a way for LCACs to be used in a similar way that helos can carry supplies. While ESBs can be multi-role with drones and various helos.....It Would be Difficult to carry heavy loads...tanks, MRAPs, Patriot/THAAD systems...that is where a ESD would help. Although T-ESD-1 & -2 are the ONLY ones, they need to have a Ro-Ro type ship, like BOB HOPE-class vessel, or other LMSR-type vessel!! Good Work on this, Your narration 'Kamone' is Super, with Superior graphics.....I have been following this ESB/ESD for Quite awhile...Thanks for posting!!! Glad I 'Subscribed'!!!
We have 3 EBS in 3 different AOR. One in 6th fleet one in 5th fleet and one in 7th fleet. The latest EBS is completing FCT and will be either a 3rd fleet asset or go to 7th fleet. I know because I work for MSC been onboard 2 of these.
Khartoum is the capital of Sudan, South Sudan has an embassy of USA, but it is in Juba the capital of South Sudan. I bet the ambassador in Khartoum was a bit surprised.
The US doesn't have any military bases in the Aleutian Islands. NAS Adak was closed a long time ago. Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage is a sizeable base though.
Plenty of bases in Alaska. Which china prioritizes first, well before the mainland. China will try to land a ground force on Alaska first. I think we are smart enough to say that.
@@lougarcia1485 Alaskan national guard units are not military bases. The only way China would attempt to invade the US homeland is if we got into a full scale nuclear war with Russia, or someone else. Then, while we are trying to rebuild, maybe they would attempt it but we would still have our submarines so there's just no way. "IF" China ever really attempted an invasion of US territory it would be Guam and possibly Hawaii. There's no way they could reinforce or resupply troops invading our mainland.
It will be really interesting to see how these advance in design. Id imagine that if you took the stealth tech lessons from the zumwalt and LCS classes that despite their failures, making a vital logistics support ship harder to detect and hit would be a huge priority down the line. These examples shown all seem like prototypes and proof of concept type designs.
This ship is amazing and exceptional except for one major flaw. It still has the hull of a tanker. In any conflict it would be targeted, likely by anti-ship missles and it would not take more then a couple hits, maybe only one, to sink it. The navy needs to return to armored hulls. Even if this ship has defensive weaponry including C.I.S. systems, a swarm attack of missles would likely land 1 or 2 hits on the hull. Survivability is just as important, if not more important then fighting, or logistical ability, for without it, the rest will not survive an assault.
What about a single torpedo, A Chinese sub can sneak unnoticed and from rather long range release a sound guided smart fish. Battle of the Atlantic repeated, but much easier for stationary ships
How many of our navies current ' fighting ' ships could take more than one hit from a missile and survive ? And with the smaller crews of the newer vessels ; damage control crews will be overstretched from the get go . I'm no Nautical Ned but i'd say it really doesn't matter - these ships are made to be quick and cheap to build and replace : a Liberty ship for the 21st century .
The ESB ship Lewis B Puller reminds me of the U.S Navy's next generation ship plans from 20 years ago. The ships in the plans were intermodular and would switch weapons platforms in the event of conflicts. Great video as usual Kamomme and the graphics were really cool.
The modules probably serves the ESB well. It didn't work so well for the LCS - a combat ship - likely due in part to the fact that one is a combat ship and the other is a support ship.
Yeah you do realize that those "modular, adaptable, and future-proof" vessels became the LCS(Freedom and Independence) Class and the Zumwalt-class Destroyers right? Arguably the two most overbudget, underwhelming, failure prone, pathetically inadequate and massive embarrassments of ANY Navy of the last half century right? 😅 If this ship reminds you of those dumpster fire and budgetary black holes. Then I'd say y'all really don't know Jack shit about the piss poor state your military and Navy in particular is in. Mind you it's nowhere near as bad as my own country's Navy(Canada) but it's pretty fucking godawful.
@Kamome So are we going to ignore talking about how this ESB ship to be protected? The ESB would be the #1 target by a near-peer adversary over a warplanes carrier. Unless the ESB is escorted, then you'd need to devote more warship assets to protect the ESB (ESB strike group) at which point you have less warships to patrols the blue sea. You might as well have the ESB traverse the sea with the carrier strike groups. There is no way this ESB ship will survives on its own or even with a few warships escorting it in a actual war with a near-peer adversary.
My guess is that you protect them mostly by taking out China’s satellites and/or network. From there, it’s about attrition. These are cheap, while the planes and subs that China would have to rely on after its space assets are blinded are expensive and will take losses every time they have to penetrate the First Island Chain. Also, since they’re based on existing vessel hulls, it will be easy to mock up lots of very convincing decoys.
They would start as part of carrier task forces and remain doing this until naval superiority was established. Only then would they be free to support ground operations. They are not built to banzai the beach against on the opening day of war.
These were originally dreamed up for the War on Terror where they would have no opposition. The same people that pushed the Little Crappy Ships made this. They are not new and only needed because the USA has no merchant marine left since all the US corps outsourced all their shipping to...well you can guess which country. This channel is run by an idiot.
You neglected to mention this class of vessels are virtually unarmed having only 12 x .50 caliber machine gun stations. The crew is a mix of military and US Merchant Marine civilian sailors employed by Military Sealift Command DoN. Her capacity of absorbing battle damage is almost zero. I have been on the USNS Puller while it was in Norfolk naval base VA prior to deployment to the Persian Gulf. Mark Fay US MMC Jr. Engineer STCW QMED AS-E, MSC Retired
I'd be interested in seeing how that can be remedied. Given the use and design of such ships based off civilian cargo ships, could they be redesigned to use dense cargo containers as a layer of armor, sacrificing cargo to protect the ship from the worst of missile damage
@@JKSSubstandard Small point, it is based on Alaska class tanker. All I can think of is not putting them where they will inherently not be in the crosshairs. A problematic proposition at best as it is large, gray, and looks important. Sadly, they are intended to be cheap, easily replaced, and expendable. The intention was to put them half way between the high value combatants which are kept far over the horizon, and the shore as an expendable “Lilly pad” for helicopters whose ranges are very limited. At the time the landing deck had overheating issues with the Osprey exhaust. Not sure if that was ever sorted out or not.
📝 Summary of Key Points: 📌 The USS Lewis Puller is an Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) operated by the US Navy, serving as a floating base to address logistical challenges in the Pacific Ocean. 🧐 ESBs like the USS Lewis Puller are versatile floating bases with a large flight deck, command and control capabilities, and ample storage space for supplies and equipment. 🚀 The ESB's main role is as a logistical node, storing and distributing fuel, water, and supplies to support military operations in the Pacific Ocean. 💡 Additional Insights and Observations: 💬 "The reliance on helicopter and tiltrotor transportation of supplies will be crucial due to the vast distances involved and the lack of sufficient land infrastructure." 📊 The ESB can store over 11 million gallons of cargo fuel and has onboard desalination systems for water purification. 🌐 The Falklands War demonstrated the importance of auxiliary vessels in sustaining logistics during conflicts over vast distances. 📣 Concluding Remarks: The USS Lewis Puller and other ESBs play a vital role as logistical hubs in the Pacific Ocean, providing essential supplies and support for military operations. Their versatility and ability to overcome logistical challenges make them crucial assets for projecting and sustaining US power in the region. Generated using Talkbud (Browser Extension)
Well, now you've got a massive cargo tanker for logistics which will move like a cargo tanker for logistics and if you need it to operate in a hot war in close proximity to an enemy force in an archipelago like the many in the south west pacific and suddenly you need a carrier strike group to protect it from capable surface and air threats. As well as an SSN beneath.
We think alike. Retro fitted civilian platform sounds easy to sink. The idea that the civilian ship provided as concept, was no doubt genius; however, the idea of force protection seemed largely ignored by this concept.
It's a navy auxiliary vessel... It's not meant to project force like a CVN or arleigh burke other than to act as it's intended purpose of being a floating warehouse with a heli pad for a naval strike group.
@@DurzoBlunts I mean the other way around. If you deploy this ship into a ‘hot war’ area you’ll need to protect it with your regular navy. A lot of the naval battles in the pacific in ww2 were often one side trying to attack the other sides naval _logistics_ (troop carrier landing craft etc).
those open sides kinda make things difficult for some cases such as cargo or mass medical. could have put in some of those garage doors atleast. im surprised there isnt any 'modularity' in all that space. slide in moduals for specific mission needs. extra quarters, dry/wet cargo, medical, general cargo, dedicated electronic warfare suite, maybe some kinda horizontal launch system. But i guess this is all kinda expensive.
Absolutely fantastic visuals and animations, well done! 🚀 So professionally done. As a Blender user myself, I was delighted to see that you had done it in blender. I had initially suspected C4d, but no, blender!! This is the first of your videos I had seen, came up as a recommendation, and I will certainly be searching out your other stuff. I had never even heard of these ESB type vessels, so I found very it interesting. I will just say one little thing, and this is much more about style and tone, than it is about value, but please try to avoid the temptation to make your videos too 'slick', because that does come at the cost of ... errr ... difficult to articulate ... but I don't think that intelligent audiences like that. I like to think that I'm watching a 'mini-documentary', rather than an 'infomercial'. Does that make sense? That's the best way I can put it, but thanks anyway for an excellent presentation.
Weirdly ever since I saw the 2017 King Kong movie, where at the beginning they have a military expeditionary force stationed on a cargo tanker, with multiple helicopters on the deck. I had this idea that something similar would be the perfect sea based expeditionary base. Low cost, more can be constructed and gives the edge of a aircraft carrier just without throwing such and expensive ship and it's defense fleet into the front line. We could even free up warships for other objectives if the carriers stayed back while these things moved in front.
This ship is literally straight out of GI Joe/Action Man. "I want a boat the size of a tanker, but it has helicopters on it, and also space for my cars".
I helped write the requirements for this as the Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF) Headquarters and Support platform in the absence of either a Carrier Battle Group or Marine Amphibious Task Group.
Good logistic support vessel. Stupid idea to weaponize it - as soon as you turn an ESB into a sensor or weapon delivery platform for UAV/UWV it is now a priority target but without the systems to defend itself.
Not true. By putting offensive weapons on any platform, the enemy has to target them which dilute their concentration to attack other targets. Look up the history of B-52 decoys, first unarmed and supplemented by Hound Dog, then SCAD (not deployed), then SRAM replacing Hound Dog for saturation direct attack, then Cruise Missiles which can direct attack targets and saturate Russian defenses. The enemy has to defend or attack more targets that has offensive weapons. So a single Harpoon on a Coast Guard vessel would require a response from the enemy.
My worry is anti missile defense. How quickly can anti missile missiles be reloaded? Will they make ships that can re arm other warships with missiles? Not trying to have a fight about the LCS but if they had been problem free I would have loved to see an ESB being motherships to the LCS.
That's what a "strike group" and recon is made for. There are always aircraft flying around these ships for early warning against missiles over the horizon.
@@damongraham1398 Basically huge carriers like these never wander alone. They're often accompanied by corvettes, frigates and submarines. That entire fleet is called a carrier strike group, and the US has 11 of them so that there's always an optimal number of carrier strike groups active even as they cycle through maintenance. A strike group is always surrounded by surveillance planes and drones so that they can always have extended visuals and radar reception of any approaching aircraft or missile beyond the carrier strike group's visible horizon. Missiles, regardless of the speed, will always have a delay. It doesn't matter how fast it is if a surveillance aircraft can send speed of light communication and warning towards the carrier strike group who can then make evasive maneuvers and launch interceptors and decoys against the missile. Oftentimes all it takes is an evasive maneuver because GPS is imperfect. The strike group can also launch a counter-attack to prevent follow-up strikes and saturation attacks.
Iran is doing something kinda similar. They're converting old cargo ships into drone carriers. Now i don't know the exact capabilities these ships will provide other than launching drones. But is a novel idea. Take an existing platform which already cuts down on design and production costs and the availability and accessibility of parts and crews. Reminds me of the old sea plane tenders back in the early 1900s. Also i wonder if they could also handle VTOL jet aircraft like F-35Bs
I think that Hawaii and Guam is far from enough in supporting US logistics in the Pacific and that the US should also build more logistical hubs in the Alaskan Islands and some other islands in the pacific.
Using shipping containers as mobile magazines for drones and missiles would be ideal. Put them atop container ships for protection. Blending in and appearing harmless will be stealth in plain sight.
Instant new subscriber here after watching just 1 minute. Your visual quality is on another level, and I look forward to watching more of your content in the future.
Frankly apart from the flight deck, they really botched the Hanger & Mission Deck. IF for instance you are conducting flight ops and a Osprey has a broken wing pivot and needs to be hangered because of weather. Better hope another aircraft doesn't break because the hanger isn't likely to A: Have the capacity to stow another. B: Be able to move another aircraft around the Osprey in an "Open" condition. Seeing that the hanger has only one set of doors... This also applies to a Broken Chinook unable to fold its rotors. The MLP ability to interface with the T-AKR shouldn't have been deleted from ESB. It should also have hac the ability to operate and carry RHIB, USV, LVCP & possibly LCU while being able to load/unload LCAC + it's replacement and EFT. Lastly a cargo(Conex Container) System to allow cargo to be placed anywhere on the Mission Bay Floor should've have been a no brainer. So how much more costly would these extras have been-I don't think that much...
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308 If the Wing-Fuselage pivot itself is buggered then you will likely have to lift the wing itself off I would think??? Even then a Open configuration Osprey (Blades folded??) might not be able to enter the hanger anyway...
We learned in WW2 (and other wars in history) ships are also very vulnerable in a bigger threat than land bases. With the Marine Corps going to a temporary island hoping structure, I still look at Wake Island as a history lesson on the threat we have to evacuate Marines with a Navy capably less than we had in WW2.
Can the ESDs house and support LCAC and other landing craft and can it crossload vehicles or containers from sealift ships to those landing craft at sea?
Was getting nervous Kamome, starting to think there's was going to be no November video. 🎉 Great subject delivery. Did not expect a Surfshark advert in a C2 segment of a logistical naval vessel 😂 Appreciate the time you commit to drawing attention to the geographical and topographical aspects of strategic competition over combat power. Logistics are still the backbone of any nation. See you over in 2024.🎉
No mention of how incredibly vulnerable these ships would be unless within a task group, which leaves their role completely fulfilled by carriers and fleet auxiliary. The Atlantic conveyer was destroyed by exorcet missiles in the 80's. These wouldn't stand a chance against modern advances in munitions and satellite tracking.. let alone hypersonics. Most modern warships have reverse osmosis desalination plants on board already, water consumption by marines is not a limiting factor in amphibious warfare.
A less glib response; these vessels will require near complete Area Dominance to operate, which is possible to achieve, tho it will be quite difficult to do so, especially as China is the obvious adversary.
Wouldn't those open sides on the cargo deck make the ship very vulnerable to flooding and even moderately heavy seas? can some kind of covering be rolled down?
So I would assume the main issue I’m thinking of, is the same the US navy is aware of. These are converted civilian vessels. That means they are constructed (outside of any blocks added on/replaced, like the hanger block? At the front of the vessel) to civilian maritime standards. The UK Royal Navy experienced a lot of issues with this style of vessel converted to military use. As others have said, the Atlantic conveyor for a start may have stood a better chance at surviving the Exocet hit had it been built to military instead of civilian maritime standards. Another example would HMS Ocean, ex helicopter carrier. This vessel was built to civilian maritime standards as opposed to military, and from what I have heard had issues relating to that, along with she wouldn’t be particularly survivable in a high threat environment. The USA has a reputation (might be outdated by now)of not heading the warnings of other countries, but hopefully they do learn from other countries mistakes. While civilian converted vessles and vessels built to civilian standards save a lot of money, they come with a host of issues. My assumption (perhaps foolishly) is that these converted vessels may be acting as the “test run” for this style of vessel and, once a proven idea, they might make an improved version.
I hope that whoever came up with this idea, even if it was the lowest enlisted position, they were automatically promoted to General or Admiral. This seems like the most useful ship. Bravo!
Frankly, this is why the US is a global superpower. The contrast with Russia which is struggling to win a war in its doorstep is stark. Having cool fighter jets, guided missiles, drones etc is all well and good but they're nothing if you can't supply and maintain them. "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics".
Is it a good idea to have a major command and control node, aircraft refueling and rearming, cargo transport, boat transport, soldier transport, and medical facilities all ontop of 11 million gallons of fuel? Seems like putting all eggs in one basket, though I'm no expert. Could the fuel storage instead be for other cargo, with replenishment pipes attached to a nearby tanker alongside? This way its compartmentalized and one ship being hit won't destroy it all.
What is shocking is how the US has ignored their closest option for a land base to support action in the Pacific. Unalaska, that island in the Aleutian chain running south and west gives them a land base / naval port within their borders yet close to any possible area of conflict.
No it doesn't. Read the history of the Aleutians Campaign in World War II. The only reason the Japanese attempted an invasion there was as a diversion from their main thrust at Midway and when we didn't bite at that bait they hardly bothered with any serious effort to sustain operations there while conducting their Solomons and New Guinea campaigns. Too remote from the actual theatre of operations. The Aleutian island chain is 3000 miles from the East China Sea, 4000 miles from the Philippines and the South China Sea. They're no closer to where the action would be than Hawaii. Additionally, in the winter months the storms in the North Pacific make transit very hazardous, so those sea lanes are effectively cut off for three months out of the year. There is no geographical advantage to establish bases in the Aleutians for any future Pacific war.
A giant floating airfield, supply-base and barracks for marines, helicopters and drones with a lot of gee-whizz radios, radars and TVs thrown in. Given unchallenged US control of the sea these monsters could do the work of a 1945 carrier-group at a fraction of the cost and difficulty. Whether they are necessary is anybody's guess. As a cynical old man I suspect the Military-Industrial Complex's love of taxpayer money may have a great deal to do with this.
these are almost all for show / $ laundering at this point ... in the age of drone warfare ++ ballistic missiles (Iran, NK, Russia, and China) ... any 'Peer Competitor' conflict all of these things could be sunk within minutes notice
This is all very well conceptually but fails catastrophically in foreseeable execution. While these vessels might find themselves parked up in relatively open ocean from time to time, generally they would preferably be located in the lee of some island complex, mainly because the main working deck below the airstrip is open to the weather, more violent seas and the potential for salt corrosion. Aluminium aircraft frames don't take kindly to salt. However, regardless of where they are located, they are prime targets for long-range accurate sea or aircraft launched missiles. This means that their security cover must be extensive and possibly further extended by external surveillance assets including satellites, all of which ties up more equipment and $$$. You maintain that airfields can be bombed or struck by missiles. But typically any strike on an airfield would be likely to leave some useful working parts of the base intact unless destruction was complete. This would not be the case with seaborne expeditionary platforms, and the entire logistics of that floating base could easily be taken out by a single powerful strike, and of course the sinking of such a base would mean that every piece of salvageable equipment would be unlikely to be serviceable in any short time if ever. This particular brain spasm from the US Department of Defence might work on places like Somalia and Sudan, for exactly the same reason that the US has been able to get away with its ill-considered adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - because they were dealing with a bunch of people in bedsheets and sandals wielding AK-47s and RPG's - until they could no longer be sustained - but it would fail horribly in any attempt to attack an enemy like Russia from either the east or west or the northern coast or the Black or Baltic Seas. Contrary to popular propaganda put out by the usual neocon suspects Russia is infinitely more advanced militarily than is the US, in the same can be said for China or certainly will be the case in the near future. Russia has been at this game for decades and planning out future scenarios to deal with its prime Raison D'Etre and that is not hegemonic but the defence of Russia as it stands today. Just remember, one little Yasan sub carrying several underwater launched hypersonic Zircon missiles would take out multiple expeditionary platforms without even surfacing, from potentially as far away as at least 1000 km. It is impossible for the US or anybody else to surveil an area of sea with a 1000 km radius. The US could save itself a lot of time and expense by simply not sticking its nose into the affairs of other countries and not adopting the role of global policeman and chief moraliser for everybody. It seems pretty obvious that whoever dreamed up this idea has still not learned the lessons of Ukraine.
Considering that Russia hasn't been able to defeat a small country on its border for nearly two years, I think it's safe to say that Russia is nowhere near the US or China's military prowess. China, however, has many advantages when it comes to a war in Taiwan. Not exactly in technology, but in situational context.
@@arteckjay6537 You mean the "small country" that has been getting free military supplies, training, intelligence, logistics, etc. from all of NATO? If Ukraine had none of that then yes, it would have been defeated quite quickly. It just took Russia a bit longer to defeat NATO as a whole.
@alcibiadesW Ah, so they could win easily if the country was poorly trained and had no supplies. That's a pretty poor argument, if you think about it. "Russia is superior to the US, the only reason they can't defeat a small bordering country for two years and counting is because it is being supplied... by the US." If America's military was so weak, wouldn't Russia be able to win despite the supplies? Quit embarrassing yourself, man.
@@arteckjay6537 You are trying to change your argument. Your original statement made no mention of outside support. So it isn't just Russian fighting a "small country" alone, as you tried to imply. And no, Ukraine had been receiving training and equipment since 2014. It officially had one of the strongest armies in Europe. [Personally, I doubt its army was as large as it claimed. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. And claiming the existence of phantom soldiers in order to receive their pay and other funding is an ancient trick.] The Russians invaded with a relatively small force of around 100k, much smaller than the Ukrainian army was supposed to be. And part of the Russian force was militias from Donetsk and the eastern territories, not true soldiers. Yet the Russians were winning. After NATO began its massive levels of support, the Russians had to change tactics. So they went for attrition warfare. Which they have also been winning.
@alcibiadesW I wouldn't consider being pushed back all the way to eastern Ukraine as "winning" but you're probably just gonna deny it and say I'm switching up again. I guess we'll see who's right in a few years.
It's really informative to watch this video in conjunction with RealLifeLore's video on how the US is surrounding China ( ua-cam.com/video/xBY5veWGBd8/v-deo.htmlsi=Zb-ayMSNU9mSfKpx ). The US has a vast network of bases in Asia and are only expanding them. The logistics to support them during peacetime must be immense. I can't imagine the difficulties of resupplying them during a conflict. Certainly an ESB helps but it is only one piece in the puzzle.
They haven't stolen the plans from the US military yet you Chinese shill. Wait another 10 years for a shitty chinese version just like their nonoperational aircraft carriers
@@jerrymiller9039 you're mocking them out of insecurity. We must get to work, not joke about others' powers and overestimating ours, this is getting more and more serious with time
Great video. ESB cost a lot less and could be modified quicker and be used sooner than later. My big question is? Any defensive/offensive weapons like CIWS, RIM 6, naval version of tomahawk NASAMS, anti ship, anti air or anti sub missiles. It's a sitting duck out there in the Pacific if spotted and ESB can't go nowhere close to Chinese anti denial/anti area access. Maybe we could have a version of ESB loaded with all types of weapons like what i mentioned earlier. If an F35 already used all her weapons, there's an ESB that can provide additional firepower at pilots disposal. Or the pilot can give the coordinates and ESB crew will take of the rest.
These floating bases are just in their nascency. Even as they stand -- inexpensive proofs of concept -- they are a great enhancement, but imagine what's to come. They are certainly modular: stick a few Phalanx CIWSs on there to beef up defenses. And some other things... Some of them could be transformed into unmanned remote controlled vessels themselves and be a hub for drone swarms. There are so many more possibilities and so much that can be done with this platform. Great video
Or we could stop pushing for global hegemony and not have to fight all these wars. Tell the oligarchs to be happy with what they have. Spend some effort and billions at home for once.
Bro Im watching your video on china rn, but I came to your most uptodate video to say that your quality of content is amazing. Keep it up , you put so much effort in and you deserve at least 20x the subscribers!
See the Proceedings Publication article, Reload Missile Shooters at Sea. From 2018. Use of platform as a missile rapid reload system for surface combatants and submarines.
Get an exclusive Surfshark Black Friday deal! Enter promo code KAMOME to get up to 6 additional months for free at surfshark.deals/kamome
Tiny detail :) at 20 seconds in, you mention Khartoum as the capital of South Sudan, but it is the capital of just normal Sudan :)
This Channel is the bomb.
Great work mate.😎
I like your content but your map graphics that constantly spin/rotate and spin are distracting and nauseating without adding value. I do hope you are able to increase your video output volume.
My good buddy PO3 S.M.York served aboard another Lewis Puller named ship. The missile frigate FFG-23 Lewis B.Puller.
Long since decommissioned and now serving in the Egyptian navy.
@@rustyshackelford1483 Wow! Thank you for sharing that!
It’s amazing how the US developed an amazing system of logistics to not only overwhelm Japan in the Pacific Theatre but simultaneously doing the same supplying Europe. When the US has its back against the wall and with effective leadership can accomplish anything.
I dont think the US has had its back on the wall since maybe the Revolutionary war.
In the modern era the US has lost its logistics edge. It’s takes a decade to build one super carrier and several years to refit or repair the same carrier. The navy has been retiring and decommissioning classes and ships from 50 years ago and even some ships from the modern fleet. They cannot match Chinese ship production if they wanted to. In a war situation it would be even worse. If America has three carriers currently in refit and not deployable and another three are needed in other theatres that leaves only half of Americas functional carriers available for a hypothetical war in the pacific. If half of those carriers take battle damage or must simply withdraw to resupply that’s only around three functional carriers in the pacific at any given time. America cannot afford to lose a single military asset in a big war because their logistics would break down immediately otherwise. (It would take years to reinforce any major losses such as a carrier or even destroyer/cruiser) With a war with China, China has the advantage in that America would be attacking and invading and would lose too much of their logistics capability in transit to the pacific from missile strikes, air strikes, and submarine strikes to make fighting in that region next to impossible. American military hegemony is dependent entirely on technology at, this point they cannot even rely on logistics in the modern era. At least not to the extant they had during the Second World War or even the Cold War. China may not have the same technological and weapons capability advantage as America but they do have some of the best logistics in the world. So much so that much of North America and Europe are dependent on Chinese logistics even if not in a strictly military sense. In a modern pacific war America must win early on because they cannot sustain any losses. It’s not impossible America would win in that situation especially if they used the nuclear option but it is highly likely they would lose a quick war and be forced to the negotiating table before they even lose half of their capability simply because they cannot sustain that same capability indefinitely especially not in a war with a near peer like China. This analysis ignores american allies in the region but in my opinion that is another conversation. American logistics facilitated through allied regional countries is not a guarantee in a modern pacific war and that is truly the deciding factor in a modern sino American war. America must ship logistics and assets across the pacific to effectively fight. China does not and in a war of attrition China has the advantage and America has been losing that advantage for the better part of half a century now.
America is on the decline and China is on the rise. As time goes on they will not be considered so evenly matched and america will be at a disadvantage.
@@Frizzleman
Disagree China on the rise. They are on the precipice of a demographic implosion.
With good leadership the US has amazingly fast ability to snap back and lead.
@@Frizzleman November 30, 2023 - It is alway nice to see evidence that the CCP's propaganda arms are monitoring channels like this one. I would be quite surprised to know that you are not an operative and/or employee of the Chinese military. In your one sided "discussion" of a possible Sino/U.S.A. conflict. You conveniently leave out so many variables, that it is obvious as to what your intent is. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but what people chose to believe, and what is actually true. Is quite different. You may be right, and China may indeed prove victorious in a conflict with the U.S.A. AND.. its allies. However, the bottom line in war is... "Who sucks the least.. is the victor."😁😉
@@Frizzleman Oh but can China rely on its Troops to fight?
I love how we've looped back around to the base concept of seaplane tenders
You should check out the MODEP concept
Everything old is new again
Only so many solutions available when it comes to fuel. When we have different propulsion sources and don’t need to refuel then it won’t be so much distance as a time issue.
I worked on this ship when it was being built at General Dynamics NASSCO in San Diego.
Oh, so that’s what those strange looking ship superstructures were! I thought they were clumsy looking vulnerable cargo ships, but now we know… looks can be deceiving. Those things are actually bad ass mobile moving supply bases and communications-coordination centers with a complement of drones, aircraft, and repair facilities.
Just stay clear of typhoons!
I saw it being built as I live in San Diego.
I was a summer hire with GD after college and was treated great. So many complain about the military industrial complex while they stand protected by the best tech weapons and military by far in the world. Retired Army and ARNG. Salute GD and similar companies. Thank God we have you.
When our unit was doing jungle operations. all we required was a resupply every ten days by helicopter or parachute (usually heli) and nothing else, we found our own water, which was never delivered to us. Everything had to be carried on our backs, so the resupply was not huge and we sometimes had lightweight rations which could be bulked up with rainforest water, so logistically we were not a great burden on the base-wallahs. Most days we had some patrolling to do, so the weight of our rucksacks needed to be kept down to 50 lb or less though occasionally we carried a lot more. In theory we could have kept this up almost indefinitely if casualties were low, though in practice we were only in the jungle for about 6 weeks before returning to base for a rest.
hey, great video as always, just one thing: at 20:00 you say "khartoum, the capital of south Sudan" which is incorrect. Khartoum is the capital of normal Sudan, the capital of south Sudan would be Juba😊
It is at 0:22. Americans of geography. ;)
Noticed that too. Pathetic.
As a Sudanese I thought my ears were tripping
Yep this threw me off straight away
Juba, Juba ujela te buba
November 30, 2023 - As one of many sayings regarding the subject says. "Logistics ain't sexy, but it wins or loses wars." I've know about this class of ship since they started commissing them. However, this video's detailed examination of the vessel class is very enlightinging and I intend to archive it for future reference since real world wargaming is my most important hobby.
I want to try it for business applications. Can you refer some sources because I couldn't find any.
a spelling and punctuation superstar
@@ram_sankar I'm sorry but I offered a couple of companie's websites but apparently Kamome deleted my comments. I guess it is against their rules. I suggest doing Google searches for information about companies you may be interested. Stay well.😊
@@swell07_ 🤔?? Sir.. if your comments are a criticism of my spelling and punctuation. I admit it. I suck at those things, but I try my best to be coherent in my written comments.😊
@@SabastianMoranlooks like a compliment to me
These animations are getting so much better every time. I hope to see these on Nebula
What us nebula
if only the pronunciation and/or spelling improved...
Now if they could just get the small stuff right, like removing the USNS stripes from the stacks.
Which is better nowadays, Nebula or Curiosiity stream?
The use cases for the ESB program are near bottomless. However, they will be used primarily as support vessels and for humanitarian needs. That said, not all of the fleet is owned by Sea Lift Command. You also left out an extremely important detail. The first few hulls were semi submersable so that you could launch various boats and barges off of the lower mission deck. Each hull has been slightly different, not just from lessons learned but in large portions of the design. The flight deck for example was added a few hulls into the program. That said, it could be the perfect platform to develop into a drone mothership in the future, if on the large size.
You are conflating the MLP’s with the ESB’s. ESB 3 was made with incomplete MLP 3 hull when MPSRON 3 was disbanded but they are completely separate classes of ships with different missions. The ESB’s are actually commission, warships while the MLPs are assigned military sea lift command and are USNS shipping
@@ronhmclaughlin you're unconflating them. It's an extension of the same program. Not all of the ESBs are commissioned either. Just look at the Puller in the video, yellow/blue stripes on the stack. 👍👍
I'd argue the more important bit is that as a consequence of being a Tanker refit they only need like 34 crew to man the ship.
0H YEAAAHHH AMER!CAN LGBTQ GENERAT!0NS!!!
Hows the defence on these ships agaisnt drones, torpedoes etc ? is the HULL strong enuff to take some beating?
@@leeschulken8744
First of all, excellent video: clear, concise, and with custom visuals to boot. Great job. Second, these are absolutely remarkable. How have I never heard of these?! That networking effect is clearly there to support emergent AI technologies, redundant kill-chains for missles/anti-missile weaponry, and just general inter-connectivity etc over *huge* areas of empty space. And the fact that they're essentially floating office buildings/fuel depots means they're infinitely more difficult to track/strike/reach than, say, an immovable naval base sitting on an island. Wild. One of those things that seems so obvious in retrospect. Edit: They have desalinization processors too?! I know where I'm going when the zombie apocalypse hits. 🙃
@headoverheels88 Those desalinators are key. I’m going there, too! But wait a minute… actually all US NAVY ships have them. So just go for the Supply ships which have more as much food as they do ammo. Food will be so we can eat and live. Ammo is what we feed to the enemy… or zombies.
As MacGregor has pointed out - in naval warfare today anything but a submarine is an easy target awaiting immediate destruction. Today in the Russo-Ukraine conflict very often it is impossible for a detachment of a few soldiers to deploy undetected and without being targeted and eliminated by an FPV drone or artillery strike. And you still believe that these giants can go anywhere near a conflict zone without being instantly detected and blown out of the water? Only an American stuck in the thinking of WWII doctrine can see anything else but big fat targets in surface ships like those.
The capital of south Sudan is Juba, I think you meant that they were going to the capital of Sudan, Khartoum.
exactly
An LHA is capable of carrying a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) with up to 1,900 troops when fully loaded. The America-class LHA ships, such as the USS America (LHA 6), have a crew of 1,059 (65 officers) and can carry 1,687 troops (plus an additional 184 in a surge situation). An ESB has a crew of 64, and can carry up to 250 marines or other special forces.
Such a banger Kamome, beautiful visuals and pacing, you hooked me from the start!
I see you xD
The 'Sea Base' concept has been around for a while now, the first time I came across the Idea was in the James Cobb novel 'Sea Fighters' where three huge barges complete with accommodation and maintenance services that were fastened together, and they could service helos, armed hovercraft, drones, with a tethered radar aerostat/video surveillance systems.
China has this with the mothership system their ‘fishermen’ use
Great insightful video as always. Clear, concise information delivered with graphics that always hold my attention.
Thank you🥹
@@Kamome163 Taiwan as the new Kaliningrad? Kaliningrad is a heavly armed part of Russia. Do you assume Taiwan has been taken over by China and is an adversary to the US?
@@TurboJor The comparison between Kaliningrad and Taiwan is not political but a security one, as they both are similar to islands surrounded by potentially hostile countries making them flashpoints of conflicts
When a captured Japanese officer learned that the US Navy had a ship solely for making ice cream, he knew the war was lost.
We never did
Well good thing he never did, cause they had no such thing....
Ice cream barges lol they were originally concrete mixing barges converted to make ice cream theres a whole wikipedia page with magazine images of soldiers looking at the ship in harbor "look theres the ice cream factory"
@@Trolden01yes we did BRL Barge Refridgerated Large, Ice Cream Barge en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream_barge look stuff up before you talk and make yourself look foolish and disrespect the ice cream barge veterans
@@Trolden01yes we did, The craft, a concrete barge acquired from the U.S. Army and worth one million dollars,[1][2] was able to create 10 US gallons (38 L) of ice cream every seven minutes, or approximately 500 US gal (1,900 L) per shift, and could store 2,000 US gal (7,600 L).[3][4] It was employed in the USN's Western Pacific area of operations, at one point anchored at Naval Base Ulithi.[5] These ships were intended to raise the morale of U.S. troops overseas by producing ice cream at a fast rate. The army built three concrete barges of their own, specifically for making ice cream
theres magazine ads showing them in photos, ice cream barges BRL officially,
I served on CVN-70. This class of ships is an excellent idea.
Carl Vinson…… love u longtime !
Sounds like the ESB ships are the new mass produced carrier escort ships from WW2. Ones used in battles like Lyte Gulf where six were attacked and fended off a large battle group where even one of those ships alone weighed more than the combined US fleet, Taffy 3, and survived.
It'd be great to see Canada acquire an icebreaking version of one of these to exercise its sovereignty in the Arctic.
Hopefully they are no going to be shortsighted and get rid of the Asterix after they have the new Joint Support Ships built.
Even if it's not kept as very hardened ship, it can at least be kept around (perhaps rebranded as a coast guard ship) for things like arctic sealift in summer months and disaster relief missions whenever those arise, so that frees up the military ships for more dangerous waters.
@@wyldhowl2821 Alas, shortsighted is the name of the game when it comes to Canada and its armed forces.
With what we're doing to the world they won't need one. That Ice is all but gone for a good part of the year. They could legit just order a hull and make their own ship. There is something about how vanilla this idea is that I'm starting to think we've figured out that civilian industry can supply the navy with some really cool toys.
Well how about Canada first build a real military, build nuclear forces and than get sovereignty and than go for arctic
@@arminius6506 Leaving aside the question of nuclear arms. Sure, Canada does need to expand its armed forces but I think a central pillar of that should be it's Arctic capabilities considering it is a Arctic nation with a sizable territory in the Arctic circle. I think it's undeniable that the Arctic will only grow in economic and geopolitical importance as the sea ice recedes year after year so Canada ought to take its northern domain more seriously.
Excellent report. Please do a follow up on any proposed AA and AS weapons that could be deployed on Puller type vessels as well. At a MINIMUM these are too valuable to lack self defense.
Yes that was my first question
All that extra power production calls out for emerging laser weaponry. These ships should have their own short range and close in anti air defense capabilities. But I'd imagine they'd have a Burke or Constitution class escort in wartime conditions.
Given the power production surplus, likely some kind of laser defence for anti-drone/missile. Also likely backed up by 1-2 SeaRam systems, which have similar mounting requirements to the standard gun based Phalanx systems but much better range.
I have to note with some irony that at 4:15, you mention the ship as a former Alaska-class tanker, yet while remarking on the "tyranny of distance" at 3:09 you don't address the active bases in Alaska, notably Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and EIelson AFB, both of which are less than 3,500 miles from Tokyo.
I get your point but there is something ironic about ending with “less than 3,500 miles from Tokyo”
It’s in contrast to the 10,000 miles shown from “the mainland US.”
General Billy Mitchell said Alaska was the most strategically important place in the world.
He also didn't mention Baked Alaska, or do the joke about saying you're off to obtain information from a woman.
The whole thing's dripping with irony.
ITT: people struggle to understand the concept of "irony".
SUPER DUPER Graphics!!!
'Atlantic Conveyor'....Now THAT is a ship I haven't heard in a L O N G Time!!!
Yes, ESBs are going to be Very Vital in providing logistical support of Operations Anywhere there is water...but Should ( or MayBe have ) a video on ESDs = Expeditionary Transfer Dock Ship, a way for LCACs to be used in a similar way that helos can carry supplies. While ESBs can be multi-role with drones and various helos.....It Would be Difficult to carry heavy loads...tanks, MRAPs, Patriot/THAAD systems...that is where a ESD would help.
Although T-ESD-1 & -2 are the ONLY ones, they need to have a Ro-Ro type ship, like BOB HOPE-class vessel, or other LMSR-type vessel!!
Good Work on this, Your narration 'Kamone' is Super, with Superior graphics.....I have been following this ESB/ESD for Quite awhile...Thanks for posting!!! Glad I 'Subscribed'!!!
Welcome back, Kamome.
I'm back! Sorry for the long hiatus!
I wonder how many pirates will attempt to plunder these vessels, confusing them for unarmed cargo ships.
There's not a big piracy issue in the Pacific is there?
@@Trenz0 ua-cam.com/video/s8DzimKKXc8/v-deo.html
@@Trenz0 Actually it's been a thing in the Straits of Mallaca in fairly recent times. Apparently more under control recently.
Fewer than begin the attempt.
Oh look at those death ploppers taking off and landing! Such grace.
Does the ESB have any defensive weapons or countermeasures to anti-ship strikes?
We have 3 EBS in 3 different AOR. One in 6th fleet one in 5th fleet and one in 7th fleet. The latest EBS is completing FCT and will be either a 3rd fleet asset or go to 7th fleet. I know because I work for MSC been onboard 2 of these.
which one's. I was on the Puller twice. the best thing I ever saw on these tours was my relief
+ F-35B. But the importance of USVs + UUVs is hard to understate going forward.
The deck can't take the heat of the F-35B. That could change, but for now, it's limited to helos and tilt rotor craft.
You had this Marine cracking up when you said the “TIE-ranny” of distance! 😹
Khartoum is not the Capital of South Sudan. cmon guys, you just lost final Jeopardy
Khartoum is the capital of Sudan, South Sudan has an embassy of USA, but it is in Juba the capital of South Sudan. I bet the ambassador in Khartoum was a bit surprised.
This is a Militarized Container Ship. A Toyota Tactical of the Seas.
3:21 Great video but why don't you show Alaska and the Aleutian Islands that is also an essential part of this base network?
The US doesn't have any military bases in the Aleutian Islands. NAS Adak was closed a long time ago. Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage is a sizeable base though.
Plenty of bases in Alaska. Which china prioritizes first, well before the mainland. China will try to land a ground force on Alaska first. I think we are smart enough to say that.
@@lougarcia1485 Alaskan national guard units are not military bases.
The only way China would attempt to invade the US homeland is if we got into a full scale nuclear war with Russia, or someone else. Then, while we are trying to rebuild, maybe they would attempt it but we would still have our submarines so there's just no way.
"IF" China ever really attempted an invasion of US territory it would be Guam and possibly Hawaii. There's no way they could reinforce or resupply troops invading our mainland.
It will be really interesting to see how these advance in design. Id imagine that if you took the stealth tech lessons from the zumwalt and LCS classes that despite their failures, making a vital logistics support ship harder to detect and hit would be a huge priority down the line. These examples shown all seem like prototypes and proof of concept type designs.
This is such a good video with information that nobody else is talking about this channel is unmatched.
This ship is amazing and exceptional except for one major flaw. It still has the hull of a tanker. In any conflict it would be targeted, likely by anti-ship missles and it would not take more then a couple hits, maybe only one, to sink it. The navy needs to return to armored hulls. Even if this ship has defensive weaponry including C.I.S. systems, a swarm attack of missles would likely land 1 or 2 hits on the hull. Survivability is just as important, if not more important then fighting, or logistical ability, for without it, the rest will not survive an assault.
What about a single torpedo, A Chinese sub can sneak unnoticed and from rather long range release a sound guided smart fish. Battle of the Atlantic repeated, but much easier for stationary ships
How many of our navies current ' fighting ' ships could take more than one hit from a missile and survive ? And with the smaller crews of the newer vessels ; damage control crews will be overstretched from the get go . I'm no Nautical Ned but i'd say it really doesn't matter - these ships are made to be quick and cheap to build and replace : a Liberty ship for the 21st century .
@@JLTJr.Spot on, everyone seems to have their head stuck in the new fangled mindset of having a specific ship for every little job.
Watch this at 1.25x. You’ll thank me later.
Thanks
Damn thank you 😂
LOL THANKS ALOT
1.75 actually
@@jimblywimbly8291 no he means 1.25x
The ESB ship Lewis B Puller reminds me of the U.S Navy's next generation ship plans from 20 years ago. The ships in the plans were intermodular and would switch weapons platforms in the event of conflicts. Great video as usual Kamomme and the graphics were really cool.
Old Navy Supply officer here, did some time on an LPH. This sounds a lot like a combination of amphib/helo platform, supply ship/tender, and LCC.
The modules probably serves the ESB well. It didn't work so well for the LCS - a combat ship - likely due in part to the fact that one is a combat ship and the other is a support ship.
Yeah you do realize that those "modular, adaptable, and future-proof" vessels became the LCS(Freedom and Independence) Class and the Zumwalt-class Destroyers right? Arguably the two most overbudget, underwhelming, failure prone, pathetically inadequate and massive embarrassments of ANY Navy of the last half century right? 😅
If this ship reminds you of those dumpster fire and budgetary black holes. Then I'd say y'all really don't know Jack shit about the piss poor state your military and Navy in particular is in. Mind you it's nowhere near as bad as my own country's Navy(Canada) but it's pretty fucking godawful.
Very interesting, I hope they try to do versions with the Replicator launchers.
Thank you for all your hard work in creating this video. Lots of good information with great visuals.
@Kamome So are we going to ignore talking about how this ESB ship to be protected? The ESB would be the #1 target by a near-peer adversary over a warplanes carrier. Unless the ESB is escorted, then you'd need to devote more warship assets to protect the ESB (ESB strike group) at which point you have less warships to patrols the blue sea. You might as well have the ESB traverse the sea with the carrier strike groups. There is no way this ESB ship will survives on its own or even with a few warships escorting it in a actual war with a near-peer adversary.
My guess is that you protect them mostly by taking out China’s satellites and/or network.
From there, it’s about attrition. These are cheap, while the planes and subs that China would have to rely on after its space assets are blinded are expensive and will take losses every time they have to penetrate the First Island Chain.
Also, since they’re based on existing vessel hulls, it will be easy to mock up lots of very convincing decoys.
Well, US are building Constellation class, they can send one or two of the Constellation ships to guard ESB, free up Destroyers for other mission.
By US Destroyers...?
They would start as part of carrier task forces and remain doing this until naval superiority was established. Only then would they be free to support ground operations. They are not built to banzai the beach against on the opening day of war.
These were originally dreamed up for the War on Terror where they would have no opposition. The same people that pushed the Little Crappy Ships made this. They are not new and only needed because the USA has no merchant marine left since all the US corps outsourced all their shipping to...well you can guess which country. This channel is run by an idiot.
You neglected to mention this class of vessels are virtually unarmed having only 12 x .50 caliber machine gun stations. The crew is a mix of military and US Merchant Marine civilian sailors employed by Military Sealift Command DoN. Her capacity of absorbing battle damage is almost zero. I have been on the USNS Puller while it was in Norfolk naval base VA prior to deployment to the Persian Gulf.
Mark Fay US MMC Jr. Engineer STCW QMED AS-E, MSC Retired
I'd be interested in seeing how that can be remedied. Given the use and design of such ships based off civilian cargo ships, could they be redesigned to use dense cargo containers as a layer of armor, sacrificing cargo to protect the ship from the worst of missile damage
@@JKSSubstandard Small point, it is based on Alaska class tanker. All I can think of is not putting them where they will inherently not be in the crosshairs. A problematic proposition at best as it is large, gray, and looks important. Sadly, they are intended to be cheap, easily replaced, and expendable. The intention was to put them half way between the high value combatants which are kept far over the horizon, and the shore as an expendable “Lilly pad” for helicopters whose ranges are very limited. At the time the landing deck had overheating issues with the Osprey exhaust. Not sure if that was ever sorted out or not.
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 The USS Lewis Puller is an Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB) operated by the US Navy, serving as a floating base to address logistical challenges in the Pacific Ocean.
🧐 ESBs like the USS Lewis Puller are versatile floating bases with a large flight deck, command and control capabilities, and ample storage space for supplies and equipment.
🚀 The ESB's main role is as a logistical node, storing and distributing fuel, water, and supplies to support military operations in the Pacific Ocean.
💡 Additional Insights and Observations:
💬 "The reliance on helicopter and tiltrotor transportation of supplies will be crucial due to the vast distances involved and the lack of sufficient land infrastructure."
📊 The ESB can store over 11 million gallons of cargo fuel and has onboard desalination systems for water purification.
🌐 The Falklands War demonstrated the importance of auxiliary vessels in sustaining logistics during conflicts over vast distances.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The USS Lewis Puller and other ESBs play a vital role as logistical hubs in the Pacific Ocean, providing essential supplies and support for military operations. Their versatility and ability to overcome logistical challenges make them crucial assets for projecting and sustaining US power in the region.
Generated using Talkbud (Browser Extension)
Ty abdel
@@Lucyhehe_ You'ew welcome, you should give this extension a try.
Well, now you've got a massive cargo tanker for logistics which will move like a cargo tanker for logistics and if you need it to operate in a hot war in close proximity to an enemy force in an archipelago like the many in the south west pacific and suddenly you need a carrier strike group to protect it from capable surface and air threats. As well as an SSN beneath.
We think alike. Retro fitted civilian platform sounds easy to sink. The idea that the civilian ship provided as concept, was no doubt genius; however, the idea of force protection seemed largely ignored by this concept.
It's a navy auxiliary vessel... It's not meant to project force like a CVN or arleigh burke other than to act as it's intended purpose of being a floating warehouse with a heli pad for a naval strike group.
@@DurzoBlunts I mean the other way around. If you deploy this ship into a ‘hot war’ area you’ll need to protect it with your regular navy.
A lot of the naval battles in the pacific in ww2 were often one side trying to attack the other sides naval _logistics_ (troop carrier landing craft etc).
3:08 What AI Voice package used for this? Not bad. Just noticed the pronunciation of tyranny was chat bot basic.
those open sides kinda make things difficult for some cases such as cargo or mass medical. could have put in some of those garage doors atleast.
im surprised there isnt any 'modularity' in all that space. slide in moduals for specific mission needs. extra quarters, dry/wet cargo, medical, general cargo, dedicated electronic warfare suite, maybe some kinda horizontal launch system.
But i guess this is all kinda expensive.
Absolutely fantastic visuals and animations, well done! 🚀
So professionally done. As a Blender user myself, I was delighted to see that you had done it in blender. I had initially suspected C4d, but no, blender!!
This is the first of your videos I had seen, came up as a recommendation, and I will certainly be searching out your other stuff.
I had never even heard of these ESB type vessels, so I found very it interesting.
I will just say one little thing, and this is much more about style and tone, than it is about value, but please try to avoid the temptation to make your videos too 'slick', because that does come at the cost of ... errr ... difficult to articulate ... but I don't think that intelligent audiences like that.
I like to think that I'm watching a 'mini-documentary', rather than an 'infomercial'. Does that make sense? That's the best way I can put it, but thanks anyway for an excellent presentation.
Weirdly ever since I saw the 2017 King Kong movie, where at the beginning they have a military expeditionary force stationed on a cargo tanker, with multiple helicopters on the deck. I had this idea that something similar would be the perfect sea based expeditionary base. Low cost, more can be constructed and gives the edge of a aircraft carrier just without throwing such and expensive ship and it's defense fleet into the front line. We could even free up warships for other objectives if the carriers stayed back while these things moved in front.
This ship is literally straight out of GI Joe/Action Man. "I want a boat the size of a tanker, but it has helicopters on it, and also space for my cars".
Great pacing and great work on the visuals! Models are sleek, detailed, and well-framed. Content is well-organised and well-researched. Earned a sub.
I helped write the requirements for this as the Joint Special Operations Task Force (JSOTF) Headquarters and Support platform in the absence of either a Carrier Battle Group or Marine Amphibious Task Group.
"Amateurs talk Tactics, Professionals talk Logistics" 💯
Dilettantes talk tactics; Amateurs talk strategy; Professionals talk logistics.
Good logistic support vessel. Stupid idea to weaponize it - as soon as you turn an ESB into a sensor or weapon delivery platform for UAV/UWV it is now a priority target but without the systems to defend itself.
Not true. By putting offensive weapons on any platform, the enemy has to target them which dilute their concentration to attack other targets. Look up the history of B-52 decoys, first unarmed and supplemented by Hound Dog, then SCAD (not deployed), then SRAM replacing Hound Dog for saturation direct attack, then Cruise Missiles which can direct attack targets and saturate Russian defenses. The enemy has to defend or attack more targets that has offensive weapons. So a single Harpoon on a Coast Guard vessel would require a response from the enemy.
It doesn't operate alone. Different ships serve different functions in a battle group.
My worry is anti missile defense. How quickly can anti missile missiles be reloaded? Will they make ships that can re arm other warships with missiles? Not trying to have a fight about the LCS but if they had been problem free I would have loved to see an ESB being motherships to the LCS.
That's what a "strike group" and recon is made for. There are always aircraft flying around these ships for early warning against missiles over the horizon.
@@rhyanjill may I get more detail about "that's what a strike group and recon...." I wonder would they add an aerostat to their early warning?
@@damongraham1398 Basically huge carriers like these never wander alone. They're often accompanied by corvettes, frigates and submarines. That entire fleet is called a carrier strike group, and the US has 11 of them so that there's always an optimal number of carrier strike groups active even as they cycle through maintenance. A strike group is always surrounded by surveillance planes and drones so that they can always have extended visuals and radar reception of any approaching aircraft or missile beyond the carrier strike group's visible horizon. Missiles, regardless of the speed, will always have a delay. It doesn't matter how fast it is if a surveillance aircraft can send speed of light communication and warning towards the carrier strike group who can then make evasive maneuvers and launch interceptors and decoys against the missile. Oftentimes all it takes is an evasive maneuver because GPS is imperfect. The strike group can also launch a counter-attack to prevent follow-up strikes and saturation attacks.
Thanks! Awesome Report! In WWII Japan converted Merships into carriers, etc. I am surprised more nations havn't done it.
Iran is doing something kinda similar. They're converting old cargo ships into drone carriers. Now i don't know the exact capabilities these ships will provide other than launching drones. But is a novel idea. Take an existing platform which already cuts down on design and production costs and the availability and accessibility of parts and crews. Reminds me of the old sea plane tenders back in the early 1900s. Also i wonder if they could also handle VTOL jet aircraft like F-35Bs
I think that Hawaii and Guam is far from enough in supporting US logistics in the Pacific and that the US should also build more logistical hubs in the Alaskan Islands and some other islands in the pacific.
I’ve yet to see a video regarding a potential Pacific war mention Wake Island
He left them out in the map. Anchorage and Fairbanks both have substantial Army / Air Force installations that survived the end of the Cold War.
@@rmdean10 would you consider that enough for large scale pacific war?
Using shipping containers as mobile magazines for drones and missiles would be ideal. Put them atop container ships for protection. Blending in and appearing harmless will be stealth in plain sight.
the US Army has them. Its a four-round launder loaded with laser-guided 70mm rockets for anti drone warfare
Xi told the PLA and Chinese Merchant Marine to do that around 2012.
It's fascinating to see the changes in the Navy since I was last on active duty in the 70s, and then Reserves in the mid-80s.
Instant new subscriber here after watching just 1 minute. Your visual quality is on another level, and I look forward to watching more of your content in the future.
Great vid. However, the capital of south sudan is Juba!
Frankly apart from the flight deck, they really botched the Hanger & Mission Deck. IF for instance you are conducting flight ops and a Osprey has a broken wing pivot and needs to be hangered because of weather. Better hope another aircraft doesn't break because the hanger isn't likely to
A: Have the capacity to stow another.
B: Be able to move another aircraft around the Osprey in an "Open" condition. Seeing that the hanger has only one set of doors...
This also applies to a Broken Chinook unable to fold its rotors.
The MLP ability to interface with the T-AKR shouldn't have been deleted from ESB. It should also have hac the ability to operate and carry RHIB, USV, LVCP & possibly LCU while being able to load/unload LCAC + it's replacement and EFT. Lastly a cargo(Conex Container) System to allow cargo to be placed anywhere on the Mission Bay Floor should've have been a no brainer. So how much more costly would these extras have been-I don't think that much...
Don’t these have fail-safes? Drain the valves and push the wings/blades in manually?
@@firstletterofthealphabet7308
If the Wing-Fuselage pivot itself is buggered then you will likely have to lift the wing itself off I would think???
Even then a Open configuration Osprey (Blades folded??) might not be able to enter the hanger anyway...
We learned in WW2 (and other wars in history) ships are also very vulnerable in a bigger threat than land bases. With the Marine Corps going to a temporary island hoping structure, I still look at Wake Island as a history lesson on the threat we have to evacuate Marines with a Navy capably less than we had in WW2.
What are you trying to say?
What kind of video editing/animation stacked do you use?
Can the ESDs house and support LCAC and other landing craft and can it crossload vehicles or containers from sealift ships to those landing craft at sea?
Change video speed to 1.25, works great!
Good shout
Was getting nervous Kamome, starting to think there's was going to be no November video. 🎉
Great subject delivery. Did not expect a Surfshark advert in a C2 segment of a logistical naval vessel 😂
Appreciate the time you commit to drawing attention to the geographical and topographical aspects of strategic competition over combat power. Logistics are still the backbone of any nation.
See you over in 2024.🎉
No mention of how incredibly vulnerable these ships would be unless within a task group, which leaves their role completely fulfilled by carriers and fleet auxiliary. The Atlantic conveyer was destroyed by exorcet missiles in the 80's. These wouldn't stand a chance against modern advances in munitions and satellite tracking.. let alone hypersonics. Most modern warships have reverse osmosis desalination plants on board already, water consumption by marines is not a limiting factor in amphibious warfare.
All this...kept seeing a missile slam into this baby thru the entire vid. Oh well...
A less glib response; these vessels will require near complete Area Dominance to operate, which is possible to achieve, tho it will be quite difficult to do so, especially as China is the obvious adversary.
My guess is there will be a few ships with them to help defend, like with carriers. But yeah they seem like more than ideal targets
they are just another type of cargo ship and would opperate in convoys like any other cargo ship i dont see the problem
Wouldn't those open sides on the cargo deck make the ship very vulnerable to flooding and even moderately heavy seas? can some kind of covering be rolled down?
Going to need a full set of escorts though, or it'll be an Easily Sunk Boat
pimp daddy
Why does this feel like the most Metal Gear ship in the fleet?
So I would assume the main issue I’m thinking of, is the same the US navy is aware of. These are converted civilian vessels. That means they are constructed (outside of any blocks added on/replaced, like the hanger block? At the front of the vessel) to civilian maritime standards.
The UK Royal Navy experienced a lot of issues with this style of vessel converted to military use. As others have said, the Atlantic conveyor for a start may have stood a better chance at surviving the Exocet hit had it been built to military instead of civilian maritime standards. Another example would HMS Ocean, ex helicopter carrier. This vessel was built to civilian maritime standards as opposed to military, and from what I have heard had issues relating to that, along with she wouldn’t be particularly survivable in a high threat environment.
The USA has a reputation (might be outdated by now)of not heading the warnings of other countries, but hopefully they do learn from other countries mistakes. While civilian converted vessles and vessels built to civilian standards save a lot of money, they come with a host of issues. My assumption (perhaps foolishly) is that these converted vessels may be acting as the “test run” for this style of vessel and, once a proven idea, they might make an improved version.
I hope that whoever came up with this idea, even if it was the lowest enlisted position, they were automatically promoted to General or Admiral. This seems like the most useful ship. Bravo!
Frankly, this is why the US is a global superpower. The contrast with Russia which is struggling to win a war in its doorstep is stark. Having cool fighter jets, guided missiles, drones etc is all well and good but they're nothing if you can't supply and maintain them. "Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics".
USA: bringing war and death to you since it's foundation.
I really don't see how Taiwan compares to Kaliningrad.
It also makes itself one hell of a target…
If these things are off the shelf tankers that are retrofitted they will be very slow. Is their power plant also upgraded?
This was an excellent presentation. Thank you for posting.
0:20 Khartoum is the capital of Sudan, not South Sudan
I was in the ship yards and I’ve been watching the ship builders put together these ships like there legos
can it ram a chinese fishing vessel?
Хм...тебя они тоже задрали, однако,....;)))))
It was a Japanese fishing vessel.
The abilityof the navy to keep all those folks fed on all those ships every day is astounding.
Is it a good idea to have a major command and control node, aircraft refueling and rearming, cargo transport, boat transport, soldier transport, and medical facilities all ontop of 11 million gallons of fuel? Seems like putting all eggs in one basket, though I'm no expert. Could the fuel storage instead be for other cargo, with replenishment pipes attached to a nearby tanker alongside? This way its compartmentalized and one ship being hit won't destroy it all.
What is shocking is how the US has ignored their closest option for a land base to support action in the Pacific. Unalaska, that island in the Aleutian chain running south and west gives them a land base / naval port within their borders yet close to any possible area of conflict.
No it doesn't. Read the history of the Aleutians Campaign in World War II. The only reason the Japanese attempted an invasion there was as a diversion from their main thrust at Midway and when we didn't bite at that bait they hardly bothered with any serious effort to sustain operations there while conducting their Solomons and New Guinea campaigns. Too remote from the actual theatre of operations. The Aleutian island chain is 3000 miles from the East China Sea, 4000 miles from the Philippines and the South China Sea. They're no closer to where the action would be than Hawaii. Additionally, in the winter months the storms in the North Pacific make transit very hazardous, so those sea lanes are effectively cut off for three months out of the year. There is no geographical advantage to establish bases in the Aleutians for any future Pacific war.
As the video mentioned, land bases are stationary targets. A mix is probably best...
A giant floating airfield, supply-base and barracks for marines, helicopters and drones with a lot of gee-whizz radios, radars and TVs thrown in. Given unchallenged US control of the sea these monsters could do the work of a 1945 carrier-group at a fraction of the cost and difficulty. Whether they are necessary is anybody's guess. As a cynical old man I suspect the Military-Industrial Complex's love of taxpayer money may have a great deal to do with this.
these are almost all for show / $ laundering at this point ... in the age of drone warfare ++ ballistic missiles (Iran, NK, Russia, and China) ... any 'Peer Competitor' conflict all of these things could be sunk within minutes notice
Don't assume the US has unchallenged dominance of the seas. China's A2AD complex around the SCS region is very very fucking scary.
PH is like france, you never know when they will be an ally or a neutral country and sometimes as an enemy ally.
France just puts tanks in reverse when threatened. Hon hon hon...
Possible to make these low-observable? Remove all right angles?
Can the ESB refuel at sea, ship to ship while underway?
This is all very well conceptually but fails catastrophically in foreseeable execution.
While these vessels might find themselves parked up in relatively open ocean from time to time, generally they would preferably be located in the lee of some island complex, mainly because the main working deck below the airstrip is open to the weather, more violent seas and the potential for salt corrosion.
Aluminium aircraft frames don't take kindly to salt.
However, regardless of where they are located, they are prime targets for long-range accurate sea or aircraft launched missiles.
This means that their security cover must be extensive and possibly further extended by external surveillance assets including satellites, all of which ties up more equipment and $$$.
You maintain that airfields can be bombed or struck by missiles.
But typically any strike on an airfield would be likely to leave some useful working parts of the base intact unless destruction was complete.
This would not be the case with seaborne expeditionary platforms, and the entire logistics of that floating base could easily be taken out by a single powerful strike, and of course the sinking of such a base would mean that every piece of salvageable equipment would be unlikely to be serviceable in any short time if ever.
This particular brain spasm from the US Department of Defence might work on places like Somalia and Sudan, for exactly the same reason that the US has been able to get away with its ill-considered adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan - because they were dealing with a bunch of people in bedsheets and sandals wielding AK-47s and RPG's - until they could no longer be sustained - but it would fail horribly in any attempt to attack an enemy like Russia from either the east or west or the northern coast or the Black or Baltic Seas.
Contrary to popular propaganda put out by the usual neocon suspects Russia is infinitely more advanced militarily than is the US, in the same can be said for China or certainly will be the case in the near future.
Russia has been at this game for decades and planning out future scenarios to deal with its prime Raison D'Etre and that is not hegemonic but the defence of Russia as it stands today.
Just remember, one little Yasan sub carrying several underwater launched hypersonic Zircon missiles would take out multiple expeditionary platforms without even surfacing, from potentially as far away as at least 1000 km.
It is impossible for the US or anybody else to surveil an area of sea with a 1000 km radius.
The US could save itself a lot of time and expense by simply not sticking its nose into the affairs of other countries and not adopting the role of global policeman and chief moraliser for everybody.
It seems pretty obvious that whoever dreamed up this idea has still not learned the lessons of Ukraine.
Considering that Russia hasn't been able to defeat a small country on its border for nearly two years, I think it's safe to say that Russia is nowhere near the US or China's military prowess. China, however, has many advantages when it comes to a war in Taiwan. Not exactly in technology, but in situational context.
@@arteckjay6537 You mean the "small country" that has been getting free military supplies, training, intelligence, logistics, etc. from all of NATO? If Ukraine had none of that then yes, it would have been defeated quite quickly. It just took Russia a bit longer to defeat NATO as a whole.
@alcibiadesW Ah, so they could win easily if the country was poorly trained and had no supplies. That's a pretty poor argument, if you think about it. "Russia is superior to the US, the only reason they can't defeat a small bordering country for two years and counting is because it is being supplied... by the US." If America's military was so weak, wouldn't Russia be able to win despite the supplies? Quit embarrassing yourself, man.
@@arteckjay6537 You are trying to change your argument. Your original statement made no mention of outside support. So it isn't just Russian fighting a "small country" alone, as you tried to imply.
And no, Ukraine had been receiving training and equipment since 2014. It officially had one of the strongest armies in Europe. [Personally, I doubt its army was as large as it claimed. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth. And claiming the existence of phantom soldiers in order to receive their pay and other funding is an ancient trick.]
The Russians invaded with a relatively small force of around 100k, much smaller than the Ukrainian army was supposed to be. And part of the Russian force was militias from Donetsk and the eastern territories, not true soldiers. Yet the Russians were winning. After NATO began its massive levels of support, the Russians had to change tactics. So they went for attrition warfare. Which they have also been winning.
@alcibiadesW I wouldn't consider being pushed back all the way to eastern Ukraine as "winning" but you're probably just gonna deny it and say I'm switching up again. I guess we'll see who's right in a few years.
It's really informative to watch this video in conjunction with RealLifeLore's video on how the US is surrounding China ( ua-cam.com/video/xBY5veWGBd8/v-deo.htmlsi=Zb-ayMSNU9mSfKpx ). The US has a vast network of bases in Asia and are only expanding them. The logistics to support them during peacetime must be immense. I can't imagine the difficulties of resupplying them during a conflict. Certainly an ESB helps but it is only one piece in the puzzle.
Bro, China could build a thousand of these ships in the time it takes the US to build one 😂
They haven't stolen the plans from the US military yet you Chinese shill. Wait another 10 years for a shitty chinese version just like their nonoperational aircraft carriers
Very good point
True but chinas economy is basically cardboard we could hurt China in an instant if we lose advantage on the field
And they would all sink without getting out of port
@@jerrymiller9039 you're mocking them out of insecurity. We must get to work, not joke about others' powers and overestimating ours, this is getting more and more serious with time
Great video. ESB cost a lot less and could be modified quicker and be used sooner than later. My big question is? Any defensive/offensive weapons like CIWS, RIM 6, naval version of tomahawk NASAMS, anti ship, anti air or anti sub missiles. It's a sitting duck out there in the Pacific if spotted and ESB can't go nowhere close to Chinese anti denial/anti area access. Maybe we could have a version of ESB loaded with all types of weapons like what i mentioned earlier. If an F35 already used all her weapons, there's an ESB that can provide additional firepower at pilots disposal. Or the pilot can give the coordinates and ESB crew will take of the rest.
These floating bases are just in their nascency. Even as they stand -- inexpensive proofs of concept -- they are a great enhancement, but imagine what's to come. They are certainly modular: stick a few Phalanx CIWSs on there to beef up defenses. And some other things...
Some of them could be transformed into unmanned remote controlled vessels themselves and be a hub for drone swarms. There are so many more possibilities and so much that can be done with this platform.
Great video
Or we could stop pushing for global hegemony and not have to fight all these wars. Tell the oligarchs to be happy with what they have. Spend some effort and billions at home for once.
Get a clue simpleton
Getting tired of robotic narrators
Bruh, this is me, not a robot 😭
This video and the animations are unbelievable
UnBelieVable...
Really liked the video: but I was also really impressed how you tied in the ad ;)
Does this support include Tiawan n China?? in Sep 24?
Bro Im watching your video on china rn, but I came to your most uptodate video to say that your quality of content is amazing. Keep it up , you put so much effort in and you deserve at least 20x the subscribers!
See the Proceedings Publication article, Reload Missile Shooters at Sea. From 2018. Use of platform as a missile rapid reload system for surface combatants and submarines.