How this Ship changes America's future Wars in the Pacific 

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!

Thanks

Damn thank you 😂

LOL THANKS ALOT

1.75 actually

@@jimblywimbly8291 no he means 1.25x

seems like the perfect special forces/light helicopter carrier/submarine hunters pair it with a military ship in war time for air protection but i think its best suited for special operation around the world

I hope the US military is taking notes in Ukraine. Their creative use of technology is giving a good look into how wars will be fought in the future. In the case of naval war, how an unmanned sea drone can use speed to get up to and destroy naval assets and how heavy weather can mask their approach

Wrong lesson. Woodward purposefully placed the Atlantic Conveyor to shield the Hermes. It did its job and took a missile hit so the higher valued aircraft carrier didnt.

I agree, this ship is practically useless on its own, as there are no air defense/anti-submarine weapons on board. They would always have to be escorted by atleast an Arleigh Burke.

@@seaplanepaul5354 im not sure of that because if that is true that guy was an idiot because that ship was carrying the helicopters for the navy. meaning they then had to fight the falklands with very little helo support. through from what i've heard from my uncle who kept a diary there were some very 'questionable' decisions made by command during the war. to explain, my uncle was the helo pilot flying off one of the ammo supply ships in bomb ally. sadly just before the war he was stationed on HMS Sheffield and they had a family sea day when family of the crew had the opportunity to spend a day at sea on her. (seeing the white cliffs of dover was cool) so when she was damaged and sunk my aunt knew a few of the officers on her.

You should check out the MODEP concept

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?

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!

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

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

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

exactly

@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.

What us nebula

if only the pronunciation and/or spelling improved...

no

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?

China has this with the mothership system their ‘fishermen’ use

r/thathappened

​@grievetan Built by General Dynamics nassco, over 1000 employees and subcontractors I literally assembled some of a later hull of the same class, crane operator

@@grievetan Not everyone lives in their moms basement redditor

I’ve worked at General Dynamics Nassco since 2014. Started as a trainee Shipfitter, worked my way to journeyman, went on to work with the shipwrights, then became working foreman for the ship fitters, now I work in accuracy control. Not everything on here is false.

​@@grievetanLooks like you're the only one who liked your own comment 😂

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

I'm back! Sorry for the long hiatus!

Carl Vinson…… love u longtime !

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.

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.

There's not a big piracy issue in the Pacific is there?

@@Trenz0 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s8DzimKKXc8.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.

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 see you xD

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.

Good shout

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.

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).

which one's. I was on the Puller twice. the best thing I ever saw on these tours was my relief

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.

Ty abdel

@@Lucyhehe_ You'ew welcome, you should give this extension a try.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

What are you trying to say?

That’s a very good point! These vessels don’t have any major radar too and though they operate as US navy military ships they currently are operated by a mixed civilian/military crew. That’s because they were firstly designed to operate in groups and in non combat scenarios. However it looks like that’s changing from where I read, which you can also do through the sources in the video description.

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

USA: bringing war and death to you since it's foundation.

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.

UnBelieVable...

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...

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.

Need to rebuild Wake and Midway for logistic centers and stops for aircraft and ships. Guam is the new front line and vulnerable.

France just puts tanks in reverse when threatened. Hon hon hon...

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.

Ofc! USA thrives on wars.

Get a clue simpleton

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