Why Retire a 2-Year Old Warship? 

That's a flawless description. But where does the ruminant procurement office come in with their sheep specs?

@@Vaivai371 ... The Bureau of Repetitive Redundancy Department of Duplicate Design Office of Officious Over Estimation Section 7.1(a) Subsection 13.314(b).823(j) listed as "The Sheep You Say" Special Wool Task Force, Over Your Eyes, Pull The

Just make a new cruiser damn it

When does the Special High Intensity Training component come into this process?

Also call it modular to sell it

Seems like the Military Industrial Complex corporate welfare bums have found a winning formula. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 🤣

I mean in there Defense a High budget was necessary because it was the Cold War back then But now they have no excuse

🤣🤣🤣 yep. Nothing ever changes.

Where is it now?

@@Nikoeab I believe $700 billion Right now(I think I don’t know It could be higher)

Was that woman who just didn't do the temperature testing on subs the same person who did the stress testing on the LCSs?

It doesn't take geniuses to design shit that doesn't do that. What this is, is just a small symptom of the military industrial complex black budget being seen. They have to pretend to explain where it all goes.

That's a guarantee job. Want to bet that the same contractor is getting to build the replacements?

They are still garbage. Complete boondoggle.

The ship was a big mistake that never should have been built.

Lol

😂😂😂😂😂

You add 2 arleigh burke(mccain and fitz) who collided with a tanker as big as a mountain and could not see them😂😂😂😂

It's like Admiral Kuznetsov

😆 Agreed!

Cause of so called Greed for 💰

The idea of series production whilst proving trials were under way started in the second world war used mainly by the Brits. It worked alright with tanks and other vehicles, because they were small enough that remanufacturing wasn't a burden, and having the vehicles in service offset those that would later be removed from service. This idea doesn't work so well with naval vessels, mainly because of the cost and the difficulty in remanufacturing. The idea of a pre-production series, the one or two to test and improve, would have made much more sense in this case.

They did only build 2 at first. The Freedom and Independence. One of each, and they both were terrible. But they had contracts with the ship builders already. Most ships have a couple years of kinks to work out and they end up sailing w no issues (see ford class carriers 😂) but these were garbage from the start. Almost as bad as Zumwalt Destroyers

@@FXR038 that's the point. They really had a utopia dream in deciding to contract double digits of these ships in the first place instead of stopping on a few of each class first.

Department of defense appears to be as corrupt and incompetent as SCOTUS. 🤐🤐🤐🤐

why would lockheed fire them? they just designed a ship that the navy paid fully for and had to decommission in 2 years so now they have to buy more ships from lockheed. seems like a big win for them

The problem is, our 'leaders' are power hungry, which means educating people properly and giving them easy access career opportunities is antithetical to their agenda. They hate the fact they live in a constitutional republic, they want to be kings and queens. They try to achieve this by constantly spreading false information, gatekeeping, and disenfranchising capable people through third parties. They aren't that smart, so they have to make everyone else stupider if they want to control them. As a result, it is affecting national security and is causing a brain drain from existentially crucial industries. It's all going to come to a head when the USA needs to implement a draft so we can fight an actual war for our survival, only for everyone to say "Lol, no" because our leadership has left us nothing to fight for. Modern feminism has resulted in the death of nuclear family, race and gender politics has resulted in divided communities individuals have no investment in maintaining, opportunity is stifled by extreme college costs combined with toxic Marxist propaganda, news networks lie all the time which will result in a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" scenario, predatory lending practices combined with market manipulation resulting in millions losing their homes to rich oligarchs, unbalanced and biased application of the law that only seems to punish whistle blowers, a blind eye turned to anti-consumer practices like manufacturer's DRM firmware in FRIGGING FARMING EQUIPMENT, government regulations and involvement making things like medical care inaccessibly expensive, the right to self-defense being actively infringed upon, and finally gaslighting on top of outright censorship when any of this is brought up. What are our supposed foreign enemies going to do that our own government has not? Kill us? That would be a sweet release for incels buried under mountains of debt, with no opportunities and no future. People will say that people should stop complaining because 'it's still the greatest nation on Earth', as if it somehow excuses it. Just because one bully bullies less than another bully doesn't suddenly make them good. They both deserve to have their butts kicked, the only question is how much each should receive...

My question is why in the hell was Lockheed making a full ship? Subsystems I can understand, but the full hull, power plant, and drive system? That should have been left to the Navy yards that have the experience in building warships and can do things like building the lead ship of the class, doing trials and figuring out the issues and fixing those when the subsequent ships are still on the slipway.

When the same company gets to make new ships with no repercussion when the others don't work, it isn't really something to fire people over.

And now we all know how, with just a little more corruption, Russia ended up the way they did. The real lesson from Ukraine is that this kind of stuff doesn't just cost money, it cripples the military

>congress passed FY 20xx NDAA >build more expensive new warship >decommission expensive warship >REPEAT

>send bill to taxpayers

GiVE ThOEs SHiPS To Ukraine

Military-industrial complex in a nutshell.

Sail to paddle wheel to screw shaft propeller...... Actually pretty common in all services. I wonder what US SPACE FORCE.....I think they should be more USMC instead kissing ass of fighter pilots...Get a spine stop pigeon hole you budget into Air Force pet projects...you got your own pet projects....

It was a failed concept to begin with. You don't need to make any prototypes to know that making your boat out of aluminum means it is as fragile as a glass figurine thus making it useless in combat. Stupid boat can't even defend itself. It would need many escorts to be combat effect, thus negating any benefit a boat like this was supposed to do.

@@toolbaggers Except nothing you listed here was addressed in the video. Everything was reliability based

@@toolbaggers the only issues were its engines and weapon modularity which can be fixed if it were still a prototype

@@toolbaggers It's only intended combat role was to hunt ships that were in general too small to even get in range before being detected and destroyed. Other than that, it was to detect subs and mines, none of which is a real active combat role. So your entire tirade about the ship not being fit for combat and to "defend itself" makes you look either ill informed or slow on the uptake.

@@AJAtcho There has been hull cracking on some of the ships. Though this has less to do with them being made of aluminum and more that the designers of the indepence class transferred their knowledge from working on civilian ferries to the LCS project. In operation, their ferry designs have worked well with the expected service life. But they underestimated how much they needed to reinforce the hull for rough sea states. And the ship's 'fragility' in combat is sort of a red herring since any AShM worth its salt would wreck a ship in that tonnage regardless of what it's made from, and crippled much larger and more expensive vessels, while anything less powerful is well within the LCS' ability to fend off.

“They’re going into plaid!”

@@slavsquatsuperstar but are their jammers raspberry?

@@johnr797 hold up, are you from le bote discord?

@@khoipham8303 nah

switch*

Have they scrapped the Perrys, or are they mothballed?

@@corneliuscrewe677 All decommissioned, some sold to other countries, others sunk as targets, the rest scrapped......as far as I know....not entirely sure if there are any left in mothballs or not, but I don't think so.

@@adamjabs The Navy and the Air Force sure do love new and expensive, don’t they?

@@corneliuscrewe677 So it would seem lol.

Really good point. New shiny F35 which can barely function as designed and cost billions for just a few, or would it make more sense to upgrade the F15E and have 100 of them?

2-3 2 billion dollar ships lol

Because they thought they could fix it...for the first ten years or so. They needed an answer that could fix the problem before they could say 'but that doesn't work for the ones we already have'...

Because they tried to fix it first and came into conclusion its unrepairable??

Because the Admirals in charge are god damn liars!

The Navy is like a big ship. Big ships dont turn on a dime. But when they finally do turn they figure out they over turned and need to come about again. The US Navy has always been like that.

I am an advocate for taking risk in new concepts since it drives innovation and invention. Despite the cost and potential for loss, staying ahead of your adversaries is a good deterrent for military conflicts that are even more costly. We should regard this as a "lessons learned" platform.

@@reydecastro6651, but we won't learn any of those lessons, time and time again they happen no matter the cost.

Lol wtf

You mean just wait until the UK, France and the US decomission hardware and buy that.

What are you talking about you don't even have a navy.

I agree brother. seems like America has more money than brains to throw around

Oh Your Just S Wright ! USA's Number One in Frivolous Spending and Stupid Decisions. I Think ? 🤔😁😎

I was in a 3 section watch bill for the entire 4 years I was in, quit yer bitchin' !

Yea my boat also costs 70 million dollars a year to maintain

What are your watches like?

yeah my boat is also cost 95 million per year

It would make more sense to build a smaller purpose built ship, most could use same hull just makes more sense in my opinion, somthing like 2 water jet diesel turbine driven corvettes or patrol boats smallest ship you could put a heli on

The reason for not installing sacrificial anodes is because hull composition and coatings were thought to have become advanced enough to not need them. Unfortunately, as one of my coworkers says: "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, theory and practice are different."

​@@deusexaethera In other news, the navy has apparently just learned about the lack of a fatigue limit in Aluminum, as the 'good' class's hull starts to crack.

This is what greed gets you. You know the designers of all this shit they got fucking paid failure or not they made a killing. And the taxpayers are the ones that financially in the end pay for it and I pray none of our men and women lose a life on one of these vessels due to a catastrophic failure because of a design flaw or God forbid something like a tomahawk hitting the superstructure that's made of aluminum and rendering the ship 100% combat ineffective or sinking it. We should have learned our lesson back in the late seventies early eighties when they were experimenting on ships with aluminum and they did learn the government said no more fucking aluminum as part of the ship's hall or superstructure as long as it's part of like the structural support. And for a while it was fine. And then some genius decided to reverse that and here we are. I know there are a thing of the past but things like the Iowa class battleship from the world war II era now there was a vessel that was just.. holy shit! You know how hard it was to sink one of those? Not impossible but very difficult. Especially compared to the modern vessels like the ones that were seeing in this particular program. 🤦

What they really needed was more Frigates based on an improved FFG-7 design.

The Swiss have some interesting ships made of polymers...Visby-class corvette. I think those should be the next class of ships...at only 253 to 300 feet long...

@@rgloria40 the swiss...?! Visby...? you're thinking of the swedes, right?

@@STScott-qo4pw He must. I hear that the Swiss boats all have a bunch of holes in them.

@@vintagethrifter2114 Yes but the ships have 4 layered hull and it only sinks if the holes line up.

you know you are right. and as a tax payer in the USA. fucking spend it!! because we will need everything we have. when we cross the ocean and fight the CCP. ww3 is coming. lets be ready

Yeah, when I heard "Lockheed Martin" I immediately thought "over promise, under deliver and reap the rewards through cost overruns later". This seems to be that company's whole business model.

@@Error6503 No accountability for failure.

They need to get a refund from LM, for at least half the cost those ships.

Ohhh

Good one!

GIVE WAR A CHANCE!

I keep saying this about the f35 but so many lightning 2 fanboys keep defending it blindly

@@c0ldyloxproductions324 Holy shit, the same can be said about people who hate the F35.....

@@c0ldyloxproductions324 maybe two years ago but ragging on fat Amy is so out of fashion nowadays: F-35A: ~78mil Gripen E: ~85mil

@@c0ldyloxproductions324 The F-35 isn't necessarily flawed or a failure, it's actually doing really well sales wise with foreign buyers. The problem lies in the fact that it isn't exactly what the US Armed Forces wanted. They want aircraft that can carry more long range bombs and missiles, neither of which the F-35 can do without considerable sacrifice. Most of the F-35's customers are most countries within the EU, all of which use the same weapons and are all dependent on the militaries of one another, which is where the F-35 fits in perfectly.

The pattern is that we make panicky, overblown observations about Russia's latest tech and overspend to outdo these unproven threats only to fall back to reality and then try to consolidate all of this specialized tech that exists for a threat that never was. Rinse and repeat about every 15 years.

I hope they do so, the Wikipedia page for naval bow types doesn't really have that much information on how most bow types work, only bulbous bow.

I’m a Marine engineer. Look up books on Naval architecture. I recommend “Reeds Vol 4, Naval Architecture for Marine Engineers”. Essentially Bulbous bows are used to reduce drag along a ships hull by creating a bow wave at 180degrees to the waves present to negate them out. Their shape depends mostly on speed of the vessel, ships with higher speeds need a longer bulbous bow to crest the bow wave sooner before the ships hull catches up.

😁

Except the Navy could just as easily have comissioned a frigate class instead. Or a class of patrol ships that didn't try to do everything in a single hull. Or did so more conventionally.

Contractors want to make money through development since that is where the dollars are. If you propose a new improved object but its close to prior objects of the same type just incrementally improved Cost Price Analysts on the government side will have a lot of historical pricing information to reference negotiate you down on. If you instead propose something novel the pricing side at the buying commands kind of have to take their word for it. The contractor then uses the novel concepts to justify the higher than normal price by arguing that the new concept will replace frigates, minesweepers, ASW platforms, and large costal patrol vessels with a single class saving money on the whole despite the high unit cost. Bottom line all branches need to REJECT the swiss army knife concept for new weapon systems, instead they should settle for lower-risk generational improvements.

A Perry could do 7 knots on diesel power or 33 knots with both LM 2500s online. Butt when the standard missle was program was ended for single and twin arm launchers. The launcher was removed. No VLS was designed to replace them. Basically making the it a ASW only platform. The SH-60 was originally operational In 1984 ON the type III USS Crommelin FFG 37. That ship could handle 70-90 knot winds and waves 120 ft. from apex to the trough. You do get tired of it after 8 hours. It cost 900 million to launch as commissioned ship 1983 and $600,000 in upgrades were added over the next 5 years. The Crommelin was sank as a target 19 JUL 2016. It took 8 hours to sink it.

You are on the money with that comment. What's their definition of cheap? High speed, cheap, and military spending are not words that go together.😄 Their biggest problem is they believed that jet drives would be the solution. They work great on high-speed ferries but the hull shape required for military ships is quite different. Jet drives are inefficient with up to a 30% loss in HP. Combine that with a high RPM requirement and you get a low fuel efficiency. The Independence-class ships also have a huge issue. This LCS class has severe structural problems. This has caused major hull cracks. The damage to the hulls has limited their speed and prevents them from operating in heavy sea conditions. These issues and the Zumwalt debacle have many wondering what is going on with the Navy! They tried to innovate too much too fast and it has ended badly.

You _can_ get "cheap" and "over 40 knots" in the same package -- just not in a package the size of a warship.

@@deusexaethera Exactly! 👍It was all pie in the sky calculations. Those never add up.

Why not make REALLY BIG PT boats? Littorals were designed as SHALLOW DRAFT water craft for close-to-coast operations. Something that is seldom mentioned. Viet Nam era river gun boats and WW2 PT boats filled certain requirements that the LCS was supposed to help fulfill with the modules. Should have just made MANY small, easily modifiable boats for a variety of missions. That's what was done with PT boats and river boats.

Sydney Opera house effect. But LM have to add their personal bling to justify themselves. Sometimes, the original design has a genius within itself

Successful Australian warships? No such thing

.... Isn't this what they are doing with the Constellation class?

Austal is Australian company with a US subsidiary. Austal is an accomplished multi hull builder. The monohull is an Italian design that has been successful in fast ferry applications.

They’re built in Mobile Al though. Maybe some of them are worked on in Mississippi

Yeah, I am baffled that one wasnt tested before going into full production.

@@geckoman1011 right? That is usually how it has been done. Lead ship of the class is usually 90% complete or fully complete and on trials before they even think about laying the keel for the next ship so that the issues that will show up on trials can be corrected. But I have never heard of Lockheed making warships, so chalk this one up to the inexperience of the company and the yard as well as a 'gotta make that bread' mentally from the Lockheed board.

@@hokutoulrik7345 Inexperience? Personally I consider it to be "hubris" ... and borderline fraud!

The model worked like a charm in the bathtub

@@77space-vt8wi 😂😂😂

but they won't apologize. The defence contractors still got paid so they won't be lobbying for any changes. They now get to start a new project!!!!

Ya'll are still paying taxes....?

Under no circumstance should the Navy apologize to the taxpayer.

I think the company that built them owes a big apology to the government.

This would fall under a broader category of failing to control technological risk. Developing a proper test bed for the propulsion system would have accomplished this. However, under the timescales of the project, the best thing they probably could have done was choose a lower risk design. This would involve troubleshooting the design specifications and asking whether they really wanted a frigate-like ship that could go 50 knots in short bursts. That said, we should not assume that the Russian and Chinese military industrial complexes do it any better. If the Chinese had a frigate like the LCS, they wouldn't be complaining about it incessantly on the internet.

I am sure they saved money by using modelling and simulation to prove everything would work perfectly...

I machined valves for the company that built them. The lip on flange was faced off. They were sent back with a bunch of metal chips still inside. Stuffed plastic in hole, machined and then pulled plastic out. I asked if should be cleaned better and told nope they can deal with it. This was a machine shop sub work for the ship yard. Weird metal chips were giving them problems

And Americans make less and pay more taxes......?.....except Thedump

Yeah, but that would require some oversight of the huge "defense" corporations - that ain't gonna happen!

Retired Admirals belong in prison for this.

Lockheed Martin needs to be broken up, and Congressional heads (figuratively) roll for allowing them to become the monster they are

Bingo! This is a result mostly due to lack of competition in the US , and this is why the Navy opted for an international competition in 2018 where companies around the world could show off their frigates and provide bids. It's actually pretty sad that US companies can no longer make a good reliable ship and we have to look to our NATO partners for our next generation warships. At least they made what I think was the best choice going with the larger (than Freedom class) French/Italian FREMM which are more than littoral ships, and capable of operating around the world.

That’s how corruption works

@@lgd1974 The Admirals and captains that made the recommendations and were instrumental in the decision to place the Freedom frigate orders with Lockheed in the 2000's have long been hired by Lockheed as executives and been given senior leadership positions. Most of them have retired from Lockheed. Many of them have senior level jobs waiting for them at big Defense companies when they retire from the armed forces. I am not saying all of them don't deserve it though. Some of them actually do, especially the ones that are/were war heroes or fought many tours overseas. My uncle left the Army as a Lt. Col. in the early 90's after 32 years of service, and not long after that he got a VP job with a major Defense company. Within 2 years he became a Sr. Vice President and headed an entire product division. He was mostly involved with evaluating the M1A1 Abrams tank and responsible for orders of several thousand units while in the Army. He continued to work on improving the Abrams for several years as a private citizen, and his team also came up with a new night targeting system in the mid-late 90's that many of the tanks still use today . He had a Masters in Engineering when he left the Army, and went back to school and got his PHD in a couple of years before getting hired by the Defense industry. He was wounded 3 times during his career on secret missions overseas, 1 of them seriously, so I think he deserved his good paying job and he worked hard to get his doctorate and be successful. But from the conversations I had with him, the Generals had it easier and had jobs waiting for them, whereas he had to go back to school for his PHD so that he could compete and get the jobs the generals were getting as soon as they retired.

Corporate greed .....

Well i take the army as saying... We can look at new tech, but it needs to bring a lot to the table before we are going to replace all the whatever in the army. Which is way more sane than the navy, who dont even seem to test the shit. Lets build the billion dollar ship before we even know if we can make it work.

The problem is just corruption, too much influence by the military industrial complex on our politicians. Lobbying should be called for what it is, bribery and illegal. The Supreme court made an error when granting corporations the rights of individual citizenry under the concept of Corporate Personhood. Constitutional freedoms and natural rights should only apply to individual citizens.

It's called Transformationalism and it's a plague the US Armed Forces can't seem to shake, especially the navy.

@@deth3021 I think that's part of the problem. Significant leaps in capability bring risk and expense and as a result problems don't get addressed and we spend vast amounts without getting the system into the field.

Excellent suggestion!

corvettes (dnmark, norway, sweden, finland) are excellent. smaller displacement frigates would do, too. these ships in the four navies listed do yeoman work, very capable, ocean-going also in danish and norwegian fleets.

@@STScott-qo4pw agree

@@STScott-qo4pw Denmark has no Corvettes. Denmark have 5 new multirole Frigates built on the Ivar Huitfelt class and Esben Snare class, and 4 Patrol frigates of the Thetis class. Denmark has announced it needs Corvettes and has partnered up with Ficantieri in italy and Norway and France to build 4-5 new corvettes to operate littoral and in the Baltic.

@@ulrichkristensen4087 ouch! I had thought it was a corvette-type ship denmark deployed to somali coast in late 90s to help stop pirates. Do you know what ship it was?

Your comment reminds me of a car that people loved in the UK in the 90’s, the Ford Cosworth, all the ‘cool’ guys had them (they were very bad-ass to be fair, lol), but they soon realised that they couldn’t change the CD in fith gear as the gear stick would be in the way,…. Not as cool anymore, lol I guess engineers have their off-days too 🙂 🍻

@@KumaBean Tbh, if I had a cool car, I wouldn't want music either way.

@@ravenouself4181 On that side of the car scene, music is a big part of it, it’s all just one big dick-swinging contest, lol 🍻

@@KumaBean I thin the Pontiac Fiero was the same way except it was a cassette tape instead of a cd.

Deck head rail

I think Zumwalt class tops that list

@@iracingrookie3301 the zumwalt is actually a pretty good ship it only failed because it was to expensive the ship itself is pretty good

@@Ukfairgrounds Problem was that the Zumwalt was designed around a weapon system that was never commisioned into operation. That is the problem of the Zumwalts. Besides it being a warship with no weapon system, it isn't bad. Would have been better if it was designed a working and operational weapon system though.

@@Ukfairgrounds “it only failed because it was expensive” Yeah no shit. So expensive they could have purchased 4 attack submarines for the cost of 1 destroyer. And a destroyer that doesnt carry ammo for its main guns. And to top it off, they need to refit them with VLS launchers to bring the cost up even more Its a Massive failure

@@iracingrookie3301 Zumwalt is at least useful as a test platform for new technologies.

Not to mention that they melt or burn when hit. The British learned that lesson in the Falklands War, you would think the US would have observed what happened there.

The Falkland War exposed the vulnerability of aluminum, it burns! A British ship was hit by an Exorcet missile, the aluminum structure started burning. There is an electrolysis problem.

And of course there is the utterly idoitic case of Zumwalt class made of aluminium and various other supporting metals. It turned theses vessells into a Galvanic corrosion party! Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially when it is in electrical contact with another, in the presence of an electrolyte. Doh lets use the sea as the electrolyte. The only thing littoral about these ships is that they littorally melt in the prsesence of sea water. You really couldn't make this shit up.

@@Dave_Sisson Well, the US is being set up to lose the next major war so how can TPTB accomplish that (and therefore remove the constitution) if America has a strong navy?

Former General dynamics - nassco 1st class pipe welder speaking: aluminum exposed to salt water causes a lot of embrittlement and contamination issues. The only nassco shipyard that made major advancement is quality of repair work was nassco mayport. Procedures were made that only worked for the climate of mayport. Other procedures had to be written based off of climate of the repair work. It would have been a very capable ship if made out of steel. 2 ft deeper draft of vessel but easier to maintain. These decisions are beyond me. Fair wind and following seas

With all the fancy engineering tools and techniques it is so easy to forget that those tools only help to predict and understand the problems you are already familiar with, not the shit you still don't have a clue about. Any new technology is a risk, and pushing those technologies in serial production before the risks and mitigation and permanent solutions can be put in place is such a incredible yolo solution. Sure, for the companies that's a risk they are willing to take: they can always have their margin on their solutions, where mostly balling for the US market only and they are so balls deep they are to big to fail. That is how you end up with ships that need 2 times more maintenance than originally specified, defeating their very existence, and organisations that keep chasing the dragon, cause they are to deep in to admit they made a mistake.

Well maybe it didn't learn as it went and built the USS Gerald R Ford carrier. $18 (and counting) and all the new technologies don't work when they should.

What if it was Chinese

Why didn't they use domestically produced EMD 20-710 (5000 hp) engines; up to 40,000 hours before overhauls.

​@@191895 Sizing issues, I would guess. Just by looking at a picture of the EMD I can say that it wouldn't have fit in the main space of an MCM. Also, if I am not mistaken, the IF engines were made to put off as little of a magnetic trace as possible. Everything about those ships were designed with the most reliable degaussing methods in mind. To be fair, I was on an MCM in the early 2010's, and by then they were long overdue to be decommed. If the LCS project worked the way it was supposed to then maybe they would have been.

More than that, the better companies were the ones that were run out of business.

and a few politicians

The problem is the Navy because they're the ones who still stick with POS contractors whose only goal is to line pockets, not meet performance goals.

Well the navy should do prototype testing too, instead of testing everything during production. But they want all their new toys quickly.

lol that guy was sitting over in the everett bay for a few weeks just stranded it looks cool but fuuuck

According to the FAKE news media Brandon patched up relations with France by offering them the new USN catapult system - which doesn't work. Do you believe that? If not, the DHS and FBI may put you on their watch list.

@@johnteets2921 Already There! Spent 30 years with the STS Shuttle System, constructing and evaluating systems from civilian contractors. Heard many times the phrase "Senator xxxxx" is a supporter of this "outhouse' and wants it before his reelection. The giggle factor and refusals has my name prominently on a short list. If we hadn't done our job, the loss of shuttles would have been expanded.

right? stick to Ingalls shipbuilding. thats whose building carriers

TBH LocMart hasn't been too good at coming in with aero/astro projects that A) Are on time. B) Are on budget. C) Actually meet the spec... or even work. It seems the only thing they _are_ good at is making executives and congressmen rich.

@@jimurrata6785 And admirals who become board members upon retirement.

They've probably offered the cheapest ship (literally)

@@jimurrata6785 and they call other countries corrupt

Ford class carriers.

This is what people don't get. You learn more from failures than you do success. Of course, it sucks with a program _that expensive_ but, it's how you stay ahead of the curve.

@@seventh-hydra Lockheed has the most program failures, but is still the #1 defense contractor.

@@seventh-hydra Except that anyone with an F-ing brain could have figured out that putting 155mm cannons on the Zumwalt destroyers was/is beyond stupid and a colossal mistake. Who the F are you going to shell from 25 miles away or 63 miles with the guided projectile???!!!! China??!!! These were obsolete 25 or more years ago. Remember the Iowa class battleships? Might as well just bring those back if you are going to go that route. This is NOT how you stay ahead of the curve!!!! Whoever came up with this idea needs to be put in front of a firing squad. They finally realized this mistake recently with the announcement of replacing those guns with missiles. DUH! Guns that were never once fired and probably would never have been ever. If this is how you view progress, learning and staying ahead of the curve, it's no wonder there are so many failures within the Navy and military in general. Too many guys like you preaching this sort of stupidity which ultimately costs billions of wasted dollars. All this money wasted on LCSs that don't work and Zumwalts that have obsolete weaponry on them while at the same time Tico cruisers that need to be replaced with new versions, with more Burke destroyers or at the very least building more Constellation class frigates. Funny how they retire old ships, decide to try something new, fail miserably at it then go right back to the old concept that virtually every other Navy in the world knows works, i.e. Perry class frigates ---> LCSs ----> Constellation frigates and Arleigh Burke destroyers ----> Zumwalt destroyers ----> more Arleigh Burke destroyers/new DDG(X) plans. The Navy's plan now is to retire all the Tico cruisers within the next 5 years as well but at least they are continuing to build more Burke destroyers to somewhat offset this. Still doesn't address the loss of firepower you are going to take when you retire them. 22 cruisers with 122 VLS cells does not equal 20 more Burkes with 96 cells. Zumwalt cost = $4.2 Billion, Arleigh Burke cost = $1.8 Billion, Constellation class cost = $1.1 Billion. You could have gotten 2+ AB destroyers or 4 Constellations for the price of one Zumwalt. With the Navy screaming that they need more ships to counter China, this calculation is a no brainer to figure out.

"basically a huge R&D project which will pay dividends in the US Navy's littoral ships of the future" ----> How? They are going back to building standard frigates (Constellation class) to replace these pieces of garbage and use them as their littoral ships. Would have been much easier and cheaper to just build what you know works, i.e. frigates. They had the Perry class before and none of what they put on the LCSs as far as mission packages was necessarily revolutionary since destroyers, frigates and cruisers are all capable of surface warfare and anti-sub warfare. The only thing LCSs have going for them is mine detection but that's an expensive mistake to realize they are only good at one thing potentially.

It is not intentional. Things like this are normal for all high tech complex projects. When you are doing something for the first time using new untried technology there are bound to be many things that don't work as intended, and then there will be delays while the problem is worked around. It is not like building a house or a road, where you usually know exactly what you have to do.

@@Tugela60 BS. Just look at us germans

One can hope that at least someone learned some things throughout the series of failures.

No it was a great idea I design this ship it was the best ship the US ever had just in grateful customer and dumb crew don't know how to drive it

The IDEA of a Littoral Combat Ship is great; shallow draft, fast, heavily armed for her size, capable of swarm tactics, defending larger ships against swarm tactics where they're vulnerabe, and able to scoot from green water to blue for UnRep where the T-AKEs would be safe. Unfortunately, the brass couldn't just let a competent Naval Engineer design a Scalpel. They wanted a jobs creator (for their own retirement) to overpromise a Swiss Army Knife to replace Amphibs, Cruisers, Destroyers, and Frigates. We got a busted over-weight and under-crewed Frigate/Corvette with transmission issues, and a glorified car ferry that beats itself to shit transiting the Canal.

Food for thought. If you were to design a ship for the needs of the US Navy, what would you go with? I think the navy needs a dedicated missile carrier. Something like the arsenal ship concept. It seems to me that the Chinese specifically are designing their ships to beat ours in terms of missile numbers. [96 vs 128+] you get it

@@BravoCheesecake Build a few very large very capable super destroyers primarily dedicated to air/missile defence with a good number of anti ship missiles, 2+ helicopters for a reasonable ASW capability. Then build lots of smaller dedicated ASW frigates to screen them against subs.

Unfortunately the army is not a place where you can afford to wait until equipment is proven. In fact, while a photographer can still work relatively well even with decades old equipment, an army working with outdated gear will not fare well in combat against more modern weapons, which could cost lives or even lose a war entirely. Add to that the reputation of the US armed forces for having state-of-the-art weaponry, and nobody will just be content with what works if there is something developed that works better and will potentially save many American lifes.

China liked the blueprints to the Zumwalt-class destroyer program so much that they stole them....apparently, the Chinese saw something in the ship design that you didn't.

@@MichaelJames-lz7ni Of course they would steal them if they could. Having a detailed drawing of an adversary ship gives you a much better understanding of its capability. From an industrial espionage angle many of the ships subsystems could be of interest even if the ship as a whole is not.

The main thing I heard that doomed the Zumwalt was the "next gen gun system" that basically had shells that cost more than anti ship missiles PER SHELL and still had less range and a smaller warhead than the current iteration of the Harpoon. The hypersonic missiles that the Zumwalts are being refitted to should have been the original design

as in most cutting edge areas of industry and technology, the last few percentage points of performance cost exponentially more and more, and almost inevitably bring unforeseen problems with them. an often crucial part of design and manufacture is realising when a little restraint is called for, and dialling back the ambition just little can deliver a product that is 95% as effective for 70% of the cost and with 20% of the reliability and maintenance issues.

@@mrvwbug4423 The shells were not more than cruise missiles. Even at the bloated price caused by the cost of the project being spread over only three ships, the cost of the shell was still half of a cruise missile. The comparison to anti-ship missiles is wrong, the Advanced Gun System (AGS) was not really an anti-ship gun, it was meant to be fired inland. The guided-round was still a precision weapon. You have to keep in mind, when you're developing new technology, the cost of research is included.

If only they worked as designed. They would be very impressive, hopefully the newer models will fix the issues.

you shouldn't be allowed to work in that industry again

@@timlewis4623 I can talk about em since they're canceled lol

i had read that when they designed them they used this new sort of metal, and it was spouse to be strong enough that they wouldnt need to add a ton of armor to the ships, but after all was said and done, they tested it and the ships were actualyl quite susceptible to sinking like any torpedo hit was gonna put it at the botom of the ocean, so they added a bunch of armor and then it slowed the ships down a crap ton

@@soulsreaper7145 maybe they should have tested this metal first...

@@nicholasvinen it’s a lot more complex than just “test the metal”.

Optimistic! Just face the reality this is all about corrupt corporate greed of the military-industrial complex. But you'll keep on funding it

What a waste of money .. the money laundering is out of control

That’s some insane pressure! What was the water consumption over a 24 hr cruise?

I was on a Knox class FF 1057 we lost power backing out of our birth in Pearl and almost ran aground on the USS Arizona The Knox class destroyers we’re pretty much POS product of McNamara eventually after I had left the navy said FF1057 USS Rathburne broke down in Japan was towed back to Pearl and used as a target

@@wallacegrommet9343 remarkably about 400 gph Turbines were condensing turbines. All exhausted steam was condensed back into water and returned to the operating system. Operating pressures on a 1200 psig plant were normally 1250-1300 psig range with operating temps in the 850-1000 degree range.

My Knox Class frigate was FF-1080, USS Ainsworth. I served onboard from Nov. 1982 to Mar. 1985. Had a good time overall. She was transferred to Turkey in 1994, as the TCG Ege. Finally decommissioned in 2005, and is a display ship at the Maritime Museum in Incirlik, Turkey. Better by far than being scrapped.

You miss the entire point of these build programs. Jobs, and keeping the money within the country.

Did you not hear they are. There using the tow depth sonar from the UK. Also in the army trophy was built by Israel. The f-35 had its turbofan on the F-35B developed by Britain.

@Dr. BrightI don't like the system but here it is. And it's tax payers that will call their representative if they don't get a contract. I'm ex military, I don't care where the equipment comes from I'd like the best stuff at a useful quantity. I don't work in procurement.

Germany's MEKO A-300 would be sweet to have in the US Navy, that ship is loaded for war and then some!

Could have written welfare cheques with one half, invested the other half, and been able to buy proper ships now.

Hold their elected officials accountable, as in cut their hands from time to time or make them sleep with the fishes.

Warships, or any modern technology for that matter, are highly complex systems. Whenever something like this is created it comes with a ton of problems. Even with cars or smartphones they fuck up sometimes and those get developed in babysteps. Things take ages to iron out all the bugs. The larger the project the bigger the problems and costs.

@@SuperDeinVadda You're correct, I agree with you, but don't you think it would have been more practical and cost-effective if they had built and started off with one or two ships rather than nine? But then again we are talking about the U.S. Government here. If theres an intelligent and cost-effective way to complete a project, that's NOT the way it'll get done! Part of the problem is that the government has no budget, they never run out of money.

That doesn’t happen anymore, the recent cancel movements have literally shown you can’t get rid of any politician, LITERALLY. They could be the most hated and the worst but they’ll always keep their seat, the peoples power is gone, we are just being set against each other while the government officials take in millions just for arguing on tv and taking photos and interviews

It is like when the USS Richard sunk in port...a 2 billion amphibious aircraft carrier. All they needed to hire was addition firewatch in area where a fire will breakout since the fire main under repair or a $300 air force toilet seat....or the US army M1A1 tank does have a trash chute to get ride of shit in the bag because of no toilets.

That's the whole point of being modular. Since you don't know what future missions might entail, you build something that is easily modifiable to ever changing conditions.

@@toolbaggers I’m sorry I was not clear. I was ONLY referring to the mission modules they already knew they needed/wanted and not any that may crop up in the future

Everything with these ships was being designed and built on the fly. Collision detection was disabled in the design software so you had pipes, wires, etc running through each other in the CAD model which had to be sorted out / redesigned during construction, tearing out completed work and replacing with the redesign. I'm pretty sure the propulsion combining gear was never tested on shore, they just installed it and crossed their fingers. The mission modules were also designed and built without prior testing, put on finished ships, tested... and were failures.

What good would have they done if the propulsion kept breaking and the hull cracking?

Don’t give them anymore idea-rs…

By chance, We’re you heading to Munising? Any snow left on the ground? I always see at least 2 ships at the shipworks in Marinette when I pass thru

One of those ships you've seen was probably the MMSC Variant for Saudi Arabia.

I hope they call it the USS Enterprise ;)

Good….the Europeans make good frigates. We should just buy the designs and let BIW and Ingallis build them.

Because when all is said and done, main purpose of buying the ships is to put the taxpayer's money into the pockets of billionaires who owns the companies that make these ships. It's like planned obsolescence, but in scale of battleships. Gotta give 'em reason to keep buyin'.

@@fatcat1250 I'll half agree with you, but you've worded it to seem like the companies are evil... Every company does this, market themselves and promote their stock so the get sales, a supermarket or superstore would be no different in that retrospect. Military equipment just tends to have more things go wrong with it, more problems hence results in more spending for countries like America who can't stand not having the number 1 military. I don't believe it's intentional at all. If we use civilian aircraft as an exmaple we also can see this problem, the amount of aircraft Boeing and Airbus have made that ended up being useless or scraped later because these massive designs had serious practical issues once built. I think there's ways to avoid it, but I don't think it's the companies faults, rather the blinding obsession of the pentagon and military generals constantly wanted more equipment without properly testing anything.

​@@unlockingsnow8571 On top of what you mentioned there are also cases where governments or companies will put in production orders for things they already have in stock just to make sure the production team retains the experience and practical knowledge of how to create whatever it is they make. iirc the US government did something to this effect in the mid-2010's with the Abrams, ordering a bunch of them when they already had hundreds sitting idle.

@@S3Cs4uN8 without researching I’d imagine that building new abrams with updated systems and components is cheaper and faster than retrofitting older models immediately - so they’d rather buy some new ones as a buffer.

@@Matt_10203 Pretty much.

Theyve already dumped a LOT of money into those things. And the Zumwalts are still going. The Navy is an utterly corrupt embarassment, to the point where they are severely hampering the US' defense capabilities. Theres ever higher defense budgets, but the Navy capabilities are estimated to deteriorate in the near future.

@@termitreter6545 did you just say the navy is a severely hampering the US defense capabilities? 😂😂 dude you have to make mistakes to get to the right place. it's just on a bigger scale because it's the navy. you don't know what you're talking about

@@infernodotdash2203 Nah man, the LCS, Zumwalt, etc didnt need to waste billions of dollars to find these problems. That was all corruption. No one was held accountable for obvious mistakes, but everyone made sure the defense contractors made a fortune despite some really dumb decisions. The US navy, to some degree the military as well, have screwed around for 20+ years and now they're in trouble. China has already mostly caught up, and the US navy has a severe lack of capable ships and submarines.

@@infernodotdash2203 I think what they mean is that they realised it'll never be what they want or need it to be so instead of throwing money at it they just stopped it, unlike the US airforce 😂

Hell they are kinda forced to. 8 independence class have large cracks in the hull. There is no saying them

Wait what? The f35 is a failure?

@@cringyhuman3210 - It is a total success in that it has made the Lockheed Martin shareholders rich. But as a working piece of military hardware.....

I worked there and you are right Lockheed Martin who basically ran the shipyard had no clue what they were doing and if anyone did they would not listen very poor management team at Lockheed Martin except for a very few personnel.

IMO the LCSs would not even be suitable for conversion to yachts given their present hulls and propulsion systems. Both classes are simply unreliable due to fundamentally bad design. I doubt we'll ever hear a single story of combat glory as part of the LCS legacy. Maybe there would be a market for "LCS merch" made 100% from cracked LCS hulls. I wonder how many Bud Light cans one of those things could become. Any guesses? What a concept! Recycle the aluminum from cracked ships to cans for cursed beer! What could be more efficient? if only the cans could be made to not leak...; but, on the other hand, who would care if they did?

What???? And costing billions to the taxpayers Wow!!! Wake up from your coma

@@stevenstair1068 I belive if you tae some irony into account you and I are in agreement :)

..expanding on this: the whole US military industrial complex is a money-laundering machine :)

I belive that it should be known that aroud 80 percent of money the US taxpayers (read: Biden) dedicated to help Ukraine war effort never left the country, The US of A. The Ukrainians got the crumbs. Lokcheed-Martin, Raytheon, Grumman and the likes got the steak.-

It looks like a pointy pillow case the KKKlan would wear. The USS Confederate Grand Wizard.

@@toolbaggers 😂🤣

It shouldn't, however, take a decade and a dozen ships to figure this stuff out.

I also see one everyday on the way to work. LCS 2 is sitting in the dead fleet at Bremerton.

We dont know what the hell we are doing.

one day a fly will tilt the balance

Maybe they should have stayed with the frigates tbh

idk much smaller compaines do it all the time like saab kockums

Not hard at all. Stick to what you know works. Destroyers, frigates, cruisers, etc. Just quit coming up with idiotic ideas like the LCSs and the 155mm cannons on the Zumwalts.

@@gigakrait5648 they arent even new ideas its just the military not rejecting the ship when they should have