On LCS being crap and Constellation being US Navy's answer to China
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2023
- 💥Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/Binkov
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
Why is LCS, ship that promised a lot, is getting prematurely retired?
And what future Constallation class frigate brings. This video will explain it.
It will Compare the two ship types and showcase Constellation’s capabilities.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
![[Live] : ONE 167 วันนี้!! "ตะวันฉาย vs โจ"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D9_dvfIa6Ao/mqdefault.jpg)
💥Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/Binkov
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
I Love USA 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
The idea behind LCS was good. Cheap modular ship for coastal operations, separate from needs to the deep water navy. But like usual execution failed. Costs overruns and technical problems lead to simple question:
If something is as large as Frigate, cost as much as Frigate, but can do less then a Frigate. Why not buy a Frigate?
Its also expected that Constellation class ships will eventually be upgraded to have DE defense systems.
LCS: The armament of a corvette, the size of a frigate, the cost of a destroyer, and the staying power of a politician's promise.
Oh yes designing ships for gun bombardments like it's the 1800s is just what a modern navy needs!!!
cost of a destroyer...they run about $500m, that's less than 25% the cost of a FIII burke...which is sitting at approx $2.4b nice try though.
also most modern FFGs (ya know those designed in the last 10-15 years) are much bigger. just look at the FREMMs as a perfect example roughly 6-7k tons
upcoming constellations over 7k tons
even the british duke class FFGs designed in the 80s are 5k tons
china's type 054 FFG design is pushing 30 years old and still roughly 1k tons larger than the indys and 400tons larger than the freedoms
sure there are a few examples of FFGs in the size range of the LCSes but they're mostly in 2nd and 3rd rate navies that simply don't have many if any large surface combatants at all.
@@johnpjones1775nd the Chinese Type 055. A superior counter to the ancient Arleigh Burke. Point is the US is trying to catch up to that destroyer which is evident where the next US destroyer is practically a copy and paste of the Type 055
@@KungFuWizardOfJesus Only superior in terms of number of VLS tubes. But in terms of sensors specifically its radar and BMD capability Burke is definitely better. For instance, SPY-6 with 24 RMAs for Burke Flight IIA has a max range around 4600km comparable to THAAD’s TPY-2 radar’s 4700km max detection range. SPY-6 with 37 RMAs on Burke Flight III will even be more powerful. DDG(x) on the other hand with 57 RMAs if not 37 would be insanely powerful. Then their is also SPY-7.
@@johnsilver9338 the DDGx is a copy and paste of the Type 055.
"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
- Montgomery Scott, Chief Engineer USS Enterprise
As an Italian I'm proud to see an Italian design having such a success
Italian lines and American munitions, match made in heaven.
@@shadownor Like a ferrari with a javelin mounted on top! I love democracy....
@@arvypolanco Poetry!
In World War II, except for paratroopers, only the Italian navy was normal.
@@SpruceWood-NEG
England sank half of the Italian Navy in a day lol.
After hearing about the design philosophy of the LCS, I'm pretty sure that whoever envisioned the concept expected LCSs to be used against Iran and the real reason the Navy is abandoning it is because China is finally considered a bigger threat.
I think you’re right. The ships seem like they were designed for the Persian Gulf. The story that the ships’ transmissions ‘just can’t be fixed’ sounds questionable.
@@dmrr7739 Oh make no mistake, when someone says that a product "just can't be fixed," what they're really saying is "We've reevaluated our cost-benefit analysis of this product and have decided it's no longer worth the money."
Fighthing Iran in the 2020s is actually a more realistic assumption than Constellation assuming they'd be fighting 2010s China in 2030.
I think the US might deploy their remaining LCS in Persian gulf
Using the LCS for mine warfare is not about having a better capability mine warfare ship, it is using a screwed up design for a lesser role than intended to salvage a shitty situation.
Absolutely. However, both things are true. They are most definitely salvaging a really bad situation but, they will be a more capable mine warfare ship than the ships traditionally use in that role.
When the Navy tested the two LCS designs, one was noticeably better at two roles and the other was noticeably better at two other roles. So of course they bought both and required that they each do all four missions rather than the two they were good at.
That was Obama trying to appeal to the most voters he could by giving both shipyards jobs.
Crappy procurement to support a non-military politics
They were never good at anything except lining the pockets of the MIC
I just wish they'd have gone for a 48 cell VLS system. The hull stretch would have been minimal, the cost similarly small, but it would seriously expand the ship's capacity.
perhaps, but how much of a delay in development are we willing to accept? IMO if they already have a solid design they should focus on finishing that first and then they can work on tweaks and variants.
Congress is like that customer that constantly wants to add and change things midway through a project and then gets irate about why its taking a lot longer and costing more than the initial quote.
Combined with the box launchers they have a lot of missiles. Far more than previous US frigates.
More missiles and a laser system which they did not specific mentioned....
@@rgloria40 A laser system would require a MUCH more robust engine system likely including a turbine to generate sufficient power. Very likely it would turn into a hybrid propulsion system to capitalize on the expensive batteries. It would be a completely different, and much more costly ship. I would have loved to see a CWIS gun above the bridge though.
@@The_Lone_Aesir Doing it now while they are still laying steel would be almost trivial compared to doing it later. Retrofitting them later will be VASTLY more expensive.
The LCS units should be transfered to the coast guard. Their lowest configuration would work as a coastal patrol/defense and be on hand as active auxiliary. Short range service and perfect gulf of Mexico upgrade in defense.
The Coast Guard doesn't want them. They know how crap they are.
Lol what did the Coast Guard ever do to you to make you suggest they be forced to operate the LCS with their extremely tiny budget? Did you have a shithead ex who was a coastie or something? 😂
The Freedom class should be converted to mine counter-measure and mine laying ships. That would fill a large capability gap in the USN. Sell the Independence class and use the money to buy more Constellation class frigates.
The LCS was sold as a over-glorified Patrol Boat to a blue water navy. It was a ship built for a war that never existed. It was if anything a very expensive test bed for other programs that can be implemented elsewhere.
Oddly the LCS and Zuwalt program brings up a now favorite quote of mine. "Sometimes its better to build what you want, instead of what the customer demanded." The LCS and Zuwalt ships are more or less warships built by Admirals whom sat at desks for far too long and with little to no practical experience out at sea. They are thinking far too ahead or in some cases...being heavily paid off by lobbyists who just want a blank check.
The Connie looks to be a ship made for practical blue water warfare. However I would argue overall this purchase of a new warship overshadows the real issues with the US Naval forces. That is the lack of funding for overhauling and reactivating its repair and refit docks. In a fleet of 428 boats, we only have enough dock space to refit, reload and rotate a quarter of that fleet. There's a long list of ships that need refits, repairs and just general maintenance. The Navy's penchant for buying shiny new toys is what's going to hurt its overall combat power. Its as if they forgot the lessons that won them WWII. The US Navy won the war because it was able to outbuild, outrepair and had superior damage control procedures. The only lesson that seems to have survive after the war is US Navy's Damage control....but then again after 5 Ship Fires and the loss of Bon Homme Richard even then I'm suspecting issues are slowly creping up on that front as well.
ya idiot politicians will kill us all
The Littoral combat ships are utter garbage capability wise, and a complete procurement disaster. Glad to see them go.
They look so cool tho
@@VanBurenOfficialI see them and they look like a platform to invade any island.
Maybe they could cancel the A-10 while it's at it.
The LCS ships would've been right at home in the coast guard.
Weren’t they supposed to be a response to the actual missions the US navy has been tasked with recently? i.e. shooting up pirates
When George W Bush came into office, the Navy operated about 570 ships, but with post cold war cutbacks that was slated to drop to 300 over the next decade. Bush promised in his campaign to retore the size of the US Navy to a full 600 ships, but he also promised to cut taxes and reduce the deficit.
The LCS was the answer to two political needs: to build a lot of cheap ships to inflate the Navy's number of hulls without breaking the budget; and to find a role for the US Navy as the American defense establishment shifted from superpower confrontations to the Global War on Terror. Since this was being driven by politics, that raised the question: what are these things supposed to do? The answer was the politically simplest: they'd be able to do everything and anything needed to secure coastal areas and project US power far onto land -- where the bad guys lived.
To be fair the idea of modular mission loadouts was not an obviously bad one at the time; the Navy does all kind of amazingly complicated things, it's all in a day's work. But it turns out asking a crew of less than a hundred with limited space to be that flexible was too much. Of all the problems these ships had, running them was the biggest; they were just too small and complicated.
Now take everything about how the LCS program was conceived and run and do the opposite, and you've got the Constellation frigate program. It is building ships to address an identified probelm and to perform a traditional role for the US Navy. These "frigates" are very generously sized, larger than most current operational classes of destroyers, with plenty of room to add new systems and increase crew. And they're being built entirely with proven technologies.
Long story short, we got complacent and assumed globalism and the spread of democracy would make the world so safe we wouldn't need the big ships. The only concern was terrorists, organized crime, and. . like. . two rogue nations that were barely worth the attention of a single carrier group.
Unfortunately things can change. . they do change. Obviously, they did change.
We keep forgetting we need to prepare for the NEXT conflict.
@@Mahbu What do you mean assumed globalism? More like assumed domination of globalism.
@@lolasdm6959 Sure, to some extent.
But ignoring that cynicism for a moment, most everyone believed the world was too interconnected for any major power (like Russia or China. . or even the US) would do anything bananas like starting a major near peer war.
It was believed the threat to international economies would be too daunting.
But the mistake made is that we all assumed we all value the same or similar things. Not everyone cares about the economy. Not everyone cares about global image. Sometimes they just wanna feed their own egos. Or right some perceived wrong.
@@Mahbu U.S. peace time procurement has always been a shit show
@@gups4963 Unfortunately. The show Future Weapons basically shows that.
Been excited since I first heard of this program a couple years ago. A BADLY needed return to sanity for the Navy. I just hope it isn't too late. This program should have been initiated 20 years ago to replace OHP instead of the wild goose chase LCS program
In the 2000s the Navy stopped thinking about what it would need to fight a navy like our own. They started thinking in terms of "Good Enough". There is no such thing as good enough. We used to look at the enemies hardware and see it as the best it could possibly be. We saw the mig 25 and built the f15, saw the su27 and built the f22.
Now we see enemy hardware and are too quick to downplay its capabilities. Its a dangerous way to think. Sooner or later we will come across an enemy who's hardware does what we dont think it can, and be caught with our pants down in the process.
We should've revisited old designs that are related to Guided-Missiles, but make them much better than they were a long time ago.
The LCS was SUPPOSED to operate in Littoral Waters. It was SUPPOSED to be used as a Blockade/ Quick Strike & Raid vessel. Deployed in packs of four and backed by a Perry Class Frigate they would have been the Perfect Blockading Squadron. But by the time the LCS were built we had NO Frigates left, so some genius tried to have the LCS’s do both roles……
Oliver Hazard Perry class veteran here. It was a good platform, prematurely cut for the LCS. I think it was a mistake.
NO thinking necessary, It was a HUGE mistake…. Should have made a new block upgrade of the OHP class..
No one remembers or cares that the LCS was designed around the cancelled NLOS missile and after the missile was cancelled they were redesigned to replace the Avenger class Minesweepers.
The first 10 ships are also test and design platforms with the first 4 being prototypes.(3 retired). The first 10 are part of the FORD, Burke FLIGHT III & Future Frigate development programmes along with US Navy cooperative engagement capability and Rotary wing autonomous command & strike... And the weapons development programmes for the very light, light and heavy torpedoes.
People don't understand that without the LCS ships ... The US Navy would have come to a complete halt.
No new torpedoes,
No new 3rd party/remote targeting,
No SPY 6 Radar software,
No SEWIP 2, 2+ or 3 Electronic warfare systems,
No MQ-8B or C Firescout UAV's
No remote deck installation of Naval Stroke Missile packs to deck using open software solutions,
No Swarm targeting using Sea rated Hellfire missiles,
No refresh of the AH-1 using new the new Hellfires developed for the LCS,
No New Hellfires on the MH-60S & R
No new open arc. Sidescan radars for submarine and Mine warfare
...
This list hasn't even touched on the Constellation class development.
People have no fucking clue about the LCS and how it was the FOUNDATION OF THE ENTIRE NAVY ... And still is.
Quirks with the SPY-6 are still being run out and verified on an LCS now, even with FORD sailing (you can't just shutdown and fuck with its radar while it's launching planes and sailing with other ships)
LCS class ships was the US Navy overlearning lessons from the War on Terror. Thinking the days of peer or near peer naval warfare were gone. That has changed and so limitations of ship meant to fight low intensity conflicts against low tech, low resource terrorist's or commercial insurgences not economically viable current environment. In order words the US Navy wanted money for fighting terrorist's, as the US Army was getting all the funds during the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they came up with counter terrorist's ship to fight terrorist's in rivers or coastal areas. The idea was doomed from the start and is thankfully being abandoned before any more money is wasted. In the future, its expected the US Navy will either return to building light cruisers, destroyer escorts and other lighter blue water combat ships. Or start upgrade programs for older ships in mothballs that would fill the role perfectly if just given upgraded technology. I suspect both will happen so the US Navy can inflate ship numbers and keep the media happy. But this is classic 80's Cold War style arms build up, when old battleships were brought out of retirement and had cruise missile launchers attached to them.
And that's why the us is crap
@@shaun469 The Sub fleet demands Chinese blood.
the days of peer or near peer naval surface warfare are gone. In the next war hulls will be targets. Its all gonna be airpower and subs
What a failure of procurement in the last couple decades. Zumwalt, Independence, and freedom. I hope the constellation can finally be something good.
Not to mention FCS.
No one remembers or cares that the LCS was designed around the cancelled NLOS missile and after the missile was cancelled they were redesigned to replace the Avenger class Minesweepers.
The first 10 ships are also test and design platforms with the first 4 being prototypes.(3 retired). The first 10 are part of the FORD, Burke FLIGHT III & Future Frigate development programmes along with US Navy cooperative engagement capability and Rotary wing autonomous command & strike... And the weapons development programmes for the very light, light and heavy torpedoes.
People don't understand that without the LCS ships ... The US Navy would have come to a complete halt.
No new torpedoes,
No new 3rd party/remote targeting,
No SPY 6 Radar software,
No SEWIP 2, 2+ or 3 Electronic warfare systems,
No MQ-8B or C Firescout UAV's
No remote deck installation of Naval Stroke Missile packs to deck using open software solutions,
No Swarm targeting using Sea rated Hellfire missiles,
No refresh of the AH-1 using new the new Hellfires developed for the LCS,
No New Hellfires on the MH-60S & R
No new open arc. Sidescan radars for submarine and Mine warfare
...
This list hasn't even touched on the Constellation class development.
People have no fucking clue about the LCS and how it was the FOUNDATION OF THE ENTIRE NAVY ... And still is.
Quirks with the SPY-6 are still being run out and verified on an LCS now, even with FORD sailing (you can't just shutdown and fuck with its radar while it's launching planes and sailing with other ships)
Same shipyard that kept fucking up the Freedom LCS is building the Constellation Class....so if you expect it to not also have issues, you might be disappointed.
The freedom class might find a home in the coast guard as a cutter. At least someone will get some use out of it.
That idea was floated before the pandemic and the Coast Guard refused. They don't want the Navy's hand-me-down headaches. They're getting their own custom-designed cutters
GIVE all the unwanted vessels to the Phillipines. They can use them in ASW and surface warfare hulls. Being free, and stripped down to their basic mission they could be quite useful for the Phips.
you cant just give them a bunch of ships and expect their 5K man navy to be able to operate them bruv
LCS == Little Crappy Ship. Informed individuals accurately predicted the LCS would never work. Most of them advocated a less "revolutionary design", like the FRAM.
P.S. Loved the frog!
Canada's next frigate will use the Mk41. ESSM, SM2, Tomahawk, and Naval Strike Missile all work. Bigger frigates are quite potent.
The Type-26 is basically a destroyer. The Canadian Type-26's will sit at around 8,800 tons but can be pushed up to 10,000 tons and 500ft long, like that's a big frigate lol
Who ever allowed this program to move forward into full mass production needs to be held accountable. How you could allow a program to move ahead with so many issues is insane and I can't understand. These ships are so expensive and are basically no threat to other warships. They cost far more than frigates and destroyers of european nation's, it's honestly a joke.
The navy needs 50 plus Constellation class frigates. 100 would be better
as well as more missile cells to match an Arliegh Burke...
@@rgloria40 … the Constellations need to be qualitatively and quantitatively better than both the Perry’s and LCS combined
@@Idahoguy10157 LCS replaced the LST and Knox class frigates...while the NAVY was ramping up the Amphibious Naval Mission Sets... Still need a 5 inch gun....as 50 cal mounts
@@rgloria40 …. The Knox class left in the 1980’s. As the Perry’s were coming in. I can’t speak about LSTs. Except I don’t see how as an LCS can’t land on a beach?
Contractor: We have a innovative untested ship design.
Congress: Will it work?
Contractor: Hell no.
DoD: We have to have 32.
Contractor: We can build 32 in 5 years then upgrade them after sea trials.
Congress: We need 96 in 4 different modular designs.
DoD: Perfect. Sign the contract.
Excellent and objective reporting with very good visuals. You can tell how hard the narrator has worked on his English; the production is outstanding!
I'm late to this video, but one glaring thing I learned is that the US allowed its ship building capability to wither on the vine.
Unless Congress intervenes and keeps a shipyard and all of those trained workers up and down the supply chain busy building ships the Navy doesn't want... like the LCS. They may not be survivable in a near peer conflict but they kept highly skilled ship builders paid and sharp.
15:46 I've been in the navy for 9 years now and I've served on an LCS for a short time (TAD) and two DDG's. Hearing the crew size of the new FFG's being 160 gives me some serious anxiety. We're already stretched really thin on DDG's as it is. DDG life is nothing to play with. It's HARD! DDG life already demands that each sailor wear many hats, and be everything to everyone, all of the time. We're already over-worked and undermanned as it is. It's sounding like the work-life balance on these FFG's will be almost non-existent and the OP-Tempo will go from crazy to down right absurd. What the Navy and these shipbuilders need to realize is we're human, we're not demi-gods. Yes, military service is not supposed to be "easy" but it doesn't have to be absurd either.
could you tell me what the unclassified chores are for life on a naval ship? why is it that so many people are required? I would love to understand just why so much manpower is required for what amounts to (as i view it) a couple big guns, missile launchers, a bridge, and a engine room, (plus kitchen and bunks and showers toilets)?
No torpedo tubes on a ship whose primary mission is ASW? Penny-wise, Pound-foolish.
Eh, torpedo tubes are more of a last ditch effort against a submarine these days. Helicopters are often your primary method of detecting, tracking and attacking an enemy submarine. If the helicopter can't attack for whatever reason, than you can use something like a RUM-139 fired from the VLS launchers.
I agree that it probably should have some torpedoes in any shape or form, even if they're hull-mounted like on the old Forrest Sherman class destroyers or the Visby class corvettes. But I also don't think its the dumbest decision in the world.
It will mostly carry VL-ASROC and ESSMs anyway. It can't carry SM-2 as it don't have an illuminating radar. And SM-6 will immediately go to Burke destroyers.
FINALLY, AN ACTUAL UPGRADE IN CAPABILITY
The US needs a lot of reliable good ships. Not a few great ships that are high maintenance and don't do what their supposed to do half the time.
This was very informative. Your content keeps going up in quality. Keep it up!
Phenomenal detail! I learn so much from your videos!!
I wonder what happened to the procurement officer(s) who approved the LCS, sadly they were probably promoted, or are lobbyists.
Also the Independence-class ships were having problems with hull cracking. The aluminum structure was too weak to handle the stresses imposed on them.
to be fair it does kinda seem that its not so much the procurement officers fault as it was politicians for approving both competitors for the LCS program rather than 1 and also the force structure analysts who said we would need that kind of ship in the first place when we dont.
LCS was a fine concept, we were just too incompetent to execute literally any of the mission modules, pick a single hull design or any other basic management function. On the other hand, the FREMM has been the best pound-for-pound warship in the world (IMO) for a while. It was a good choice to for us to bag the LCS and just pick something that works rather than screw something else up.
Any good videos on FREMM?
Constellation needs to carry more attack missiles....I notice no provisions for laser weapon, softkill weapons and etc...
There's a few on youtube that are pretty good but I haven't seen anything I'd 5-star recommend, most of my FREMM experience is from 'the wild' so to speak via Navy service. If you haven't already figured this out, the Wikipedia articles on military assets generally are about as good as you can get for public information. Do some poking around for the AAW and ASW variants of the FREMM. IMO, the ASW variant is where FREMM makes its money. Our Constellation class will differ significantly from the AAW variant due to using our (much more capable) radar and combat information suites. @@MrGoodCat8
ASCMs are pretty a la carte and can be bolted on to pretty much anything, softkill stuff as well. I think practicable laser defense systems are still pretty far away, I think the instantaneous power requirements for such systems (and railguns) have proved impracticable thus far for conventionally powered ships. I think you'd have to strap a metric butt-ton of modern batteries to them. @@rgloria40
@@rgloria40 ... And just who is paying for all these fantasies?
Imagine having to go 15+ years without a frigate because your branch is feeding some Congressional pork barrel project that directly leads to the degradation of your destroyer fleet because now they are forced to run missions they were never meant for.
Ticonderoga would like a word.
That would have been the Obama White House
Give the LCS’s to the U.S. Coast Guard and let them start sinking illegal fishing trawlers. No boarding, just target practice.
sounds for me like rough sea (bad for the independence class ), or u should be drive faster, than a sailing fregatte (freedom class).
Certified America moment.
Great info. I was thinking of air defence, more ships switch from gatlin guns as air defence to 40mm or 57mm Bofors or similar. 57mm can shoot 4 rounds per seconds where each round create 400 m2 wall made of 2400 titanium pellets when in airburst of course. Thats at 7600m or something like that. Not sure if the 57mm here is Bofors but i guess this is the same. Thx
Man, the 57m is intended as the main gun not the CIWS system...
Note that the ships from which the Constellation are derived (actually being less capable of them): the Italian version of the FrEEM spot a 127mm as main gun and a 76mm cannon as a Ciws system.
Why does it seem like the US is struggling to build modern ships?
Zumwalt and LCS are failures. And the Gerald R Ford class is over budget and full of corruption. The ship is amazing, but $100 per bolt? Easily jammed plumbing? This does not look good.
It looks like a golden opportunity to make money. Which is good to me.
Only failure on Zumwalts was the price tag, both for ship and for its ammo. Everyone needs a 50k hammer!
@@jacobculliver8324
We're paying $100 for every regular steel bolt on the Gerald R Ford. That looks like corruption to me.
@@rungfang27
There were issues with the propulsion system being unreliable and weapons failing.
if the bolt is a very large diameter structural bolt, that's also stainless steel to resit corrosion, of course they are going to cost $100. There is a very big difference between your garden variety 1/2 inch bolt and a 3 inch diameter bolt designed to hold massive steel I beams together.
Just as an example, a bolt with a 2 inch head and 8 inches long designed to hold steel I beams together retails for $36 each. So its absolutely believable that even larger bolts designed to withstand the stresses of holding a 100,000 ton ship together and resist salt water corrosion is going to be more expensive.
Greece is getting 4+2 Freedom ships, lets see you make a video, about their upgrade possibilities to Corvette standards for the Greek Navy
What turkey does to a mf
Greece is going to produce 7 constellation Frigates with the United States in Greece.
Yup with friends (and leadership) like this, who needs enemies.
@@MechBandit😮 British 🇬🇧 slaves always
Greece have no money
Constellation class is about the same displacement as 3 pre-WW2 ships, and about the same size as most destroyers.
And as far as modularity, I believe that has been tried before and failed before
Denmark worked it out but they had a more realistic approach.
Think of all the Corvettes we could have had for the price of those LCS. That's even sadder that being replaced by frigates.
constellation looks like a mini arleigh burke.
Good video. Informative. Keep up the good work.
Excellent overview as always
I was not, in fact, wondering why the LCS is getting sidelined. I thought that was clear to anybody who had heard anything about the LCS ever.
But yes, I would like to hear about the constellation class. :P
Was proud to work under Admirals Hill. Small and Okano at IWS. I remember working on the Constellation class back when it was the FFGX program. Hang tight, more good Navy news coming in the next 2 years
Yeah but if the announcements of new ships not reach full deployment until 2035, it will not be enough if a deterrent for China to invade Taiwan by 2030.
And this is the issue: China's been worked for 20 years in a plan to take over Taiwan. They've had some setbacks, but generally they won't reach combat strength until at earliest 2027 (it's been a while since I've lined up dates so I could be off). Even if their missile command corruption issues deadly then 5 years, it still leaves a 3 year gap of the US Navy is targeting 2035. And the US has plenty of setbacks, especially if Republicans are in charge of any part of government.
@@granatmof The fight with China, if it happens, will be with our old platforms and new weapons systems. Because new weapons systems are much cheaper to develop and make compared to new platforms. Look at what we have developed over the past decade: LRASM, NSM, Rapid Dragon, Quick Sink, etc. There's probably quite a few items I missed out on. The platforms we have developed: F-35, B-21 and Constellation. Only the F-35 will make it in time to make any significant contributions in a war with China. US Navy surface combatants have a less significant role in deterrence and combat than the carriers, subs and the Air Force. The Chinese narrative of "we have more ships than the US" doesn't work out once the missiles start flying.
Great analysis.
I prefer figurative combat ships
Haha I see what you did there
That’s what we’ve been getting for decades, the slack is apparent.
LCS was originally design to patrol at enemy coastal and counter small ship guerrilla warfare, that's why it was installed such a huge engine to reach 33 knots high speed so they can hunt on the sea. However, PLAN has changed.
I see what you did there 🤣
That was a great video, thanks.
Excellent and Outstanding!!!!
I wish we could keep the Ticonderoga class cruisers, nothing like a ship with 122 vls cells!
Yeah but this new constellation class is rather lethargic in the launcher category with supposedly only 32 VLS and 16 Tube launch strike for NSMs. It will be crap....once again.
Why not build a better one with like 150 modernized vls cells and fewer crew? Tico is great, but the hulls are aging to the point where if any more new tech is added the system decreases overall efficiency same with the Burkes.
navy is migrating away from having too many eggs in one basket and greater modularity. Say 3 burkes = 2 Ticos on firepower, but burkes cost 5% less because of common parts, Navy will pick 3 Burkes all century long.
I’d like to see a comparison between the US Constellation Class and the future Australian Hunter Class frigates.
I would like to see a comparison between the Type 26, Hunter Class and Canadian Surface Combat ship. Their all based on the same hull but have different sensors and weapon load outs.
The Hunter is the more capable vessel, especially so for ASW, though is much more expensive. That's not to detract from the Constellation, she is a fine class of ship for the USN, possibly even more-so than the Arleigh Burke were the Constellation afforded a theatre BMD capability.
Between Hunter and Constellation, the Hunter has available to her a hull sonar and acoustic tilings, as well as torpedo launchers, all items that the Constellation lacks. Hunter as well has greater hangar/mission bay space, plus a gun with prospects to fire the kingfisher munition. For topside combat the Hunter should have a superior radar suite, whilst the Constellation has about 8 additional VLS cells. The Hunter should have a comparably capable, if not superior CIWS and point defence capability to the Constellation too. I also expect living standards aboard the Hunter to be far greater than that of the Constellations, USN ships have always been purgatory to live on - worse than on even Russian or Chinese vessels, surprisingly.
Great insights thanks
No one seems to recall that both LCS types -- Freedom and Independence -- were originally competitors and only one was supposed to win the LCS competition. The US Government, most likely the White House, permitted both to win to bolster employment numbers in two problem states and therefore look good to the media. As a result we lost economies of scale and raced to complete two designs instead of one, while doubling training and complex logistics required to sustain two completely different ships. The LCS failures fall squarely on the Pentagon and WH, not the manufacturers or Naval officers and sailors.
No one remembers or cares that the LCS was designed around the cancelled NLOS missile and after the missile was cancelled they were redesigned to replace the Avenger class Minesweepers.
The first 10 ships are also test and design platforms with the first 4 being prototypes.(3 retired). The first 10 are part of the FORD, Burke FLIGHT III & Future Frigate development programmes along with US Navy cooperative engagement capability and Rotary wing autonomous command & strike... And the weapons development programmes for the very light, light and heavy torpedoes.
People don't understand that without the LCS ships ... The US Navy would have come to a complete halt.
No new torpedoes,
No new 3rd party/remote targeting,
No SPY 6 Radar software,
No SEWIP 2, 2+ or 3 Electronic warfare systems,
No MQ-8B or C Firescout UAV's
No remote deck installation of Naval Stroke Missile packs to deck using open software solutions,
No Swarm targeting using Sea rated Hellfire missiles,
No refresh of the AH-1 using new the new Hellfires developed for the LCS,
No New Hellfires on the MH-60S & R
No new open arc. Sidescan radars for submarine and Mine warfare
...
This list hasn't even touched on the Constellation class development.
People have no fucking clue about the LCS and how it was the FOUNDATION OF THE ENTIRE NAVY ... And still is.
Quirks with the SPY-6 are still being run out and verified on an LCS now, even with FORD sailing (you can't just shutdown and fuck with its radar while it's launching planes and sailing with other ships)
@@Boeing_hitsquad bs. that would have been one in any other ship
The problem really dates back to Wall Street genius deciding to ship the industries and jobs overseas. The loss in the economy of scale really started back then
Sorry, but the Freedom Class has serious Design Flaws and what i hear also the Independence (the prototype started to degrade really fast as the aluminium alloy did not hold up as expected. But they seem to have fixed that - but they still are vulnerable). Also a large Problem is that the navy is not allowed to maintain them on their own. Only the contractors are allowed to do that wich increases the running cost of the class quite a bit.
@@grandgao3984 both these ship variants are built in the US
Whoever designed the LCSs played too much Battletech in the 80s.
The Constellation Class are not a new ship. They are French/Italian FREMM Frigates. We'll simply be equipping them with American gear.
They are Italian Bergamini class derivatives, they have nothing to do with the French Aquitaine class. Don’t insult the French..
@@brunol-p_g8800 They are still FREMM.
@@scottjuhnke6825 sure, they are still Multi Missions Frigates (FREMMs), but they have nothing to do with the class of ships that is recognised around the world as being the most advanced and lethal (the Aquitaine class), that win the competitions for anti submarine warfare year after year, that successfully launched land attacks through cruise missiles in Northern Africa, that always fail to be detected by submarines and ships in allied exercises, that is recognised as the world’s best electronic warfare surface ship,…
it is like if I sell you a soviet Lada car and a Bugatti, their are both automobiles but the difference is huge
@@brunol-p_g8800 Yep one is grossly overpriced. LOL. I see what you are arguing, and we can agree on that.
Keep in mind some of the VLS cells of the Constellation will be used by ASROC VLS. Probably as many as 10, given that this is an ASW ship. That would still leave a lot of tube left for quad packed ESSM though. Quad packed ESSM at mach 4+ 30nm range absolutely blows away the 20nm range SM1 single launcher of the Perry class frigates, which had a 40rd magazine.
I’d rather have two old men with shotguns in 57 Chevy than an LCS.
57 Chevys weren’t called yachts for anything..
OP is brilliant
Anyone else have the issue when playing World of warships or any of there versions that when you team up and try to que it says you cant play this event? we gave up and couldn't really find anything about it. Love the Content Binkov!! keep up the great work!
The most ironic part of the whole “swappable mission module” concept from lcs is that the vls system achieves basically the same thing in a much better design that is much more integrated with the rest of the supply chain/fleet. Instead of having to swap out whole modules you can just choose different ways to pack the cells according to need. Need more anti submarine capability, pack more vl-asroc into the cells. Need more anti air capability, quad pack essm into vls cells. Need more surface strike capability, pack a bunch of tomahawk missiles. Need a little bit of everything, put a little bit of everything in the cells. Vls solved this exact problem a long time ago and does a great job at it.
From what I've read, when it comes to the modules, the two that caused problems were the towed sonar for hunting subs and the minesweeping module. The towed array module never worked right and having a ship the size (and cost) of an LCS just sweeping mines was hilarious overkill. They could've bought 4 or 5 purpose built minesweepers for less than what we had to pay for one LCS.
The "highly modular, many roles, small crew" bullet points will sound familiar to anyone who has watched a PowerPoint presentation for the design of a new system as presented by some cluck who won't be around to actually make it work.
Not really, you simply gotta ask realistically, when is the technology mature? When did most fighters become fighter bombers/ attack fighters post WWII? Took a while to get rid of reconnaissance planes specialized at that, but the similarity of requirements went into - a pod in the end. You may want precision guidance BVR missiles but Vietnam was too early. In 2023 we are moving towards DE, which would have been ridiculous in 1972. The NSM is small, beatifull and thus great, but older ASM that were not air breathing had very short legs. So the timing is essential.
Any Soviet cutter could only be a KGB lookout, but imagine how small microelectronics have become and how small and modular CIWS, sonar equipment, VLS, APKWS and RAM have become over time. No one would put a Tartar on a 150 foot ship, but today, you can come up with crazy combinations.
If the USN wanted to fight pirates off the horn of Africa and fight small littoral ships in the Persian Gulf, imitating a concept that works in the Black and Baltic Sea per se is a good idea. The problem is - execution.
In short, you are not wrong, but demanding small, flexible, all in one, modular, larger production volume per se is a valid approach. It simply shall not be exaggerated.
I live near the Welland Canal. I can't wait to see these warships in person going through the canal
My great grandfather John was master of the locks.
I keep wondering when the first frigate will debut and thought I saw it on google earth in the shipyard, but after a closer look it’s a retiring freedom class LCS.
I never understood what exactly these LCS ships were supposed to do. There were intended for littoral waters right? You know, close to shore? If it ever needs anti-submarine capabilities that would mean the rest of the navy has failed at everything. And mine cleaning too? Are you afraid that the enemy submarines are going to mine your shores? And if I remember correctly there was also a part where they were supposed to keep up with the carrier groups, because apparently a carrier's defense area in the middle of the ocean also counts as US littoral water. The entire idea is a mess...
no it's also to operate offensively in South China sea, where there are lots of shallow water.
LCS was just "fancy" corvette - which expected to be frigate
The LCS program, from design to production, is the worst-case scenario for how the military industrial complex and greedy politicians can combine to do grievous harm to the nation. Everyone in the Navy and Congress who had a hand in it should at the very least be investigated for corruption and required to forfeit their taxpayer funded salaries and pensions for the rest of their lives. The Constellations at least look like they will be good, capable ships that won't fall apart in anything other than a calm sea. However, due to how much time, money, and shipbuilding capacity was wasted on LCS, our fleet is now way, way behind the 8-ball for where it needs to be.
Edit: Just to give an idea of how staggeringly stupid the LCS program and everyone involved with it is, it seems that we are STILL BUILDING Freedom class ships (even though the Navy has told Congress that they don't want them) just to keep the Wisconsin shipyard workers busy until they can start making Constellations. Someone needs to go to prison for this sh!#
As a U.S. navy vet I agree. The Navy doesn’t need to except no more gold plated garbage scowls.
Maybe if our Pentagon and politicians would stop worrying about arming Ukraine with every weapon we have and spend the money on rebuilding our military and weapons stockpiles.
If I was in charge I would cancel putting some of the advance weapons, communication suit and etc... All they need is one gun, one basic HF, UHF/VHF satcom, and taxi some Marines around with basic supplies/Fuel...Return to the basic LST missions set. PS Speed up the Constellation Class, Destroyers, AA Missile building (SM6, Stinger, AIM120 and) and Make Super Hornet MACH 2 plus capable....
@@rgloria40 the ships themselves are junk. They literally fall apart if the waves are too big.
@@bamagrad99 It is not like they did not know that high speed craft like wooden tall sailing ship would not get cracks if it travel faster than 10 knots... That has always been the nature of ships... Would General Mathis call you a Snowflake...Maybe
@@rgloria40 WTF are you talking about? "high speed" wooden sailing ships? 10knots? You do know that this is the 21st century and that steel hulled, diesel/ turbine powered warships have been a thing for over 100 years? Would General Mathis call you an idiot? Probably.
The LCS always seemed to me like someone was trying to reinvent the wheel and the only reason why it went for as long as it did was because of the sunken cost of the billions paid to develop and build the things.
The LCS was a response to identified mission capability gaps prior to program inception. The gaps were unrelated to Russian or Chinese capabilities or specific AORs. One immediate problem was initial mission creep at odds with the original capability. Two radically different ship designs are not a ship class, creating a resource drain and preventing the alternative from successfully reaching FOC. The Independence Class is closest to the original intent. Littoral means the Navy needed to put a platform into areas were blue ocean escorts could not physically go. The Constellation is a cheap escort incapable of littoral ops. It's the Navy's version of "never mind." The shell game worked like this: decommission FFG-7 Class and say that LCS will do FFG-7 mission. Then wait. Then say hey, LCS can't do FFG-7 mission so we need new Class that replaces LCS, Constellation Class. Decom LCS and wait. In future say, hey, Constellation can't do littoral mission, we need new class...
It was a boondoggle, two experimental classes that both failed, trying to get Navy funds post cold-war and during the war on terror.
@@nevisstkitts8264 Reality says the whole LCS mania was way oversold. To be brutally blunt it was a joke from day one to put that much money into a so called combat role that was very unlikely to ever matter all that much
@@johnhallett5846 the "Surface Combatant Family of Ships" (SCFOS) employing a Modularity development pipeline was the Program's implementation of the materiel solution for the gaps in the Mission Needs Statement. Failing to limit mission creep from the original MNS doomed SCFOS and Modularity. The gross conceptual error was thinking Modularity would somehow convert the 21st century version of the PT Boat into a micro-Battleship. It was not a suitable replacement for FFG-7 Class nor a blue water escort. The original program documentation pointed this out explicitly. The acquisition fatal error was failing to admit Freedom Class would not meet Program thresholds and downselecting early to Independence Class so that resources could address a modernized version. The real issue is requirements instability preventing the Navy from addressing mission gaps. If LCS is not the answer, what is? It is certainly not Constellation Class. Next go around, unless they can answer that question, they will be right back where they started.
They can be salvaged. Retire the Freedom class but the Independence class can be a drone carrier/missile truck for its huge flight deck. Besides as mine sweepers, marines and the navy seals can use LCS as insertion/extraction points for their missions. Also as escorts for Spearhead class expeditionary fast transport EPFs.
Does the LCS's speed matter? Presumably, it's not designed to leave the littoral area of the coast, hence the name. It's not exactly a blue sea ship, is it?
Constellation will support the new much larger and more capable DDG-X Destroyer due by the end of the decade. No doubt some the new weaponry and sensors being developed will trickle down to the Constellations.
I’ve been watching your videos and your knowledge of the military never ceases to amaze me. Thank you for this particular video as I really didn’t have much information on the Constellation class frigates.
0:00 No, I have never wondered this.
I'm curios if we'll see cruisers again. Those giant designs to accomodate large radars looked impressive
Once they retrofit the Zumwalts with hypersonic missiles, I hope they're also equipped with flag facilities and redesigned as cruisers, since they're absolutely colossal compared with any other "destroyer." Probably not gonna happen but I can hope
maybe, but modern Navy doctrine is looking towards a “distributed lethality” concept which would deemphasize investment into cruisers. can’t predict the future though.
Little Crappy Ship is very accurate.
I'm so glad that the Department of the Navy is thinking clearly now when it comes to ocean battle demands and going with the Constellation Class Frigate, I laughed and cried when the Navy was building garbage for war. Thanks for making this video!
So they’re spending more of our money picking fights with other countries and you’re happy?
@@hunterwolfe8737You realize it's the "other countries" that are invading their neighbors, right?
From a shipbuilding view having two types for a single mission adds costs
LCS would be a good idea for europe for the Mediterranean, the Baltic and North Sea maybe even the Norwegan sea and Atlantic between Ireland and Portugal. you need the hull numbers to patrol so much cost line while sometimes needing more man power than most potrol boats can offer the LCS which for me is a heavy Potrol Boat with a mission module than can give it some utility at something beyond would be the ship type for that kind of job. Shame about the lack of crew space though that really limits a ship.
I'm not all that familiar with the problems of the Independence-Class LCS, but I do really like it's trimaran and angular stealth design; feels sci-fi. The proposal to convert them into dedicated mine-warfare vessels sounds pretty cool.
As for the Freedom-class, by all means, scrap those glorified, oversized PT boats to the ash heap of history.
The ships were literally splitting apart as their frames were not properly fused. They knew about this problem years ago yet they kept replicating it with each new build. This is a serious risk when the boat is traveling at high speed or in stormy conditions.
The US navy needs to rapidly and urgently build ships to support 14 - 16 Aircraft carries battle groups. This includes more Ticonderoga class antiair cruisers if necessary
The US does not have the industrial capacity to do that. Or it will have to expand it by using money it doesn't have. The ongoing de-dollarization will ensure that doesn't happen, which is great for everyone.
Adding the shipborne torpedoes I suspect is for later blocks and for the first block when they get major yard time
The USA should stop with this “block” configuration. Modernising older designs is just as expensive as launching new designs, and it is the reason the US navy is stacked with 50 year old Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke non stealthy ships that’s would be sunk at the first minute in combat.
The constellation frigate first build is on hold. The changes NavSea did to the FREMM design actually made a completely different vessel. Dumb move
The US navy has a miserable design history it seems.
Geez the Pentagon cannot make any correct decision
IIRC, they wanted to put a 'Burke's equivalent worth of gear on the Constellation with 1/3rd the VLS silos. Expect costs to balloon.
@@namyun2743 they are in a tough position facing swarms of missles. The Navy needs a defensive measure beyond missile on missile. The latest Burke, I forget the name, has this bulging midship of defensive warfare. They need this technology to mature. To be effective.
@@knowsmebyname Oh yeah, I just saw an image of that yesterday on a news channel.. Fat Burke with ALL the EW systems, lol. Seriously, I agree, we need to invest in more sofkill systems like this.
I'm pretty sure the Constellation will be getting the Aegis system. It's not able to fit the newer and larger version but it would still be installed.
*Maybe* in future flights but not initially, and it's not hard to see why. AEGIS is a very expensive system to install on a ship, and for a ship to perform the roles that a frigate would is rather unnecessary in most situations. Most basic patrols and escort operations a frigate would perform wouldn't require a system as powerful as AEGIS, and in the rare situation that it would it'd be highly likely that there is an AEGIS equipped destroyer or cruiser already with the fleet its with that it can slave its own missiles to if need be. Definitely not something worth spending several tens of millions of dollars over if it doesn't really need it.
@@sheldon7979 It's literally getting Aegis Baseline 10. This has been long confirmed.
Problem is it don't have an illuminating radar if I'm not wrong so it can't use SM-2 anyway. Maybe with SM-6 but those will go immediately to Burke. So mostly it will carry VL-ASROC and ESSMs. Maybe future flight will get one.
@@johnsilver9338 They will be using the SM-2 Block IIIC. This features an active seeker and will not require an illumination radar for terminal track.
Hull for FFG 62 won't be launched in 2024. Also, there will not be a second shipyard for the time being as the engineering design is still being developed and there are constant revisions even though they are already constructing the first vessel. There are also 4 MMSC vessels that need to be completed in order to open the full shipyard to production of FFG. The parent design for the most part has been redone completely as the US navy has hundreds of requirements that are different spanning from distance between pipe hangers to redundancy of propulsion and mission critical systems. The weight of the ship is also an issue as adding large systems such as Aegis, Captas, and VLS brings the weight up. This will lead to slower top speed and maneuverability. The navy wants a destroyer for the cost and build time of the LCS.
Hooray for World of Warships sponsoring this video. :-)
The most egregious issue with the LCS program is the expensive outsourced maintenance regime that requires contractors to be flown into the theater instead of having the crew maintain it, like every other warship in history. This is exacerbated by the high speed mission concept that beat the hell out of the hull, and required complicated, and, it turns out, flawed propulsion systems. Which required a hell of a lot of maintenance. The lack of generalized weaponry makes one wonder what's the point.
But I don't think that invalidates the need for smaller, scaled surface combatants. For a navy with global commitments, there is a great need to balance capability and coverage. It makes sense to create ships with roughly half the capability of your mainline destroyers for half the price, like the Constellation, and ships with half the capability of those for half again the price, like the LSC, only more like a proper corvette. We could stand to go the other way with cruisers and battlecruisers too.
The question then is how to turn the LCS into a proper corvette. Start by ditching the outsourced maintenance and high speed requirement. It doesn't need to go any faster than the carriers to provide an extra layer of escort in high intensity engagements. Simplify the propulsion system with proven gas turbines and screws. Update the sensor suite to Aegis standard. For a primary armament, we can borrow a page from the equally troubled Zumwalt, and employ Mk 57 PVLS cells along the helipad. It would probably have to be sized for the self defense role, like the Mk 41s before them, but that would still net 16-32 cells capable of hosting ASROCs, NSMs, ESSMs, and SM-2s, which is plenty for a corvette. The Independence class probably has the most potential, with it's vast mission bay. This is begging to be converted into aviation facilities, with an elevator to move helicopters to and from the flight deck. It would also make a great patrol boat tender, as such craft are much better suited for the high speed prosecution mission.
Poor execution with too narrow focus and unproven techniques doesn't mean the original idea isn't sound, Orr the mission set isn't valid.
I'd outfit them for various close defense needs and sell them off to countries like Vietnam. So long as main parts are made to be maintained by the buyers capabilities
It's a navy thing the Coast Guard does 90% of everything for the Mk110
The best plan for the LCS ships is probably to come up with a minimal "fix" for the combining gear issue and sell them to the Philippines, where a Pacific war would actually be largely focused on littoral combat. You're never going to truly solve the combining gear issue, but there are workarounds that would work for navies other than the USN.
Philippines can probably afford 1 ship if they are lucky. Lmao.
The Philippians would be far better off with the visby class corvette .
I was against building the LCS (Crappy Little Ships) from the beginning. Too expensive, unproven technology, poor armament, too complex, too many roles, poor protection (being made of aluminum), etc. Having said that, it was fun sitting in my sailboat at the marina watching them be built. Thankfully, they are stopping the program and will begin building frigates there and possibly at another Fincantieri Marine facility nearby. This is very exciting as they learned their lesson and are using a proven design and is a much more versatile and capable blue water ship.
A big part of the reason they built them with so much automation and so few skilled tech petty officers is because the US Navy can't attract talent anymore. Patriotism is dead, this is the Internet Age and the actual day-to-day life of a sailor has not changed much since WW2. They can't even bribe them enough to join when the civilian sector pays so much better and actually treats you like a person.
Thanks
Time is money. Good thinking folks ypu have in your ranks, indeed. Congratulations and good luck gentlemen.
The real bottleneck seems to be the number of 'yards. If the gov't invested in additional 'yards - ones which made heavy use of modular construction techniques - their shortfall might be addressed within the medium term.
Navy wanted PT boats, congress forced the LCS on them instead. Pure pork.
And there I was, listening to Binkov while playing World of Warships, and then comes the WoWS advert! How meta!
LCS could be a great patrol vessel especially its two helicopters is a great asset.
I wouldn't be surprised if these get handed over to the Coast Guard eventually, it almost seems they were designed more for them.
except that both designs are complete junk. Nothing on them works as advertised, Freedom class has unresolved engine problems that greatly limits their speed and Independence class literally fall apart if the waves are too big.
The Connie’s are work horses that will free up the burkes. While I don’t expect the ABM role filled, they should have close to the flight one Burke capability against air breathing targets. I hope the triple torpedo tubes will be added, as well as a few with a five inch gun for coastal bombardment. If the NSM was replaced with the new GMLRs or GLSDB, these could do a lot of coastal damage combined with volcano rounds in the 127.
No need for separate torpedo tubes, they're not as good as VL ASROC. But that obviates the need for more VL cells. I hope the navy opts for 48 cells. A 5-inch gun is too much for a frigate. It's too specialized for surface warfare. The Italians have a 76mm gun that splits the difference between 57mm and 127mm in capability. Can even outrange the 127mm in surface fire mode.
As always a solid show and info. Navy would be stupid to retire those LCS hulls with war possible. Though they may not be "the best ship", any ship will be needed. They could use them for coastal patrol around Guam, Hawaii, Gulf Coast etc. And Navy should be looking at their mothball fleet and figuring out how to get them into service. Once the SHTF, the modern weapons that China has will decide the outcome within weeks.
The LCS literally is cracking in half at the seams from design flaws.
Shore Bombardment or Sea based Artillery is a mission not fully understood. Another is brown water capabilities to go up the rivers of China. Yet, another is hotel and taxi service for Marine to the beach, up the river, and special operations. This is the size of platoon or Company.
Such a tragedy they botched the LCS program, the independence class looks badass.
Unfortunately the Independence-class has the least amount of internal space for the things that make a warship a warship, most of it going to an unusually large flight deck
hire someone to micromanage the interior space for the stuff it needs to warship properly... just gimme independence class... its sOoOoOo coool@@namyun2743