Great coverage it interesting to hear rumours of Australian future submarines or other offers for RAN, there hasn’t been much further news with Australian extra Seahawks helicopters.
Adding bells and whistles to an ESB runs a risk of distracting from its primary mission of transitioning non-amphibious forces from sealift vessels to the beach. If you have specialized missions, it makes more sense to dedicate a smaller vessel to it, like an LPD-II or an EPF.
ESB already does not do that. The side is way too high for LCACs to mount or AAVs to launch off of. At most it serves as an aviation lily pad. ESDs, well deck amphibs, and the Light Amphibious Warship are what the USMC is using for the ship-to-shore transfer mission.
apparently the company that made the enclosed masts is now defunct... They were relying on the Zumwult class to fund their operations since they built the the integrated masts for the ship; but since zumwult got canceled the company got fucked.
I had previously read that the flight 2 SA's are meant for the LSD mission (replacing Whidbey Island and eventually Harper's Ferry LSDs) and not the LPD mission, therefore some of the high-end capabilities of the San Antonio flight 1's is not needed, which is supposed to make the flight 2 ships cheaper to build and cheaper to operate by the fleet, but with more space to carry more marines, vehicles, and equipment than the flight 1 ships can carry.. The elimination of the enclosed masts and some of the semi-stealth was supposed to be part of the changes for cost savings.
SSBNs (including the current Ohio class) have no need for bow planes. Bow planes allow lower drag for better speed characteristics but are mechanically more complicated as they must be able to retract into the bow and of course the planes along with the hydraulics that power them remain underwater when in port which makes maintenance on them much more difficult than sail mounted fairwater planes. Also fairwater/sail planes allow for depth control with reduced pitch movement since the plane is closer to the center of the ship than the bow planes, for an SSBN that is an advantage because it allows them to go to launch depth and more quickly have a level ship attitude for launch.
the iFuelCell® IEP2 powered 92,693 ton (96,055 ton loaded) expeditionary sea borne mission support ship is the vessel that should be deployed for the marines . . . able to transport multiple regiments of AAV-7A ICV & Stryker IFV . . . not to mention troops . . .
The Factory which produced the masts was closed when the original Flight I and Zumwalt program ended this was back in 2015 or 2016 , they are currently using AB masts as a cost saving measure
It's really embarrassing, isn't it? The US Navy was leading the way with stealth on surface combatants with the Zumwalts. Then once the Zumwalts became an unmitigated boondoggle, the Navy not only killed off the Zumwalts but seemingly killed off "stealth" in general for their surface fleet. We are basically the only first-world Navy whose new ships have ZERO stealth characteristics. In addition to removing the integrated masts from the San Antonios, the US Navy ALSO removed them from the Constellation class frigates. Those frigates are obviously based on the Italian FREMM frigates...which all have integrated masts. When the Navy selected the FREMM for the Constellation class, they basically told Fincantieri "yeah get rid of that thing...we're not interested in paying for integrated masts so just give us the same sh!t we've been using for the last 100 years". We can debate the use of "stealth" on big surface ships all we want, but I refuse to believe that there is ZERO benefit to your giant frigate or destroyer or cruiser looking like a little fishing boat on radar. You'll never convince me that that doesn't provide SOME KIND of benefit in a "near-peer" (which now exclusively means "China" after Russia has embarrassed themselves in Ukraine) war. Making your surface combatants as hard for the enemy to find as you possibly can certainly makes a lot of sense in my mind.
@@johnnytyler5685 Zumwalt became a boondoggle after the Navy cut the class to 3 ships, further on the Constellation the integrated mast would have to be redeveloped as US uses way different sensors and is structured in a different way I expect a Flight 2 to have the integrated mast . Also DoD did not remove the mast themselves it was just that this was how Constellation was offered in the first place
It amazes me that significant changes are called flights where 50 years or more ago they would have called and entirely new class. Is this a ways to get past congressional approval impasses?
@@chrisf5462 but if you rotate a half-filled bottle of water that's lying down, the water inside stays in more or less the same place (unless you're rotating it really fast). Even people with no specialist knowledge of phisics (I would hope) intuitively know that.
Really like the new presenter. He’s doing a great job
Awesome information:)
Great coverage it interesting to hear rumours of Australian future submarines or other offers for RAN, there hasn’t been much further news with Australian extra Seahawks helicopters.
We won't be getting a virginia class. Too big and too many crew is needed.
@@carisi2k11 Funny reading this comment now
HII damn
Adding bells and whistles to an ESB runs a risk of distracting from its primary mission of transitioning non-amphibious forces from sealift vessels to the beach. If you have specialized missions, it makes more sense to dedicate a smaller vessel to it, like an LPD-II or an EPF.
Kevin, just curious. Did you even listen to the interview with Brett?
ESB already does not do that. The side is way too high for LCACs to mount or AAVs to launch off of. At most it serves as an aviation lily pad. ESDs, well deck amphibs, and the Light Amphibious Warship are what the USMC is using for the ship-to-shore transfer mission.
un muy buen video
I just want to play with those models like when I was a kid.
8:30 Why is removing the enclosed mast an improvement?
apparently the company that made the enclosed masts is now defunct... They were relying on the Zumwult class to fund their operations since they built the the integrated masts for the ship; but since zumwult got canceled the company got fucked.
I had previously read that the flight 2 SA's are meant for the LSD mission (replacing Whidbey Island and eventually Harper's Ferry LSDs) and not the LPD mission, therefore some of the high-end capabilities of the San Antonio flight 1's is not needed, which is supposed to make the flight 2 ships cheaper to build and cheaper to operate by the fleet, but with more space to carry more marines, vehicles, and equipment than the flight 1 ships can carry.. The elimination of the enclosed masts and some of the semi-stealth was supposed to be part of the changes for cost savings.
Interesting that Columbia is returning the diving planes to the sail.
SSBNs (including the current Ohio class) have no need for bow planes. Bow planes allow lower drag for better speed characteristics but are mechanically more complicated as they must be able to retract into the bow and of course the planes along with the hydraulics that power them remain underwater when in port which makes maintenance on them much more difficult than sail mounted fairwater planes. Also fairwater/sail planes allow for depth control with reduced pitch movement since the plane is closer to the center of the ship than the bow planes, for an SSBN that is an advantage because it allows them to go to launch depth and more quickly have a level ship attitude for launch.
I wouldn't take any of those sub models to be accurate lol
ESB very interesting
the iFuelCell® IEP2 powered 92,693 ton (96,055 ton loaded) expeditionary sea borne mission support ship is the vessel that should be deployed for the marines . . . able to transport multiple regiments of AAV-7A ICV & Stryker IFV . . . not to mention troops . . .
ESB'S looks like an all in one ship, like a mother base but mobile
why does the flight II san-antonio calss have no integrated mast? integrated masts are common place amongst navies around the world now
The Factory which produced the masts was closed when the original Flight I and Zumwalt program ended this was back in 2015 or 2016 , they are currently using AB masts as a cost saving measure
It's really embarrassing, isn't it? The US Navy was leading the way with stealth on surface combatants with the Zumwalts. Then once the Zumwalts became an unmitigated boondoggle, the Navy not only killed off the Zumwalts but seemingly killed off "stealth" in general for their surface fleet. We are basically the only first-world Navy whose new ships have ZERO stealth characteristics.
In addition to removing the integrated masts from the San Antonios, the US Navy ALSO removed them from the Constellation class frigates. Those frigates are obviously based on the Italian FREMM frigates...which all have integrated masts. When the Navy selected the FREMM for the Constellation class, they basically told Fincantieri "yeah get rid of that thing...we're not interested in paying for integrated masts so just give us the same sh!t we've been using for the last 100 years".
We can debate the use of "stealth" on big surface ships all we want, but I refuse to believe that there is ZERO benefit to your giant frigate or destroyer or cruiser looking like a little fishing boat on radar. You'll never convince me that that doesn't provide SOME KIND of benefit in a "near-peer" (which now exclusively means "China" after Russia has embarrassed themselves in Ukraine) war. Making your surface combatants as hard for the enemy to find as you possibly can certainly makes a lot of sense in my mind.
@@johnnytyler5685 Zumwalt became a boondoggle after the Navy cut the class to 3 ships, further on the Constellation the integrated mast would have to be redeveloped as US uses way different sensors and is structured in a different way I expect a Flight 2 to have the integrated mast . Also DoD did not remove the mast themselves it was just that this was how Constellation was offered in the first place
You. Must. Be. So. Proud. Of. Your. Self. But. Teach. The. Crew. To. Dance.
Has anyone told HII that their logo is the same as International Harvester?
It amazes me that significant changes are called flights where 50 years or more ago they would have called and entirely new class. Is this a ways to get past congressional approval impasses?
☝️☝️👏👏👏👏👏
Didn’t know international Harvester was into defense
I hope this submarine can export to Taiwan
Great presenter, though no need to reveal supply chain and production schedules to 37,000 viewers.
"So you drop in the UUV upside-down?" 🤣
Woops, bit of a brain-fart there.
It was a fair question. The rotating cradle is novel.
@@chrisf5462 but if you rotate a half-filled bottle of water that's lying down, the water inside stays in more or less the same place (unless you're rotating it really fast).
Even people with no specialist knowledge of phisics (I would hope) intuitively know that.
There. Is. A. Reason. For. It. You. Don't. Want. Your. Men. To. Get. Concrete. Feet