Seems like the Navy actually sees something in these ships, but it's ultimately up to the congress if they want to fund building more of it. Personally speaking, I think they're pretty cool. Like what the other guy here said, not every fight needs a big ship. And the more of these they build, the cheaper it becomes.
I have been on a Royal Navy version of these and the jet engines produce a peculiar vibration but the speed of the ships is astonishing- the fuel bill was equally terrifying.
@SLOWLYdoesit1 @jojodelima1953 I like the input both of you. I too was given thought about the fuel usage, fuel tanks and refueling issues, even with consideration of the mentioning of kerosene as a fuel source.. Wow.
@@Ron-u1z crikey… I have been on a few over the years… I get invited to occasional events. and I am embarrassed to admit I can only remember the one with clarity that was a sub hunter with this type of set up- HMS Westminster. I was invited to a refit launch I think in 2008ish. The vibration from the jet engines as we sped full pelt around the Isle of Wight was great.
@@gabrielho1874 Litoral Combat Ship. They're for close to shore warfare. There were Alot of issues with them originally. It seems they've cleared most of them up. There's videos on this channel about the problems they had.
They were. The Navy went woke. The LCS program was the result. I know this because I spent some time working with LCS in the PMO.. Good news, getting back to merit fixes everything.
Of course, it has received a lot of criticism. The problem is that even for the missions previously handled by the OHP in the existing U.S. Navy, there are already cheaper and more capable ships available. The concept originally desired by the U.S. Navy and Congress was to replace the Navy’s second-tier combat ships and coastal support vessels with a large number of affordable, multi-purpose littoral combat ships, but this vessel does not fit that concept at all. The cost is another issue-just building two of these can be as expensive as an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Who would like such a thing? In many ways, this project is very similar to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program being carried out concurrently. The JSF aimed to reduce costs through tri-service integration but instead saw costs skyrocket due to that very integration. Similarly, the attempt to combine different classes of ships-frigates, coastal patrol ships, and minesweepers-into one to replace them ended up failing to adequately fulfill any of their individual missions. Costs increased, many of the ambitious new technologies failed or were abandoned, and delays became rampant. At least the JSF, as the only fifth-generation fighter in the Western world aside from the F-22, managed to continue development and improvements despite the challenges. On the other hand, the LCS has already seen one of its three major missions, anti-submarine warfare, transferred to the next generation of ships entirely. Moreover, there's frequent discussion about replacing the Avenger class with another class of ships for the crucial mine countermeasure mission instead of using the LCS. Given the significant investment in MCM MM development and the fact that abandoning the mine countermeasure mission would render the LCS a costly failure, there is a determined effort to continue this mission at the very least.
Part of it was the LRLAP system that was supposed to be the crown jewel of the ships, which turned out to be an albatross. The concept is sound, something long enough ranged to do the job of a missile, but a deep enough magazine and inexpensive enough to be able to be deployed consistently without having to go back and reload. Unfortunately, while the original plan the rounds were quite inexpensive compared to missiles, when the purchase order got the hatchet job, they were no longer able to leverage economics of scale, and the per round costs skyrocketed to being even more expensive than a missile. Ultimately, the problem was too many new ideas that didn't work in practice the way they expected. The modular system that was supposed to be one of the main selling points was an utter disaster. The LRLAP system might have worked if they'd built enough of them to make the price per shell cheap enough, but was doomed to failure once budget cuts came in. Basically, everything that the class of ship was supposed to do, it couldn't, because each system was a new one that hadn't been rigorously tested, and turned out to have... 'teething problems'. Hopefully, the experience we paid dearly with these systems will be used going forward, as an example of what not to do and also what needs to be improved to make these technological improvements more mature. Kind of like the old program that tried to double the accuracy of the rifle and ended up with the ACOG.
I don’t see why LCS can’t be used as intended; coastal support or second tier for anti piracy and the like. In combat, it can be used as a drone control ship. And about being expensive, that’s the Navy’s mismanagement problem not due to this ship. Anything they do costs too much. Look at the Constellation which was supposed to be “off the shelf”. They completely changed it and now it costs too much as well. The JSF is also not expensive. If each service was to develop their own plane, you bet it would have cost 3x of the JSF as well! The Navy should have gone with the UK type 26, specifically designed as the best anti sub frigate in the world.
@@TheBooban The LCS might work as a coast guard cutter, they'd be great at SAR and anti-drugrunner patrols, at least. However, the Coast Guard already has cutters for that role which work well. So they simply aren't needed. It'd also work very well in anti-piracy patrols, say in the Red Sea. Being fast and maneuverable, while being able to launch drones for further reconnaissance assets, would serve them well in that role. However, given their primary weapon system is officially abandoned, and their price tag is absurd, it really isn't cost effective to build more for that role.
@@ShneekeyTheLost you can’t say it’s not cost effective because we already see what they did with its cost effective replacement: Constellation class! As soon as they get their grubby hands on a new class that is their biggest chance to corrupt it. Yes, it is outright corruption. Congress needs to slap the Navy in the face and force them to buy it exactly the same as the Italians have it.
Aside from the f22? It is the first 5th generation fighter and th emost common, the US also has the f35, so it isn't "the only othe rthan". The f22m and F35 are more frequent, and came before the one you're descrivbing, so it is the "only other" if anything. Never mind that Raussia,a nd China both have 5th generation fighters of their own...
That engine box goes both ways I’m sure not only keeps it from exploding into the ship but keeps ship explosions from messing with the propulsion of the vessel
I don't know about the LCS ships but on the older Ticos the turbines were containerized for several reasons... an entire turbine assy could be quickly pulled and replaced by an overhauled unit, the container doubles as sound insulation since these turbines are loud as shit, and the container itself is a semi sealed unit that can be easily flooded with CO2 in the event of an engine fire.
I noticed that too driving by . Seems like a waste of money . They should find what they’re good at and use them . Maybe use turbo diesel engines for better fuel economy .
They are not suitable for much of anything. Too expensive to ooerate for most allied navies to utilize, not reliable or strong enough hulls for the Coast Guard, only one operational mission package was ever deployed and it was mediocre at best according to the reports. Their combining gears had fatal flaws thet required redesigns. The navy wants to get rid of rhem, congress wants the jobs and kickbacks from the contractors so they will build more to simply be mothballed. The OHP class should have served as a basis for the new ship, not a clean slate design thet ended up being two different hull types built by two different shipyards which overcomplicated the entire project. But that's what happens when you throw a bunch of politicians into the ship design process....
@@cle_roknn3742yep. Congress has to have parts manufactured from every state and possibly every House of Representatives district. So immense cost, sub par performance and utter mission failure ensure jobs which every politician brags about. Bragging about government jobs is like bragging about burning through tax dollars....It's nonsense in my opinion.
omg i saw you omg, you are not an ai voice! omg you are actually making these videos! you are real! dude i love your work and your team, im sure you have a team. these are some of my favorite content online. Reminds me of "hows it's made" and dirty jobs" mixed. Thank so so much and please dont stop!
@@philsalvatore3902 I think logistics is super cool. I absolutely appreciate the value of an ammunition ship but I don't think I could serve on one. What chrome plated balls you must have.
I am always in shock and awe on how powerful United States Military. In the Philippines our newest warship is a Daegu class frigate brp Miguel Malvar. Thank God the US is our biggest ally and pretty much the big brother. 🇺🇸🇵🇭
What do I think the US Navy should do with the Freedom Class LCS ships: I think that these ships are a perfect fit for the US Coast Guard. They can perform interdiction, anti-piracy, oceanographic research, and Search & Rescue operations while also being able to fit into US Navy roles when called upon. The “Red Light District” and huge flight deck provide lots of capabilities to carry out those functions. The fact that they have smaller crews also fits into the Coast Guard’s needs.
That’s a good point - but they’re VERY maintenance intensive and expensive to operate, which generally goes against USCG doctrine (and certainly their budget.)
@@dgthe3 They are indeed much closer than I thought, but the NSC is still a good bit larger with more capability. It's difficult to quantify, but it seems like the LCS would still have significantly increased maintenance costs over the NSC. Not a bad idea though, especially if they're already retiring them (as in, they're already bought and paid for!)
Having worked on the LCS fleet in Mayport for many years, they do in fact have many issues. They are almost always at the pier and when they do get underway there’s usually a problem. As a retired Coastie, the USCG does not have the $$$ for the continuing issues with these vessels.
comprehensive? It doesn't discuss the ammunition contract that tanked the whole project, which is the the REAL reason why so many of them are being retired
Running away from what you can't outgun is no longer possible in the age of precision guided missiles. These vessels don't have any anti-air magazine depth. Their sonar performance will not allow them to detect submarines that might hunt them. They can't take a hit. They don't have enough people to do effective damage control. All around they are a bad idea gone wrong.
LCS (Little Crappy Ships) seem to be all in San Diego Harbor. Nice speed boats, not a lot of weapons, no much space for crews, crew not allowed to work on them because contract says only contractors who built the ships are allowed. How do you do that in war time?
I go past there a few times a month and it's always thrilling to drive across the bridge and see these awesome ships being built right here in Wisconsin go Bucky and go Navy
The Navy has been slowly retiring these ship and be replaced by the new frigates. Its a shame because they are not old and has many years of life in them that they can do coastal patrol duties in hot spots so a Destroyer won't be unnecessary used!
One thing you didn’t point out was that that ship uses amazing amounts of fuel when those turbines are used. They can’t run them for extended periods of time due mostly to their fuel consumption. Turbines are huge H.P. producers and light weight, but they use staggering amounts of fuel.
I wonder what an "extended period of time" means here. Let's just assume the longest passenger jet flights are ~18-19 hour long currently I believe. So the plane can carry an amount of fuel that lasts that long, although in cruise mode they would not be on max thrust. I ship of this size should be capeable of holding a bit more fuel than the plane.... soo... can it at least run for a full or few days? Usually there should be no need to drive at those speeds for longer i guess.
I just visited this at Fleet Week. They did not give this much detail in the 20 minute tour. Thank you so much for this video! Very informative and amazing to see the in depth overview. Amazing crew members aboard the USS Marinette LCS 25.
12:11 that would be a VDS Variable Depth Sonar, besides changes in sensors and frequenzy it pretty much has stayed the same for the past 50-60 years or so i believe?
I know this one in particular 25 inside and out, I have been on them when on trials too. I was a machinery installer on waterfront so I worked on the final stuff while working with the navy. Everything from anchor, to the crane in the back, recuse boats, and sometimes engines.
What an incredible insight into the most overpowered US Navy warship! This video provided such an exciting and informative tour, showcasing the cutting-edge technology and immense capabilities of our naval forces. The dedication and skill of the crew are truly inspiring. Thanks for sharing this fascinating glimpse into the future of naval warfare!
@@robertcullison8782 Very much joking. Constellation is making LCS look like a success story. The frigate DESIGN isn't even done and they're already cutting steel!
I appreciate the effort, but your video title is dangerously close to clickbait (if it isn't already based on your definition of "overpowered"). The LCS class ("little crappy ship", or for the Freedom class in particular, the "little crappier ship") is a case study in the dysfunctional acquisition system currently practiced by the US Navy, exceeded perhaps by only the disaster that was the Zumwalt class destroyer. The LCS concept was identified during a series of conflict scenarios that posited a foreign power attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, a hypothetical event at the time that exposed the USN's capital ships (the ones capable of mine clearing, ASW and interdiction of enemy surface vessels) to multi-domain attacks from littoral and shoreline missile batteries. The USN thought a small, fast ship displacing 2500-3000 tons could accomplish all of those missions using a number of modules that would optimize the hulls for mine clearing, ASW and surface warfare duties. The small size and relatively inexpensive cost designated the LCS ship as an expendable asset. Unfortunately, incessant design requirement changes meant that the modularity component was grossly under-developed (ASW and mine clearing modules were never completed), would require the vessel to leave the AO for module installations and the exchanges themselves took far more time in protected ports than originally projected. Compounding these erroneous assumptions was the decision to reduce the number of hulls ordered- fewer hulls would save money since the modules could make every ship an ASW, mine clearing or surface warfare platform. If all of the modules were actually functional, then part of this statement would be true- but because each hull could only do one mission at at time the main benefits of modularity were essentially defeated because there simply were not enough hulls to carry them. Ironically, the USN ultimately committed each hull to a specific mission profile with a focus on surface warfare packages- a very anti-modular approach which was the foundation of the entire concept. The surface warfare "lethality" is still grossly under-powered, but this is being addressed with the addition of the NSM and bolt-on, containerized VLS cells. The ships won't look pretty, but they will certainly be more lethal although their survivability remains low. Had the USN navy committed to hull specialization at an early stage, then at least there would have been some commonality between ships and subsequent reductions in maintenance costs and some aspects of training. The USN still needs a new small hull form mine clearing and ASW platform- the current ones date back to the Korean War and have wooden hulls. How useful they will be remains to be seen, but perhaps the most practical lasting lesson for the USN is an examination of its procurement and design process to avoid multi-billion dollar mistakes. Beyond the money, the USN lost a generation of time in a flawed concept, which could have been spent training new crews in a more evolved combat doctrine to remain ahead of potential adversaries. No amount of money will ever compensate for that loss of time- and China and the PLAN have used this opportunity to invest heavily in their domestic shipyard capacity and have now fielded the world's largest navy by hull numbers (and will in a the next decade achieve supremacy in actually tonnage). BTW, we're still waiting to commission three of the Freedom-class vessels- long after the USN begged Congress to defund the program.
Yet the hulls and machinery used in both LCS classes are based on successful commercial designs. Why can civilian sailors operate ships like this and the US Navy cannot? The Independence class is based on a 19 year old high speed ferry, the MV Benchichigua Express operated by Fred Olson Line around the Canary Islands. It carries over a thousand passengers and 300 vehicles every day in any kind of weather in the Atlantic Ocean. Fred Olson Lines is satisfied with the ship's reliability they ordered two more from Austal. Commercial ships live much harder lives than naval vessels that are in port more than they are at sea. Commercial ships have to earn their keep. Fred Olson gets great service from their ships. The Freedom Class is based on a successful passenger ship design that currently holds the Blue Ribband for crossing the Atlantic. In 1992 she crossed the Atlantic in 58 hours 34 minutes. That is just over two days and ten hours! She has been in commercial service 1992 and her owners are happy with her, yet the US Navy can't make the same basic hull work for them.
The title refers to the Literal horsepower of the ship... Freedom LCCS: 2x 48000HP turbines plus 2x 9100HP Diesels for 114k HP for 3500 tonnes displacement. 32 HP/tonne VS Arleigh Birke: 4x 26250HP turbines for 105k HP for 9700 tonnes displacement. 10.8 HP/tonne
"Flawed concept" is a pretty dumb take when arguably the most useful ships in the fleet - Amphibious Assault Ships - are also multirole ships. And modularity when done right is a complete gamechanger that makes a force much more versatile. The concept wasn't the problem, the execution was.
@@Palatine-KnightI don't understand the need for "dumb" comment, because I explained everything above. I feel it necessary to remind you that all USN combatants are multirole ships, although some platforms are more optimized than others. The LCS was a flawed concept- because for the anti-surface warfare role (assuming the modules had been built and integrated correctly) there was no way they could fit all the supporting sensors and electronics into a hull platform that didn't exceed 2500 tons. A bigger ship meant fewer hulls in budget and the inability to perform the required missions. The concept was under-developed based on a single wargaming observation, and then further complicated by the dysfunctional acquisition program and execution of design requirements. The LCS is like the Navy version of the M2 Bradley, an APC meant as a battle taxi that grew twice as large, carried fewer personnel and now mounted AT missiles in case it ran into tanks which it was not meant to fight. I found your comment both rude and ignorant- not a good combination. Please don't comment again. Have a blessed day.
Kinda like the Uss Tucumcari and the Pegasus class hydrofoil in 1970s to the ealy 90s which was an american hydrofoil warship that was pretty quick albeit its only about 48 knots
@@WalrusWinking - According to Tom Clancy, American subs can officially all dive to two hundred feet. That's how deep the first one went, and that's all they'll say about that. I wouldn't count on the LCS going much faster than they've said, though. The hull is fairly wide for its length, and that limits the top speed of a displacement hull.
@@WalrusWinking - That's the official answer when asked and has been since the 1920's. It's actually usually "deeper than two hundred feet" to be precise. They occasionally mention a deeper depth and stories do get out.
@@kaourintintamine1383 ... Well , having been in the US Naval Reserve during the Hydrofoil Heydays, and known a few hydrofoil officers and crew, I got good insights to the difference between hydrofoils and Littoral Combat Ships being recalled and decommissioned. Fast Attack Boat lHydrofoils, like Littoral ships, were designed for the shallow waters near shorelines and into large rivers. This is exactly what is in the Red Sea, Persian Sea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan's Southern Islands, TAIWAN, The PHILIPPINES, South China Sea islands, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Alaska, US West Coast, Gulf of Mexico, US East Coast, Coast Guard US large rivers and bays, and drug smuggling interdiction. > Notice a common theme here? Being more nimble with shallow drafts and smaller crews the hydrofoils can carry Sting SAMs, anti-tank weapons useful against ships, .50 cal, 20 mm, and 40 mm guns for self defense and local shore attack. Hydrofoils can carry and deploy air drones, sea drones, hydrophone monitors, buoy markers, weather and sea state instruments, SEAL teams, mine sweeping, ..., They are excellent choices for disaster relief squads transporting food, water, supplies -- would have been perfect Hurricane Katrina and in Puerto Rico -- solar power units, refrigerators, and more essentials that otherwise would lumber in days after the disaster hit. None of this is suitable for LCS which cost more to build, crew, fuel, maintain, deploy and replace than hydrofoils, which are less prone to damage while deployed.
The ships also were not configured the same. It was difficult and expensive to get parts for them, when they would breakdown. I have been on one and it was sooooo cool inside.
Eh, with how Boeing turned out they would be totally shit Today. They were built where the 737 is currently, used to be a proud thing about the area, now we all know nothing that comes out of the big building on the southern shore of Lake Washington can be trusted.
@@The_Geezus ... With a guarantee for a large number of boats it would be easier to secure manufacturers interests. Would need to avoid the standard military procurement process: Promise the moon, Budget for a blimp, Change specs, Put out for bids, Add a new technology, Introduce modular design, Require untested systems/parts, Cut production run, Add committee approval, Add tank treads, turret, Remove foils,, rudder, Set service ceiling to 10K, Add rail gun, lasers, catapult, Cut budget, Return to committee, Promise the moon, ...,
The iso mounting may counter the vibration but that is not why most light equipment was iso mounted. it was a shock class requirement. if the ship took a hit things have to be able to flex or risk failure.
@@NotWhatYouThink I'd guess the explosion-proofness goes both ways: it also protects the expensive turbines of an explosion nearby (say an anti-ship missile or a shell).
@@NotWhatYouThink It is definitely not explosion proof, no idea who told you such things. The capsule is simply an acoustic enclosure - not for the crew, but to reduce the ships noise signature i.e. reduce the detectable range for submarines, because less vibration/noise gets transfered into the ships hull and therefore into the water. Secondary reason is fire surpression, the caspule has a built-in fire surpression system. Last reason is external air cooling of the turbine.
@@NotWhatYouThink I've seen these kind of set ups for turbines based on land (natural gas/electricity plants) too, it was always pointed out that this was necessary because of the incredible deafening noise.
I wonder if that speed is really useful as a defensive measure, rather than just allowing quick transit times. It's obviously still an order of magnitude too slow to make any difference with regard to missiles or aircraft, although I suppose in theory you could try to outrun a sub launch torpedo, if you could detect it in time?
I seriously regret not doing it. My retired navy friend got me onboard CVN-73 / GW a while back when she was in Norfolk. My mind was completely blown, such an awesome experience I’ll never forget.
These ship are protector to the main fleet. and especially the carriers. They can also be use for the Yemen area pirates bc it's easier to handle them before they take a ship and hold it hostage, but you have to be there fast.
Seems like the initial hate was a knee jerk response to it not being perfect immediately. The ships seem to work mostly as intended after some growing pain as a fast “low cost low crew” close to shore weapons platform.
Sometimes I feel like Americans can be the most knee-jerk people on the planet. A lot of new ideas are almost always met with outrage. Until like a decade later they're like "actually it's pretty good"
There was a USS Bainbridge nuclear destroyer followed by a Virginia class of nuclear cruisers. I would think a nuclear sub chaser could get somewhere quickly and then go into very quiet mode like a nuke sub can. My understanding is that navy reactors are pretty reliable, maybe reliable enough to have an auxiliary engine that can move the ship at 5 knots if for some reason the reactor had to go down. So having one reactor would keep costs down, costs seeming to be the problem with nuclear surface ships. I wonder if the LCS could do the Prosperity Guardian job in the Red Sea.
I think Rolls-Royce make luxury cars as well as the engines for nuclear submarines, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, navy frigates and pretty much every jumbo jet ever built. It's crazy how many people don't realise how strong UK manufacturers.
So basically after many years of hiccups the LCS is mostly online for what it was mostly intended to do decently well, but is entirely DOA for ASW which was probably its primary mission when all of the OHPs went away? I guess that kind of serves the Navy right for trying to replace their entire frigate inventory with what was basically a bunch of glorified corvettes.
I've never liked the LCS, but it could be good if they could be produced in smaller shipyards in massive quantities. The navy is struggling to put boats and subs in the water to maintain the current size. If LCS could be mass manufactured on short notice in the event of conflict, that could honestly be their redemption.
The bad part of producing LCS in massive quantities, is that we don't have the personnel to man them. The Navy is struggling on the manning front, and all ships are undermanned terribly. The navy missed it's recruiting goal by over 5,000 new recruits in FY2023. The other problem the navy is facing is the lack of skilled ship yard workers and maintenance crews. Design flaws in the ability to easily fix minor problems and vendors of parts for these ships have caused tremendous maintenance setbacks. All sailors on a ship are capable of maintaining and repairing the equipment installed onboard ships, but when the navy purchased many of the systems installed on the LCS ships, they went with non-standard navy vendors and many of the installed systems are proprietary and the vendors won't release the detailed technical documents to troubleshoot and repair the equipment when it breaks. So now the navy must pay big money to the manufactures to sent technicians out to trouble shoot and repair the systems. The majority of the contractors that come onboard the LCS ships to conduct routine maintenance can't even read, comprehend and perform the simple maintenance tasks properly. We find stuff they mess up or break all the time, then the ships crew has to go behind them and fix their failures. The Navy bit off more than they could chew and bought too many LCS ships before thoroughly testing the ship design and implementing changes to address design shortfalls, manning, and crew training. The other huge failures of the program was thinking that commercial off the shelf systems was a good idea. this is where the issues of dealing with proprietary equipment comes into play, and the logistical nightmare of trouble shooting and ordering replacement parts. And going back to manning, we all understand that the navy wants to create smaller more autonomous ships to be operated with as few personnel as possible at sea, but there still are requirements for in-port periods that require more personnel than what is required at sea. I would say great concept, horrible forethought and execution.
you said '' mass manufactured on short notice '' , are you kidding me ? is it like 10 a month or more like 5 per year , Have you ever been in a ship building construction site ? USA can't put in jail a criminal in 4 years how they can manufacture more than 2-3 such ships per year? Congress is too busy listening to clowns like MTG or protect Trump they have zero clue about economy who should pay for such infrastructure ? Private sector ?
As a retired Gas Turbine Tech from the NAVY, I was shocked to hear the HP rating on the Rolls Royce Turbines. The GE LM2500's are about 21,000 each. The 2500's are what I worked on along with the Allison 501-K17 turbines to run the generators. Frigates, Tico's and Spruance class were my ships back in the day.
I think the 'problems' with the LCS concept are very similar to the Osprey. Past expectations of capabilities and reliability are obstacles that just get in the way of innovation. Development of new concepts takes years to develop. Patience is the only option.
I know this one in particular 25 inside and out, I have been on them when on trials too. I was a machinery installer on waterfront so I worked on the final stuff while working with the navy. Everything from anchor, to the crane in the back, recuse boats, and sometimes engines. Just to be clear I wasn’t in the navy I worked for Marinette Marine
I think these ships would be great for the Coast Guard down around Southern Florida. They could use them to chase drug smuggling boats. Semper Fi from an old Marine
40. Nudos es excelente, pero e visto súper yates qué superan esa velocidad, para la guardía Costanera seria ideal. Pienso que el costo de mantenimiento debe ser brutal.
As the port Engineer of a freedom class ship I will say these are very capable little ships, when they get underway. Once we figure out some logistics and mechanical problems with these ships I think they could be very useful for relieving tasks from the destroyers.
Excellent video! Great details-pros/cons. You know, the Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG-7 also had many problems and didn't get such great life out of that class! DD
Being a Naval aviation veteran , I’m familiar with jet engines in aircraft and how they operate ,but I gotta know how you get high volumes of air to those big engines inside a box below deck…..that alone would create noise you could hear from miles away….quite a feat !
I spent 2 years on a Burke and 3 years inspecting LCS’s. My tinnitus says ventilation for the gas turbines was never a problem. Sometimes I’d get off watch and leave double hearing protection on eating dinner.
@@michaelbateman6430 I worked the flight deck , yep it destroyed my hearing. Especially back then 68/72 the ear protection wasn’t much better than tying a rag around your head . I get a disability check from Uncle Sam every month . At least it’s something….thanks for the reply….
@@Malitubee Physics gets in the way of fantasy. For any given hull shape, it takes exponentially more power go go faster. Even if you could put the powerplant of a Ford class carrier into an LCS, you wouldn't double its speed. You could get an extra, maybe 10kn from it. 15 tops. So to double the speed you'd need something vastly smaller & still powered by at least 2 nuclear reactors. Or it'd need to be a catamaran or otherwise have an insane length-to-beam ratio. And while such vessels are not impossible to build, they would be impossible to fund. Because they'd serve no purpose. Even the LCS has little needd to go over 40 kn. If you need to go much faster, aircraft exist.
definitely an interesting ship design - in the UK we have been using jet engines for propulsion for some time, and its good to see that advance being used to power the water jets which are in their own right very versatile, glad you showed the HCS Francisco which so far has a good track record and is possibly quite cost effective being a faster boat which means more services can be run etc
Back in the early 80's Tacoma Boat Building Company built 4 turbine powered pursuit ships for the Royal Saudi Navy. They were 240 feet long and had a maximum speed of just over 60 Kts.
58 knots is the top speed of the passenger ferry, not the warship. It was just mentioned for context. The fact is that neither you or I know the top speed of the Freedom class for the reason that you mentioned.
engineering question here: any hypothesis on they could have created a variable gear box to couple the engines? from what I know, the rpm of a turbine and diesel engine is not fixed, and I don't think is possible to regulate it. hence the only way to couple them is a variable gearbox.
we had ferries with this kind of propulsion and keel in the early 2000s, superfast, noisy, and _ultra-thirsty_, so much thirsty that they lasted in service for a couple of years. A couple were scrapped, but I think that there is still one survivor in active service somewhere in Greece
I had no idea you were literally a few hundred feet away from me lol I been serving onboard USS Billings LCS 15, the next ship over on the pier 😂 but nonetheless from personal experience the LCS program is terrible but the people I’ve worked with have been amazing
Why does water shoot up about through the deck, 30 feet back from the bow? It's like there's a pipe or hole all the way down to the water line or something. 5:22.
I want S shaped tube's that swing down over the ends of the water jets. So the eater jet thrust is pushing against the water flowing under the hull. Instead of just into the air behind the transom above the slipstream.
I see the crew have both a red light didtrict and a Sauna, or did you mean Sonar. It looks like fun for the crew. Thirtyfive years back, the fast, wave piercing, twin hull, Blue Riband wining, magic water jet driven, amazing, craft, moored on the Brisbane river, Queensland, opposite my house, on a sales tour. Upon returning to its home in Tasmania it had done extremely well with buyers fighting to get them.
Visiting the most overpowered US Navy warship is an unforgettable experience that highlights the pinnacle of naval engineering, the advanced capabilities of modern military technology, and the dedication of the sailors who operate these vessels.
I hate to break it to you, but as far back as 1976, the Spruance class destroyers had reversible props that could perform a "crashback" in the length of the ship at full published speed, or about 32 knots. However, the Spruance class were capable of over 60 knots.
One of these would make an awesome SUPER super yacht... It's designed perfectly for being a toy hauler and to do expedition journeys whilst still having the speed capability. Plus the US navy has trained all the staff you would ever need since they all do multiple jobs on the ship... Get a luxury overhaul of the interior and modify for world touring and you have the ultimate ship...
This boat was my dock neighbor when it was being built. I was in a 27ft sailboat in nestegg marina on the end slip. When I left on my sailing journey to the ocean, a guy leaned over the edge about 40 ft up and said "great day for a sail eh?". "See you out there!". It took me four months to reach Florida. I think she probably did it in a week😅
I'm studying Naval engineering and I can tell that most battle ships are equiped with jet turbines for engines, I'm from Spain so I can put the example of the Spanish Navy ships, in the F-80 frigatte class they use 2 gas turbines and for the newest and one of the most advanced frigatte class in the world, the F-100 class, they are equiped with 2 conventional pistón engine producing 12000 HP that doesn't use much fuel and 2 jet turbine engines producing 46000 HP for high speed sailing
With some bugs worked out they could still see service protecting our shores, Red Sea, and advance base areas in coastal zones. Anti-sub copters could be used for sub work.
I hope they upgrade those vibrations with dampeners -- subs listen to the screws on props to identify them. Listening buoys as well. Might be good to focus on acoustics in upgrades I would hope. Beautiful ships btw. Can't wait until they design them into hybrid submersibles to escape oncoming ASMs
I went aboard the USS Cooperstown in the same class. It just seems like it doesn't have enough weaponry aboard and feels kind of empty for a warship. I think they should give them to the coast guard to deal with smugglers and stuff. They would be perfect for that.
I'm not sure I believe your explanation on why no ASW. I mean, isn't sprint and drift a thing anymore? Nobody is doing ASW work at flank speed are they? Flow noise would prevent that wouldn't it? Never mind vibration. Also, that thing can't carry an ASW helo? Isn't that still your primary searcher and prosecutor if you are a surface platform?
The ASW module had really crappy cheap sensors (look at how the towed array flopped everywhere). Without a dedicated bow array, I don't think you want to rely on towed arrays and dipping sonar only
The reactor coolant pumps on nimitz class carriers can drain an olympic size swimming pool in only 4 seconds. For one single pump. That destroys this entire ship's propulsion system out of the water.
So ... which camp are you in?
the people on board watch your videos?
Try getting on a AWAC!
Keeping the ship. Not all fights need a big ship.
Come on man I was on the same pier as you and you didn’t stop and say hi? 🥲
Seems like the Navy actually sees something in these ships, but it's ultimately up to the congress if they want to fund building more of it. Personally speaking, I think they're pretty cool. Like what the other guy here said, not every fight needs a big ship. And the more of these they build, the cheaper it becomes.
I have been on a Royal Navy version of these and the jet engines produce a peculiar vibration but the speed of the ships is astonishing- the fuel bill was equally terrifying.
Its why need to be a G7 nation to operate one, but i understand turbines ran on kerosene, not diesel
@@jojodelima1953 yes- you are right! 🤣
@SLOWLYdoesit1 @jojodelima1953 I like the input both of you. I too was given thought about the fuel usage, fuel tanks and refueling issues, even with consideration of the mentioning of kerosene as a fuel source.. Wow.
Which Royal Navy ships are you talking about. I'm ex Royal Navy.
@@Ron-u1z crikey… I have been on a few over the years… I get invited to occasional events. and I am embarrassed to admit I can only remember the one with clarity that was a sub hunter with this type of set up- HMS Westminster. I was invited to a refit launch I think in 2008ish. The vibration from the jet engines as we sped full pelt around the Isle of Wight was great.
"Whatcha got there?"
Me: a jetski with multiple seats
With multiple weapons systems is more like it‼️😉‼️
@@PhilipFear yeahhh we can't forget the defense mesures against pirates
It's not a jet ski
@@prestonwills78 it's called a joke.....ha.....ha
Aaand a Helipad
Lucky 13! Marinette was the thirteenth Freedom-class LCS to be commissioned. Maybe we can call the first dozen disasters *prototypes.* 😅
What a LCS and why are the other disasters?
@@gabrielho1874 Litoral Combat Ship. They're for close to shore warfare. There were Alot of issues with them originally. It seems they've cleared most of them up. There's videos on this channel about the problems they had.
Lucky 13 is the USS Wichita LCS 13 the most accomplished ship of its class.
They weren't disasters
They were. The Navy went woke. The LCS program was the result. I know this because I spent some time working with LCS in the PMO.. Good news, getting back to merit fixes everything.
Of course, it has received a lot of criticism. The problem is that even for the missions previously handled by the OHP in the existing U.S. Navy, there are already cheaper and more capable ships available. The concept originally desired by the U.S. Navy and Congress was to replace the Navy’s second-tier combat ships and coastal support vessels with a large number of affordable, multi-purpose littoral combat ships, but this vessel does not fit that concept at all. The cost is another issue-just building two of these can be as expensive as an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Who would like such a thing?
In many ways, this project is very similar to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program being carried out concurrently. The JSF aimed to reduce costs through tri-service integration but instead saw costs skyrocket due to that very integration. Similarly, the attempt to combine different classes of ships-frigates, coastal patrol ships, and minesweepers-into one to replace them ended up failing to adequately fulfill any of their individual missions. Costs increased, many of the ambitious new technologies failed or were abandoned, and delays became rampant.
At least the JSF, as the only fifth-generation fighter in the Western world aside from the F-22, managed to continue development and improvements despite the challenges. On the other hand, the LCS has already seen one of its three major missions, anti-submarine warfare, transferred to the next generation of ships entirely. Moreover, there's frequent discussion about replacing the Avenger class with another class of ships for the crucial mine countermeasure mission instead of using the LCS. Given the significant investment in MCM MM development and the fact that abandoning the mine countermeasure mission would render the LCS a costly failure, there is a determined effort to continue this mission at the very least.
Part of it was the LRLAP system that was supposed to be the crown jewel of the ships, which turned out to be an albatross. The concept is sound, something long enough ranged to do the job of a missile, but a deep enough magazine and inexpensive enough to be able to be deployed consistently without having to go back and reload. Unfortunately, while the original plan the rounds were quite inexpensive compared to missiles, when the purchase order got the hatchet job, they were no longer able to leverage economics of scale, and the per round costs skyrocketed to being even more expensive than a missile.
Ultimately, the problem was too many new ideas that didn't work in practice the way they expected. The modular system that was supposed to be one of the main selling points was an utter disaster. The LRLAP system might have worked if they'd built enough of them to make the price per shell cheap enough, but was doomed to failure once budget cuts came in. Basically, everything that the class of ship was supposed to do, it couldn't, because each system was a new one that hadn't been rigorously tested, and turned out to have... 'teething problems'.
Hopefully, the experience we paid dearly with these systems will be used going forward, as an example of what not to do and also what needs to be improved to make these technological improvements more mature. Kind of like the old program that tried to double the accuracy of the rifle and ended up with the ACOG.
I don’t see why LCS can’t be used as intended; coastal support or second tier for anti piracy and the like. In combat, it can be used as a drone control ship.
And about being expensive, that’s the Navy’s mismanagement problem not due to this ship. Anything they do costs too much. Look at the Constellation which was supposed to be “off the shelf”. They completely changed it and now it costs too much as well. The JSF is also not expensive. If each service was to develop their own plane, you bet it would have cost 3x of the JSF as well!
The Navy should have gone with the UK type 26, specifically designed as the best anti sub frigate in the world.
@@TheBooban The LCS might work as a coast guard cutter, they'd be great at SAR and anti-drugrunner patrols, at least. However, the Coast Guard already has cutters for that role which work well. So they simply aren't needed.
It'd also work very well in anti-piracy patrols, say in the Red Sea. Being fast and maneuverable, while being able to launch drones for further reconnaissance assets, would serve them well in that role.
However, given their primary weapon system is officially abandoned, and their price tag is absurd, it really isn't cost effective to build more for that role.
@@ShneekeyTheLost you can’t say it’s not cost effective because we already see what they did with its cost effective replacement: Constellation class!
As soon as they get their grubby hands on a new class that is their biggest chance to corrupt it. Yes, it is outright corruption. Congress needs to slap the Navy in the face and force them to buy it exactly the same as the Italians have it.
Aside from the f22? It is the first 5th generation fighter and th emost common, the US also has the f35, so it isn't "the only othe rthan".
The f22m and F35 are more frequent, and came before the one you're descrivbing, so it is the "only other" if anything. Never mind that Raussia,a nd China both have 5th generation fighters of their own...
That engine box goes both ways I’m sure not only keeps it from exploding into the ship but keeps ship explosions from messing with the propulsion of the vessel
Good point.
I kind of figured it was also designed to provide additional armored protection from incoming hostile ordnance.....
But what do I know from nothing?
I'm sure it also acts as a sound barrier and thermal barrier too. 2 full aircraft turbine engines spun up would be painfully loud for the crew.
Tracers work both ways!
I don't know about the LCS ships but on the older Ticos the turbines were containerized for several reasons... an entire turbine assy could be quickly pulled and replaced by an overhauled unit, the container doubles as sound insulation since these turbines are loud as shit, and the container itself is a semi sealed unit that can be easily flooded with CO2 in the event of an engine fire.
Outstanding work sir! Retired Navy Chief. Very few creators get the details right when it comes to military topics, but you nailed it!
Didn’t think I would see myself in this video but that was a nice surprise.
Timestamp?
@vanderwallstronghold8905 0:51 its him! 😮
@@Memevze13:56 I was the only guy in camo. That was taken probably early 2020.
@@Memevzeno that was not me!
@brodyhernandez4913 oh i was hoping i had special powers
I been watching the retired LCSs arrive in Philadelphia over the last week, cool timing!
I noticed that too driving by . Seems like a waste of money . They should find what they’re good at and use them . Maybe use turbo diesel engines for better fuel economy .
@@MooreFishing-ky3wqYeah, like surely the coast guard, or something is them?
They are not suitable for much of anything. Too expensive to ooerate for most allied navies to utilize, not reliable or strong enough hulls for the Coast Guard, only one operational mission package was ever deployed and it was mediocre at best according to the reports. Their combining gears had fatal flaws thet required redesigns. The navy wants to get rid of rhem, congress wants the jobs and kickbacks from the contractors so they will build more to simply be mothballed.
The OHP class should have served as a basis for the new ship, not a clean slate design thet ended up being two different hull types built by two different shipyards which overcomplicated the entire project. But that's what happens when you throw a bunch of politicians into the ship design process....
@@cle_roknn3742 Ahh, ok. Fair enough, you make a good point.
@@cle_roknn3742yep. Congress has to have parts manufactured from every state and possibly every House of Representatives district. So immense cost, sub par performance and utter mission failure ensure jobs which every politician brags about.
Bragging about government jobs is like bragging about burning through tax dollars....It's nonsense in my opinion.
Each day we're closer to see his face reveal 😷
It'll ruin his TH-cam, just like "Dream" did😆.... people will not want to watch his video
where even is he from? his accent is unique sounding
@@Finngoliannot America probably
@@Finngolian I think he mentioned in one video that he is Canadian.
Batman wears a mask, Bruce Wayne does not. Nobody want's a Bruce Wayne movie
Thanks I was in the Navy and we had a race from Baja to Long Beach California with 3 other destroyers in 1968
Gearing Class?
This channel keeps getting better & better
omg i saw you omg, you are not an ai voice! omg you are actually making these videos! you are real! dude i love your work and your team, im sure you have a team. these are some of my favorite content online. Reminds me of "hows it's made" and
dirty jobs" mixed. Thank so so much and please dont stop!
Thanks
Hey, thanks man!
I like seeing all the little details like clipping the chairs to the floor in the ward room. That was neat and simple and clever.
I know right! We thought that was pretty neat too!
I wish our ammo ship had that feature when we hit a typhoon in the Philippine Sea. Our wardroom was a disaster!
@@philsalvatore3902 I think logistics is super cool. I absolutely appreciate the value of an ammunition ship but I don't think I could serve on one. What chrome plated balls you must have.
So cool you get tours, keep at it!
I am always in shock and awe on how powerful United States Military. In the Philippines our newest warship is a Daegu class frigate brp Miguel Malvar. Thank God the US is our biggest ally and pretty much the big brother. 🇺🇸🇵🇭
great video!
thanks for the card, it feels weird being the only one knowing what the next video is going to be. can't wait!
Hey! Glad to hear you got the card in time!
It may not be the next video, but the one after!
@@NotWhatYouThink no matter the video, i'll still enjoy it!
What do I think the US Navy should do with the Freedom Class LCS ships: I think that these ships are a perfect fit for the US Coast Guard. They can perform interdiction, anti-piracy, oceanographic research, and Search & Rescue operations while also being able to fit into US Navy roles when called upon. The “Red Light District” and huge flight deck provide lots of capabilities to carry out those functions. The fact that they have smaller crews also fits into the Coast Guard’s needs.
That’s a good point - but they’re VERY maintenance intensive and expensive to operate, which generally goes against USCG doctrine (and certainly their budget.)
@@EstorilEm How much more expensive are they than the large Legend Class cutters?
@@dgthe3 They are indeed much closer than I thought, but the NSC is still a good bit larger with more capability.
It's difficult to quantify, but it seems like the LCS would still have significantly increased maintenance costs over the NSC.
Not a bad idea though, especially if they're already retiring them (as in, they're already bought and paid for!)
Having worked on the LCS fleet in Mayport for many years, they do in fact have many issues. They are almost always at the pier and when they do get underway there’s usually a problem. As a retired Coastie, the USCG does not have the $$$ for the continuing issues with these vessels.
Sell or give them to the Philippines. They need some butt kicker ships to get the Chinese to behave themselves.
This video was super thorough and well explained.
Well done. I think this is one of your best videos if not the best outright. Clean comprehensive and clever.
comprehensive? It doesn't discuss the ammunition contract that tanked the whole project, which is the the REAL reason why so many of them are being retired
@@MrFadjule 🤣
High-Tech and Low-Tech combined into one unit - - GREAT! A fantastic idea. Speed is a good defense, out-running your attacker. Love This Ship ! 🙂
Running away from what you can't outgun is no longer possible in the age of precision guided missiles. These vessels don't have any anti-air magazine depth. Their sonar performance will not allow them to detect submarines that might hunt them. They can't take a hit. They don't have enough people to do effective damage control. All around they are a bad idea gone wrong.
Thank you for the videos!
LCS (Little Crappy Ships) seem to be all in San Diego Harbor. Nice speed boats, not a lot of weapons, no much space for crews, crew not allowed to work on them because contract says only contractors who built the ships are allowed. How do you do that in war time?
Cool that you revisited these ships. I think it's good to see where they've come from former critisim.
But its a bit late and EXPENSIVE thanks to Navy, Congressional and shipbuilder incompetence, collusion and greed respectively.
I go past there a few times a month and it's always thrilling to drive across the bridge and see these awesome ships being built right here in Wisconsin go Bucky and go Navy
The Navy has been slowly retiring these ship and be replaced by the new frigates. Its a shame because they are not old and has many years of life in them that they can do coastal patrol duties in hot spots so a Destroyer won't be unnecessary used!
Nice video bro. I learned something today.
One thing you didn’t point out was that that ship uses amazing amounts of fuel when those turbines are used. They can’t run them for extended periods of time due mostly to their fuel consumption. Turbines are huge H.P. producers and light weight, but they use staggering amounts of fuel.
I wonder what an "extended period of time" means here. Let's just assume the longest passenger jet flights are ~18-19 hour long currently I believe. So the plane can carry an amount of fuel that lasts that long, although in cruise mode they would not be on max thrust. I ship of this size should be capeable of holding a bit more fuel than the plane.... soo... can it at least run for a full or few days? Usually there should be no need to drive at those speeds for longer i guess.
I just visited this at Fleet Week. They did not give this much detail in the 20 minute tour. Thank you so much for this video! Very informative and amazing to see the in depth overview.
Amazing crew members aboard the USS Marinette LCS 25.
EXCELLENT VIDEO! VERY COOL!
12:11 that would be a VDS Variable Depth Sonar, besides changes in sensors and frequenzy it pretty much has stayed the same for the past 50-60 years or so i believe?
yes new video😍😍😍😍😍
That’s awesome that you saw it! I grew up in Marinette in Wisconsin and it’s awesome that we finally have a ship
Marinette also happens to be where the ships are built.
Independence class: Why am I still here? Just to suffer?
It’s got the looks lol.
Great video as always! That misile six-pack box sure looked tall and tippy on deck. Guess they won’t be crash-stopping with it up and working
They have tethers for the chairs. You think they won't secure the box of missiles?
These get made right in my town of Marinette, Wisconsin. So cool to see you cover them since I’ve never been able to go inside of one!
I know this one in particular 25 inside and out, I have been on them when on trials too. I was a machinery installer on waterfront so I worked on the final stuff while working with the navy. Everything from anchor, to the crane in the back, recuse boats, and sometimes engines.
What an incredible insight into the most overpowered US Navy warship! This video provided such an exciting and informative tour, showcasing the cutting-edge technology and immense capabilities of our naval forces. The dedication and skill of the crew are truly inspiring. Thanks for sharing this fascinating glimpse into the future of naval warfare!
LCS was a disaster. Good thing the Constellation frigate program is on schedule and under budget. 😑
You are joking right? Three years behind schedule, and over budget.
@@robertcullison8782 Very much joking. Constellation is making LCS look like a success story. The frigate DESIGN isn't even done and they're already cutting steel!
rofl good 1
That what I thought.
Mein Führer... die Constellation...
I've seen many of your videos here on YT, and enjoyed them. This one was exceptional, though. Nicely done, sir!
I appreciate the effort, but your video title is dangerously close to clickbait (if it isn't already based on your definition of "overpowered").
The LCS class ("little crappy ship", or for the Freedom class in particular, the "little crappier ship") is a case study in the dysfunctional acquisition system currently practiced by the US Navy, exceeded perhaps by only the disaster that was the Zumwalt class destroyer. The LCS concept was identified during a series of conflict scenarios that posited a foreign power attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, a hypothetical event at the time that exposed the USN's capital ships (the ones capable of mine clearing, ASW and interdiction of enemy surface vessels) to multi-domain attacks from littoral and shoreline missile batteries. The USN thought a small, fast ship displacing 2500-3000 tons could accomplish all of those missions using a number of modules that would optimize the hulls for mine clearing, ASW and surface warfare duties. The small size and relatively inexpensive cost designated the LCS ship as an expendable asset.
Unfortunately, incessant design requirement changes meant that the modularity component was grossly under-developed (ASW and mine clearing modules were never completed), would require the vessel to leave the AO for module installations and the exchanges themselves took far more time in protected ports than originally projected. Compounding these erroneous assumptions was the decision to reduce the number of hulls ordered- fewer hulls would save money since the modules could make every ship an ASW, mine clearing or surface warfare platform. If all of the modules were actually functional, then part of this statement would be true- but because each hull could only do one mission at at time the main benefits of modularity were essentially defeated because there simply were not enough hulls to carry them.
Ironically, the USN ultimately committed each hull to a specific mission profile with a focus on surface warfare packages- a very anti-modular approach which was the foundation of the entire concept. The surface warfare "lethality" is still grossly under-powered, but this is being addressed with the addition of the NSM and bolt-on, containerized VLS cells. The ships won't look pretty, but they will certainly be more lethal although their survivability remains low. Had the USN navy committed to hull specialization at an early stage, then at least there would have been some commonality between ships and subsequent reductions in maintenance costs and some aspects of training. The USN still needs a new small hull form mine clearing and ASW platform- the current ones date back to the Korean War and have wooden hulls.
How useful they will be remains to be seen, but perhaps the most practical lasting lesson for the USN is an examination of its procurement and design process to avoid multi-billion dollar mistakes. Beyond the money, the USN lost a generation of time in a flawed concept, which could have been spent training new crews in a more evolved combat doctrine to remain ahead of potential adversaries. No amount of money will ever compensate for that loss of time- and China and the PLAN have used this opportunity to invest heavily in their domestic shipyard capacity and have now fielded the world's largest navy by hull numbers (and will in a the next decade achieve supremacy in actually tonnage).
BTW, we're still waiting to commission three of the Freedom-class vessels- long after the USN begged Congress to defund the program.
Almost like they are failing on purpose.....
Yet the hulls and machinery used in both LCS classes are based on successful commercial designs. Why can civilian sailors operate ships like this and the US Navy cannot? The Independence class is based on a 19 year old high speed ferry, the MV Benchichigua Express operated by Fred Olson Line around the Canary Islands. It carries over a thousand passengers and 300 vehicles every day in any kind of weather in the Atlantic Ocean. Fred Olson Lines is satisfied with the ship's reliability they ordered two more from Austal. Commercial ships live much harder lives than naval vessels that are in port more than they are at sea. Commercial ships have to earn their keep. Fred Olson gets great service from their ships.
The Freedom Class is based on a successful passenger ship design that currently holds the Blue Ribband for crossing the Atlantic. In 1992 she crossed the Atlantic in 58 hours 34 minutes. That is just over two days and ten hours! She has been in commercial service 1992 and her owners are happy with her, yet the US Navy can't make the same basic hull work for them.
The title refers to the Literal horsepower of the ship...
Freedom LCCS: 2x 48000HP turbines plus 2x 9100HP Diesels for 114k HP for 3500 tonnes displacement. 32 HP/tonne
VS
Arleigh Birke: 4x 26250HP turbines for 105k HP for 9700 tonnes displacement. 10.8 HP/tonne
"Flawed concept" is a pretty dumb take when arguably the most useful ships in the fleet - Amphibious Assault Ships - are also multirole ships. And modularity when done right is a complete gamechanger that makes a force much more versatile.
The concept wasn't the problem, the execution was.
@@Palatine-KnightI don't understand the need for "dumb" comment, because I explained everything above. I feel it necessary to remind you that all USN combatants are multirole ships, although some platforms are more optimized than others. The LCS was a flawed concept- because for the anti-surface warfare role (assuming the modules had been built and integrated correctly) there was no way they could fit all the supporting sensors and electronics into a hull platform that didn't exceed 2500 tons. A bigger ship meant fewer hulls in budget and the inability to perform the required missions. The concept was under-developed based on a single wargaming observation, and then further complicated by the dysfunctional acquisition program and execution of design requirements. The LCS is like the Navy version of the M2 Bradley, an APC meant as a battle taxi that grew twice as large, carried fewer personnel and now mounted AT missiles in case it ran into tanks which it was not meant to fight.
I found your comment both rude and ignorant- not a good combination. Please don't comment again. Have a blessed day.
NWYT, Great documentary! Very informative!
Not to brag, but Canada had a twin-jet powered hydrofoil frigate in the sixties that did 63 kt. It couldn't do much else, but it sure went fast.
You don't know what the LCS's top speed is. It's much higher than officially stated. Like we don't know how deep our submarines dive.
Kinda like the Uss Tucumcari and the Pegasus class hydrofoil in 1970s to the ealy 90s which was an american hydrofoil warship that was pretty quick albeit its only about 48 knots
@@WalrusWinking - According to Tom Clancy, American subs can officially all dive to two hundred feet. That's how deep the first one went, and that's all they'll say about that.
I wouldn't count on the LCS going much faster than they've said, though. The hull is fairly wide for its length, and that limits the top speed of a displacement hull.
@@GWNorth-db8vn "two hundred feet" lmao I hope you're joking because that's nothing we have way more knowledge even PUBLICLY that they go over 1300.
@@WalrusWinking - That's the official answer when asked and has been since the 1920's. It's actually usually "deeper than two hundred feet" to be precise. They occasionally mention a deeper depth and stories do get out.
Marinette is a nice city, the surrounding areas are really nice and you can rent a sled in winter.
Still wondering why the Navy canceled the hydrofoil patrol ships of the 1980's.
Because foils are not optimal in high seas and really bad in bad weather conditions
@@kaourintintamine1383 ... Well , having been in the US Naval Reserve during the Hydrofoil Heydays, and known a few hydrofoil officers and crew, I got good insights to the difference between hydrofoils and Littoral Combat Ships being recalled and decommissioned.
Fast Attack Boat lHydrofoils, like Littoral ships, were designed for the shallow waters near shorelines and into large rivers. This is exactly what is in the Red Sea, Persian Sea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan's Southern Islands, TAIWAN, The PHILIPPINES, South China Sea islands, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, Alaska, US West Coast, Gulf of Mexico, US East Coast, Coast Guard US large rivers and bays, and drug smuggling interdiction.
> Notice a common theme here?
Being more nimble with shallow drafts and smaller crews the hydrofoils can carry Sting SAMs, anti-tank weapons useful against ships, .50 cal, 20 mm, and 40 mm guns for self defense and local shore attack.
Hydrofoils can carry and deploy air drones, sea drones, hydrophone monitors, buoy markers, weather and sea state instruments, SEAL teams, mine sweeping, ...,
They are excellent choices for disaster relief squads transporting food, water, supplies -- would have been perfect Hurricane Katrina and in Puerto Rico -- solar power units, refrigerators, and more essentials that otherwise would lumber in days after the disaster hit.
None of this is suitable for LCS which cost more to build, crew, fuel, maintain, deploy and replace than hydrofoils, which are less prone to damage while deployed.
The ships also were not configured the same. It was difficult and expensive to get parts for them, when they would breakdown. I have been on one and it was sooooo cool inside.
Eh, with how Boeing turned out they would be totally shit Today. They were built where the 737 is currently, used to be a proud thing about the area, now we all know nothing that comes out of the big building on the southern shore of Lake Washington can be trusted.
@@The_Geezus ... With a guarantee for a large number of boats it would be easier to secure manufacturers interests. Would need to avoid the standard military procurement process:
Promise the moon,
Budget for a blimp,
Change specs,
Put out for bids,
Add a new technology,
Introduce modular design,
Require untested systems/parts,
Cut production run,
Add committee approval,
Add tank treads, turret,
Remove foils,, rudder,
Set service ceiling to 10K,
Add rail gun, lasers, catapult,
Cut budget,
Return to committee,
Promise the moon,
...,
The iso mounting may counter the vibration but that is not why most light equipment was iso mounted. it was a shock class requirement. if the ship took a hit things have to be able to flex or risk failure.
The box at 1:21 is mainly due to sound, due the the high pitch of a jet engine.
That’s an interesting point. I’m sure it makes things a lot more quiet. But if that was the main reason for the box, why make it explosion-proof?
@@NotWhatYouThink I'd guess the explosion-proofness goes both ways: it also protects the expensive turbines of an explosion nearby (say an anti-ship missile or a shell).
@@NotWhatYouThink It is definitely not explosion proof, no idea who told you such things. The capsule is simply an acoustic enclosure - not for the crew, but to reduce the ships noise signature i.e. reduce the detectable range for submarines, because less vibration/noise gets transfered into the ships hull and therefore into the water. Secondary reason is fire surpression, the caspule has a built-in fire surpression system. Last reason is external air cooling of the turbine.
@@NotWhatYouThink I've seen these kind of set ups for turbines based on land (natural gas/electricity plants) too, it was always pointed out that this was necessary because of the incredible deafening noise.
I wonder if that speed is really useful as a defensive measure, rather than just allowing quick transit times. It's obviously still an order of magnitude too slow to make any difference with regard to missiles or aircraft, although I suppose in theory you could try to outrun a sub launch torpedo, if you could detect it in time?
The Navy has the best of all services. I would definitely do it all over again. Go Navy!
Same brother, but too old now.. 😆 🤣
I seriously regret not doing it. My retired navy friend got me onboard CVN-73 / GW a while back when she was in Norfolk. My mind was completely blown, such an awesome experience I’ll never forget.
These ship are protector to the main fleet. and especially the carriers. They can also be use for the Yemen area pirates bc it's easier to handle them before they take a ship and hold it hostage, but you have to be there fast.
Seems like the initial hate was a knee jerk response to it not being perfect immediately. The ships seem to work mostly as intended after some growing pain as a fast “low cost low crew” close to shore weapons platform.
Sometimes I feel like Americans can be the most knee-jerk people on the planet. A lot of new ideas are almost always met with outrage. Until like a decade later they're like "actually it's pretty good"
There was a USS Bainbridge nuclear destroyer followed by a Virginia class of nuclear cruisers. I would think a nuclear sub chaser could get somewhere quickly and then go into very quiet mode like a nuke sub can. My understanding is that navy reactors are pretty reliable, maybe reliable enough to have an auxiliary engine that can move the ship at 5 knots if for some reason the reactor had to go down. So having one reactor would keep costs down, costs seeming to be the problem with nuclear surface ships.
I wonder if the LCS could do the Prosperity Guardian job in the Red Sea.
I think Rolls-Royce make luxury cars as well as the engines for nuclear submarines, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, navy frigates and pretty much every jumbo jet ever built.
It's crazy how many people don't realise how strong UK manufacturers.
Rolls Royce cars are a totally separate company to Rolls Royce jet engines and are actually owned by BMW
So basically after many years of hiccups the LCS is mostly online for what it was mostly intended to do decently well, but is entirely DOA for ASW which was probably its primary mission when all of the OHPs went away?
I guess that kind of serves the Navy right for trying to replace their entire frigate inventory with what was basically a bunch of glorified corvettes.
I've never liked the LCS, but it could be good if they could be produced in smaller shipyards in massive quantities. The navy is struggling to put boats and subs in the water to maintain the current size. If LCS could be mass manufactured on short notice in the event of conflict, that could honestly be their redemption.
The bad part of producing LCS in massive quantities, is that we don't have the personnel to man them. The Navy is struggling on the manning front, and all ships are undermanned terribly. The navy missed it's recruiting goal by over 5,000 new recruits in FY2023.
The other problem the navy is facing is the lack of skilled ship yard workers and maintenance crews. Design flaws in the ability to easily fix minor problems and vendors of parts for these ships have caused tremendous maintenance setbacks. All sailors on a ship are capable of maintaining and repairing the equipment installed onboard ships, but when the navy purchased many of the systems installed on the LCS ships, they went with non-standard navy vendors and many of the installed systems are proprietary and the vendors won't release the detailed technical documents to troubleshoot and repair the equipment when it breaks. So now the navy must pay big money to the manufactures to sent technicians out to trouble shoot and repair the systems. The majority of the contractors that come onboard the LCS ships to conduct routine maintenance can't even read, comprehend and perform the simple maintenance tasks properly. We find stuff they mess up or break all the time, then the ships crew has to go behind them and fix their failures.
The Navy bit off more than they could chew and bought too many LCS ships before thoroughly testing the ship design and implementing changes to address design shortfalls, manning, and crew training. The other huge failures of the program was thinking that commercial off the shelf systems was a good idea. this is where the issues of dealing with proprietary equipment comes into play, and the logistical nightmare of trouble shooting and ordering replacement parts. And going back to manning, we all understand that the navy wants to create smaller more autonomous ships to be operated with as few personnel as possible at sea, but there still are requirements for in-port periods that require more personnel than what is required at sea.
I would say great concept, horrible forethought and execution.
you said '' mass manufactured on short notice '' , are you kidding me ? is it like 10 a month or more like 5 per year , Have you ever been in a ship building construction site ? USA can't put in jail a criminal in 4 years how they can manufacture more than 2-3 such ships per year? Congress is too busy listening to clowns like MTG or protect Trump they have zero clue about economy who should pay for such infrastructure ? Private sector ?
Love the kiwi connection! Thank you Sir William Hamilton 🩵
Thanks for the cool 😎 video. 😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤
As a retired Gas Turbine Tech from the NAVY, I was shocked to hear the HP rating on the Rolls Royce Turbines. The GE LM2500's are about 21,000 each. The 2500's are what I worked on along with the Allison 501-K17 turbines to run the generators. Frigates, Tico's and Spruance class were my ships back in the day.
I think the 'problems' with the LCS concept are very similar to the Osprey. Past expectations of capabilities and reliability are obstacles that just get in the way of innovation.
Development of new concepts takes years to develop. Patience is the only option.
Also they’re both terrible ideas.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Here's your sign. You just answered a post that said that the people that think they are bad ideas are the real problem.
They’re both terrible ideas.
@@James-hd4ms So convinced you are in spite of the stupidity of that position being noted on this thread. Well done.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Howso?
I know this one in particular 25 inside and out, I have been on them when on trials too. I was a machinery installer on waterfront so I worked on the final stuff while working with the navy. Everything from anchor, to the crane in the back, recuse boats, and sometimes engines. Just to be clear I wasn’t in the navy I worked for Marinette Marine
I think these ships would be great for the Coast Guard down around Southern Florida. They could use them to chase drug smuggling boats. Semper Fi from an old Marine
40. Nudos es excelente, pero e visto súper yates qué superan esa velocidad, para la guardía Costanera seria ideal. Pienso que el costo de mantenimiento debe ser brutal.
What a cool piece of machinery and so fast! I wonder why there’s a water outlet on the bow deck?
As the port Engineer of a freedom class ship I will say these are very capable little ships, when they get underway. Once we figure out some logistics and mechanical problems with these ships I think they could be very useful for relieving tasks from the destroyers.
Excellent video! Great details-pros/cons. You know, the Oliver Hazard Perry Class FFG-7 also had many problems and didn't get such great life out of that class! DD
I was just on the Marinette... neat
Being a Naval aviation veteran , I’m familiar with jet engines in aircraft and how they operate ,but I gotta know how you get high volumes of air to those big engines inside a box below deck…..that alone would create noise you could hear from miles away….quite a feat !
I spent 2 years on a Burke and 3 years inspecting LCS’s. My tinnitus says ventilation for the gas turbines was never a problem. Sometimes I’d get off watch and leave double hearing protection on eating dinner.
@@michaelbateman6430 I worked the flight deck , yep it destroyed my hearing. Especially back then 68/72 the ear protection wasn’t much better than tying a rag around your head . I get a disability check from Uncle Sam every month . At least it’s something….thanks for the reply….
Correction : The most fastest ship we *ALLOWED* to see in US Navy. 🤫
Exactly! Wouldn’t be Suprised if they had something that could do double. We’ll never know unless we go to war
@@Malitubee Physics gets in the way of fantasy. For any given hull shape, it takes exponentially more power go go faster. Even if you could put the powerplant of a Ford class carrier into an LCS, you wouldn't double its speed. You could get an extra, maybe 10kn from it. 15 tops.
So to double the speed you'd need something vastly smaller & still powered by at least 2 nuclear reactors. Or it'd need to be a catamaran or otherwise have an insane length-to-beam ratio. And while such vessels are not impossible to build, they would be impossible to fund. Because they'd serve no purpose. Even the LCS has little needd to go over 40 kn. If you need to go much faster, aircraft exist.
definitely an interesting ship design - in the UK we have been using jet engines for propulsion for some time, and its good to see that advance being used to power the water jets which are in their own right very versatile, glad you showed the HCS Francisco which so far has a good track record and is possibly quite cost effective being a faster boat which means more services can be run etc
Isnt the LCS known as "Little Crappy Ship"?
Bravisimo for content! Thank you!
always been my dream to serve on a ship like this
Me too.
These are going to work and then they will be the envy of all navies.
@@Taketimeout3They’re already being phased out out, casual.
Back in the early 80's Tacoma Boat Building Company built 4 turbine powered pursuit ships for the Royal Saudi Navy. They were 240 feet long and had a maximum speed of just over 60 Kts.
58 knots? That's not the fastest ship in the US Navy. That's what the US Government wants you and their adversaries to think.
58 knots is the top speed of the passenger ferry, not the warship. It was just mentioned for context.
The fact is that neither you or I know the top speed of the Freedom class for the reason that you mentioned.
I ❤️🔥 your videos...
Not what you think is an AWESOME channel!!!
❤ from USA.
😎🇺🇸🙏
Another few Billion dollars wasted. Great job navy! The colt Peil Sticks are shit
engineering question here:
any hypothesis on they could have created a variable gear box to couple the engines?
from what I know, the rpm of a turbine and diesel engine is not fixed, and I don't think is possible to regulate it. hence the only way to couple them is a variable gearbox.
Very cool vid!
Excelente traducción al español sí es inteligencia artificial lo han logrado,una nueva comunidad para el canal.
we had ferries with this kind of propulsion and keel in the early 2000s, superfast, noisy, and _ultra-thirsty_, so much thirsty that they lasted in service for a couple of years. A couple were scrapped, but I think that there is still one survivor in active service somewhere in Greece
I’m in awe of your talent🥰
I had no idea you were literally a few hundred feet away from me lol I been serving onboard USS Billings LCS 15, the next ship over on the pier 😂 but nonetheless from personal experience the LCS program is terrible but the people I’ve worked with have been amazing
Why does water shoot up about through the deck, 30 feet back from the bow? It's like there's a pipe or hole all the way down to the water line or something. 5:22.
Probably from the anchor chain
I want S shaped tube's that swing down over the ends of the water jets. So the eater jet thrust is pushing against the water flowing under the hull. Instead of just into the air behind the transom above the slipstream.
I see the crew have both a red light didtrict and a Sauna, or did you mean Sonar. It looks like fun for the crew. Thirtyfive years back, the fast, wave piercing, twin hull, Blue Riband wining, magic water jet driven, amazing, craft, moored on the Brisbane river, Queensland, opposite my house, on a sales tour. Upon returning to its home in Tasmania it had done extremely well with buyers fighting to get them.
Visiting the most overpowered US Navy warship is an unforgettable experience that highlights the pinnacle of naval engineering, the advanced capabilities of modern military technology, and the dedication of the sailors who operate these vessels.
I hate to break it to you, but as far back as 1976, the Spruance class destroyers had reversible props that could perform a "crashback" in the length of the ship at full published speed, or about 32 knots. However, the Spruance class were capable of over 60 knots.
One of these would make an awesome SUPER super yacht... It's designed perfectly for being a toy hauler and to do expedition journeys whilst still having the speed capability.
Plus the US navy has trained all the staff you would ever need since they all do multiple jobs on the ship...
Get a luxury overhaul of the interior and modify for world touring and you have the ultimate ship...
This boat was my dock neighbor when it was being built. I was in a 27ft sailboat in nestegg marina on the end slip. When I left on my sailing journey to the ocean, a guy leaned over the edge about 40 ft up and said "great day for a sail eh?". "See you out there!". It took me four months to reach Florida. I think she probably did it in a week😅
Pretty good analysis of the situation!
Hmm. That tennis ball trick seems pretty convinient to laminated floor also :D No scratches anymore! And now tenniselbow!
I'm studying Naval engineering and I can tell that most battle ships are equiped with jet turbines for engines, I'm from Spain so I can put the example of the Spanish Navy ships, in the F-80 frigatte class they use 2 gas turbines and for the newest and one of the most advanced frigatte class in the world, the F-100 class, they are equiped with 2 conventional pistón engine producing 12000 HP that doesn't use much fuel and 2 jet turbine engines producing 46000 HP for high speed sailing
With some bugs worked out they could still see service protecting our shores, Red Sea, and advance base areas in coastal zones. Anti-sub copters could be used for sub work.
I would call a vacation going with you on just one of these journeys my friend.
I hope they upgrade those vibrations with dampeners -- subs listen to the screws on props to identify them. Listening buoys as well. Might be good to focus on acoustics in upgrades I would hope. Beautiful ships btw. Can't wait until they design them into hybrid submersibles to escape oncoming ASMs
Would be also cool to see them do what fish do when attacked underwater... jump out of the water altogether. :)
I love how you are showing other countries how are vehicles are made and all of the internals..
I went aboard the USS Cooperstown in the same class. It just seems like it doesn't have enough weaponry aboard and feels kind of empty for a warship. I think they should give them to the coast guard to deal with smugglers and stuff. They would be perfect for that.
I'm not sure I believe your explanation on why no ASW. I mean, isn't sprint and drift a thing anymore? Nobody is doing ASW work at flank speed are they? Flow noise would prevent that wouldn't it? Never mind vibration. Also, that thing can't carry an ASW helo? Isn't that still your primary searcher and prosecutor if you are a surface platform?
The ASW module had really crappy cheap sensors (look at how the towed array flopped everywhere). Without a dedicated bow array, I don't think you want to rely on towed arrays and dipping sonar only
The reactor coolant pumps on nimitz class carriers can drain an olympic size swimming pool in only 4 seconds. For one single pump. That destroys this entire ship's propulsion system out of the water.
So great to see the long standing British and American partnership with Rolls Royce and their modified Trent 800 gas turbine
Chinese bought alots of Rolls Royce engines too, just for your information.😂
@@merrick6484 and? Good for my shares
I'm proud to have stood under the keel of a Freedom in B10. Something Ill never forget.