HII we are still waiting to see what you have up your sleeves for FFG(X) !!! Also, it's clear that the LPD-17 hull could make an outstanding cruiser (CG-47 replacement) ... Take out the well deck, put the SPY-6 or EASR, lineup a few hundred MK57 VLS, add a 5" fore and two 57mm aft, and a nuclear power plant ... CGN-X baby. Ballistic missile defense, Air Warfare command & control, multirole multimission cruiser.
The concept of changing purpose using same platform will save a lot of taxpayers money due to commonality. Hopefully, our great Navy will have the 355 ships needed before 2025.
Why remove the aems mast for traditional? Mast provides reduced radar cross section as well as easier maintaince especially in poor weather?? That on as well as other things replaced don’t make sense
@@adventuressurvivalinthailand I don't know, but there's a reason why the USN added helicopter hangars on the flight IIs and above of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers compared to their vanilla ones.
@@adventuressurvivalinthailand I dare you to try and do helicopter repairs on an open flight deck, in sea state 4 with rolling swells, thunder, freezing rain and hail.
@@owaisshaikh3067 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833) not exactly the same idea I now realize, but I hardly even remember placing this comment
+wcresponder Hey insist on it ! Call your representatives and leaders and tell them of the Huge growing threat in the Arctic from Putin/Russia !!! Also terror is everywhere as you know ! Canada is one of our best allies and we need your help also, we are being stretched very thin in our military especially after 6+ yrs of O'Dumb Ass F-ing the world up as much as he can !! Thank God they will be gone in Nov.2016 and the "right" people will start the healing to our friends like Israel, Egypt & Taiwan and many more. Maybe one "Mistral" LHD and two LPD or LSD to go along with your two new "Queenston" JSS. Make it a reality and not just a dream ! Good luck Canada, SSgt, USMC 24th MEU, Semper Fi
Could u take the design further/next level & allow "lego" style switch out of 3 or 4 main blocks. Sure it is tougher but give the ultimate mission configuration of any ship. We see ships being built this way. Why not keep the idea going to used this way. Most of the pieces u removed or cheapened out looked like stuff most ppl would want. This idea would mean the power block & major controls could b 3 or 4 n total. but w/mean mix & match connecting middle use blocks. It would make dry dock a crane able thing. If worst case it takes a torpedo or other major hit, u just separate the bad from the good & reconnect & cont on. The fire or blast would natural make it separate cleaner. We may b talking 20 yrs future tech, but it seems like great value. 4 Ships fronts = 15 diff, right sized, when need diff configurations. More, cheaper mass production aspect as well.
Removing the Hangar completly just doenst make sense and contradicts the mission for those ships ihmo. And also replacing one small gun with another small gun at the bow doenst make much sense. Those kind of ships never travel alone, so two .50 MG on each side should be enough. If u want to replace that gun, replace it with a CIWS or RAM-starter. Or use that freed up weight to place those kind of stuff somewhere on the top deck. But, hey, i am just a youtube guy. Who cares what i think. :D
@odegaard Even if battle cruisers were in larger numbers such as the Russian Kirov Class they are expensive to build, and the Kirov can only carry ~20 Granite missiles. A U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer which is much smaller at around 153m compared to the Kirov Class which is well over 250m is a smaller target to hit, plus it usually carries 90+ ASMs when a Kirov only carries 20 Granite ASMs. Even if the Chinese built a smaller more armed battle cruiser the price would be extreme and they would most likely rather spend the money on things such as the Type-03 aircraft carrier or on other ships. It would be much better to get smaller destroyers/frigates to fight which could be made in much larger numbers than a few battle cruisers that could be overwhelmed even in a large surface action group.
@odegaard Even if the Kirov had better more advanced long range capabilities the cost to design upgrade/construct one would be most likely in the billions. Meaning that you could not produce as many. If you can out produce your opponent you have the higher chance of winning. Having lets say 10 Battle cruisers and the enemy has 30 other ships such as frigates, corvettes, cruisers etc. they might lack range, to the zircon ASMs so the battle cruiser can pick them off, but if the enemy has many smaller less costly ships then they can attack the battle cruisers at closer ranges and if even 2-3 battle cruisers are lost it puts them at a much smaller advantage since they lost hundreds of millions to billion of dollars. I think that modern naval warfare will move to smaller less armed ships that might even be autonomous and could be mass produced and could "swarm attack" much larger ships. And even if the zircon had advanced guidance systems it would make it a whole lot harder to hit a ship that is lets say 70m long, and the destruction of a few smaller ships would be almost nothing.
Too bad they cant Downgrade their F-35 as well = Next downstep is = Metal Rubble! So they probably have to wait until 2020 to have their first F-35 operational and pay 2 Billion a Piece :)
F-45 is just another Fighter-mafia jack ass BS product and article copied from the past criticism of F-15, F-14 and F-22. Now it's F-35, just like when they proposed F-20 Tigershark. Cheap because it's based on F-5, numbers and bla bla bla..... USAF and IDF rejected it because it won't survive in high density middle east ADA environment in 1980s-1990s
WanderfalkeAT "2 Billion a Piece"($2000 million), for an F 35? In fact in 2018 the F 35A is $89 million each and falling. The Su-35 Flanker-E costs $76.4 million. A Dassault Rafale costs $93.6 million. A Eurofighter Typhoon costs $105.7 million. Even the Chinese Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle costs $110 million. And none of these plane will last very long against an F 35 (don't take my word for it read what the pilots that have flown it say).
@@RR-us2kp Your first language may not be English so I'll explain what I've done here, the examples above are a single fighter's cost compared to the F 35's cost as from several months ago. Eg. An F 35A single fighter cost was $89 million each (not the ridiculous $2000 million that was quoted by WanderfalkeAT) compared to a Typhoon at $105.7 million. The pilots flying the F 35A have been overwhelmed by it such as in Red Flag 17 where a 20 to 1 kill rate was achieved against F15, F18 and F16s flown by experienced pilots which have flown many of the above fighters. theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/
HII we are still waiting to see what you have up your sleeves for FFG(X) !!! Also, it's clear that the LPD-17 hull could make an outstanding cruiser (CG-47 replacement) ... Take out the well deck, put the SPY-6 or EASR, lineup a few hundred MK57 VLS, add a 5" fore and two 57mm aft, and a nuclear power plant ... CGN-X baby. Ballistic missile defense, Air Warfare command & control, multirole multimission cruiser.
Looks like LSD 41 class just newer and focuses on well deck and vehicle storage. Nice
The concept of changing purpose using same platform will save a lot of taxpayers money due to commonality. Hopefully, our great Navy will have the 355 ships needed before 2025.
Why remove the aems mast for traditional? Mast provides reduced radar cross section as well as easier maintaince especially in poor weather?? That on as well as other things replaced don’t make sense
Congratulations you just built an LSD!
Your right, a long bed version of the LSD.
Removing the hanger seems like too much of a loss in capabilities though.
How so? Hangar does nothing. It's a glorified tent. More deck space baby
@@adventuressurvivalinthailand I don't know, but there's a reason why the USN added helicopter hangars on the flight IIs and above of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers compared to their vanilla ones.
@@adventuressurvivalinthailand I dare you to try and do helicopter repairs on an open flight deck, in sea state 4 with rolling swells, thunder, freezing rain and hail.
Yes! Finally some sense in ship design. Take away frills and have something that works
I prefer Damen’s version of the idea
Yes
Which is?
@@owaisshaikh3067 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833) not exactly the same idea I now realize, but I hardly even remember placing this comment
That is a litteral DOWN GRADE in everything wtf
Andre Sonntag It didn’t need all those fancy bells and whistles before and now it does the job it was meant for just as good.
Canada will take 3.
Ah...... to dream.
+wcresponder Hey insist on it ! Call your representatives and leaders and tell them of the Huge growing threat in the Arctic from Putin/Russia !!! Also terror is everywhere as you know ! Canada is one of our best allies and we need your help also, we are being stretched very thin in our military especially after 6+ yrs of O'Dumb Ass F-ing the world up as much as he can !! Thank God they will be gone in Nov.2016 and the "right" people will start the healing to our friends like Israel, Egypt & Taiwan and many more. Maybe one "Mistral" LHD and two LPD or LSD to go along with your two new "Queenston" JSS. Make it a reality and not just a dream ! Good luck Canada, SSgt, USMC 24th MEU, Semper Fi
+Prog X now look at who we have haha
Cold War You mean your new PM ?
Nice design
This is not video showing off upgrades it’s how to cut cost lol
So it's a spicy HMS Argus?
Could u take the design further/next level & allow "lego" style switch out of 3 or 4 main blocks. Sure it is tougher but give the ultimate mission configuration of any ship. We see ships being built this way. Why not keep the idea going to used this way. Most of the pieces u removed or cheapened out looked like stuff most ppl would want. This idea would mean the power block & major controls could b 3 or 4 n total. but w/mean mix & match connecting middle use blocks. It would make dry dock a crane able thing. If worst case it takes a torpedo or other major hit, u just separate the bad from the good & reconnect & cont on. The fire or blast would natural make it separate cleaner. We may b talking 20 yrs future tech, but it seems like great value. 4 Ships fronts = 15 diff, right sized, when need diff configurations. More, cheaper mass production aspect as well.
San Antonio class Lpds reliable?? LMAO
Tuyệt Vời🎉🎉❤❤
i will amend my 3d model to make this version for my pc game engine mod )
I wish that it have a 40 cruise missile
proven and reliable.... hm
Removing the Hangar completly just doenst make sense and contradicts the mission for those ships ihmo.
And also replacing one small gun with another small gun at the bow doenst make much sense. Those kind of ships never travel alone, so two .50 MG on each side should be enough. If u want to replace that gun, replace it with a CIWS or RAM-starter. Or use that freed up weight to place those kind of stuff somewhere on the top deck.
But, hey, i am just a youtube guy. Who cares what i think. :D
This class of ship a very of the Philippines we can find
Change some of these into battlecruiser then the kirov had it match
Battle cruisers are obsolete now days ASM missiles and fighter jets could take one out with some ease we need ships that are small fast and cheap.
@odegaard Even if battle cruisers were in larger numbers such as the Russian Kirov Class they are expensive to build, and the Kirov can only carry ~20 Granite missiles. A U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer which is much smaller at around 153m compared to the Kirov Class which is well over 250m is a smaller target to hit, plus it usually carries 90+ ASMs when a Kirov only carries 20 Granite ASMs. Even if the Chinese built a smaller more armed battle cruiser the price would be extreme and they would most likely rather spend the money on things such as the Type-03 aircraft carrier or on other ships. It would be much better to get smaller destroyers/frigates to fight which could be made in much larger numbers than a few battle cruisers that could be overwhelmed even in a large surface action group.
@odegaard Even if the Kirov had better more advanced long range capabilities the cost to design upgrade/construct one would be most likely in the billions. Meaning that you could not produce as many. If you can out produce your opponent you have the higher chance of winning. Having lets say 10 Battle cruisers and the enemy has 30 other ships such as frigates, corvettes, cruisers etc. they might lack range, to the zircon ASMs so the battle cruiser can pick them off, but if the enemy has many smaller less costly ships then they can attack the battle cruisers at closer ranges and if even 2-3 battle cruisers are lost it puts them at a much smaller advantage since they lost hundreds of millions to billion of dollars. I think that modern naval warfare will move to smaller less armed ships that might even be autonomous and could be mass produced and could "swarm attack" much larger ships. And even if the zircon had advanced guidance systems it would make it a whole lot harder to hit a ship that is lets say 70m long, and the destruction of a few smaller ships would be almost nothing.
Looks like the old Soviet Moskva.
"Affordable"
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩
Looks like the US Navy is too lazy to design something new
Haha wtf is this? The cheapo version i guess
Replacement for Harper’s ferry class.
WOW! The music is so annoying, thank you mute button
Too bad they cant Downgrade their F-35 as well = Next downstep is = Metal Rubble! So they probably have to wait until 2020 to have their first F-35 operational and pay 2 Billion a Piece :)
WanderfalkeAT. They say they are going to downgrade the f-35 to the f-45 mustang II you should look it up its quite neat.
F-45 is just another Fighter-mafia jack ass BS product and article copied from the past criticism of F-15, F-14 and F-22. Now it's F-35, just like when they proposed F-20 Tigershark. Cheap because it's based on F-5, numbers and bla bla bla.....
USAF and IDF rejected it because it won't survive in high density middle east ADA environment in 1980s-1990s
WanderfalkeAT
"2 Billion a Piece"($2000 million), for an F 35?
In fact in 2018 the F 35A is $89 million each and falling.
The Su-35 Flanker-E costs $76.4 million.
A Dassault Rafale costs $93.6 million.
A Eurofighter Typhoon costs $105.7 million.
Even the Chinese Chengdu J-20 Black Eagle costs $110 million.
And none of these plane will last very long against an F 35 (don't take my word for it read what the pilots that have flown it say).
@@crazyt1ger08 that's funny. I've never heard f35 went against any of those fighters in combat. Where exactly did that happened?
@@RR-us2kp
Your first language may not be English so I'll explain what I've done here, the examples above are a single fighter's cost compared to the F 35's cost as from several months ago.
Eg. An F 35A single fighter cost was $89 million each (not the ridiculous $2000 million that was quoted by
WanderfalkeAT) compared to a Typhoon at $105.7 million.
The pilots flying the F 35A have been overwhelmed by it such as in Red Flag 17 where a 20 to 1 kill rate was achieved against F15, F18 and F16s flown by experienced pilots which have flown many of the above fighters.
theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/
Wow its stupid