The Navy has a warship problem... (And a solution)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 เม.ย. 2024
- Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to get a no nonsense view on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access to their Vantage Plan or try it today for as little as $1/month, that’s less than your morning coffee!
-- BREAK --
The US Navy’s workhorse warships, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers, can sail into the fight with enough long-range munitions onboard to reshape entire battlespaces. But despite the incredible punch these vessels can pack, America would struggle to keep them armed throughout a prolonged conflict - with each vessel forced to return to friendly ports for re-arming as they expended their onboard munitions.
But maybe not for long. There are now multiple programs underway aimed at resolving this issue for good. Let's talk about what it'll take.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Citations:
books.google.com/books?id=kfr...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-F...
www.baesystems.com/en-us/prod...
navyrecognition.com/index.php...
www.militaryaerospace.com/com...
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURF...
www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...
www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-F...
www.navy.mil/Press-Office/New...
csbaonline.org/uploads/docume...
www.defensenews.com/naval/202...
books.google.com/books?id=kfr...
www.navalnews.com/event-news/...
www.defenseone.com/policy/202...
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
www.janes.com/defence-news/ne...
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
csbaonline.org/research/publi...
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA183...
dsiac.org/articles/a-promisin...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
www.weather.gov/mfl/beaufort
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURF...
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURF...
aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/pe...
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURF...
www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-cou...
navyrecognition.com/index.php...
www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURF...
www.lockheedmartin.com/conten...
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to get a no nonsense view on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access to their Vantage Plan or try it today for as little as $1/month, that’s less than your morning coffee!
its not B-U-fort scale, its Bow-fort scale as in Cross-bow-fort or Beau Guest the fictional character
Transferring missiles while at sea just seems like overengineering the problem of, not enough missiles can fit on this boat's hull size. Instead of just making a bigger boat specializing in missile quantity, they must create an overly complicated and inefficient system.
I've been using Ground since your last video with them and it's fantastic so far! Highly recommend it
Anything Americana has sitting on water in war is useless because of the hypersonic weapons deployed by China and Russia. Fear not America has the largest Submarine fleet. Everything else is just a target in a state of war against a real military
This is what happens when defense is privatized more and more
_3 VLS rearming supply ships provides the capability equivalent to 18 additional destroyers by keeping warships at sea longer, saving warships already deployed a weeks long trip to port for rearming_
And that's why amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics
Logistically drones win every time.
You have to think a little outside the box, but there's decades of sci-fi to draw on.
Please remind these professionals about crew fatique, spare parts, fuel, consumables....
As a Navy veteran taking away a week long port call is a necessary break for morale.
@@jtjames79 Drones are not the solution "every time". They're more successful in land warfare than at sea.
@@piotrd.4850 Which is one reason the LCS was crap.
This is what I love about Alex... He's not afraid to _literally_ say "I might be wrong" *and then* to ask for you to inform/correct him about it! ♥️👍
You know comments help him. They put wrong stuff in videos to get comments.
@@randygravel2057 Well sure, I'm aware of how comments improve a video's reach. Though I'm not sure Sandboxx is doing it intentionally, and if they are, on any piece of info that's significant.
For example, I've seen Shorts (not Sandboxx's) make an very targeted errors to trigger viewers into commenting. So I'm not implying that practice isn't in play... I'm just not sure _Alex_ does it.
But I've been known to be wrong, which is fine! 😅
I don't think he really needs to do that 🤷🏻♂️. But, l could be wrong 🫡
He’s the best.
Be a he is often wrong
Its funny, as an Engineer, my mind jumps from "This should be easy to fix" to "Wait, no. This is really complicated and difficult to fix". 😂 Such is the dirty work of building a real world solution.
Everything at sea becomes 10^3 times harder.
Navy stuff ain't cheap.
Because of the length of the cells and the tight tolerances, perfect alignment needs to be maintained while they are lowered into position. This is nearly impossible when the Crane is on the donor ship because there's no way that 2 different ships can be locked together as one.
I think the solution is to lower the cells on the deck of the recipient and then use a Crane on that ship to pick it up and put it in position, In the module.
Now I'm interested to look up the TRAM system to see how that's designed...
coulkd a system similar to the himars rack work?? it would need to be able to erect the cells, but the built in guide rails, even if stowable when not in use, might be a viable option.
@@cannon3267 I was actually thinking something similar. A bundle of VLS tubes with a specialty fitted resupply vessel. By specialty, I mean one with a significant arm and bumper system to hold the ships together and a significant gantry crane system to do the full job of lifting the vls bundle and inserting it into the destroyer. I would envision this gantry as not using conventional cables and cranes, but instead telescoping armature or guide rails with cables. Between locking the ships together and using this gantry system, I would aim to eliminate any sway in moving the cargo. Granted, this is an expensive and unique solution. Plus I can see potential flaws with the approach. But I think it could handle intense sea states. I need to look into the TRAM system mentioned in the video to see how it works.
No it’s not. KISS my friend all of the tech to do this has been around since the early 90’s. Civilian merchant and working commercial vessels deal with this all the bloody time when rafting up for cargo transfer and used to do it without dynamic positioning and with at times more reactive materials than a missile in a VLS canister. Don’t reinvent the wheel when solutions are already around.
Time to bring back liberty ships full of VLS tubes!😂
OSV with ADL or Mk.70....
Problem with that is making enough missiles to fill the tubes. Offensive wise, SSGNs are the best option. The enemy is very unlikely to detect them before they're in range, they can carry plenty of missiles, then disengage and go back to reload. Some have suggested a cheaper semi-submersible arsenal ship option, which I could get behind if the factories can meet the demand.
@@tickticktickBOOOOM The problem with SSGNs is that it may be overkill or underkill for short range attack or air defense or ABM roles.
@@tickticktickBOOOOM
The purpose of surface vessels is really just air defense. Most of their VSLs in a conflict will be filled with Sams to protect themselves and the carrier. Ssgns can’t do that.
@@tickticktickBOOOOM SSGN's are stealthy...until the first missile launch. The missile exhaust is like a big ol arrow "submarine is here". That said, I do agree with you.
Nimitz's secret weapon in WW2 was the mobile, floating naval bases of Service Squadron Ten. Entire anchorages of supply, repair and drydocking facilities that advanced behind the Fleet substantially reducing the need to sail to Pearl, Bremerton or San Diego.
Which would be a lot harder to do now with intel satellites in orbit.
@@Kriss_L: Sailing to Pearl, Bremerton, or San Diego would _also_ be much harder for the same reason. Those ships which actually sailed all the way back often succeeded only because of work already done at those mobile facilities.
Indeed this is why the Navy established overseas forward bases in Ulithi atoll, Majuro etc. which are located close to the frontlines and made warships and aircraft carriers to refuel, rearm and repair. Logistics also defeated Japan in WWII, Japan lost most of their cargo and merchant ships and they couldn't conduct their logistical operation with efficiency.
Exactly. Floating bases. These would be huge targets, but would and could be heavily defended, like an aircraft carrier group.
You would almost need one of these for each deployed carrier group. Many floating base defenses could be on-board or the base could have its own escorts of Arleigh Burks and Cruisers.
Picture the most recent, former Enterprise together with the Kitty Hawk or the Nimitz, combined as superstructures into a huge catamaran that ships sailbetween for reloading and resupply. Sail right through. It could be designed to work on 2 ABs at the same time even, perhaps, or, could place a single AB in effective floating drydock.
Web search: "Floating Dry Dock - South Pacific WWII Museum"
When I first read that VLS systems had to go back to a friendly port to rearm I was astonished. Obviously the resupply depots would be the second targets after the initial strikes. I'm glad they are looking into resolving this.
That kind of sounds like a selling point to get Congress to provide the capability. However I'd be thinking about rearming in and around Guam, Japan and the Philippines. We are pouring a crap-ton of money into the Philippines now and paying for base development in many different locations to host ATACMS and other weapons systems to dominate the South China Sea in the event the Chinese go further in their efforts to threaten the Philippines and other neighbors. You have to watch a lot of these videos from different perspectives to see what steps we are taking along with the other ASEAN nations to obstruct China.
We used to have these vessels called "Destroyer Tenders". These had cranes, big holds and machine shops and were designed to support DD flotillas away from major bases. The Navy got rid of them because reasons.
could it be that the VLS cell is not practical for a large scale war?
@@donaldg.freeman2804 I suppose you've seen where think-tanks have gamed this out. Did you miss the ones about a preemptive first strike on air bases and naval ports (you know, the ones with reloading capabilities and ships re-supplying) before actually landing on Taiwan? So much for the survive-ability of the first string ships within missile range of China.
@@Dreadwolf3155 Well... There was the concept of the arsenal ship, but it was decided that the navy couldn't afford the 100's of missiles required to are it (not to mention the replacement costs due to normal wear & tear of deployment).
This one hit close to home! I am proud to say that both of my boys are U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) grads who worked for the Military Sealift Command (MSC). One is now working as a dynamic positioning officer for a separate company. I can tell you very few people appreciate the strategic value of USMMA.
Kings Point is such a beautiful place to go to school. More people should know about it.
A very challenging program from all I’ve ever heard!
United States Military Academy (better known as West Point)
I spent 3 years on a Navy ship, USS PYRO, AE-24.
All we did was underway replenishment at sea. Everything from Carriers, destroyers, cruisers. We have been doing this since WWII..
I like the sound of that. USS Pyro.
Sounds like an idea I would have had.
Isn’t he specifically talking about VLS cells in this video?
Yeah... you gave fuel and supplies and equipment... NOT VLS replacement rounds. Pay attention.
You saying that you resupplied VLS while under way?
@@nametag4277 Alone with his bare hands, probably
Great article Alex.
Greetings from your most reliable ally since WW2 down in Australia.
🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
Proud to be brothers with the lords of banter!
@@spurgear
World champion shit talkers and beer drinkers! lol
Good on ya mate. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
The land down under that out crazies florida. Strongest ally in the region
@@spurgear
Yes we could be considered world champions at sledging and beer drinking! lol
🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
@@randomuser5443
Bigger than Texas and crazier than Florida. These are trying and dangerous times, we need to stick together. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸
In a major conflict, it would be possible for the USN to need to use up most of its VLS in the theater on the first day. It would be thousands on the first day, then hundreds later.
Hopefully, the remaining targets are significantly reduced after the first day.
@@PDXdjn Yes, but the Day 1 problem still exists. A war with China will not be initiated by the US. So the load-out of ships will have to reflect a good deal of uncertainty in just what the war will be. Every tomahawk in a VLS cell is one less missile to protect the ship, battlegroup, or Taiwan. But every tomahawk used is a potential pier-side ship destroyed, or ammunition bunker obliterated, or fuelling depot crippled.
Its a question of how much of today gets sacrificed in the name of tomorrow. Quite literally.
The ignored issue is the CURRENT stockpile of and the CURRENT manufacturing capacity for said weapons.
@@dgthe3 actual VLS loadouts are secret, but I think it's about 75 percent defensive. The USN relies on airpower for offense.
Aussie Navy announced a large optionally crewed surface vessels (LOSVs) drone VLS ships (to be developed with the USN) and expanding the capability of it's ships.
These will be networked within the AEGIS ships weapons systems.
This future capability will be incorporated on a greater scale within the USN thus expanding its VLS count.
Difference between this and having the missiles in an escorting support ship is that the drone ships missiles are ready for instant action.
The problem of reloading spent missiles at sea has a long history, especially now we have a near peer aggressor in the far western Pacific, both these capabilities of reloading at sea and drone VLS ships are a definite force multipliers.
I wouldn't call the Chinese "near peer", but they def. are the greatest threat. Russia is a baby that Europe can easily handle. The Chinese have upped their military quite a bit that is true, at the cost of their voilatile economy though. Not to mention, their population crisis will cripple them for years to come. That being said, drone tech is def. the way to the future, that's for sure!
I really like the design of the VLS systems these ships have, even with the hassle of it. The reality is a ship even without VLS didn't have hundreds of missiles because their magazines only had a finite space, so one way or another you have the issue of a ship with a limited number of missiles. You have a lot more versatility with VLS.
I'm also not opposed to arsenal ships with hundreds of missiles on them. Make them semi-submersible so they're hard to hit. Maybe even double decker the missiles. I dunno.
Have them use mainly extra long-range missiles and keep them a couple hundred miles back behind the fleet from the enemy.
They would be used for static and slower targets. Anything where the clock is ticking and it needs to be destroyed NOW could be fired upon from traditional ships, closer to the fight.
@@protorhinocerator142 Arsenal ships would be better employed as moving, harder to destroy anti ballistic missile shields for say Guam or Hawaii. South Korea and Japan use their Aegis destroyers to provide the same protection. They are very close to China and Russia and North Korea so these are easier to target via land or sea or submarine. The US islands are much further away so these ballistic defense ship would be easier to protect. As for strike capability, I think the US Air Force bombers and convert transport with Rapid Dragon would be a better choice. Air launch long range strike missile benefit from release at higher altitudes so the expensive boosting of the into the air via rockets will not be needed. Just fly them up and carry them to a launch point via much more efficient air transports and release them. I'm sure the NAVY will hate this but having fighters from carriers provide support to Air Force bombers will be the best solution for stand off strikes against coast China and their ships inside the first island chain.
@@protorhinocerator142Make it fully submersible and you've got yourself an SSGN.
@@hailexiao2770 True but you don't need to submerge half a mile. Make it so it can submerge 20 feet. That's plenty.
@@protorhinocerator142 won’t that make those semi-submersible ships just as vulnerable as a surface ship without the capability to use surface-to-air missiles? Might as well commit to an SSGN since it’s more stealthier.
US Army Warrant Officers began on the water in the mine planting service , no surprise one became a marine engineer … btw “Sustainment is a Warfighting Function!”
Army veteran here. Awesome work once again Alex. You're vids are at the top of my list when I brew my coffee and sit down to get my morning started. Gonna miss your vids when you go in for eye surgery. But I will be wishing you the best when you go in. Hope all goes well and the doc's are able to restore your sight to the best it can be. Are yoiu using the VA medical system to get this done, or going through civilian docs? Probably doesn't make a difference. Just curious. My experience with VA docs has been hit and miss.
Good luck my friend and I'll be looking forward to the next vid when it drops!
Keep up the amazing work and Thank You for always making the things you cover easy to understand!!!
I was part of an ONR effort for a specialized crane that would stay stable during inclement weather. This was back in around 2015ish. This program came out of a need to preserve existing crane cabling, as sudden loads on cables while deploying CTDs drastically reduced cable life and risk cable snapping (which by this point, has already happened numerous times).
The end result pretty much kinked up and destroyed the cables though because there was no level-wind in the world that could keep up with the constant paying in and out of the cables.
Granted, the loads were for much smaller payloads than entire missiles. CTD’s aren’t nearly as large as an entire VLS canister; BUT CTDs require paying thousands of meters of cable so the CTD to approach the ocean floor.
As of me typing, such a crane still does not exist as the issues were never solved, and will unlikely will be solved in the foreseeable future. We tried for many years with lots of money trying to solve it, with many crane companies and really smart people to solve it; but could not. We’re limited to use of such cranes at calmer conditions (Beaufort sea state of 3 or less).
HOWEVER, VLS rearming uses far less cable than deploying CTDs at sea (like instead of a few thousand meters of cables payed out for CTDs, it’s more like a hundred at the most for surface-to-surface crane use).
That makes me extremely optimistic for TRAM, if they use similar technology as we tried to incorporate.
It doesn’t seem that hard to solve, but I don’t know what constraints you were dealing with. Is it an important problem?
@@jackthompson6296 Ya we didn’t think so either, but the ship moved so much relative to avg surface level even at sea-state of 1, that the winch was paying out and unpaying very rapidly, so much so that the winch cable got insanely kinked and tangled. The level-wind could not keep up. There’s no motor tech that can keep up that sort of speed and variability.
Instead of a magical crane, how about robot arms?
@@danielch6662: Cranes _are_ a type of robot arm.
@@dan725: Old-style tape drives used vacuum tech to help with their equivalent (the drums the tape was stored on were too high-mass for quick accelerations), but admittedly they still needed capstan motors that could go fast enough as well.
You mentioned the first ship to receive vls systems was a Ticonderoga class cruiser in 1996. When I got to uss Paul f foster dd964 in 1993 we had 8x8 vls system installed. Prior to my arrival, that ship used the vls system to launch tomahawk cruise missles during the first gulf war.
He said the first was in 1986.
Thank you
I was on FOSTER for her last 16 months until we decommed her. Retired YN/CTA1(SW).
Trying to keep up with the changes is difficult as well as being amazing. Old FTM2 here 1959 to 1967 Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam Veteran. My first fire control computer MK1A.
Took up half the compartment and was a mechanical computer, but we hit what we aimed at.
USS Eaton DDE-510
Harvey
Thank you for your service.
When I reported to USS FOSTER, we had two walls of empty racks in the space that had been replaced with two laptops.
Hey be happy missile are safer then other ideations ages past powder mags were the most dangerous thing on our ships and directed. Munitions one shot one kill vastly superior look at convenience and ease of decoy modules to confuse combvataants
Thanks Alex you get access to some really interesting weapons information from aircraft, army equipment, marine weapon systems and navy weapons. I built aircraft, weapons, parts, nasa rocket systems and systems to the Air Force from structural frame to inflight refueling . I’m retired now. But I still have never lost my interest to keep learning. I love the current access you get on the latest system. Everything in the military never stops evolving.
Great job.
Port Hueneme is pronounced Y-knee-me. I was a SQT Officer there in 1969. It was called Naval Ship Missile Systems Engineering Station aka NSMSES back then.
I always enjoy keeping up with what's going on with our military.
Thanks Alex
This sounds like a good reason to rethink the “arsenal ship” idea. Bigger ships make bigger targets, to be sure. But let’s be honest. The carrier is as big enough target as there is. Sailing an arsenal ship (or perhaps more than one) with a carrier strike group for both carrier defense and additional combat power makes a lot of sense to me.
As this new system comes to rearm at sea, arsenal ships could also be rearmed or be swapped out as necessary.
US Navy is already thinking about Arsenal ships but distributed. Think unmanned or optionally manned ships with VLS cells and a large open rear deck suitable for various task such as landing helicopter, VTOL, F35Bs, drones or mobile missile launchers. They can even have a rolling on/off cover so that you don't know what's underneath. I"'m sure RAS (refueling at sea) for drones is in development. These would have nearly limitless endurance provided they have fuel. Minor maintenance can be performed by roving techs. If major maintenance is needed, they can be sent back to friendly port.
Not needing to house crew would open up a lot of space for weapons that crewed ships can't use, so they wouldn't necessarily need to be bigger
I'd be more comfortable with new cruisers. Not because of any possible vulnerability & risking losing a big chunk of your battle groups VLS cells, but because 1 ship can only ever be in 1 place at 1 time.
Take the DDX hull, add a bit of length fore & some more aft (50-60 feet total) and just pack in dozens more missiles. 200 total feels like a good target number.
@@dgthe3 Understood. Thats why in my mind, you disperse the arsenal ships like the rest of the fleet. Some be part of the CBGs, others to trail cruiser, destroyers and frigates at a distance.
Still others spread out elsewhere. The idea is to continue to amass combat power, by any and all available means, preferably keeping them all in motion and slipping into and out of range.
Arsenal ships will be of equal value to a carrier and thus will require high amounts of defensive measures. This may eventuate into a dead end concept. How many 'too many eggs in one basket' concepts can be supported by the greater fleet? Success may be in distributed nodes rather than centralized masses. If the nodes are cheap enough - there will be a benefit when compared with 'support groups' for - not only the carriers, but for the arsenal ships.
It is not an easy balance to strike. Good luck with this from your neighbour to the north.
We appreciate your hard work putting out quality content!!
Seems to me that having these cells in a pre packaged block and craned into place would be much quicker without the need to have such small area to fit too.
3:22 to skip the ad
Thanks
Please cover The F-35B & F-35C Gun Pods! When/why they're deployed, how much would it adversely affect RCS, and are The Pods Stealthy/Low Observable themselves!?🙏👍
Your deep dives are always exceptional. The best!
I think the MOBILE answer would be a ship like the mobile theater/expeditionary sea base ships we are currently building. The ship would partially flood like a large hauler (the kind that haul smaller yachts) so the destroyer could sail into the ship from astern then sail out from the resupply ship's bow. The ship could then lock the destroyer in place so both ships moved in tandem with each other. Finally, overhead cranes would precisely position the reload over the VLS and a mount either placed on deck by the base/resupply ship, or built into the VLS, would precisely ratchet down the reload in the same way we haul down Helos to a pitching deck (RAST gear). The overhead gantry crane would provide more support to the reload than a boom jib crane would and give better stability with two widely spread cable rigs.
That's the first thought I had- a SOSO (Sail On Sail Off) solution that's mobile and versatile. I'd also look at replacing banks of cells as a package rather than reloading individual cells on the combatant. Pull the partially/fully expended bank, drop in a full bank, then let the SOSO reload the banks expended cells from their own stores as the combatant sails off into the fight again. Heck, a combatant could even call ahead for a customized load out based on current need.
Could you do a video about the future of Shorad?
Will short range air defense provided by the laser stryker? Will the Bradley replacement IFV XM30 function as an anti air cannon? Should the US look at the SkyRanger / Skynex / millenium gun system? And will there be a Stinger replacement with a better battery, targeting, and most importantly more affordable? Or is this affordable future the APKWS guidance upgrade for the cheap and plentiful Hydra 70mm rocket? Should we slap that on Avenger Hummvees? Or IRIS-T?
Red Sea combat has woke Navy up that short term combat planning is faulty.
Great analysis and coverage as usual! Thanks
I love this channel! I am so enjoying that you cover more than just air. I swear, I look forward to your videos on the Space Force.
If they put lidar and laser sensors on the bottom of each fresh tube they want to load, it can detect the sway in x y and z in relation to the ship next to it so that hydraulics on the boom arm holding the munition over the empty tube can adjust in real time and basically remove or compensate for any of the motion between the 2 vessels. That’s how I’d design a solution. Then you can just have dedicated reloading vessels. Maybe a good designation for those new navy ships that have no idea what to do with
More than x,y,z, I think roll, pitch, and yaw would make it very difficult to align things.
I'm no engineer but I think you'd have to anticipate the motion\wind which brings in many more variables.
@@hanrockabrand95 Yeah, the Dutch roll.
@@hanrockabrand95 exactly. Sorry, was typing at red lights. I’m terrible, I know
Besides the issue with reloading the magazines, the problem with limited missile supplies is perhaps more pertinent. For FY 2024 only 125 Standard missiles of all kinds and 108 ESSM were ordered for the year. That is pretty much the average yearly order. Considering the shelf life of a missile, it leaves only a limited number of missiles available to reequip the fleet once war begins. Though classified, it seems unlikely considering the high-tech components in these missiles, if it is possible to surge production anywhere near the levels needed in a near peer conflict. Also relevant is the fact that USN fleet units have very large missile magazines when compared with our allies. The British Type 45 destroyer, for example, has only 48 missile silos for its PAAMS air-defense system. There are few missiles available and new Aster missiles have taken 42 months from the placing of an order to delivery. The other remaining NATO allies are equally as limited. The countries that use US weapons will have to wait for US production to replenish their stock once the shooting starts.
Finally a comment that makes sense.
I'm willing to bet in a big scale shooting war after the first days or months, the use of older tech will be used more and more IE surface engagements that use torpedoes deck guns ect.
You can have all the best tech, but if you cant supply enough its pointless
Well, one solution would be to have large ‘super cartridges’ carrying say 16 cells,
The whole super cartridge would be unloaded to sea, which then independently motors a short distance over to the receiving ship, and then with robotic assistance slot into it.
That would require custom designed ships, build to accept these super cartridges.
They might for example ‘side-load’ into the ship or they could top-load. Either method would require robotic handling systems on the receiving ship, which might even be part of a still larger modular cartridge system - allowing that module to be swapped out, and replaced at a port for maintenance.
So modules of modules of modules.
Probably your ship should carry say 64 cells each, in 4 groups of 16-cell clusters.
The as sea loading system should be designed to work up to say sea state 6.
Great topic and video, Alex. Thanks.
Tell the Navy to try this: a Mobile Floating Drydock. Said ship parks somewhere, sinks down far enough to allow a DDG or CG to drive (or be pulled) into position, then the onboard crane system handles the job of reloading the VLS systems. Then the Dock ship floods it's compartments so the DD or CG can leave and the process is repeated for the next ship.
The USN had a big one: (Google) images for floating drydock / Ulithi / 1944.
From what I understood, the aim is to not stop anywhere in order to maximise the separation abilities should a ship being rearmed come under attack and to prevent them from becoming a sitting duck. The idea of parking anywhere seems to go against the nature of this change.
That said, I am not a navy man and my general understanding of bobbing up and down in the sea comes down to the idea that something has gone very wrong and I have very unhappily ejected over the water. It’s cold, it’s wet, it’s salty, and far more deadly than anything in the sky. I can appreciate walking along the beach front on a nice sunny day and that is enough sea for me. For this reason, if by “parking” you mean something other than static in the ocean, forgive my ignorance. I know nothing about mobile floating dry docks and if they could technically do all of these things whilst actually on the move.
Too slow. The drydocks cannot easily reposition themselves. They are effectively immobile on a stragetic level
A stationary ship can be targeted with satelite data only, something thats quite easy to do. A moving ship requires initial recon with a satelite followed by additional tracking with an airborne asset which is a lot harder - giving the ship better chance of survival within an area of operation.
It seems to me that all of the issues to using this idea boil down to POWER. How long does it take to pump the water out? Are you holding in one place ore moving fast enough to make targeting difficult? How long does it take to extract empties and insert the desired canisters? How fast is the dry dock going to go between fill-ups? etc.
Glad I refreshed my youtube feed just in time! Another great video Alex!
It could have been catastrophic if you didn't
Great informative & interesting video Alex!
Nice update. Enjoyed this one. Stay positive about your eye. Attitude makes all the difference.
This is hands down the best channel on TH-cam!
This brings back consideration for the "magazine ship" a ship that can fire those weapons. Favorite idea, force multipliers.
Yes, a ship that carries missiles for other ships HAS to be well protected, and it can't protect itself alone. You'd have to have underwater support and air support as much as possible to go with it and there aren't many places in the world that would want a magazine ship to pull into their ports.
@@johndoh5182Not an arsenal ship... a magazine ship. Instead of a manned reloader ship, people have been talking about an unmanned missile launching ship that can hold way more missiles since it won't need to house a crew. Which is a fabulous idea until Hal9000 or Korean hackers take it over electronically... then it will seem like just the worst idea... a drone with thousands of long-range missiles - what could go wrong?
@@GizzyDillespee A support ship hauling missiles isn't really the problem. Getting them from that vessel onto a warship, is.
Great job Alex! You and Ward Carroll are two of my favorite sources for in depth intel on important topics.
Alex, you and your channel are the best. Thank you, Greg Hames
The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs.
Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.
You're determinized, I'll give you that. Also might want to update your copy pasta because they "just" chose those finalists nearly a year ago.
@@MrSJPowell i mean i could, but we could also use it as a timescale to when the video finally comes out...
A video about the X65 and active flow control would be cool.
I really want to know more about active flow control.
Really enjoy your videos.They're very thorough easy to understand logical.And I hope the surgery goes well
Kinetic diplomacy. Love it.
Always good stuff. Thanks
1. they're not "bumpers", they're fenders.
2. the commercial vessel also came equipped with a bloody great zero speed stabliser, making her effectively a stationary object, when compared to the naval vessels she was working with.
3. Go out and look at the nearest coastal anchorage you can find. You see the waves? Now add tidal motion, and wind effect. It doesn't matter how sheltered the anchorage is, these factors will always exist in deep water ports. There is nowhere in the world, that a navy "frigate" or "cruiser" could access that would be calm enough to get that system to work. (I put the classes in "," as they bear no resemblance to their namesakes, and draw far more water, and are far longer.)
4. "State 5 results from a strong breeze (up to 27 knots) and large waves (up to 20', but half that height on Sea State 1 Conditions average) start forming, many with white foam crests."
The bumpers protect the walls of the ship. 🙂
I would argue that you need a lot more sea experience and materials handling as well. We were doing crap like this back in the 90’s under much worse conditions. Why do people look for difficult solutions to relatively simple problems. Build the head of the lifting boom correctly and it’s not a big problem.
"I'd probably argue that VLS was a nice idea, but they forgot to include a magazine system to reload them."
I was just thinking this. I'm surprised there isn't a faster way to eject the spent cells (perhaps some sort of elevator beneath) that could also facilitate faster reloading.
Bring back the Iowa's.
yeah i can tell u read one book about a ww2 battleship and based your entire naval idea of strategy on outdated technology from 70 years ago…but I’m sure the people that study this for a living don’t know as much as you :)
Thanks so very much for your dedication to us and good wishes to you and your family
Very good video. All of yours are very good, Alex. Thank you.
Not creating an arsenal ship with like 500 or more VLS was a massive mistake. would be cheap, literally just a fast barge that could accompany groups of destroyers/carrier groups in war time..
Could call it the Evans-class Surface Arsenal Ship. First ship would be the USS Evans after Cmdr EE Evans. That dude was a legend!
I think all of that is being reconsidered. All the targeting provided by the Aegis ships and barges full of VLS cells. The Air Force wants to fill cargo aircraft with missiles and bombs. Things are changing rapidly.
How exactly do you plan on arming more than 3 or 4 with 500 missile each ? No one can arm large numbers of ships with that many missiles along with other ships
@@kameronjones7139 I wouldn't put 500 on a ship for fear of losing it. I would use a lot of smaller ships with deck stowed VLS, maybe in containers.and distribute them.
There wasn't (isn't) an infinite number of reloads of anything. Back when I was in half the missiles the Navy owned were aboard ship somewhere.
@@donaldg.freeman2804 exactly to many missiles one one ship can be a really bad situation
The USN is in a hybrid situation the RN faced in 1910's and late 1930's and early 1940's.
Overstretched in every single theatre, unable to concentrate forces, unable to defend each theatre without sacrificing another, and in a technological as well as numerical naval arms race. The USN cannot concentrate enough forces to match the PLAN without withdrawing from European waters and South American water in order to concentrate on the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Hormuz, Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans.
And yet people keep voting for the politicians that want to keep cutting taxes, which comes at the expense of the military budget.
Yes it's correct that the USN or to say this more correctly, the US military can no longer meet a mission goal it had decades ago which was to be able to fight and win wars in 2 theaters. It then dropped to winning in one theater and sustain another theater. My assumption would be with the growth of the Chinese military it can no longer do that, but ONLY because of the growth of the Chinese military, not because of Russia which has shown itself to be a dud.
Having said that, both Russia and China are near bankruptcy. For China in particular their regional govts. ARE bankrupt for the most part whether they say they are or not. Many of their BANKS are also bankrupt, most their real estate companies are bankrupt. Their central govt. has SAID they will use QE to deal with the issue of the local govts. along with finishing housing, where you have a few million people/families that have bought housing that's not finished, but the real estate companies have no money nor do the construction companies that were supposed to do the work.
The CCP is going to have to put at a MINIMUM of a couple trillion USD, not Yuan, USD into QE and if they don't they're facing a hostile population.
In other words, people think China is much more of a threat than they really are. The CCP is hated across the country for the economic disaster people are facing now. I mean the ONLY reason citizens put up with a govt. that greatly restricts their rights is the promise of economic stability and growth. The US military in general could EASILY take on the Chinese military where most of the members would lack the motivation to fight, considering they hate their govt. And yes, it's hate, not just a minor disliking. You have SOME citizens that will thump their chests about how great the CCP and China is, but that's not most citizens. Most citizens dislike the govt., and others hate it.
So, without China being a threat, the US military is still in the position to where they could fight in one theater to a victory and sustain another one.
It's almost like we should mind our own business and these wouldn't be problems in the first place.
Found the chinese shill.
@@ianduffy5176 huh?
What's wrong, butthurt about the other comment?
Great review - interesting and informative without being boring. At sea replenishment is challenging in the extreme - truly calm seas are rare so solving this challenge is going to be tough.
A great video, keep it up!
I just learned so much! Great job Alex!
The amount of “blind spots” in the left leaning media is staggering
Agreed. What they do not report can have negative consequences on the public.
Sir, Thank you for the informative and thought-provoking presentation.
Excellent analysis! Thanks
Love your videos you do man always nice to get enlightened with some knowledge always a great day when you drop a video
A great video as usual, thanks.
@19:27... "Bumpers???" 😄🤔 Tell me you aren't a boatman without telling me you aren't a boatman....lol. They're called FENDERS. 🤭
Thank you. Great vid.
The brainiac that thought to remove the reload crane from the ships...Fired!
The Naval Engineers who agreed to a limited magazine unreloadable at sea...FIRED!
Loved it, great analysis, hope the surgery goes well.
Thanks!
Great stuff! It's easy to think about the small-scale engagement where resupply would not necessarily be an issue --but on a large scale Big problems. It's not like the old days when you could transfer some shells, powder, fuel/food, and, er, the latest magazines while tooling alongside a supply ship just outside the battle space. You can get anything you want from those beautiful supply ships except missile canister. Really interesting topic/problem.
We thank you Alex🇺🇸 and it always good to see one of your excellent videos....
If there is a better vlog than this, I haven't ever seen it. Great job and good luck on youreye surgery!
Thank you for addressing this very real logistical issue facing our military., my friend. It us greatly appreciated.
May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed weekend, my friend.
👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸👍🏻
There's one other problem he didn't mention though... How many missiles do we have? The numbers differ for each type, but none of them are more than a few thousand, and if we're burning through 300+ per day those stocks aren't going to last very long.
Great video! Definitely a huge logistics problem that must be addressed.
I absolutely love this channel ❤️...RockOn
I hope all goes well with your eye surgery! We love your content, so I know I speak for everyone here that your health is the no. 1 priority, so do take good care of yourself, and we’ll be calling you Alex “Eagle Eyes” Hollings pretty soon!
Great episode!
Without question the best site for this subject matter.
Good to see they're working on this.
Gotta give you credit great video and topic
Sea power just drops different. Love it.
Great vid Alex
Philippines is God sent for the navy. Batanes was just recently added as a port and Santa Fe at the tip of Luzon is a naval base. You also have Lolilo airport nearby can accommodate heavy transports so there’s a slew of options. Besides Subic, Sangley, Cebu. There’s plenty to go to during the war. The whole Philippines will be open for use when war breaks out.
Thanks
Great Job Alex.
Great comprehensive video as always. Chapters would be appreciated 👍
Solid piece & best wishes on your surgery Alex
Nice introduction about re- arming (Magiual units)providing solutions for beggest warship reaming systems during wartime
Right on! It is about time 👍🏻
Fenders Alex,, Fenders!!
Have a great weekend,, and thanks for the content. I just forwarded it to a friend who's son serves aboard one of these destroyers.
My best to you and thanks again.
Very nice report.
Cool stuff
So Wise , Thank You. We Must remember that there is No single ship or strategy that can do Every thing . As an example an Aircraft Carrier with No planes in the air is Almost completley helpless. Put the planes in the air with proper support , training and resupply Almost invinsebal, and can hit almost Any target at least 1000 miles away. Everything MUST work together , Must be Repairable , and Reloadable
I usually say this on all of your videos, but I love this channel. Thank you.
Another interesting and informative video .
Great Video & Content - GWS ;-)
Great episode, Alex. The TRAM system really does sound like a game changer. I worked on installing the tactical VLS on Australia's (John Perry) FFG Class in the mid-2,000s and always wondered about combat endurance.
Great, now I am waiting for the GroundPower in the next few episodes.
So glad your surgery is scheduled. I'll be praying for you.
Love your videos
I spent three years on the USS McKee a submarine tender back in the 90s. We could do anything that a submarine needed in calm waters. At a port or at anchor. We also had destroyer tender that had the same ability. Both had cranes built into the ships. They couldn’t do weapons moves under but in a port or a bay that had calm waters they could. We no longer have any in the Navy.
It's disturbing to learn how many of our military systems are optimized for peacetime operation. I'm really glad that smart people are working on this logistical hurdle, there is likely going to be a large naval component to the next larger conflict.