Why it is Illegal to Retire This Ship
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Get your Manta Sleep mask here: tinyurl.com/9jze29bu
They are 100% blackout, comfortable, breathable, and come with lots of accessories!
0:00 Why US Navy wants to decommission cruiser, USS Vicksburg?
1:59 What was US Navy's cruiser modernization program?
3:58 Manta Sleep
5:12 Why USS Vicksburg would never be deployed again
7:36 What is the view of US Congress about the cruiser modernization program
11:34 What went wrong during US Navy's cruiser modernization program?
13:07 Why cruisers and LCS are not lethal to fight China or Russia
15:01 What is the US Navy replacing its old cruisers with?
16:42 What is going to happen to the US Navy cruisers?
Why the US Navy spent billions of dollars on old Cruisers, and then tried to get rid of them, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
MusicJust the Right Amount - Arthur Benson
Leaps - Jay Varton
3 AM - Lennon Hutton
Mortal Blow - Dream Cave
I Think I Was There
Heros Hand 5 - August Wilhelmsson
Danger Sun - Max Anson
Into Hiding - Marten Moses
Serious Development - Blackout Memories
Fuzzy Logic - Nihoni
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock
BAE
HII
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Select References:
crsreports.congress.gov/produ...
Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans crsreports.congress.gov/produ...
www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Portals...
www.navalnews.com/naval-news/...
www.navytimes.com/news/your-n...
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...
sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL326...
dsm.forecastinternational.com...
cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/...
Get your Manta Sleep mask here: tinyurl.com/9jze29bu
They are 100% blackout, comfortable, breathable, and come with lots of accessories!
I truly love your work and dedication for the channel, i absolutely love your content and the way you present it, I only wish you'd get more free time to be able to make even more videos, your work is truly admired Sir 🫡
The Bluetooth thing isn't a great fit for me, but otherwise, I'll probably try this out.
Thank you for great information on the upgrades 😊 will use me as an example
I bought a 1978 Backhoe 😊 my baby
I also bought a 1971 SeaGrave Fire 🚒
I knew what I was getting into before hand
Would I put them out in use today in each of their respective work fields, absolutely NOT. Have put more money into my baby restoration toys, than what I paid for them
At time of purchase. The backhoe I saw was the problem at the time of purchase.
The Fire Engine. I did Not see or could tell the Transmission problems, Major cost more than purchase. when out driving once with me blocking traffic, twice Towed back to my house. Just like the
( Freedom class in shore frigate) In my Humble opinion I am very angry at the Navy for that hull build, ( Jet drives) what was the US Navy thinking. My gosh did the Navy NOT learn from the Vietnam Brown water Navy. The PBRs had more Issues than the SWIFTs, The US Navy needs to look hard at what the British built in the Frigate size in shore coastal patrolling. If Aluminum cracks Are the problem, then go back to a Steel hull Steel superstructure, my gosh the Navy built two water jet drive light Wt. Hull inshore coastal fighter ships, that have been nothing but trouble for the Navy.
Instead of letting other countries embezzle billions from US taxpayers. Let's keep the money local so the taxpayers can see who are just as corrupt in the US. We already know by what stocks Congress, Senators play in the market to enrich themselves. Since for some crazy reason they are the best at market playing. Like stock for Nextel chips.
No need for expensive Manta Sleep masks. One can also use a rubber mallet. For some proper sleepage, firmly apply rubber mallet to cranium. Repeat as often as necessary. 🤪
The ship hull number is 69, that's why the congress refuses to retire it
Nice
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Congress thinks it is reaallll nice lol
ofc
Nice
Basically the US Navy didn't check the state of the ships before starting the modernisation programme. When they started repairing them they realised it's not worth it.
That's exactly the crux of the problems. Most of the time they always have dumb ideas to waste money on and refused to take responsibility after it. Money which can be used to build a new ships instead of giving it as free payday for corporate rats. Corruption.
Rule #1 of modernization : check on the conditions of the ships before beginning modernization. US Navy for the sake of money ignored that. smh
They did, it is called in the INSURV (The Board of Inspection and Survey).
@@petershen6924 Interesting to know. I did not know that. everything to save money ig is why they're retiring them.....
@@DV1287 But I also hate to say that Navy leadership gamed the system to make their ships look better during INSURV, because INSURV results go into the Fitness Reports of officers.
I did not expect to watch a video about a cruiser and see my old ship, USS El Paso, sitting waiting to be scrapped, but there she was at 1:47 and, I gotta say, it gave me a lump in my throat to know she was gone now. The first ship you serve on will always have a special place in the heart of a sailor.
Rip El Paso. She sails the ghostly globe now, forever at peace.
@@angryeliteultragree6329 She' scrapped out in Brownsville Damn shame. I was on her from 89-92.
@@freeze691 thanks for keeping the oceans safe sir. Hopefully didn’t get the hot seat.
I empathise with that. I recently was in the same scenario with HMAS Sirius and it was scrapped a few years ago. I did a random google just to check up on it and there was a picture of it during scrapping phase. She was not my first ship but she was lovely.
@@angryeliteultragree6329 I enjoyed the ride. Compared to my first ship, the El Paso was a Cadillac. Very comfortable ship. And it was mostly peacetime.
0:16 He really thought he could hide Borat
I didnt see it
Nvm i saw it
not what you think
Very nice
@@marvins7271 True
While the sensors on Tico's are far inferior to those on any Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the navy built in the capability decades ago for Arleigh Burke to fire missle and provide targeting info to other ships VLS systems. While Tico would have a hard time on its own, in a fleet with other DDGs they do act to provide additional vls capability. Thats part of the reason why you will never see a Tico deploy by its self these days
Yup. Cooperative Engagement.
For that matter, the Navy could turn the Ticos into arsenal ships. Arleigh Burkes can use their cells and they could conceivably remove some of the radar equipment and reduce the crew.
And Ticos have accommodations for Flagship duties. Unless we copy the Japanese and modify the Burkes that way, we will loose that capability with the last Tico.
@wilsonle61 I've heard the Flight 3's will take over that duty and apparently have more space that the ticos for that role
So the Chinese would only have to concentrate their fire on taking out the Arleigh's to nullify the Tico's effectiveness.
Congress is so concerned about the number of VLS cells potentially being retired, but has been refusing to fund arsenal ships since the late 90's, only one of which (depending on hull size and missile type) could potentially replace 2/3rds of the "lost VLS capacity" by itself. A second would give an extra 100--200 cells, and a third would mean the navy now has potentially 700 new VLS cells, plus the original capacity.
If they hadn't wasted their time on LCS and Zumwalt , the arsenal ships would have been online around the same time as the cruisers were being stepped down.
the number ship more inportant, what ships they are? any old war ship more sturdy, than civilian ships, and when bombs being chucked around, most older war ship still think heavy steal plating, the new one more large super sailing yacht, all fancy alloys carbinfiber etc. imposable fix in the field, so any small damage will fatual loss of the ship?
One shouldnt put all eggs in one basket though.
Well, one of the reasons why they didn't roll out arsenal ships then was that, well, you're stuffing an enormous amount of ordinance onto just a slow single purpose boat, few personnel to service the weapons and to navigate. Seems like either a terrible loss of a stock of weapons or awful accidental tragedy waiting to happen with all that explosives allocated into one platform that would've had rather meager defenses and it'd only take a missle or round to set off the whole thing. Even if such a platform didn't just scream "hit me" with cannons and missiles as a juicy target to get the coolest light show, if it got hijacked since it has limited personnel, you just lost valuable weapons and critical technologies to the enemy as well as now have your own weapons and systems to be used against you. This is why it was all around better with an actual warship in either cruiser or destroy maybe even frigate that had much better well rounded defense in addition to offense and picketing, A2AD, AWS, etc. but I digress.
Arsenal ships don't replace warships, they will need escorts or only be operated in completely secure waters. Essentially the Ticos and the Arleigh Burkes ARE arsenal ships that carry their own defences and sensors...
I don't imagine this is corruption. I play ultimate admiral dreadnoughts and I get into this exact situation often:
-have biggest fleet to fight war
-war ends, stop building ships
-tensions rise decade later, build a few advanced ships while scrapping older ones
-find out old ships are basically fishing boats compared to latest enemy tech
-panic
-scrap a bunch of old ships and try to build as many new ships as I can afford to fight new foe
Maybe we're screwed
This is why I regularly replace ships and refit old ones. I have BBs from 1911 operating just fine in 1934 right now because they've received 5 refits across their lifetime keeping their systems up to date. I only recently retired my oldest Super Dreadnoughts (introduced in 1909) to keep the number of BBs down to allow tonnage for new ships.
As for DDs I typically try to replace them once you can get a new DD hull decently sized. My DD fleet currently consists mostly of Flush Deck Destroyers. They're honestly rather young ships for my fleet, being introduced in 1926. They replaced nearly 70 destroyers of an older type introduced around the same time I introduced my second class of BCs, in 1914. They received a refit to reduce roll in 1932, the first ever DD refit I've done.
As for CAs and CLs, I built new versions of both until I unlocked the Scout Cruiser and Modern CA hulls. Then I built many of those, scrapped the old ones, and now keep those refitted to modern standards.
Most of my Capital Ships were introduced in the 1910s, and still are more capable than the AIs modern ships.
If you want to keep a strong fleet, keep up a Shipbuilding program post-war. Maybe not large capital ships as much, but certainly your DDs and Cruisers. Occasionally build a new BB or BC class, but not many. Refit the old ones every few years or so. Try and stay out of conflict as much as you can to get refits done, even if you have to concede prestige and funds.
I'd suggest overhauling every pre-radar vessel you have to get Radar once you research it. It'll save your life in quite a few engagements.
I tend to build less capable, but modern "Cheap" ships constantly, and aim to build a few very capable modern ships intermittently, while refitting the oldest ships in my fleets in batches, scrapping them once they've been completely rendered obsolete. I've had Battleships built in the 1910's last clear into the early to mid 1930's before finally being retired. It's the same way when I play RTW3
I don’t seem to have this issue even though I operate modernized ships from 1908 in 1948. If you refit them every 5-10 years and it’s not that big of a problem.
Don’t worry.The PRC has more corruption.
I even had this problem in stellaris
-finish war
-scrap old ships because peace time and I can build better ship
-New enemy appears
-realises scrapping those ships were a mistake as I do not have the ships required to win
-frantically builds 3 new fleets to help expand the navy
There's an interesting photo of the USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS Vicksburg (CG-69), and the USS Milius (DDG-69) all sailing together in formation in the Persian Gulf to support freedom of navigation/maritime security.
Edit: This channel did a video on it too, check it out below if you are interested.
-Isn't the Eisenhower nicknamed "the big stick?" Or am I mistaking it with another Carrier?-
"Walk softly and carry a big stick." -Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (Carrier is CVN-71)
Would've been perfect if she was CVN-69 but you can't have everything in life lol.
yeah we made a video on that back in a day czcams.com/users/shortsDH5iDVlLfO0
@@navb0tactual Eisenhower goes by the "Mighty Ike" or just "Ike." It's also the the only carrier with it's nicknamed affixed to it on it's tower. Maybe the Roosevelt goes the "the Big Stick" but I wouldn't know cause I never served on that one.
@@NotWhatYouThink You know it's very possible that's how I came across that knowledge cause I have no idea how I just knew that lol.
@@navb0tactualUSS Theodore Roosevelt, CVN-71 is the 'Big Stick'.
For upgrading ships/cars/houses, there is a lot of incentive to underestimate the cost based on assumptions on things you can't readily inspect. A mechanic could tell you a price to repair your car to get your business but then, once the car in in pieces, they tell you they found some other pieces they need to repair. ... or maybe a rocket (cough-cough) SLS (cough-cough).
A good mechanic will tell you this ahead of time. Source - I'm a good mechanic.
Most the times the mechanic does not know how to find out problems with a car in the first place by symptoms that the car presents. Thats where school mechanics differ from in the field mechanics. Thats why cars constantly have to keep going back because misdiagnosed problems which some already figured out.
Smart people that know how to do things look at things in the whole of what all could go wrong and then using proper info, sort though what it can't be and go with what might be and base off of that. That how successful business' works when they know what they are doing. Navy messed up bad with the assumption, The cruisers are still very useful even if they don't have newest radar, they work as part of a unit. Instead the Navy wants stand alone ships.
That's a great way, to not get repeat business from that customer.
But then again, it depends on your business type and business model, if you worry about that sort of thing.
With big government contracts though. That's not that big a deal.
To few competitors, along with special interests.
A company can be to big to fail.
@@TheJuggtron Yes, but a "bad" one won't and even if they did tell the Navy that, the Navy did not have anything to gain by telling Congress that.
@@silentferret1049 I am an engineer and I was on a project once where I did full disclosure to my boss (manger) but he decided not to communicate that when he solicited approval for the project as he felt it would complicate the approval process and we could deal with that if the project got approved. Have you heard of the sunk-cost fallacy?
It also doesn’t help that all branches of the military are having a recruitment deficit.
Very good point. I think this a legit question - If we had more ships would we have enough sailors for them. My friend’s son is on hold for Navy tech school because they don’t have enough instructors. Lack of people is getting to be a real problem.
Going woke didn't help at all making the recruitment problems all that much worse.
@@MrKillswitch88 Going woke didn't cause any problems. Nice try righty. It was Republicans not allowing veterans to get healthcare for the health issues created from the fire pits in Afghanistan and Iraq, not getting healthcare for hearing loss. Some veterans lost a leg and chose to stay but after a tour, when they started to feel that they can't do the job anymore, couldn't retire anymore because "they proven they weren't disabled". The VA funding getting cut is another issue. The salaries are low. Pal, the military has to step up. Also, if you're good at something and you don't want to go into "leadership positions" (NCOs) you can only stay for 8 years. There's all sorts of bs like that that happened. Parents and veterans DON'T want to encourage people to join the armed forces.
I think the Marines are fine. Still, they are the Marines. You can't rely on them to do everything.
@@MrKillswitch88🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ first off you clearly don’t understand what woke means. Secondly, recruiting deficits have nothing to do with some and have been an issue long before woke was a thing
Technological advantages can compensate for lack of numbers. But it's a diminishing return rate. And you can ask Germany how having better vs having more works in war
Or as Uncle Joe Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own!"
Ship-building, aircraft, and other weapons system manufacturers get away with /Way/ too much. These companies should be held accountable for cost overruns and missed schedules for the programs they tell the govt they can complete in x amount of time for x amount of money. And top brass in the military should be held accountable for failures to adequately manage funds for their services and prevent this kind of wasteful spending on things.
I sometimes wonder if defense contractors "low-ball" a price for a contract simply to get the contract, then "discover" items which should have been included in the original estimate!
It's not their fault entirely, Biden incompetents also hinders the program and choices made at the last minute aren't helping either. China builds quantity over probably quality so is it really a rush?
One of the problems with such projects is that many issues can only be detected once the ship is already in drydock and being taken apart, at which point the contract will have already been signed, so you cannot completely remove the problem. In the case mentioned in the video the top brass tried to avoid the waste of funds but were prevented from doing so.
@@blacktemplar2323Yea, in the case in this video it's Congress that is grappling with the sunk-costs fallacy. They don't want ro give it up because of how much has already been spent on it but it's a waste because even when theyre completed we're not going to get our monies worth of usefulness out of them before they're retired.
The issue isn’t entirely the companies, but the nature of designing for the future. They rely on technology that is in development to create weapons systems. You can’t fight future wars with today’s technology. And sometimes we see that technology is obsolete before it even exists, such as the performance of tanks in Ukraine and the future of heavy armor. It’s expensive to change technology and redesign platforms. Projects are canceled, renewed and redesigned all the time because we can’t know for sure what will be the golden weapon. We can only throw a lot of money and see what sticks.
Just toured New Jersey in drydock today. Yeah she's 80, but she only had 21 years of non consecutive active service and was CONSTANTLY maintained during her service. She's in far better condition than probably all the Tico's and most of the older Burkes.
The New Jersey could probably sail and conduct operations again with a significant, but probably less than year-long yard period. That being said she would be nothing but a giant target for modern anti-ship missile systems, and even the massive BBs can't compete with the over the horizon capabilities of the Burkes - even if by the size and strength of the BBs the Burkes are throwaway ships in comparison, they are far more capable when it comes to anything but coastal artillery bombardment.
21 years is a very long time for a boiler to go unused, especially. A boiler has to be kept at a consistent temperature and humidity during layup to prevent any corrosion, and I doubt the New Jersey has seen any of that during her time as a museum ship. It would be a massive amount of work to bring the plant back up to operating condition, but it could be done, and I'd hate to see the scenario under which it would be necessary to bring a BB out of retirement in 202x
My chief served on Missouri as a junior sailor. He said that the Iowa class ships couldn't be built again. No one is capable of doing that level of work. The technology is lost.
@@wysoft All internals are covered in a protective compound and the funnels are capped off to prevent rain from going down into the machinery, ready for the navy to call them back in an emergency, in fact, the Iowa, Jersey and missouri are kept this way.
@@wysoft, and you don't think Carriers are not big unprotected targets?
As the saying goes, "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-If the warship isn't deployable, then it is useless. Spending money on a useless ship does not make financial sense. It is unfortunate that so much money was put into these ships, but do not compound the expense by continuing to pour money into an open well that will never be filled. Cut the loses so they no longer siphon money from the budget. The politicians who are saying, (in effect) "These boats in the drydock still have weapons that can be added to the number of weapons in the USN." those politicians are obviously too stupid to understand that weapons that cannot be used in a fight cannot be counted as weapons.
It's my impression most of Congress do not understand the concept of "sunk costs." Of course, they also are more concerned about maintaining support with their constituents (businesses) than doing the right thing, so there's that, too.
Politicians can't admit when they are wrong.
My politicalese to English translator came back with 'Maybe they are trying to say save them for spare parts'
Beats me. I don't think even our politicians know what they are saying anymore.
Aluminum superstructures are light compared to steel. But they crack! Also in a fire aluminum warps and melts. Which is bad for damage control and later repairs. In a war this is critical
The Brits discovered this the hard way, earning much of the experience that made the AB such a good "destroyer" (its really a big light cruiser at this point)
@@TheJuggtron … the title Frigate and Destroyer are interchangeable now. Almost no navy calls it ships Cruisers anymore
Plus galvanic corrosion is a thing, so where ever the aluminum superstructure meets the steel deck and hull will be extremely prone to corrosion and require a lot of preservation work. This problem lead to a good number of littoral combat ships having their propulsion shafts rust and become useless because the shafts were steel and the hull was aluminum.
The only true positive of the aluminium naval boats were the cheaper costs which, weren't actually that much cheaper and only works out if you didn't have to spend more later on in upkeep and maintenance thus, it only works in peacetime anyways. In war time, nothing navigates the hazardous depths of politics in a politician like aluminium naval boats getting shoved up your ass from an angry public with pitchforks and torches...in terms of invasion, penetration and ambushing someone's "sovereign land" "destroying their defenses" and "collapsing their superstructure" and "deep seated unforgivable violation", Pearl Harbor doesn't even compare but I digress.
@AM-dc7pv another positive to aluminium superstructure is weight, allowing more top heavy systems to be fitted
The fault for this has to be on the survey teams. They should have been a third party inspection and not contactor.
It's like getting a second opinion before surgery or buying a house.
Key hete os to make every ship deployed lethal and effective.
The Navy provides the scope of repair and modernization and the contractor estimates that scope, nothing more, nothing less. The process needs changing, but the blame does not lie with the contractor.
Out in the fleet we see this kind of stupidity on almost a daily basis. I never really understood just how bad it was until I got shore tour in DC. I used to drive home at night praying that Ivan was as screwed up as we were. It’s scary.
I feel that. Did 4 years as a nuclear machinist mate on 77. I remember NR coming onboard and throwing fit over the state of our bilges even though it was clear we lacked the resources to properly clean, preserve and maintain them at the time.
Have you not seen the condition of Ivan's fleet? they have a piece of floating refuse that they are trying to pass offf as a carrier and not much else.
Turns out that they were even more screwed up than we are.
That was excellent. Had the details, had the video quotes. Interesting subject.
From my experience of serving in the military. War fighting capability and efficiency isn’t the priority, but contracts to the military industrial complex is. The military is all about making them $$$$’s. By the end of my career, it seemed like industry was telling the military what to do. I can’t think of any other sector where the client gets bullied by who the service provider they’re paying. It didn’t help when high ranking O’s would leave the military on the Friday and then end up employed by industry, in a consultant or upper management role on the Monday.
I can. Lawyers. They frequently bully, bluster, make promises they know they can't keep, and so on.
the answer to this issue is more education, and also more programs and meetings, and when there are too many meetings, have more meetings about having too many meetings.
I was a submariner. I could look at navy aviation and understand their decisions. Not so with the surface warfare community. They wasted hundred of billions on the useless LCS programs. When they needed an actual warship to replace their frigates
Independence, Freedom, Zumwalt - the Lost Decade(s?) of USN procurement.
... no it's Congress that's the problem, not the USN. Actually, look up USN's history, and you'll see that the USN's relationship with Congress is too similar to an abusive relationship.
The LCS program made sense on paper for maybe a couple of years during the 90s after the collapse of the USSR, where the Navy faced the possibility of peacetime mission overlap with the Coast Guard - and the LCS ships probably would have made great Coast Guard cutter designs. By the time they were actually built and commissioned, the threat of China had become very real, nobody wanted to admit to the compromises and engineering failures that had taken place, and not even the Coast Guard wanted the entertain the idea of taking them on. A waste indeed
@@wysoft the LCS program is what happens when you skimp out on RnD for a decade. The USN wanted a new frigate design to replace the OHPs that were incredibly badly aged by the '90s.
The problem was that Congress was intensifying the abusive relationship it had on, so they made it impossible for the USN to get their new FFGs. Enter the LCS program, which combined the FFG with 'green water' (littoral) combat craft (something that the USN was _REALLY_ hurting for). However, like the Kriegsmarine before WW2, even a decade of wallowing has incredibly detrimental effects on institutional knowledge.
So, LCS turned into a mess thanks to that.
@notwhatyouthink, The USN has been using steel hull and aluminum superstructures since the 1950s. The reason the Arleigh Burkes used steel was more than a way of fixing joint leaks. The DDG37 and DDG2 ships suffered from joint leaks as well. When the USS Belknap collided with the USS Kennedy the entire super structure caught on fire and melted. Going back to steel was a way to avoid this problem in the future. The LCS ships got away from this in a very big way. Toss out lessons learned for the sake of saving a few bucks.
"The two happiest days of a captains life are the day he buys a ship and the day he sells it."
I understand why Congress and the Navy have their disagreement. Congress wants to preserve combat power and jobs while the Navy wants the latest and greatest even if short term capacity is sacrificed.
It's a catch 22 where neither option is clearly better but inaction is unacceptable.
A navy that thinks of having ships as bothersome is in deep trouble
Nope, Congress has always been the asshole of the two. USN's history is basically one giant line of 'Congress yoinks the USN's budget and forces it to play with less'.
You claim the U.S. Navy wants "... the latest and greatest even if short term capacity is sacrificed."
Well the pnetagon and Navy "leadership apparently thinks "short term" is something like FORTY YEARS....
AND they never will get back to a real fleet if they keep ignoring infrastructure.
We need at LEAST double the number of ship building docks and dry docks if they want to MAINTAIN current structure levels.
SOMEONE in "leadership" has pie-in-the-eye delusions.
I agree, apart from the "preserve combat power".
It sounds like the combat power is mostly on paper. At least according to the Navy.
As I understand the video.
The maintenence required, leaves these ships more often then not, out of action, even on deployment.
Not to mention the time spent in dry dock for the upgrades.
Then there's the radars not being able to spot newest adversary missiles.
Though, It might be possible, that the VLS munitions can be handed off to another ships Radar/Fire Control System, idk.
Or that these ships VLS only be loaded with offensive munitions, and other ships in the group, carry extra AA munitions, again idk, I'm not a sailor.
Sometimes it's better to cut your losses, rather then throwing good money after bad. To me it sounds like, that is what the Navy is trying to do here.
Personally I see big problems with the way this sort of thing is handled in the US.
Politicians should decide what kind of tasks the armed forces should be able to handle (Set a direction), set funding, and provide oversight.
Deciding on what materiel and capabilities of said materiel, should be left to the professionals.
Especially, because having the right combination of equipment, doctrine and tactics is a force multiplier, while lacking one piece of that puzzle can make everything useless.
To often, military contracts on say a vehicle, are awarded based on, in which area/state jobs are created. Rather then the price, and needed capability of such a vehicle.
Politicians re-election, is put above how well said equipment, can solve the stated mission.
This compromises military readiness, erodes public trust, and wastes money.
@@demonstructie ... not really. The USN's history with Congress has almost always been problematic at best, actively detrimental at worst.
Congress has the final say on practically everything, usually through appointed proxies, and has almost always yoinked their budget whenever they are working on modernization or expanding the fleet to minimize problems with tempo.
... so you can say that it's Congress's fault...
This one actually hits very close to home, I was on the USS Gettysburg, the closest ship to completion the modernization. In fact in order to get her to where she is presently, we cannibalized the Vicksburg. Congress does not know what they are doing by not letting this ship be decommissioned. Gettysburg came out over 3 years late and a staggering amount of money over budget, in my four years on the Gettysburg, I saw multiple issues with the hull and equipment of the ship that even the SLEP program could not fix. All I can say for sure is that the solution to the issue is not to burn money on these money pit ships but to build new ones, this issue with the navy goes deeper, with the lack of a proper CG replacement and the failure of the LCS program.
I can go way further in depth about how and why the CG modernization failed, as well as the stress it puts on sailors and such. It’s honestly insane the difference between what the average joe sees and what the navy presents to the public
@@TheBaCoNzzzzhow can they be so bad after the programme and don’t BAE have to be held to account for this?
@@Horizon301. this is a multi part answer, part one, which I think played the largest impact in not holding BAE accountable is the lack of experienced sailors. Due to the ships orders (jobs or billets sailors pick when transferring duty stations) being advertised as a precomm unit, it created a negative view of the ship because sailors do not want to spend time in the yards (going back to my point above of the impact of these ships on sailors) because of this, the majority of sailors assigned to the ship (Gettysburg in this instance) were/are first accession sailors, meaning this is their first duty station or they were given needs of the navy orders and for lack of a better term did not want to be there. Now I say all that to say this: since most of these sailors are “green” they do not know what a proper functioning ship looks like, let alone how a ship emerging from SLEP should look. Second part: the quality of the job performed was extremely subpar. BAE employed the cheapest labor for the lowest bid. We had all sorts of shit that contractors did that you would not believe, from smoking pot on the ship to eating chicken wings and stashing bones in random spaces to defecating on the ship (thank you phantom shitter) thirdly, you have a CO who is being pressured to finish a over budget, late project who becomes the scapegoat for anything outside that goes wrong, that pressure is pushed on the crew who need to sign off on spaces being complete, and all that finally brings me to my last major point which is that if BAE was held accountable and lost contracts, first of all who would the navy then contract? Secondly let’s say bae were to leave Norfolk/Portsmouth/Newport news, all those employees would lose their jobs and destroy the economies of the Hampton roads. So in the end it becomes politics
@@TheBaCoNzzzz wow that’s insane. Do you not think the same kinds of issues could happen with new builds given the recent failures with the LCS, Zumwalt etc?
😂 facts i just got out the navy i was on the shiloh and the gettysburg both are horrid ships the gettysburg in particular she breaks down every other day we couldnt even make it to florida from va without having to get tugged in but they refuse to retire them 🤷🏽
USN - This program has issues and is way to expensive so we want to shut it down.
Congress - You're misusing money, so you can't shut it down.
USN - So you want us to spend more money on ships we don't think are worth it?
Congress - How dare you try to retire ships that you've spent so much money on? (sunk cost fallacy)
USN - Cause they are bad ships, and we have more newer ones that we want to spend on.
Congress - No
Got to love when politicians have the ability to tell Admirals and Generals (who worked hard to get promoted to those positions) how to do their jobs. Congress should only be allowed to set the budget and then it should be up to the Admirals and Generals. Yeah investigate when money was wasted, but micromanaging is not going to fix wasting money.
EDIT: For the like 10 ppl who are trying to say Admirals and Generals are promoted by the Senate:
1. They had to get through the proceeding ranks based on skill and merit
2 They are selected by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Similar to the cabinet level positions. They still had to meet the requirements to be promoted and be the preceding rank (if you're going to "technically" me, at least be right)
3. Since the Senate confirms the appointed officers, and then doesn't listen to what they are saying, it sounds an awful lot like MICROMANGEING PEOPLE WHO SHOULD KNOW HOW TO DO THEIR JOBS. Which was my main point. My point is I trust them more than politicians. If an Admiral told you ship option A is better and a politician said option B was, who would you listen to?
So thanks for missing the point of my post. If you disagree with the point fine, I have no problem with that. If you don't trust those officers again that's fine. I trust them significantly more than the politicians, but that's my opinion. And yeah, figure out why they (prob different officers and defiantly a different SecNav) started this program in the first place if it's a failure. But that doesn't mean that them telling you it's a failure should be rejected.
My toddler came out as trans
Admirals and Generals are getting promoted based on how likeable they are or how connected they are. Above the ranks of Colonel in the Army, Marines and Air Force and Captain in the Navy the promotions are political. Sure, Admirals and Generals should know better than Congress and Congress should have only voted on the programme itself.
Yeah this makes no effin sense.
Our military spends a lot, and don't have control over something like this.
Gotta be some buisness connected to the repair process.
Trying to repair a ship that isn't worth it. Forcing them to do it.
How about this. How about we outsource that money, and get some of those awesome destroyers they have? (Or cruisers?)
SK is knocking ships out for cheaper. They have the best ship builders in the world.
Use them, for now, while investing in our ship building capacity, and putting competent knowledgeable people to somehow fix America's ship building.
I'd rather them invest in shipyards/supply chain to be as good as South Korea, than keep putting money into failed ships.
Cost sunk fallacy is the woe of so many programs.
OP should've looked up how O-7's get that rank. Generals and admirals are promoted or not by the Senate.
Don't say the words "sunk cost" to the Navy.
This reminds me of HMS Belfast but in reverse, the government wanted to retire the WWII cruisers but due to reasons (that's a story within it's self) Belfast was newer and less used then her sisters and she had relatively modern equipment. The navy argued to keep her so they did, later the gov wanted to retire her again but she was already halfway through a modernisation program so the navy got to keep her again then a bunch of rich people were in the process of buying her as the gov was trying to retire her again and that's how she became a museum. The first time round Churchill was one of the people who protested retiring her as she was one of his favourites and he even abourd her bridge the day after D-day.
Who is right, Congress or the Navy? Neither one of them.
Q: Why can't the Navy retire obsolete ships?
A: Legalized bribery in the form of "campaign" contributions.
That is an element of the problem, but in fairness, now is a dangerous time to be understrength. China's navy, while much smaller in tonnage, is not going to be nearly as spread out as ours is since we have a world wide naval presence. So, if conflict breaks out, it's whatever we have in the Pacific theatre vs the entire PLAN.
That said, I believe that our ships and capabilities in general is vastly superior, but there is only so much better quality can counter sheer quantity, especially with warships.
I think the Ticos should be retired, but the Navy needs to step up the shipbuilding rate in a hurry to cover the gap they leave behind.
OMG, I'm counting days 2 C u'r videos, u'r subjects are amazing.
Lack of skilled craftsmen at our shipyards is one of the largest problems we have. Last I read it is a major problem slowing up not only building new hulls but modernization and repair of existing ships. The workforce that has the skills needed is aging and not being replaced fast enough as they retire.
Nice 👌
I really hope we get a Ticonderoga cruiser museum ship as we only have one cruiser museum with the USS salem just we always have a example of the past
The only thing they should be doing is when making something to think ahead and for what could happen. So like drones they'll have more options for when in case if something was to happen to them that it'll not fall into enemy's hands or lost. But in this case with ships, when building new ones to also include ability to have them transformed in case if not able to fulfill their goals for future ideas.
Well research thank you
nave engineers came up with a brilliant way of housing more missles on existing ships. making smaller more powerful missles, that can be bunched into canisters.
I think the navy to needs to do a major overhaul of their fleet to better suit drone warfare. Current fleet is optimized for ship vs ship, or for power projection. I think quantity over quality will be the future.
I really like the sound of smaller and lethal. It wouldn’t really make a difference if the cruisers were replaced with the destroyers, considering the missiles aren’t as lethal. I forgot how big the Ticonderogas are compared to the burkes, but if the cruisers were in a task force, it would make the radar contact seem bigger with the cruisers (if they are around the same size, disregard the radar contact part.)
You got me. It was not what I thought.
It is really hard to effectively execute a plan that you don't believe in. I think the congress has some valid points on VLS cells but the point the Navy is making that that VLS cells with can't hit their target are pointless. Both points are valid but are also stretched. The challenge, as you said is that congress gets to choose the plan and the Navy has to execute it, even if they feel it is wrong.
the bigger issue is that the navy failed to properly inspect the cruisers so wasting money.
Love u broooo imma big fann!!!!
At 13:50 there is a comment about steel-aluminium joints that resulted in "much unplanned maintenance!". This problem was certainly very well known as far back as the 1970s, When it was highlighted as part of a military avionics training course I did. AFAIK, The training books we were using were devised a decade before. So this problem was certainly well known in UK military 60+ years ago.
BAE in Norfolk were notorious for failing to meet their repair quotas. If they could ever finish a yard period without going extremely over budget and delivering short of the vital repairs the ships need. Maybe the navy wouldn't be bidding ship repair contracts to other shipyards. Any ship that ever ended up in that ship yard wasn't coming out of it in the condition the navy wants from them.
"Such a niiice ship"
Lol
I'd serve on ship number 69.. 😁🤣
"The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) recently assessed that the China's shipbuilding industry fields 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States" Do I have to say more? And yes, this is true. This is the commercial and military shipbuilding capabilities combined.
We have commercial ship building capacity these days?😂
@@bigbigmurphyUS builds less than 1% of ships today. China, South Korea and Japan are the shipbuilders for the world.
china is what usa was in ww2. we simply dont have manufacturing ability anymore as we shipped it all to china and spent all our money building them factories. not just ships but everything. i see so many people thinking usa today is same usa of ww2 and that well just flick switch and start making thousands of ships a month, same with tanks and stuff. we have combined problem of far far less factories and what we do have very few of them are able to produce the highly advanced components needed. then theres fact pretty much all the materials needed came from ukraine or come from china. if ww3 happens its going be very tough times for us.
I totally agree that is crazy to retire strongest ship class in US Navy in Today World situation. It need to be modernized and keept in service until proper number of new replacement been builded!
Thanks so much for this video. Great job explaining the situation and the positions of Congress and the Navy. I certainly understand why Congress is unhappy (lots of money lost due to an inefficient approach by the Navy to modernization), but I would agree with the Navy that continuing to retain these hulls is throwing good money after bad. Perhaps the best path forward is to decommission the ships while accelerating construction schedules for new hulls?
I'd have some sympathy but it's congress that forced the navy to spend the money inefficently...
Number of ships is not a metric that should be used to determine how capable the Navy is. Having fewer, better ships is vastly more effective than having lots of old ships that spend half their time in drydock due to maintenance problems. Just ask the Royal Navy after they built the Dreadnought. They might have had the largest navy in the world, but it didn't amount to much when everyone else started building their own dreadnoughts. Just keeping ships in service to make the fleet look bigger is a waste of money. Don't get me wrong, I love the Navy; I'm a Navy brat and feel huge pride whenever I see any of our ships and sailors.
You could not be more wrong. There is no way an aircraft carrier is more dangerous than my inflatable kayak.
@@daveballard8673 What madness is this?! You have an inflatable kayak? I had no idea those existed!
In many respects, quantity is a quality!
@@stephenbrecht1696 I KNEW someone would say that. XD
2 examples immediately off the top of my head: liberty ships, & panthers vs T-34s. Yes, it might be crappy, but drowning in volume is certainly a way to win the war. Logistics mate.
OS2 from CG-67 USS Shiloh here, it’s sad to know one day my ship will probably be in the scrap yard, she’s an old ship and I’ll always cherish my memories onboard and the sailors I met along the way. Hornet at heart 🐝
Shiloh in japan was wild times for sure
Served on on CG68, the DON is right, CG metal is old and tired, a VLS is useless if can't get to where is needed.
So I was on Vicksburg from 2019-2023 my first command. Worst place for a junior sailor to start their career basically was shore duty. They ran that ship into the ground on it's last deployment because they thought it was getting decommed. When I was aboard we were going to be the ones to bring it back to life. Well contractors kept falling behind, so much money wasted, it was primarily kept going because of a representative who was former Navy in the area. Now the ship is getting decommissioned. It feels bittersweet because of all the work ships force did and it was for nothing. I guess it was a learning experience for us all. I do miss everyone and I plan on going to the decommissioning ceremony in June.
I see the problem is that the navy had a stupid idea of what they needed with the zumwalt class
The Zumwalts and the LCS’s strike me as peacetime navy projects: designed primarily to enrich the defense industry but would perform poorly if they actually saw combat
What does congress expect? If my boss tells me to keep using a broken tool because they won’t replace it, I would find another way to do my job. That’s what the Navy is doing. Finding other ways to meet goals set for them.
the issue is the navy should have inspected the ships better before even startign the program
The Navy is NOT abandoning LCS. It's decommissioning NINE hulls out of 35, most of them early builds.
It's nice to see that it's not only the uk that falls short of vessels needed and wasting money on project to then only scrap
The union for the employees of these shipyards is just ONE of the reasons it takes so long. You’ve got guys needing to move a switch, for whatever reason, upgrades etc; so they remove all the hardware, then, due to an electrical needing to be moved. Well? The union requires ONLY an electrician can touch it. Work is stopped until an electrician can come and move it 6”. Only problem is they are on the other side of the yard. The days of building ships like we did in WWII are long gone.
I dont want to admit how many times I had to retry to pause the video exactly where Borat comes into frame
The major issue is something the Navy has been complaining about for over a decade that we don't have enough dey docks and shore based repair areas for the current fleet
Wonderful video with a lot of information!
Corruption is the only correct answer, both from the Navy and from Washington
It sounds like mostly mismanagement by the navy to me. Did they not do a survey of one of these boats in dry dock to try and account for known issues, known unknown issues, and unknown unknown issues (yes, those are real terms) and design the refit plan from something tangible?
It sounds like they did everything on paper, got sold as they did their homework, and then were caught when it was evident they didn’t do the homework.
Well, the Spy 1 radar's ono the older Ticonderoga class cruisers, do not have to be relied upon for finding and targeting hostiles. The Tico cruisers still have the Ageis defense system network that allows that ships missiles to be directed by other Ageis equipped ships such as the Arleigh Burke Destroyers. So the Tico class Cruisers being present in a battle group with other Burke class ships gives the Burkes more missiles to shoot, from another platform, in this case, the Tico class cruisers. Also, The Tico's have superior communications facilities to the Burke class destroyers. The Tico's were not just designed to track targets and launch alot of missiles. They were also setup as command/control ships for other Cruisers and Destroyers. So keep em around for the additional VLS cells, and the can still act in their role as flagships of a Destroyer Sqdrn. Even if their radar is not as effective. The Ageis system on the Burke and Tico class ships, allow all ships in the group, to 'see' whatevery other ship in the group, can 'see'.
The arguments that the cruisers don't have "own ship" sensors that are as good, and thus the cruisers can't hit targets even with their greater number of VLS launchers misses a critical point.
All of these cruisers are equipped with CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) equipment to act as the hub of a network where *every* sensor in the (classifed, but failry wide) area is integratted so that *any* CEC integrated platform (these cruisers, most of the destroyers, many of the amphibious ships, carriers, and even some of the carrier air wing aircraft, and quite a few foriegn ally ships) can shoot at ANY target that ANY of the platforms in the network can see, even if the firing ship can't see the target at all.
That means that, even without SPY-6, the Ticonderoga cruisers are just as accurate as any other missile firing platform in the network.
And CEC also has the advantage of taking multiple sensor inputs from multiple ships, and generating a target location and track even more accurate than any of those sensors could alone. In fact, CEC can generate *better* firing solutions by integrating a bunch of "not firing quality data" sensors than SPY-6 could generate by itself (note that having ANY SPY-6 platform that can see the target and is also in the CEC network increases range and precision of the data even further).
The argument that the cruisers have been spending a lot of time in drydock is entirely disingenuous. They're in drydock, and have been in drydock for the past few years because they are almost finsihed with a very expensive, very long term, maintenance availability that will result in the ships having their usable service life extended by decades. And much of the extension of the availability was caused by the Navy deferring routine maintenance for *years* to meet increased OPTEMPO requirements directly caused by a Navy that had too few ships (caused in large part by the Navy wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in failed "Peace Dividend" ideas like LCS, Zumwalt class, and the Zumwalt equivalent cruiser program that was supposed to replace the Ticonderogas).
They're falling apart, it's costing far more to try to upgrade them than building new Arleigh Burke IIIs which are much more capable. They need scrapping - they've done their service and they're too old.
1:50 mark is Bremerton Naval Shipyard across from Seattle which is pulled far up in the
background, way up! 🤘
Wait. The original estimate was $160m? Who thought that could possibly be accurate?
For one phase, definitely not both phases.
"New sensors" shows a RD-358 tape drive. Gave me a chuckle.
good video
I know its always fashionable to dunk on the evil and incapable politician whos telling the infallible and good-hearted military what to do. but honestly, if a child comes to you, tells you it really really needs this new toy, so you buy it and three weeks later, its thrown out and the child begs you for money for a new shiny toy that's really cool and you buy that toy only for it to be thrown out again in two weeks, and then the child asks you for money to restore that old toy because its gonna be awesome, the child promises, so you give it the money and 85% through the restauration, it wants to throw it away to buy new toys, at what point do you say enough is enough?
Finally someone look at it this way!
You’re putting an emotional outlook on what should be a qualitative assessment.
It’s not about trust or trust or what the navy wants to replace them with, it’s about if the modernization program is worth continuing, which is it not.
Throwing more money into the failing program isn’t going to make the problems with the ships disappear. It’s just going to delay having to spend even more money later for a marginal retention of capability that is becoming more and more obsolete with every year.
Even if the navy doesn’t replace the ships at all, it’d be a better outcome than pouring more millions into the modernization program.
At least we’d still have the money to allocate elsewhere.
In the year 6969
If sailor's still alive
If navy can survive
They may fiiiind...
I was on the Kitty Hawk, it was my home for two and a half years. I was a boiler tech. Had a lot of memories made aboard her.
The US Navy is using new LIDAR scanning to make adapter plates to fit the new AN/SLQ-32(7) SEWIP III in a fast and efficient manner, with the new cooling system to handle the electric attack radiation output and power draw of the SPY-6 Radar which uses 1000volts DC to power the GaN AESA radar modules. They're right, the way the navy is upgrading the Burke's is WAY Smarter and more efficient.
TL;DR - It would be a crime to retire such a memeable ship 😉
These ships are almost uniformly about 40 years old. Funds are needed for other vessels and programs.
Why is it always politicians saying stupid things when experts tell them the facts. How is it politicians went from people who listen, think, decide to those who just decide.
Ever wonder how "expert" the experts are?
"How is it politicians went from people who listen, think, decide to those who just decide?"
The simple answer ... "What can be done to ensure my constituents stay working so I can get re-elected?"
If you can't decommission them, then the best option for the Navy is to leave them in port and only do necessary maintenance and training to keep them operational in case they need to be used. They don't have the capability of the destroyers, so they won't be that useful but can still free up tubes on the destroyers for the targets that only destroyers can hit.
Use the savings from cancelling the modernization program to build new ships.
I live near Philadelphia,PA and there is a navy yard there where my late uncle worked. They have plenty of ships there in moth balls. Per my uncle he said that some were taken out of service way too early and all they really need are updated systems and some other upgrades and they would be sea worthy. I’m not sure what class these ships are but they were bad ass. Unfortunately my uncle died of cancer in 2019 and the doctors said it could be some he came in contact with on these vessels but we will never know. He was a contractor for the navy most of his adult life. Whenever I drive past I always think of him.
Then why the navy doesn’t have a replacement for the Cruisers ?
did you not watch the video? they do
They don’t have new Cruiser look it up . They want to replace it with Destroyers and it can’t carry as many missiles as the Cruisers.
@@gilbertopinto248 wouldn't it be more wiser to build a new Ticonderoga-class from scratch.
Yes it would but the Navy can’t make up their minds .
@@merafirewing6591no, not really. First of all we don't have the money or the shipbuilding capacity. Nor do we want ships that size or Manpower intensive.
A very nice guy
UK went through this with Nimrod MPA, and when it was clear that the money still to spend on bringing those planes into service was more than buying P3 Orion, they were scrapped and we bought P3 Orions instead.
Not really, the Nimrod was pretty much finished when they scrapped it. We never bought P3 Orions, we have some P8 Poseidons
My personal alternative would have been to build an MPA around the A320, using the same systems that would have been on the Nimrod MPA, I'm pretty sure you could have sold it world wide especially around Europe and the A320 could have benefited from the changes airbus made to create the A320neo giving much better range. It was a huge missed oppourtunity.
This is interesting.
Just because you are elected, it doesn't mean you are smart, or qualified
We could reactivate all 4 Iowa class battleships, fix them up and modernize them for the amount of money the Navy is spending to modernize these cruisers cause Congress says "No, you have to keep them"
yasss, big gunz!!!
Reactivate 80 year old ships that would need to be rebuilt from the keel up with new powerplants, new sensors, new armament and probably rebuild much of the hull itself due to corrosion and metal fatigue?
Why?
Even assuming you could talk Congress into diverting funds from their favorite vote-buying boondoggles it would take 3 to 5 YEARS to do the work and nearly as much money per ship as you would need for a new Ford class CVN unless you simply want a ship you could call a "Battleship" that couldn't bring anything useful to the fight until you got the target within the 23 to 25 mile range of the ancient 16" guns.
No, we couldn't. Park your ideas about the Iowa's ever coming back again. They don't fit into the fleet of today. Let alone the future.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I said 'we could', not that we would. There's a difference.
Ps- they could, cause no ship today can do what they did as well as they did, nor is as heavily armored and armed. No circuitry to hack or be fried by an EMP.
@@AlphaGametauri It's actually closer to could not. The ships have all been converted to museums now. The cost of doing this would be ridiculous. As are their Manpower requirements.
It's not just about number of ships but how efficient they are, a modern ship can use half the crew to do what multiple older ships did. It seems congress is held up on seeing big fleets sailing the seas when actually a smaller more efficient fleet can be a lot more mission effective and cheaper.
Full disclosure. I am a fan of the Freedom class LCS. I do not understand why people are trying to fit the LCS in the frontline. They were never designed to be in the frontline. Yes, they HAD their issues. Those issues have been fixed. The modules are a separate thing. I have a question if the F-35 can be a quarter back in the sky. Why can't Burkes be a quarter back on the ocean? The cruisers could be the interim version of arsenal ships.
Answer: Corruption
Culprit: The MIC
U.S. Navy: "If it's not an aircraft carrier or submarine, we're going to eff it up."'; U.S. Army - "Light/Scout Helicopter? Whatever do you mean?"; U.S. Department of Defense: "Well, at least the F-35 works, at twice the cost." F-15EX program: "Heh, heh, heh. Losers."
Navy: “hey, maybe we could get a version of this new F-22 to replace the F-14 because the swing wings make it a maintenence hog”
Congress: “ok, but this naval version of the F-22 will be completely be redesigned to have swing wings because of how cool they look!”
Navy: “ya know what, we’ll just stick with the F-18 to replace the Tomcat”
I need help with my 93 honda cbr 900rr and think it would make a great episode!
I was always under the impression that a Arleigh Burke can relay the guidance to the Ticonderogas missiles, at least that's how they kind of made it sound. Where the Ticonderogas are basically a missile barge
Modern US warships have datalinks to share guidance, but the Ticos don't have that much more VLS cells than an arleigh burke...
"69" who wants to retire that 😉
*NICE!*
Each Tico has 122 VLS... we retire them we'll regret it
That's what Congress is concerned about, especially since networked target sharing is more robust nowadays. Navy seems to argue the Ticos can barely put to sea at all let alone get in range though.
@@doujinflip i get both sides tbh.. this crap shoulda been taken care of 20 years ago. We forgot about the Navy while we were building sandcastles in the Middle East for far too long
It is time to just let the Cruisers go, may squeeze a couple more deployments for the one that have been completed. The older Type 1 Burkes seem to be the better investment, even if downgraded to a lesser mission role.
There's also the sailor problem. So many officers and enlisted are retiring and recruitment is so low that they aren't able to replace them. Combine that with the mental health issues the navy has been ignoring that have caused suicides even when ships are IN dock the amount of ships are the least of the Navy's problems.
China does not have the largest navy, they have the most numerous navy; Fishing boats and similar commercial vessels are counted by China. The US only builds real blue water ships with few white water assets, China is the opposite.
This is correct, we still outtonnage them by a lot.
0:39 I think we’ve made it sufficiently clear that it’s “by the number of hulls”
If a shabby fishing vessel is capable of sinking or rendering a more expensive vessel inoperative, I'd say that was a wise choice!
@@stephenbrecht1696 maybe if they have 1 very very large ship that can use the fishing boats as ammo.
69 heh
Is there a reason the cruisers can't be fitted with newer radars? They have more hull space if I'm not mistaken.
This scares me. We are not ready.
What 69
Google it 😏😏
Its illegal to retire it because it will be sexual harassment (if you know)
Hollup, we talkin bout ships here orrr....
@@user-iz2ub9st6k 😏
Would really like to see the Navy start building out a larger number of smaller cursers. Something with half the displacement, Modern Radar, Nuclear propulsion, a high level of automation and a crew of less than 100.
i know there's lots more to it that i dont understand. but if VLS cell count is all you're after, take a civilian freighter and just load it up. i bet you could get 250 tubes and CIC mission modules in a standard container ship.
Thank Biden voters. Biden's main concern is appointing politically correct secretaries as opposed to competent ones stating with lloyd Austin.
Thank you Ivan, your troll farm masters will grant you an extra ruble for such a genius comment.