Why is rearming missiles at sea crucial for US Navy? And why is it so hard?

[@laughingkiwi-b5h]

The arsenal ship concept is starting to look a lot more attractive

[@billhanna2148]

Actually smaller drone ships with ready to launch missiles that accompany the DDs is the simplest solution. These drones stock of missiles will be launched and then guided by the DDs while the DD save THEIR stocks for when there are no drone stocks around.

[@jajssblue]

100% Especially if they can be autonomous and low cost hulls.

[@jajssblue]

​@@billhanna2148Exactly what I was thinking

[@john_in_phoenix]

@@laughingkiwi-b5h Yes, like the loyal wingman concept. Limited point defense and automation with no long range radar.

[@billhanna2148]

@@john_in_phoenix Yes the navy should figure out just how sophisticated or costly these drones have to be

[@trentvlak]

How about dedicated missile ships? They sail with the fleet, have no guns, no radar, and minimal crew. They have 200 VLS cells and are data slaved to the cruisers/destroyers.

[@exharkhun5605]

The Dutch navy has 2 such things on order.

[@xiphoid2011]

exactly, and it can even be remotely steered by the destroyer.

[@guntotingleftist8004]

I think we should call them liberty missile ships.

[@billhanna2148]

Dont keep your eggs (VLS) in one BIG basket(or radar target) smaller cheaper EXPENDABLE (still not cheap) ships

[@sOOpAhSCHIEFEL]

​@@exharkhun5605 they're akin only in concept, the Dutch ships will be tiny and likely only apt to coastal waters. Also they don't seem to be using vls. But yeah it's an interesting direction

[@kawaiiarchive357]

Kermit and Binkov are only the only good puppets.

[@indianastan]

They are brothers

[@frenzalrhomb6919]

I know. All the rest are evil 👹

[@JinKee]

Kermit sexually harasses baddies on Omegle

[@cbeaudry4646]

Don't forget about both George Bushes, Bill Clinton, Obama, & it looks like nowadays Trump

[@TFY-v8l]

​@@cbeaudry4646Trumps never been a puppet to anyone.. not even the Deep State controlled him. Trump does his own thing

[@JonM-ts7os]

Lets go to the comments for the experts opinions.

[@monkemode8128]

You'd be surprised at who watches these kinds of things.

[@Vendell_23]

You forgot US bases in the Philippines they could easily resupply there

[@stefanschleps8758]

Sshhh......the CCP are listening.

[@entertexthere1127]

Philippines? Naaahhhh we don't have Typhon, Tomahawks, F22, F35 and radars in the Philippines. "Wink, wink" the 9 EDCA sites are for humanitarian right? Right?

[@shanerooney7288]

"Easily"

[@antonleimbach648]

We haven’t had a large presence in PI since our base in Subic Bay shut down.

[@zam023]

10:10 If I am not mistaken, this was how torpedo tubes were reloaded in WW2 destroyers. The difference here is the orientation, instead of horizontal feed for torpedoes, it will be vertical feed for the missiles.

[@charleswomack2166]

Sir, you do not mention the Philippines. They have multiple deep water ports, including Subic Bay. The Philippines is good for two reasons #1 strategic location and #2 the will to fight. If what my grandfather told me is true, they are not only friendly but when they fight, the put everything they have into the fight.

[@kennybrown3302]

You mean the Philippines that surrendered to the Japanese in 70 days of the second world war

[@markmitchell457]

Yeah, but we ain't going to sell their to replenish our missiles. Unless it's real close.

[@awolffromamongus875]

​@@kennybrown3302due to poor and under supplied US leadership? Yep, that one.

[@MyTakeOnLife001]

@charleswomack2166 The guy who made the video stated that Japan is difficult since that is within easy strike range for Chinese missiles, and you propose to move the rearming closer to China as that would be more strategic lol. Now you're going to say well chinese missiles are no match for US anti missile batteries. Well, my friend, you have probably never given any thought to what the navy protocol is for rearming a ship which is currently under attack, whether those attacks actually land or not doesn't really matter that much. If you have to scramble for cover every time a missle is inbound since there is no 100% defense rate, as has been proven in Ukraine and and Israel your not likely to get a hell of a lot done very quickly.

[@Romanellochw]

This is why the US invested so much in Rapid Dragon.

[@evilwelshman]

5:45 As an alternative to Guam and Japan, I suspect one alternative port might the the Philippines; as it is increasingly becoming a steady US security partner in the Asia Pacific region.

[@AMOUREDD]

Says the government and not the people,if war comes,note that there are people ready to work for them

[@evilwelshman]

@@AMOUREDD Though, at least for this purpose, they only really need the government's support. The port could be staffed by US personnel if necessary.

[@xiphoid2011]

Yep, especially as China increasingly intruding into Filipino waters (and just about every ASEAN nation's too).

[@david7384]

it's in range for Chinese mrbms

[@AMOUREDD]

@@evilwelshman the Chinese have long range high altitude drones for the job but they'll only use the people to create difficulties.

[@blurglide]

They need a little transporter-erector caddy. Load the case onto it horizontally, have it lift the case vertically, and put tracks around the cells so it can reach any cell and drop the case in. This would eliminate the swaying problem. Alternately, there could just be a cable system that does the same thing for the bottom part of the case while a crane lowers it in. Edit: well, looks like that's exactly what they're trying.

[@jypsridic]

I was about halfway through designing the tram when it showed up on screen.

[@supaflylob]

"amateurs talk tactics, but professionals study logistics"

[@billykorando]

One wonders, maybe the answer isn’t finding a way to reload VLS systems in the ocean, but instead develop cheap, possibly attritable(sp?) drone ships that hold a lot of VLS cells. The turn around time might not matter too much if you have enough slack in the system that you have other ships that can simply replace ships as they have to return to port or are destroyed. With ships that are attritable you can also put them more in harms way. Which could also have downstream benefits or developing cheaper and smaller missiles because you can place them as a screen in front of ships you need to protect along likely missile paths. Because less travel time from launch point to target, you might not need as sophisticated of missiles. Separately/relatedly could also put other weapon systems like lasers on such ships.

[@SpaceShipDee]

This idea is being heavily considered by several navies and is known as an Arsenal Ship. Similar concept is evolving to be SOP for air combat as the F35 platform is excellent for deep penetration with its stealth and sensors relaying targeting information back. For USAF, this currently would be a F15EX which can carry a loadout of 10 AMRAAMs and two AIM-9X (for close range self defence). If utilising dual or triple racks (which is currently not yet approved) this count reaches 16 AMRAAMs and 4 AIM-9X For US Navy, this would be the F18 Super Hornet equipped with 4 AIM-174 (basically air launched SM6 which gives it exception range and speed), 3 AMRAAM and 2 AIM-9X. This loadout is currently being tested but not yet approved. In future, these would be replaced by "loyal wingman" type teaming drones/unmanned aircraft similar to the X-47 or MQ-28 GhostBat.

[@billykorando]

Yep, what I was thinking at as well. Realize my idea isn’t novel. Was pondering if the reason it wasn’t being as seriously considered is perhaps “political” in nature. Not left/right politics, but preserving business relations with contractors, or preserving existing power structures (i.e. there might be a perceived loss of prestige in destroyer command if what you are primarily doing is commanding missile drone ships to fire on incoming targets).

[@danpatterson8009]

Massed missile/drone attacks is one reason to continue development of laser weapons.

[@JimLecka]

Seems that a "en bloc" loading system is needed. Store 8 or 16 VLS cells inside a custom shipping container. All the receiving ship does is plug in the clip. Modest armor, part of the ship, may be a good idea.

[@56mikefagan]

Good, but isn’t this just a bandaid to cover the fact that the U.S. Navy doesn’t have enough ships, and the U.S. doesn’t have the shipyards and other industrial support to build enough ships anytime soon?

[@tylerromero]

I think the lack of ships isn't the biggest problem, it's crewing those ships even if we had them already. Maybe if automation is really more advanced than we know you can have crew sizes be 30% of now and then we could use those saving to crew more ships.

[@inteallsviktigt]

@@tylerromerofinding crews isn’t an issue, but if you can have more crew raised than you can build and replace in case of war is problematic

[@persistentwind]

One way to look at it is the services, anytime they buy something new, find ways to keep the people they have. Essentially picking "the way it was" versus integrating automation.

[@tylerromero]

@@inteallsviktigt do we have that issue? Do we actually have more people qualify to crew ships than ships?

[@tylerromero]

@@persistentwind I'm assuming they would try to staff these ships as they go. My thought is that even if the build rate is substantially increased I don't think the recruitment / retention rate can keep up.

[@Omni0404]

You know the salmon cannon? How about one of those but for missiles.

[@wannabemedontu]

Autonomous missle barges loaded with just missles accompanying each ship just like a loyal wingman for fighter jets. Done.

[@TheBelrick]

Honestly, Germans tried to solve this very issue with Milk Cow subs in WW2. Problem is that they are hideously vulnerable to being sunk. It doesn't work.

[@johnallen7807]

Ironic really, the US Navy had the largest fleet resupply chain in the world in WW2 now they are rushing to design a few ships!

[@dgthe3]

They still have the largest fleet resupply chain in the world, by a massive margin.

[@markyuresko1346]

Unfortunately, missile numbers availability is by far the limiting factor with sm6 production at under 1,000 per year and sm3 production of only a few dozen per annum. And don’t say numbers can be ramped up, they can’t, it is painfully evident that it will be several years for “Patriot “ missiles will be significantly increased. The Patriot joint venture with Raytheon and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has its facility sitting idle waiting for Boeing to ramp up guidance components that they blame on a lower tier supplier. The wait is expected to be three years or more. The “Peace Dividend” and misguided war on terror has cost the U.S. 15 to 20 years of production that will never be replaced.

[@andrewszigeti2174]

Never is a long, long time.

[@john_in_phoenix]

I think a loyal missile ship/arsenal ship is under consideration as well.

[@awolffromamongus875]

Why have the sensor unit and the launching units not been separated? Sensor ship being a constant in theatre and a swift one at that. The launching unit being uncrewed and attritional, are sent in as the previous launch unit is depleted, and probably sent back to base for resupply.

[@Predator42ID]

So you want to build two ships to do what is standard across all warships. Here is how your system works, you have the gun with no sights relying on the spotter to hit your target. Sensors and weapons need to be integrated.

[@Nainara32]

Disaggregating command and control, sensors and affectors in a similar way that modular land-based AA systems do could make sense if countering China's missiles and air power was the only role that US navy ships play. Contemporary DoD thinking prefers them as multi-mission capable platforms that can operate alone if needed. There are advantages and disadvantages to that trend, particularly in having 400+ crew on a ship. Losing just one or two ships with so many people could hugely swing popular sentiment back home.

[@RobMcGinley81]

That Tramm system looks very similar or the same as a prototype canister replenishment system that was kept at the old Australian VLS training facility in Melbourne 20 odd years ago. It never went anywhere but looks like the design may have been dusted off.

[@cyrusjalali1571]

just convert retired oil tankers into massive VLS platforms

[@tiglishnobody8750]

Ha, good one

[@davidshi6861]

And if said tanker is hit? That's a lot of missiles at over $1-5M each.

[@rcatyvr]

@@davidshi6861 $1-5M vs $13B+ for a Ford class? Seems affordable to me.

[@louisquatorze9280]

Philippine ports are also an option.

[@DeezNutz-jq1dl]

question does this ports have the needed systems to resupply or reload missle... Sadly no, the Philippines doesn't really have any capacity as they also have low budget in terms of defense against their neighbors. If the Philippines be put as like a US base another question will arive; Will the people allow it? If not them being so mad about can be manipulated by CCP to literally get into the nerve of US Armed forces and Philippines Armed Forces. We must think of war as a multi faceted problem not because we are at war doesn't everyone is willing to fight.

[@milcearry]

Sometimes, the best defense is offense, a few b2 with radar defeating bombs at missile sites.

[@raw7279]

Well that's good. They should have had it figured out like yesterday.

[@sancocho1718]

Looks like they need to revisit the arsenal ship concept.

[@shanerooney7288]

* *Board meeting* * "Okay, Okay, hear me out... what if _More."_

[@sancocho1718]

@@shanerooney7288 mor dakka

[@silverjohn6037]

Alternatively, instead of one large ship, multiple smaller ships similar in size to a corvette from WW 2. They might only fit 8-12 VLS cells but they could act like the remote launchers for for land based air defense batteries. They'd launch the missiles and hand over control to the larger ships with the more capable radar and control suites. They'd not only be cheaper and quicker to produce but you could rotate one or two at a time out of the active mission zone to be reloaded without losing as much of your fleets capacity. Like the WW 2 corvettes they could also provide the convoy escort capability and free up the fleet destroyers for escorting the main battle fleet.

[@echomande4395]

@@silverjohn6037 This seems to be a direction people are looking in. Basically, take the design of a civilian fast support vessel as used in the offshore industry, modify the design for optionally manned operation and paint it grey. Then load the largish cargo area (most of the ship's deck area aft of the wheelhouse) with containerized VLS launchers. The containers would need to be hooked to the ship for power and data and would be remotely commanded. Whether the people operating the ship are based on a warship, an island or halfway around the world probably depends on the navy in question. Various navies and defense firms also seem to be revisiting the deck launcher concept, where several VLS cells are mounted on a deck mount at a shallow angle to the horizontal axis instead of fully vertical. One issue with this is probably where and how to get rid of the missile's launch exhaust.

[@silverjohn6037]

@@echomande4395 Basing it on a civilian pattern ship would follow in the example of the Flower class corvettes from WW 2 as they were based on whaling ships. As for angled deck mounted launchers they'd have advantages I'm sure but you wouldn't be able to pack in as many in the same space as the vls's. Of course on a smaller ship the hull might be narrow enough that you could place the launchers to fire towards the opposite beam with the back blast for the first stage venting off the ship into the ocean (if that explanation makes sense for you).

[@rcatyvr]

I've said this elsewhere. The custom fix: Take a decommissioned aircraft carrier. Empty out as much as possible from the front half of the hull. Add ballast tanks as needed to turn the front half of the ship into floating dry dock that lowers the front to allow water-level entry for a AB destroyer or a nuc missile sub. The carrier then clamps on to the DDG/Sub to keep it in solid position and refloats the bow. The carrier would steam on to its next rendezvous point. Meanwhile underway, built in cranes in the carrier can work up to four cell replacements at a time, two fore, two aft. Clamps would hold the target ship exactly in place and the automated re-loaders could quickly restock thee warship with new missiles. Sink the bow again to flood and release the destroyer/sub. Next one parks in. Two or three decommissioned aircraft carries could service the Pacific and another two, the Atlantic fleets. The quick fix: If the first fix seems out of reach, another solution using the same carriers is to build a large hull matching indent(s) on the carrier, bring the recipient up along side, clamp and lash it to the carrier's side and load from there. It would be slower, but it could be up and running in a lot less time. The main point is to use the massive mass of the carrier to stabilize the recipient in such a way as they move as one vessel and automated cranes can quickly replenish the other ship. A Nimitz-class could be set up to handle an AB DDG on the port side at the water level and SSN or other sub half submerged on the starboard side under the offset flight deck. The transfer could happen well out the reach of most Area-Denial systems and save a lot of time for both and fuel for the DDGs. They could meet at a safe distance and once hooked up, steam farther away and then halfway to completion, back towards the next release/pick up location as close to the enemy waters would be reasonably safe, at precisely pre-determined time. They would always change the meeting time and location every time to make it harder to track by reconnaissance. If money were not an issue but time was (ie at war), I'd build the quick fix in to all the new carrier builds while retrofitting the Nimitz class ones, one new for every two retrofits. That way each carrier group provides its own missile reloading capabilities. Definitely going to need a super ship building facility on the Westcoast, Bremerton or Port Orchard and on the scale of the Hyundai Heavy Industries one. In a major crisis, maybe we could let Hyundai lay down a raft of empty bottom half hulls to drag back to the US. All it really takes it the will to do it. This is not rocket science.

[@cruisinguy6024]

I can't imagine the carrier route would be at all feasable or even sensible. The costs would be astronomic even if it was doable - not to mention heavy lift ships already exist that can ballast down to allow a destroyer to be floated above their deck like a dry dock.

[@morenothing4u]

IDK, tow a barge filled with VLS cells.

[@RichieKeane]

Would suggest while they have a very expensive and well rehearsed plan. But, if a US CVBG runs out of all its SM2 with 4 or 5 aegis escorts with full war load, likely nowhere left to go back to...

[@lagufit]

Air force is the key 🔑

[@markmitchell457]

If you want a job for life, sign on as a Sustain Engineer for the company that has this contract. The military has its own MRP, but knowing SAP or Oracle would be a bonus.

[@TheBelrick]

Telling people to know SAP or Oracle is to be cursing them with perpetual suffering.

[@malzahar33]

Easy solution :a barge that would load the entire ship, like in ww2 barge were used to repair ships at see. It eleminate the relative movement between the loader ship and the loaded ship. With a bridge crane like in ports to load containers.

[@aquilarossa5191]

They are not going to fight each other except by accident. Both will even try to avoid a conventionally armed war, because when nuclear powers fight each other the nukes probably get used (according to war gaming by Cold War planners etc -- during a state of war the nuclear missiles each side has present a far greater threat than during peacetime, so the risk of their use rises exponentially, e.g., a counter force strike).

[@HD46409]

The Navy is starting to launch SM6s from carrier based aircraft in the form of the aim174. My guess is that the carrier is going to be using Hornets with 2 Aim 174s to target the first strike missiles and use the VLS missiles for last ditch defense.

[@deanyt3697]

So a carrier strike group is just there to defend itself? How is it going to attack?

[@HD46409]

@@deanyt3697 Really? How exactly would you fix the problem? Go ahead. Show us all how smart you are. I'm sure you've got some brilliant idea that the USN has never considered.....

[@deanyt3697]

@@HD46409 wow. I was genuinely just trying to learn more about your idea but instead you attacked me for no reason. I don’t have any ideas for how to fix this. That’s why I was curious about your idea. Stop fighting your fellow citizens over dumb stuff like this or China will win.

[@HD46409]

@@deanyt3697 If that's the case, my apologies. Just a suggestion for next time, lead with that. If your question had come from someone who knew about such issues, it would have been seen as pretty snarky and more than a bit defeatist. The answer to your question is that the carrier has a lot of planes. It can task some with force protection and some with attack. Whatever the case, if the destroyers and cruisers are out (or close to out) of VLS ground to air missiles (sm2/3s and SM6s), the carrier has to leave anyway or it's already on fire. The aim174 gives the Navy an ability to fire more missiles to defeat an adversaries multiple salvos of anti ship missiles and then turn to attack when the enemy has run low on those.

[@deanyt3697]

@@HD46409 ok sorry about how I came off. Was just a quick question I wrote. But yeah that makes sense to me. Initially it seemed like you’re sending out a carrier strike group to just sit out there and defend itself before it has to go home. I hope it has enough munitions to mount a defense as well as a strong offense. Offense of course is the entire reason it exists. Thanks for explaining

[@stephend50]

Didn't someone say something about arsenal ships?

[@benjaminshropshire2900]

Getting rid of the "hang it from a cable" replenishment system seems so obvious that I wonder why they ever considered the old system at all. ("Obvious" as in laterally the first thing I, who can't claim to have any skill at designing that stuff, ever thought of was something like the new system shown in the video running on rails.)

[@austJW]

It takes 96 hours to rearm VLS at port, thats 2 whole days. The US has not told us how fast its done at sea, but thats too long to rearm out in open sea with the threat of missiles.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

The easiest option is a converted container ship as a missile tender with the needed cranes. One big problem is the need to return home to reload. HI and Midway was required in WWII to just get in strike range of Japan. The LCS and Z. classes also have failed and the LCS can't even go that far so the current fleet of ships are overdue for a new set of designs but brass don't want evolutions of what is proven systems but want total novel designs like the LCS that might sound good at first but when real life requirements are applied are unable to even do the job they were designed for. Right now the military in the US is pushing for more Li Battery powered items. Like trucks that need recharged for 8+ hours after about two hours of use and a charging station. Plus such batteries cut the payloads by half while increasing gross weight a couple tons. EV's are even being banned in parking garages because they are twice the weight and overloading structures and a higher fire risk.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

The tram needs to be organic to the recieving ship. And as you suggest, palletize the cells. A 6 pack might be optimal.

[@adriantepes-qu8wm]

6 pack is always optimal

[@GrigoriZhukov]

@@adriantepes-qu8wm considering the size of each cell. You can't go bigger from practical stand point.

[@dgthe3]

To all saying "LASERS!!" as the solution, there are some serious limitations on range of high powered lasers. Forget what distances are cited, but they're closer to CIWS than SM2's. Maybe about the same as an ESSM. Which means that they'd be good for self protection, not so good for escorting. And even then, there won't be too many captains who'd be comfortable letting enemy missiles get to the horizon before firing on them. Getting the lasers airborne might help, in multiple ways. But there are issues there too.

[@MM22966]

Atmospheric bloom? Isn't that just a matter of increasing power and better beam columniation?

[@shanerooney7288]

* *china pops smoke* * "Dear God, we're doomed"

[@funwithmagnus8570]

The problem is that we're now in a technological age where you can't bring enough missiles on ships to defend yourself from shore based missile attacks. The shore will always have the numbers advantage (in a peer to peer encounter). Directed energy and or small caliber smart projectiles will be the only sure solution in defense against such barrages. Ships will likely need a combination of auto cannons with programable AHEAD ammunition and laser defense. The VLS systems can then be dedicated for ship to ship and ship to land munitions.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

You say that, but that assumes shore batteries aren’t hunted down from things like stealth aircraft launched from carriers, or maybe next-generation one-way loitering munitions from far outside the battery’s reach.

[@funwithmagnus8570]

@@nobodyherepal3292 yeah, but who wants to take the chance of not having gotten all of them lol.

[@jascrandom9855]

Maybe something like the Excalibur Artillery Ammo, but for the 127mm canon that could be guided by radar to hit areal targets. That should hit the perfect balance between price, range, speed, and quantity.

[@MM22966]

Have you checked on ranges and response times for things like autocannon and (assuming) lasers? You are letting AsHM's get awfully close.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@funwithmagnus8570 the US navy? Because historically shore defenses have failed to ever stop enemy navies from successfully establish blockades or shore bombardment support. Especially in the age the submarine and aircraft carrier.

[@trailblazingfive]

Unmanned VLS cells that swim behind a destroyer like a school of fish

[@MrJoergenfoged]

No - the Missiles to be ready Inside the Vessel - Case here, you have to stop - fish the VLS - secure they can fire, load them in the Siloes - no - besides this will slow the speed the Warship can sail ..🐑

[@robertlewis8295]

For some reason I imagine a catamaran style supply ship that has the destroyer "dock" between the 2 hulls and then a gantry crane transfers the cells. Or a gantry crane that can be temporarily mounted to join 2 supply ships to work in the same way. Completely impractical I know, but that was the first thing that came to mind. Or some kind of guide cables that connect at the bottom of the missile well go through loops on the cell and connect to the crane. Be really hard to design something that could do the job and be able to continue working after launching missiles from the cell.

[@JeffBilkins]

They needed the yellow loader mech from Aliens.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

I would build a self reloading ship that acts as both a missile reserve on station and a missile reloading system that humps the receiving ship perhaps with an automated drydock or side by side ship that stabilize with azipods or voith schneider propulsion as a pair on each side.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

Also sperm whale oil was used in the past to calm a rough sea.

[@John_Doe448]

​@@ElijahPerrin80 Bro what

[@MrDredd1966]

Maybe the USN could design or retro fit some sort of missile fire support ship to accompany a carrier battle group with say 200+ VLS and be able to supply the other ships within the carrier battle group and be able to restock its own supply of missiles?

[@joekerr3638]

Have a master ship that is a cruiser/destroyer that is followed by hundreds of drone ships that contain VLS.

[@danpatterson8009]

Yes, dispense with transfers during combat altogether. Missile-laden barges follow warship and have secure data links to pass targeting and firing information from the the warship. Missiles fired from the barges.

[@AMOUREDD]

Yh! but that would cost another billion

[@wanderer10k]

Surely a system similar to torpedoes on a sub would have been a much better design?

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

A) I'm pretty sure there aren't any submarines that can reload torpedos at sea these days. B) The whole point with VLS is that you can carry a lot of missiles and fire them quickly. Earlier generations had arm-launchers that loaded missiles from a magasin below Deck, but they were just too slow.

[@wanderer10k]

@@A_Haunted_Pancake The Astute carries 35 and only has 6 tubes. They have a system to reload the tubes. What’s to stop you keeping the whole set of VLS and reloading from underneath. All 40 of them from a central magazine. Doesn’t have to be immediate but you need to be able to turn it around within hours.

[@leg414]

Coordination and ample resupply win conflicts....Peace

[@marnig9185]

How many Tons of Autonomus ship and Infrastructur u need to serve 32 vls cells 24/7? or why are vls cells are exklusiv on maned heavy war ships?

[@Bidimus1]

Its a shame that the Virginia class cruisers were not updated / replaced as there top speed was NOT fuel related. An alternate solution but not as quick as TRAM Data - Link launchers on other platforms guided by the Aegis system on primary ship. In effect a Battery of ships with a single or multiple fire control nodes. No the US will not build this as it means more platforms and more personnel but others might (Japan). Possibly mount land based systems that can be controlled by a Burke etc..

[@blainesitter9110]

Missile Barges , think outside the box , perfect for Japan.

[@hyndriandelmundo6855]

Wow this vedio don't add Philippines battle plan 😅

[@MoneyballTV]

Excellent comment 🫡 🇵🇭 🇺🇸

[@jason1440]

If we could have a SSGN sub that could launch a mix of missiles that would really tip the scale.

[@noahway13]

Consider all the participants involved on both sides--- with the sky looking like a fireworks show, filled with missiles, anti-missile missiles, ships sank, land targets destroyed, etc--- The first day of a conflict with China is going to be one hell of an expensive day.

[@bearsausage8599]

Those war stocks are saying retirement

[@kaiser3626]

Unless you win a quick and easy war, wars are bad business.

[@muzzmac160]

@@kaiser3626 For the MIC a long war is a good war . The Afghan war generated $4 trillion for the MIC. A US/China whether short or long will be disastrous for both nations

[@kaiser3626]

@@muzzmac160 maybe for someone had been very lucrative, no doubt. But building submarines, carriers, fighter, tanks and missiles is not a good investment as like roads, infraestructure, harbours, hospitals and schools and so on... All the money invested in Afghanistan had been practically for nothing, as the war against terror could had been done with just a fraction of the money in policial, intelligence and espionage measures.

[@LegendaryInfortainment]

Any kind of VERTREP for assets at sea is maximum punishment for the sailors receiving and stowing the stores, of *any* kind. The ones that go boom are much more exceptionally bothersome. Just from personal experience! Taking it over the side from light-lines is just different punishment.

[@ag3116]

I see the only way around this problem is US build like a giant dry dock ship similar like the ship they have that carries 3-4 hovercrafts in it.

[@kevinkevin-iv5fw]

When I picked up my pen tried to reason with them politely like a five thousand years old old man, they pulled out their guns and said they only reason from the position of strength, but when I pulled out and set up my canons, they then picked up their pens and said no no no, we are all civilized men and we should talk about terms instead of showing weapons around. What a bizarre world!

[@Johnnycdrums]

When I sailed on a CG, the name of the game was to shoot down enemy aircraft before they could launch air to surface missiles at the carrier, and or giving the enemy the chance to shoot down our own combat aircraft we directed to hunt them. Now it's shoot down missiles, because they are probably going to launch outside the maximum theoretical range (220 n.m.) of air aquisistion radars. On the other hand, how would they know where we are, exactly?

[@Squigglydodah]

Satellites and radar as well as EM emissions

[@kaiser3626]

Drones, plenty of drones

[@inteallsviktigt]

Well you can always use smaller expendable ships for finding and guiding incoming missiles

[@entertexthere1127]

The Philippines is the answer.

[@AMOUREDD]

That is also risky,cuz there are people who would sabotage the group for money from china

[@thinhvcoin]

Why Binkov is avoiding to talk about Patriot. And why is it so hard?

[@noahway13]

Have SpaceX design the missiles. They can fly, deliver their warhead, return and land back in its missile pod, ready for a new warhead = )

[@stefanschleps8758]

You've over simplified by many factors. But I like the you think!

[@The_FatGeneral]

​@@stefanschleps8758 if there is a way to implement something like this, it could make missiles a bit more affordable

[@tylerromero]

Let's SpaceX design it since they can land a rocket on a crane they can make a crane that can reliably load a rocket (missile, but they're the same thing)

[@erasmus_locke]

How do Elon's balls taste?

[@ShadowPhoenixMaximus]

SpaceX is compromised. Musk's economic ties to China make he more liable to betray the West, than to support the democratic system that enabled him to gain more wealth.

[@shanerooney7288]

Technically, Space X's "rockets" are all missiles, since they are guided.

[@jascrandom9855]

Why not use a Robot Arm fixed on the ship it self instead of a Crane?

[@persistentwind]

This. I don't know why the navy didn't split the vls down the middle and place a deck based or slightly inset Crane. I would imagine if a small service truck could lift a 15 liter Cat out of an off road truck somone could make one that would take the space of 3-4 tube's down the middle that works the way it should...

[@trentvlak]

the answer is always giant robot arm

[@richardmeo2503]

Good show and info. May be better to find small ports to do the rearm. Gives crew some down-time and limits risk of accidents. If you lose a supply ship it is a major loss. Better to keep the safe. Don't forget, CCP has armed all of their ships, even merchant ships with hidden containers that hide missiles.

[@justinbreedlove8835]

I'm not a military expert but wouldn't there most likely be a Carrier next to them. The military is pretty good with know when there going to fired on wouldn't they be able to use jets to shoot some down I know there's a time delay but wouldn't they have jets kinda patrolling during war time

[@rob5944]

I was think along the lines of a dedicated missile launch platform, even if it's little more than a barge similar to type the Allies used at normandy.

[@196cupcake]

I've thought, for reloading at sea, maybe a crane system, but with cables at both end with some play, might work. When the cell is hanging just from a crane you can imagine the bottom of the cell wobbling around. But, what if the bottom of the cell had cables going down to the hole it was to go in, and then you adjusted the tension, elasticity, play - whatever you want to call it - of the top and bottom cables? As the bottom of the cell got closer to the ship the bottom cables would get tighter until the point where the ship could really grab onto it and then guide it into the hole. The thing with the China scenario is that you could probably expect other actors to take advantage of US forces being spread thin at the same time.

[@riskinhos]

you missed school didn't you?

[@romell06]

The thing is attacking US bases in japan also dragging Japan into war.

[@xixinan]

Japan is a client state, it will do whatever US tell them regardless being attacked or not.

[@sylvainprigent6234]

France does it. The new BRF supply ships can do that

[@adriantepes-qu8wm]

Just build a large container ship with hundreds of tubes and have it trail the command ship. Have another such ship to launch drones.

[@joseph88190]

can they just make the entire MK41 module plug and play?

[@echomande4395]

No. It is far too big and cumbersome to lift by anything short of a big dockyard crane. An empty 8 cell Mk 41 VLS module can weigh up to 15 tons. Eight missiles would double that weight.

[@tinfoiltruckerscap9613]

Glad someone is finally talking about this. Fire 50+ missiles, wait 2 hours, then fire 50 more. A lot more in that second batch will get through. You mention restocking every month, the more likely is every week in a hot zone.

[@TeamDoc312]

Oh, No! In a shooting war with a near peer, you're talking probably talking everyday. We're at a serious disadvantage with our current sea-based missile replenishment systems.

[@david7384]

The USA literally cannot generate sustained naval missile fire

[@charliedontsurf334]

I hope it is A year. But that isn’t how procurement works sadly.

[@ArgosySpecOps]

GO WINCHESTER!

[@Shrapnel-tj3il]

What is the production rate of SAM and ABM missiles for the US?

[@GrigoriZhukov]

Not enough and no real surge capacity to the best of my knowledge..

[@nobodyherepal3292]

Last I checked, close to 500 a year, with an expected 700-750 a year by 2026, with further production increases following until 2030

[@GrigoriZhukov]

@@nobodyherepal3292 SMH, too few too slow in my opinion. But I think of each missile as any other ammo and in that case, there is never enough.

[@nobodyherepal3292]

@@GrigoriZhukov that number was just patriots systems I think. Ship based interceptor missile production is also increasing too. And it was arguably higher in the production numbers then our land based systems where to begin with.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

@@nobodyherepal3292 eh, I was on the sharp end and you'd be amazed how much guys at the shap end to read all sorts of things and adapt the views. You never have enough ammo i.e. bullets, missiles etc. Those ships need a better way to reload and do it fast.

[@roo_stonks]

Somebody remind me why the US navy doesn't just take a semi-large container ship (or hell, purpose-build one but that would take forever) and slap like hundreds of VLS-cells on it, transforming it into a missile carrier with ridiculous ammo capacity. It could sit in the back and rely on all the other, actual combat ships to provide targeting & tracking capabilities. The only issue i can see so far is concentrating too much of existing missile stock on one asset, making it vulnerable. But in light of other ships like aircraft carries with thousands of lives on board also being in harms way, a missile carrier that would probably need much less crew doesn't seem too bad. It would probably make sense to have it disguised as a civilian vessel and "accidentally" be in the area, so it can deal with the first waves of incoming missiles and retreat before the PLAN figures out whats happening, leaving the actual combat ships to do the rest while it retreats to a far away port to rearm, having done its job, spent its ammo used the element of surprise. I would not be shocked if this was a thing already and they're just not telling anyone for obvious reasons. I just wanna see footage of a giant missile carrier lob dozens of missiles at once, how fkin sick would that be.

[@zakiducky]

There's less profit in that for the 'defense' contractors compared to designing, building, and then shelving some uber expensive bespoke system.

[@roo_stonks]

@@zakiducky yeah this could obviously be one factor (should the idea actually be feasible) - but was we saw with rapid dragon sometimes they do thing practical, and this would basically be a massively up-scaled, floating rapid dragon type solution.

[@the_rzh]

The arsenal ship concept has been round since the 80s. The last serious program was killed off in the 90s. As you speculated, cost goes up when you try to give it any onboard defense measures. You could think of the four Ohio class subs that had their ICBM silos replaced with 154 VLS tubes as an adaptation of this concept. Of course, they have the same replenishment at sea dilemma as surface ships.

[@gamingrex2930]

Sir the Ohio class even has the ability to become a submarine!

[@kaiser3626]

Putting to much ammo in a single vessel make it very vulnerable to damage and a very high value target for the enemy. Put all the eggs in the same nest is risky.

[@deggabiola5554]

The us meeds small arsenal ship that go back to port after expending their missiles. These aresenal ships perform like wingman to Air Force

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Small ships don't so well on the ocean there's a reason we laugh at china's "navy" and that's because it's a white water navy.

[@echomande4395]

There have been some USN experiments in that direction, focusing on unmanned surface vehicles. The concept tested was based around a fast support vessel, a type of ship used in the (civilian) offshore industry, modified for optionally manned operation. This ship type has a large open deck area aft (behind) of the wheelhouse. In the tests a Mk 70 launcher, basically four Mk 41 VLS cells in a 40 foot container, was mounted on the deck and remotely commanded to raise its cells and fire a missile. Other navies are looking at broadly the same concept to make better use of their manpower. The arsenal ship as a large (war)ship concept has actually been looked at repeatedly but been set aside as too specialised and vulnerable. In a prolonged engagement it likely would provide only a stopgap solution.

[@steampup8834]

OMG i hated doing that nonsense. We had to rearm at sea because of Japanese law which allowed us to keep our arsenals on their bases, but wouldn't allow us to rearm while docked. We had to do it at sea. I suspect that its probably because Japan is so densely populated that its a safety issue to do this sort of ammo handling.

[@Evan_Adams]

It's not going to be slow is a double negative.

[@oculosprudentium8486]

It's one thing to try and reload these missiles into the vls cells It's another this altogether when the are only making about 100 per year due to the long term problems caused by mergers, buyouts and downsizings by the military defense industry whose main goal is only making huge bucks profits and less and less weapons but charging more $$ for it Just take any random old soviet or Russian missile they had on their ships and they fly further and have much more explosives warheads than Western weapons by a factor of at least 5x

[@jordibt1789]

yes ,but that's a bad thing, aereal defenses are complex and difficult to beat, that's why you need to saturate the defenses, for that you need to fire a lot of them, and for such they need to be small, look at the soviets, they needed massive cruiser to fire a single barrage of those big p-700, while a single hornet could carry 4 harpoons, the US apporoach didn't need to put ships at risk while the russian fleet was always in dire straits.

[@Aendavenau]

Nationalize it.

[@stefanschleps8758]

@@Aendavenau Theoretically, sounds like an idea, but history has proven, China, Russia, Venezuela, that it seldom works out in real life the way it does when one is daydreaming.

[@thepopcornmonger3434]

At least... they don't have a puppet for an admiril. Advice wise... should have stayed with wraps right?

[@donm5354]

Missiles are so 20th Century. Need Directed Energy Weapon like ones Raytheon is developing 2 microwave based weapons - initially for defense. But up the power output and you can literally fry the crews of planes and ships. Then theres Quantum Energy Weapons.

[@stefanschleps8758]

Great minds think alike!

[@Greg99rock]

THIS IS WHY THEY ARE FEILDING THE AIM-174

[@maxkoster3836]

Love it puppet guy❤

[@natebartels1444]

Bring back the arsenal ships

[@romell06]

The the Ohio cruise missile sub is basically a arsenal ship. Just limitted to cruise missiles though.

[@Ghost12561]

and try to engage a Chinese missile guided destroyer from 200kms

[@06.arkan2a2]

​@@Ghost12561you could do that fine

[@hongjian3714]

And a bunch of stationary destroyers and huge transport ships filled with explosives sitting in open sea will be more survivable than a naval base how? China can track US ships as small as destroyers with their satellites (both optical and Synthatic Aperture Radar aka. seeing through cloud and at night) in real time and would love to see them bunched up and ripe for the reef transformation.

[@mattBLACKpunk]

Tbf if they're not out of air defense bunched up is the safest they could be

[@007999999999999999]

anything that moves has a higher survival chance than a stationary object that will never move even when fired at.

[@stefanschleps8758]

China's radar sucks! They can't even float a submarine without it sinking!

[@ShadowPhoenixMaximus]

Chinese satellites aren't as sophisticated as their western counterparts. The CCP would have to contend with the hundreds of bases/docks it regularly rambles about on a monthly basis. It wouldn't be as simple as them assigning a team to track each US ship 24/7. More likely the US naval would operate at night and any naval base would be on high alert for Chinese spies.

[@hongjian3714]

@@007999999999999999 Indeed, but the key here is that RAS requires the ships to be either stationary or at least cruise very slowly at a steady pace, which would be even worse since wake can be seen even easier via satellite recon.

[@miaudottk9080]

Why reload at sea?! Can't they just drop a barge into the sea and have the destroyer tow it, or even better have the supply ship follow the warship that commands the missiles.

[@gamingrex2930]

Barges are very attractive targets, much more so when they are reloading destroyers.

[@AlexLukovkin]

Agree! Why not to have a dumb self driven launcher platform? The only purpose of which would be store and launch rockets. Actually you don't need to place all eggs in one basket - it could be light drone-jet with few rockets - something similar to Ukraine sea drones.

[@kaiser3626]

Drone ships was had been used by ukraine with some success. We can expect more advanced drone ships in the future

[@stefanschleps8758]

No. Not a very good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.

[@andrewells7441]

This entire clip is nothing but click bait, our naval commanders know how to fight at sea. When the shooting starts the process will be as followed. Norad will identify incoming missiles in league with Space command, these position will be immediately loaded for destruction. It might take a day or two for the Air Force and Navy to collect all the targets then the stealth bombers and submarines will handle that business. On other instances other black platforms will be utilized to intercept hypersonic missiles in flight with 350 kw onboard lasers. These lasers are already aboard certain ships and all the new Ford class carriers. You do the math a missile traveling at let's say mach 20 is about 15,345 miles per hour, where a laser travels at 186,000 miles per second. Well the defense contractors want to sell these expensive missiles for big dollars like a tomahawk block V cost 4 million per shot, most of the rest cost about 2 million per shot. There is a financial reason to suppress laser technology.

[@andrewszigeti2174]

A bit of bad planning on our part, that.

[@Fallaga762]

Tico is 112 VLS, not 128.

[@lennart266]

the amount of bots in this chat...

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

How about cassettes ? Like they do with HIMARS and MLRS ?

[@Spearhead45]

As an American I think it's pretty worrisome what we saw what happened to Israel I ran only launched 200 missiles About 20 of them fell to the ground. 180 were in the air United States claims 80% interception I think it's closer to 70 due to the amount of impacts. And that's with aegis ship defense and davids sling arrow 2 and 3. I'm not worried about Iran the problem is China causeway China would definitely send far more than 200 missiles and their missiles are far more capable than anything the Iranians could build in terms of countermeasures capabilities etc. I think Patriot system is good but in Ukraine it has proven to not be as effective as we would like it To be. THAAD is great. The problem is we just don't have enough missiles or interceptors rather. I mean if China really wanted to take Taiwan they could do it in the United States would not be able to do a thing about it And I think we all know that we have allowed it to get to that point unfortunately

[@john_in_phoenix]

I'm not so sure about China being able to invade Taiwan. We have a lot of good attack submarines, and the Taiwan strait would be a free fire zone. Really it would depend on how many are close by, how they are armed, and how many are 24 to 48 hours away (they are also fast). Currently I would think it a very high risk gamble for China. Maybe not so risky in the future. You also have to consider how quickly a B-1 or B-2 strike with antiship missiles could reach the area.

[@Spearhead45]

@@john_in_phoenix you are right those bombers would be in route quick my only concern is Chinese air Defense. They have shown capabilities intercepting munitions almost with relative ease at this point. Given their rocket technology I think it’s a scary fight for the United States. Spending 20 years in the desert really did not do us any favors whatsoever.

[@spartancrown]

@@Spearhead45we took our eye off the ball with the desert nonsense and we’ve done it again with the Ukraine nonsense. The only ones to blame for our current SCS position is the Obama administration. They let China walk over them and expand as well as build out those islands.

[@leexingha]

"unfortunately" - wats unfortunate? becoz ur country couldnt able to mess up someone?

[@gugurlqk]

I will never be able to understand why those ships are not entirely replaced by nuclear powered submarines? The submarine outperforms any ship in any measurable metric. Even potential reloading between two submarines is theoretically more feasible since the they pretty much can stay still and are quite stable under water.

[@charlesharper2357]

Because submarines can't do air defence.

[@edwardpate6128]

@@charlesharper2357 Or Naval Gunfire Support of troops on the beach.

[@RouGeZH]

At equal price ships transport more weapons and are faster.

[@charlesharper2357]

@@edwardpate6128 Most ships don't have real capability to do shore bombardment anymore...the biggest guns are only 5 inch.

[@myparadiseonbantayanisland9030]

Hire Elon Musk to make a multiple missile loader, load a quad box of missiles at once.😁 All the existing givernment contractors are paid by the hour and then paid again to fix what did not work the first, second and third time.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

Elon being a slave driver is not a good thing to brag about.

[@myparadiseonbantayanisland9030]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor This is the USA you can quit your job and find a better job anytime you wish so "slave driver" is obviously liberal and socialist nonsense. 🤣🤣🤣

[@Chuck_Hooks]

More reason to build 200+ B-21s

[@zachjordan7608]

B-21s are quite limited, they need very large well functioning airports and can't react quickly. they're large bombers, not naval attack aircraft

[@Chuck_Hooks]

​@@zachjordan7608B-2s have operated out of Keflavik. And that is done on purpose: to learn how to operate from relatively sparse bases.

[@zachjordan7608]

@@Chuck_Hooks but can they operate their under sustained pressure, and wartime conditions while also staying effective enough to be worth it? worse facilities mean less munitions and fuel to resupply them after all, and less common and fast maintenance due to not as many workers, that all heavily limits their use. and again, they are used against static land targets, they are not designed for naval warfare. you need different types of aircraft than giant heavy bombers for that

[@Chuck_Hooks]

@zachjordan7608 B-21s can takeoff from one base and land at another to refuel and rearm. That is one of the points of B-2s operating out of Keflavik for even a few weeks. Nobody knows where they will takeoff and land from. B-21s will likely be able to carry 8-12 LRASMS, which is certainly an anti-shipping mission.

[@zachjordan7608]

@@Chuck_Hooks they can do that, but that also takes tons of time. opportunities to strike certain ships or fleets can be very fleeting. it's all about reaction time, and the B-1s just wouldn't have that in effect. not enough fueled and armed at close bases at once also, the production cost of each b-1 is 265 million. that would make it take over 43billion dollars just to build, not to mention maintain, pay pilots for and of course arm. those production numbers just aren't realistic. warfare is all about economics and logistics and neither work out for the b-1 being a naval war winning weapon against china

[@MalaysDgreat]

and the reallity is China are well aware on these shortcomings.

[@svenskaz3428]

and they don't do anything about it

[@shubashuba9209]

Aren't islands better than ships? They are unsinkable, have more storage capacity, and cheaper to manage.

[@jcnamaasshi]

and stationary, so it might be unsinkable but can be neutralized with cruise missiles without searching and tracking if they already know. and you can do nothing about it. because islands require search and track with RADAR to ships. even you try to shoot down them, anti air missiles are way more expensive than cruise missiles. Basic offense and escort missions would be impossible because... it is stational units. so islands are not better in term of ships capability. it have its own use and cannot compare.

[@saurabhpardeshi8435]

This was an patron only video how come it's available for free ❓

[@MyTakeOnLife001]

Because more views = more money 💰💰💰

[@normm1619]

Why intervene directly on behalf of Taiwan, if the USA won’t do it for Ukraine? As Taiwan says ‘to deter China, help Ukraine.’ Abandoning Ukraine just tells China that a little pushback, and the USA will back down..

[@lukerhode8960]

Because Ukraine isn't a treaty bound US ally and Taiwan is. Countries have no business being in the practice of helping everyone ever who gets invaded.

[@EpistemicAnthony]

Ukraine is a useless nation. Taiwan is strategically and economically valuable.

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

@@lukerhode8960 Ukraine gave up its nukes because of pressure & security guarantees from the U.S. . To now go "it's non of our business if they can't protect themselves" ...

[@A_Haunted_Pancake]

Not marching in guns blazing and "Abandoning Ukraine" are two very different things.

[@normm1619]

@@lukerhode8960 you mean the mutual defense treaty signed in 1955? The one that lapsed in 1980?…perhaps you can tell us which current treaty the USA has to defend Taiwan…..