The Navy has a warship problem... (And a solution)

[@SandboxxApp]

Go to ground.news/Sandboxx to get a no nonsense view on military developments around the world. Subscribe through my link for 40% off unlimited access to their Vantage Plan or try it today for as little as $1/month, that’s less than your morning coffee!

[@Sir_Godz]

its not B-U-fort scale, its Bow-fort scale as in Cross-bow-fort or Beau Guest the fictional character

[@boutinpowered8373]

Transferring missiles while at sea just seems like overengineering the problem of, not enough missiles can fit on this boat's hull size. Instead of just making a bigger boat specializing in missile quantity, they must create an overly complicated and inefficient system.

[@gimnick]

I've been using Ground since your last video with them and it's fantastic so far! Highly recommend it

[@1DVSB]

Anything Americana has sitting on water in war is useless because of the hypersonic weapons deployed by China and Russia. Fear not America has the largest Submarine fleet. Everything else is just a target in a state of war against a real military

[@jaredyoung5353]

This is what happens when defense is privatized more and more

[@nekomakhea9440]

_3 VLS rearming supply ships provides the capability equivalent to 18 additional destroyers by keeping warships at sea longer, saving warships already deployed a weeks long trip to port for rearming_ And that's why amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics

[@jtjames79]

Logistically drones win every time. You have to think a little outside the box, but there's decades of sci-fi to draw on.

[@piotrd.4850]

Please remind these professionals about crew fatique, spare parts, fuel, consumables....

[@SamtheIrishexan]

As a Navy veteran taking away a week long port call is a necessary break for morale.

[@cocomojoe808]

@@jtjames79I think we’ll see drones used increasingly over the years. First as piloted or semi-autonomous vessels, then as autonomous augmentations to fleets/ships, and ultimately as a primary muscle mover for a fleet.

[@The_ZeroLine]

You must be the ever first person to use that logistics line in a comments section! I’m a simple man. I see an original comment and I click.

[@SirWhiteRabbit-gr5so]

Nimitz's secret weapon in WW2 was the mobile, floating naval bases of Service Squadron Ten. Entire anchorages of supply, repair and drydocking facilities that advanced behind the Fleet substantially reducing the need to sail to Pearl, Bremerton or San Diego.

[@Kriss_L]

Which would be a lot harder to do now with intel satellites in orbit.

[@absalomdraconis]

​@@Kriss_L: Sailing to Pearl, Bremerton, or San Diego would _also_ be much harder for the same reason. Those ships which actually sailed all the way back often succeeded only because of work already done at those mobile facilities.

[@ramal5708]

Indeed this is why the Navy established overseas forward bases in Ulithi atoll, Majuro etc. which are located close to the frontlines and made warships and aircraft carriers to refuel, rearm and repair. Logistics also defeated Japan in WWII, Japan lost most of their cargo and merchant ships and they couldn't conduct their logistical operation with efficiency.

[@CharlesFosterMalloy]

Exactly. Floating bases. These would be huge targets, but would and could be heavily defended, like an aircraft carrier group. You would almost need one of these for each deployed carrier group. Many floating base defenses could be on-board or the base could have its own escorts of Arleigh Burks and Cruisers. Picture the most recent, former Enterprise together with the Kitty Hawk or the Nimitz, combined as superstructures into a huge catamaran that ships sailbetween for reloading and resupply. Sail right through. It could be designed to work on 2 ABs at the same time even, perhaps, or, could place a single AB in effective floating drydock.

[@CharlesFosterMalloy]

Web search: "Floating Dry Dock - South Pacific WWII Museum"

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

This is what I love about Alex... He's not afraid to _literally_ say "I might be wrong" *and then* to ask for you to inform/correct him about it! ♥️👍

[@randygravel2057]

You know comments help him. They put wrong stuff in videos to get comments.

[@DUKE_of_RAMBLE]

@@randygravel2057 Well sure, I'm aware of how comments improve a video's reach. Though I'm not sure Sandboxx is doing it intentionally, and if they are, on any piece of info that's significant. For example, I've seen Shorts (not Sandboxx's) make an very targeted errors to trigger viewers into commenting. So I'm not implying that practice isn't in play... I'm just not sure _Alex_ does it. But I've been known to be wrong, which is fine! 😅

[@coryt2459]

He’s the best.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

Be a he is often wrong

[@phantomechelon3628]

Pros know they don't get everythging right all the time and sometimes their research can come up short. Alex knows a lot of former and current military personnel watch his channel, so there is a good chance someone will pick up any errors / fill in any gaps.

[@njgrplr2007]

This one hit close to home! I am proud to say that both of my boys are U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) grads who worked for the Military Sealift Command (MSC). One is now working as a dynamic positioning officer for a separate company. I can tell you very few people appreciate the strategic value of USMMA.

[@ChaseBond11]

Kings Point is such a beautiful place to go to school. More people should know about it.

[@joedance14]

A very challenging program from all I’ve ever heard! United States Military Academy (better known as West Point)

[@kennethng8346]

When I first read that VLS systems had to go back to a friendly port to rearm I was astonished. Obviously the resupply depots would be the second targets after the initial strikes. I'm glad they are looking into resolving this.

[@donaldg.freeman2804]

That kind of sounds like a selling point to get Congress to provide the capability. However I'd be thinking about rearming in and around Guam, Japan and the Philippines. We are pouring a crap-ton of money into the Philippines now and paying for base development in many different locations to host ATACMS and other weapons systems to dominate the South China Sea in the event the Chinese go further in their efforts to threaten the Philippines and other neighbors. You have to watch a lot of these videos from different perspectives to see what steps we are taking along with the other ASEAN nations to obstruct China.

[@k53847]

We used to have these vessels called "Destroyer Tenders". These had cranes, big holds and machine shops and were designed to support DD flotillas away from major bases. The Navy got rid of them because reasons.

[@Dreadwolf3155]

could it be that the VLS cell is not practical for a large scale war?

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

@@donaldg.freeman2804 I suppose you've seen where think-tanks have gamed this out. Did you miss the ones about a preemptive first strike on air bases and naval ports (you know, the ones with reloading capabilities and ships re-supplying) before actually landing on Taiwan? So much for the survive-ability of the first string ships within missile range of China.

[@everettputerbaugh3996]

@@Dreadwolf3155 Well... There was the concept of the arsenal ship, but it was decided that the navy couldn't afford the 100's of missiles required to are it (not to mention the replacement costs due to normal wear & tear of deployment).

[@briankachelman]

Army veteran here. Awesome work once again Alex. You're vids are at the top of my list when I brew my coffee and sit down to get my morning started. Gonna miss your vids when you go in for eye surgery. But I will be wishing you the best when you go in. Hope all goes well and the doc's are able to restore your sight to the best it can be. Are yoiu using the VA medical system to get this done, or going through civilian docs? Probably doesn't make a difference. Just curious. My experience with VA docs has been hit and miss. Good luck my friend and I'll be looking forward to the next vid when it drops! Keep up the amazing work and Thank You for always making the things you cover easy to understand!!!

[@jajssblue]

Its funny, as an engineer, my mind jumps from "This should be easy to fix" to "Wait, no. This is really complicated and difficult to fix". 😂 Such is the dirty work of building a real world solution.

[@protorhinocerator142]

Everything at sea becomes 10^3 times harder. Navy stuff ain't cheap.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Because of the length of the cells and the tight tolerances, perfect alignment needs to be maintained while they are lowered into position. This is nearly impossible when the Crane is on the donor ship because there's no way that 2 different ships can be locked together as one. I think the solution is to lower the cells on the deck of the recipient and then use a Crane on that ship to pick it up and put it in position, In the module. Now I'm interested to look up the TRAM system to see how that's designed...

[@cannon3267]

coulkd a system similar to the himars rack work?? it would need to be able to erect the cells, but the built in guide rails, even if stowable when not in use, might be a viable option.

[@jajssblue]

@@cannon3267 I was actually thinking something similar. A bundle of VLS tubes with a specialty fitted resupply vessel. By specialty, I mean one with a significant arm and bumper system to hold the ships together and a significant gantry crane system to do the full job of lifting the vls bundle and inserting it into the destroyer. I would envision this gantry as not using conventional cables and cranes, but instead telescoping armature or guide rails with cables. Between locking the ships together and using this gantry system, I would aim to eliminate any sway in moving the cargo. Granted, this is an expensive and unique solution. Plus I can see potential flaws with the approach. But I think it could handle intense sea states. I need to look into the TRAM system mentioned in the video to see how it works.

[@jjohnson796]

No it’s not. KISS my friend all of the tech to do this has been around since the early 90’s. Civilian merchant and working commercial vessels deal with this all the bloody time when rafting up for cargo transfer and used to do it without dynamic positioning and with at times more reactive materials than a missile in a VLS canister. Don’t reinvent the wheel when solutions are already around.

[@richardsmith5502]

You mentioned the first ship to receive vls systems was a Ticonderoga class cruiser in 1996. When I got to uss Paul f foster dd964 in 1993 we had 8x8 vls system installed. Prior to my arrival, that ship used the vls system to launch tomahawk cruise missles during the first gulf war.

[@elecjack1]

He said the first was in 1986.

[@richardsmith5502]

Thank you

[@Kriss_L]

I was on FOSTER for her last 16 months until we decommed her. Retired YN/CTA1(SW).

[@samueljones5668]

I spent 3 years on a Navy ship, USS PYRO, AE-24. All we did was underway replenishment at sea. Everything from Carriers, destroyers, cruisers. We have been doing this since WWII..

[@protorhinocerator142]

I like the sound of that. USS Pyro. Sounds like an idea I would have had.

[@Skb2005]

Isn’t he specifically talking about VLS cells in this video?

[@Hathur]

Yeah... you gave fuel and supplies and equipment... NOT VLS replacement rounds. Pay attention.

[@nametag4277]

You saying that you resupplied VLS while under way?

[@artiefakt4402]

@@nametag4277 Alone with his bare hands, probably

[@mikerash-pc4jc]

Thanks Alex you get access to some really interesting weapons information from aircraft, army equipment, marine weapon systems and navy weapons. I built aircraft, weapons, parts, nasa rocket systems and systems to the Air Force from structural frame to inflight refueling . I’m retired now. But I still have never lost my interest to keep learning. I love the current access you get on the latest system. Everything in the military never stops evolving. Great job.

[@jajssblue]

Time to bring back liberty ships full of VLS tubes!😂

[@BrettBaker-uk4te]

OSV with ADL or Mk.70....

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

Problem with that is making enough missiles to fill the tubes. Offensive wise, SSGNs are the best option. The enemy is very unlikely to detect them before they're in range, they can carry plenty of missiles, then disengage and go back to reload. Some have suggested a cheaper semi-submersible arsenal ship option, which I could get behind if the factories can meet the demand.

[@jakeaurod]

@@tickticktickBOOOOM The problem with SSGNs is that it may be overkill or underkill for short range attack or air defense or ABM roles.

[@tbe0116]

@@tickticktickBOOOOM The purpose of surface vessels is really just air defense. Most of their VSLs in a conflict will be filled with Sams to protect themselves and the carrier. Ssgns can’t do that.

[@tickticktickBOOOOM]

@@jakeaurod I said 'Offensive wise.' For everything else, you do need surface ships.

[@djc9727]

I spent three years on the USS McKee a submarine tender back in the 90s. We could do anything that a submarine needed in calm waters. At a port or at anchor. We also had destroyer tender that had the same ability. Both had cranes built into the ships. They couldn’t do weapons moves under but in a port or a bay that had calm waters they could. We no longer have any in the Navy.

[@FishandHunt]

Great article Alex. Greetings from your most reliable ally since WW2 down in Australia. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

[@spurgear]

Proud to be brothers with the lords of banter!

[@FishandHunt]

@@spurgear World champion shit talkers and beer drinkers! lol Good on ya mate. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

[@randomuser5443]

The land down under that out crazies florida. Strongest ally in the region

[@FishandHunt]

@@spurgear Yes we could be considered world champions at sledging and beer drinking! lol 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

[@FishandHunt]

@@randomuser5443 Bigger than Texas and crazier than Florida. These are trying and dangerous times, we need to stick together. 🇦🇺🤝🇺🇸

[@harveyvenier2805]

Trying to keep up with the changes is difficult as well as being amazing. Old FTM2 here 1959 to 1967 Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam Veteran. My first fire control computer MK1A. Took up half the compartment and was a mechanical computer, but we hit what we aimed at. USS Eaton DDE-510 Harvey

[@alexanderpierzchala1615]

Thank you for your service.

[@Kriss_L]

When I reported to USS FOSTER, we had two walls of empty racks in the space that had been replaced with two laptops.

[@louisfrank6918]

Hey be happy missile are safer then other ideations ages past powder mags were the most dangerous thing on our ships and directed. Munitions one shot one kill vastly superior look at convenience and ease of decoy modules to confuse combvataants

[@Leon1Aust]

Aussie Navy announced a large optionally crewed surface vessels (LOSVs) drone VLS ships (to be developed with the USN) and expanding the capability of it's ships. These will be networked within the AEGIS ships weapons systems. This future capability will be incorporated on a greater scale within the USN thus expanding its VLS count. Difference between this and having the missiles in an escorting support ship is that the drone ships missiles are ready for instant action. The problem of reloading spent missiles at sea has a long history, especially now we have a near peer aggressor in the far western Pacific, both these capabilities of reloading at sea and drone VLS ships are a definite force multipliers.

[@ChrisZukowski88]

I wouldn't call the Chinese "near peer", but they def. are the greatest threat. Russia is a baby that Europe can easily handle. The Chinese have upped their military quite a bit that is true, at the cost of their voilatile economy though. Not to mention, their population crisis will cripple them for years to come. That being said, drone tech is def. the way to the future, that's for sure!

[@Leon1Aust]

@@ChrisZukowski88 I agree the USN is far superior but the nearer the USN and Allied navy's fight close to China the more home ground advantage China has. Fighting close to Taiwan and South China Sea, China can call on it's shorter tactical forces but the US would require assets that require a longer range transit.

[@UsreaOrg]

I propose a simple (comparatively) solution. Design a “magazine ship” that never has to offload missiles but only needs to arrive in theater, and is remotely fired by the Arleigh Burke class ship (who has all the sophisticated control systems) Basically a remotely triggered cargo ship or magazine ship. The vessel could be stocked with vertically oriented missiles to the hilt. Replacement only requires a new cargo ship to arrive in theater.

[@miketan4803]

Tbh refills are probably just smaller part of the problem. It's a bit wasteful to waste missiles costing tens of millions on $500 drones. Or provide artillery support. C130 with the missiles pallets can already perform that container ship function. Maybe need to buy that rail gun from UK since US already stopped that project

[@jameeltaylor687]

I was just thinking the same thing

[@jameeltaylor687]

@@miketan4803… this is why they should bring back or construct new battle ships. Just think about a battle ship, firing rounds similar to buckshot, out of those big ass guns…. They could literally pepper the sky, with drone killing rounds

[@JasonMcKee-ow3xy]

@@jameeltaylor687Unfortunately as badass as they are, battleships really became obsolete during WWII. When your enemies have missiles, a shell would be much less effective. A lot slower and they can still be shot down easily with the same weapons that shoot down missiles.

[@lordtartarsauceb8348]

Thats a lot of eggs in one basket.

[@radical137]

In a major conflict, it would be possible for the USN to need to use up most of its VLS in the theater on the first day. It would be thousands on the first day, then hundreds later.

[@PDXdjn]

Hopefully, the remaining targets are significantly reduced after the first day.

[@dgthe3]

@@PDXdjn Yes, but the Day 1 problem still exists. A war with China will not be initiated by the US. So the load-out of ships will have to reflect a good deal of uncertainty in just what the war will be. Every tomahawk in a VLS cell is one less missile to protect the ship, battlegroup, or Taiwan. But every tomahawk used is a potential pier-side ship destroyed, or ammunition bunker obliterated, or fuelling depot crippled. Its a question of how much of today gets sacrificed in the name of tomorrow. Quite literally.

[@donaldcarey114]

The ignored issue is the CURRENT stockpile of and the CURRENT manufacturing capacity for said weapons.

[@radical137]

@@dgthe3 actual VLS loadouts are secret, but I think it's about 75 percent defensive. The USN relies on airpower for offense.

[@bruceferry6229]

US Army Warrant Officers began on the water in the mine planting service , no surprise one became a marine engineer … btw “Sustainment is a Warfighting Function!”

[@rickycowan4792]

I always enjoy keeping up with what's going on with our military. Thanks Alex

[@dan725]

I was part of an ONR effort for a specialized crane that would stay stable during inclement weather. This was back in around 2015ish. This program came out of a need to preserve existing crane cabling, as sudden loads on cables while deploying CTDs drastically reduced cable life and risk cable snapping (which by this point, has already happened numerous times). The end result pretty much kinked up and destroyed the cables though because there was no level-wind in the world that could keep up with the constant paying in and out of the cables. Granted, the loads were for much smaller payloads than entire missiles. CTD’s aren’t nearly as large as an entire VLS canister; BUT CTDs require paying thousands of meters of cable so the CTD to approach the ocean floor. As of me typing, such a crane still does not exist as the issues were never solved, and will unlikely will be solved in the foreseeable future. We tried for many years with lots of money trying to solve it, with many crane companies and really smart people to solve it; but could not. We’re limited to use of such cranes at calmer conditions (Beaufort sea state of 3 or less). HOWEVER, VLS rearming uses far less cable than deploying CTDs at sea (like instead of a few thousand meters of cables payed out for CTDs, it’s more like a hundred at the most for surface-to-surface crane use). That makes me extremely optimistic for TRAM, if they use similar technology as we tried to incorporate.

[@8__vv__8]

It doesn’t seem that hard to solve, but I don’t know what constraints you were dealing with. Is it an important problem?

[@dan725]

@@8__vv__8 Ya we didn’t think so either, but the ship moved so much relative to avg surface level even at sea-state of 1, that the winch was paying out and unpaying very rapidly, so much so that the winch cable got insanely kinked and tangled. The level-wind could not keep up. There’s no motor tech that can keep up that sort of speed and variability.

[@danielch6662]

Instead of a magical crane, how about robot arms?

[@absalomdraconis]

​@@danielch6662: Cranes _are_ a type of robot arm.

[@absalomdraconis]

​@@dan725: Old-style tape drives used vacuum tech to help with their equivalent (the drums the tape was stored on were too high-mass for quick accelerations), but admittedly they still needed capstan motors that could go fast enough as well.

[@marct9360]

Port Hueneme is pronounced Y-knee-me. I was a SQT Officer there in 1969. It was called Naval Ship Missile Systems Engineering Station aka NSMSES back then.

[@danlombardi8307]

We appreciate your hard work putting out quality content!!

[@johndoh5182]

I really like the design of the VLS systems these ships have, even with the hassle of it. The reality is a ship even without VLS didn't have hundreds of missiles because their magazines only had a finite space, so one way or another you have the issue of a ship with a limited number of missiles. You have a lot more versatility with VLS.

[@protorhinocerator142]

I'm also not opposed to arsenal ships with hundreds of missiles on them. Make them semi-submersible so they're hard to hit. Maybe even double decker the missiles. I dunno. Have them use mainly extra long-range missiles and keep them a couple hundred miles back behind the fleet from the enemy. They would be used for static and slower targets. Anything where the clock is ticking and it needs to be destroyed NOW could be fired upon from traditional ships, closer to the fight.

[@dennisnguyen8105]

@@protorhinocerator142 Arsenal ships would be better employed as moving, harder to destroy anti ballistic missile shields for say Guam or Hawaii. South Korea and Japan use their Aegis destroyers to provide the same protection. They are very close to China and Russia and North Korea so these are easier to target via land or sea or submarine. The US islands are much further away so these ballistic defense ship would be easier to protect. As for strike capability, I think the US Air Force bombers and convert transport with Rapid Dragon would be a better choice. Air launch long range strike missile benefit from release at higher altitudes so the expensive boosting of the into the air via rockets will not be needed. Just fly them up and carry them to a launch point via much more efficient air transports and release them. I'm sure the NAVY will hate this but having fighters from carriers provide support to Air Force bombers will be the best solution for stand off strikes against coast China and their ships inside the first island chain.

[@hailexiao2770]

​@@protorhinocerator142Make it fully submersible and you've got yourself an SSGN.

[@protorhinocerator142]

@@hailexiao2770 True but you don't need to submerge half a mile. Make it so it can submerge 20 feet. That's plenty.

[@kiro9257]

@@protorhinocerator142 won’t that make those semi-submersible ships just as vulnerable as a surface ship without the capability to use surface-to-air missiles? Might as well commit to an SSGN since it’s more stealthier.

[@ThomasStell]

I think the MOBILE answer would be a ship like the mobile theater/expeditionary sea base ships we are currently building. The ship would partially flood like a large hauler (the kind that haul smaller yachts) so the destroyer could sail into the ship from astern then sail out from the resupply ship's bow. The ship could then lock the destroyer in place so both ships moved in tandem with each other. Finally, overhead cranes would precisely position the reload over the VLS and a mount either placed on deck by the base/resupply ship, or built into the VLS, would precisely ratchet down the reload in the same way we haul down Helos to a pitching deck (RAST gear). The overhead gantry crane would provide more support to the reload than a boom jib crane would and give better stability with two widely spread cable rigs.

[@dorkf1sh]

That's the first thought I had- a SOSO (Sail On Sail Off) solution that's mobile and versatile. I'd also look at replacing banks of cells as a package rather than reloading individual cells on the combatant. Pull the partially/fully expended bank, drop in a full bank, then let the SOSO reload the banks expended cells from their own stores as the combatant sails off into the fight again. Heck, a combatant could even call ahead for a customized load out based on current need.

[@cyrussumner]

THis sounds like the safest way to reload yet , no bent mods and stuck mod on lunch,GO NAVY!

[@texasranger24]

Could you do a video about the future of Shorad? Will short range air defense provided by the laser stryker? Will the Bradley replacement IFV XM30 function as an anti air cannon? Should the US look at the SkyRanger / Skynex / millenium gun system? And will there be a Stinger replacement with a better battery, targeting, and most importantly more affordable? Or is this affordable future the APKWS guidance upgrade for the cheap and plentiful Hydra 70mm rocket? Should we slap that on Avenger Hummvees? Or IRIS-T?

[@AdamS-nd5hi]

If they put lidar and laser sensors on the bottom of each fresh tube they want to load, it can detect the sway in x y and z in relation to the ship next to it so that hydraulics on the boom arm holding the munition over the empty tube can adjust in real time and basically remove or compensate for any of the motion between the 2 vessels. That’s how I’d design a solution. Then you can just have dedicated reloading vessels. Maybe a good designation for those new navy ships that have no idea what to do with

[@hanrockabrand95]

More than x,y,z, I think roll, pitch, and yaw would make it very difficult to align things.

[@kurtwinslow2670]

I'm no engineer but I think you'd have to anticipate the motion\wind which brings in many more variables.

[@sneakerset]

@@hanrockabrand95 Yeah, the Dutch roll.

[@AdamS-nd5hi]

@@hanrockabrand95 exactly. Sorry, was typing at red lights. I’m terrible, I know

[@markdiehard]

Seems to me that having these cells in a pre packaged block and craned into place would be much quicker without the need to have such small area to fit too.

[@55Reever]

This brings back consideration for the "magazine ship" a ship that can fire those weapons. Favorite idea, force multipliers.

[@johndoh5182]

Yes, a ship that carries missiles for other ships HAS to be well protected, and it can't protect itself alone. You'd have to have underwater support and air support as much as possible to go with it and there aren't many places in the world that would want a magazine ship to pull into their ports.

[@GizzyDillespee]

​@@johndoh5182Not an arsenal ship... a magazine ship. Instead of a manned reloader ship, people have been talking about an unmanned missile launching ship that can hold way more missiles since it won't need to house a crew. Which is a fabulous idea until Hal9000 or Korean hackers take it over electronically... then it will seem like just the worst idea... a drone with thousands of long-range missiles - what could go wrong?

[@dgthe3]

@@GizzyDillespee A support ship hauling missiles isn't really the problem. Getting them from that vessel onto a warship, is.

[@Anarchy_420]

Please cover The F-35B & F-35C Gun Pods! When/why they're deployed, how much would it adversely affect RCS, and are The Pods Stealthy/Low Observable themselves!?🙏👍

[@MrWhiskers65]

Why wouldn’t you have armoured towed missile barges which have large numbers of missiles, like they used to do in the mid 1800’s with steam powered battleships towing armoured gun barges? You could have merchant vessels tow them to just outside the battle zone where they could be picked up by the destroyers?

[@texasranger24]

The US Army just chose General Dynamics and Rheinmetall as finalists for the 4000 Bradley replacement IFVs. Could you do a Firepower series video about this program, the two finalists and the other three that dropped out. Or more generally the current state of IFVs (Bradley, CV90, Puma, Lynx) and their most likely future. Maybe even including anti air IFVs like some CV90 variants and SkyRanger.

[@MrSJPowell]

You're determinized, I'll give you that. Also might want to update your copy pasta because they "just" chose those finalists nearly a year ago.

[@texasranger24]

@@MrSJPowell i mean i could, but we could also use it as a timescale to when the video finally comes out...

[@WWeronko]

Besides the issue with reloading the magazines, the problem with limited missile supplies is perhaps more pertinent. For FY 2024 only 125 Standard missiles of all kinds and 108 ESSM were ordered for the year. That is pretty much the average yearly order. Considering the shelf life of a missile, it leaves only a limited number of missiles available to reequip the fleet once war begins. Though classified, it seems unlikely considering the high-tech components in these missiles, if it is possible to surge production anywhere near the levels needed in a near peer conflict. Also relevant is the fact that USN fleet units have very large missile magazines when compared with our allies. The British Type 45 destroyer, for example, has only 48 missile silos for its PAAMS air-defense system. There are few missiles available and new Aster missiles have taken 42 months from the placing of an order to delivery. The other remaining NATO allies are equally as limited. The countries that use US weapons will have to wait for US production to replenish their stock once the shooting starts.

[@Kriss_L]

Finally a comment that makes sense.

[@ktanner11]

I'm willing to bet in a big scale shooting war after the first days or months, the use of older tech will be used more and more IE surface engagements that use torpedoes deck guns ect. You can have all the best tech, but if you cant supply enough its pointless

[@harveyvenier2805]

Thanks!

[@josephnewbern2717]

This sounds like a good reason to rethink the “arsenal ship” idea. Bigger ships make bigger targets, to be sure. But let’s be honest. The carrier is as big enough target as there is. Sailing an arsenal ship (or perhaps more than one) with a carrier strike group for both carrier defense and additional combat power makes a lot of sense to me. As this new system comes to rearm at sea, arsenal ships could also be rearmed or be swapped out as necessary.

[@dennisnguyen8105]

US Navy is already thinking about Arsenal ships but distributed. Think unmanned or optionally manned ships with VLS cells and a large open rear deck suitable for various task such as landing helicopter, VTOL, F35Bs, drones or mobile missile launchers. They can even have a rolling on/off cover so that you don't know what's underneath. I"'m sure RAS (refueling at sea) for drones is in development. These would have nearly limitless endurance provided they have fuel. Minor maintenance can be performed by roving techs. If major maintenance is needed, they can be sent back to friendly port.

[@counterfit5]

Not needing to house crew would open up a lot of space for weapons that crewed ships can't use, so they wouldn't necessarily need to be bigger

[@dgthe3]

I'd be more comfortable with new cruisers. Not because of any possible vulnerability & risking losing a big chunk of your battle groups VLS cells, but because 1 ship can only ever be in 1 place at 1 time. Take the DDX hull, add a bit of length fore & some more aft (50-60 feet total) and just pack in dozens more missiles. 200 total feels like a good target number.

[@josephnewbern2717]

@@dgthe3 Understood. Thats why in my mind, you disperse the arsenal ships like the rest of the fleet. Some be part of the CBGs, others to trail cruiser, destroyers and frigates at a distance. Still others spread out elsewhere. The idea is to continue to amass combat power, by any and all available means, preferably keeping them all in motion and slipping into and out of range.

[@dereksollows9783]

Arsenal ships will be of equal value to a carrier and thus will require high amounts of defensive measures. This may eventuate into a dead end concept. How many 'too many eggs in one basket' concepts can be supported by the greater fleet? Success may be in distributed nodes rather than centralized masses. If the nodes are cheap enough - there will be a benefit when compared with 'support groups' for - not only the carriers, but for the arsenal ships. It is not an easy balance to strike. Good luck with this from your neighbour to the north.

[@mixpick138]

Great stuff! It's easy to think about the small-scale engagement where resupply would not necessarily be an issue --but on a large scale Big problems. It's not like the old days when you could transfer some shells, powder, fuel/food, and, er, the latest magazines while tooling alongside a supply ship just outside the battle space. You can get anything you want from those beautiful supply ships except missile canister. Really interesting topic/problem.

[@jerkyz]

This is hands down the best channel on KZbin!

[@acemax1124]

These problems where discussed long time ago by the navy and viewed in magazines like Popular Engineering 🤔 The Arsenal Ships where one solution and could still be a option or a variant of the idea 💡🤔

[@Colorful_Cascadia]

Glad I refreshed my youtube feed just in time! Another great video Alex!

[@jrdsm]

It could have been catastrophic if you didn't

[@ladybear7299]

As a long time viewer and former navy . I think we Served at the same time,94-98. I appreciate you. Putting some sea power on . Go navy .

[@texasranger24]

3:22 to skip the ad

[@dabulphilly]

Thanks

[@barryelverson9486]

I love this channel! I am so enjoying that you cover more than just air. I swear, I look forward to your videos on the Space Force.

[@ARGONUAT]

Great job Alex! You and Ward Carroll are two of my favorite sources for in depth intel on important topics.

[@TheJamesthe13]

1. they're not "bumpers", they're fenders. 2. the commercial vessel also came equipped with a bloody great zero speed stabliser, making her effectively a stationary object, when compared to the naval vessels she was working with. 3. Go out and look at the nearest coastal anchorage you can find. You see the waves? Now add tidal motion, and wind effect. It doesn't matter how sheltered the anchorage is, these factors will always exist in deep water ports. There is nowhere in the world, that a navy "frigate" or "cruiser" could access that would be calm enough to get that system to work. (I put the classes in "," as they bear no resemblance to their namesakes, and draw far more water, and are far longer.) 4. "State 5 results from a strong breeze (up to 27 knots) and large waves (up to 20', but half that height on Sea State 1 Conditions average) start forming, many with white foam crests."

[@jjohnson796]

I would argue that you need a lot more sea experience and materials handling as well. We were doing crap like this back in the 90’s under much worse conditions. Why do people look for difficult solutions to relatively simple problems. Build the head of the lifting boom correctly and it’s not a big problem.

[@Myungbean]

"I'd probably argue that VLS was a nice idea, but they forgot to include a magazine system to reload them." I was just thinking this. I'm surprised there isn't a faster way to eject the spent cells (perhaps some sort of elevator beneath) that could also facilitate faster reloading.

[@mountedpatrolman]

Bring back the Iowa's.

[@jamisonpoindexter1648]

yeah i can tell u read one book about a ww2 battleship and based your entire naval idea of strategy on outdated technology from 70 years ago…but I’m sure the people that study this for a living don’t know as much as you :)

[@Kriss_L]

One big advantage of using VLS is eliminating the magazine. For example, the Mk 11 twin arm missile launcher magazine stored the missiles on rotating chain (think about a dry-cleaner) that would rotate the missiles until the desired one was under the hatch to the launcher. Then a sailor would run into the magazine, fold out the fins (becaue they would be ripped off if the magazine rotated while they were deployed), and run out of the magazine. So VLS eliminated all the mechanical, and human, moving parting in the magazine which eliminated hundreds or thousands of points of failure, and freed up the physical space of the magazine hardware to store more missiles. And it eliminated all of the moving parts (aka, points of failure) on the above deck launcher, and associated maintenance with the launcher and magazine. The RN found out what exposure to sea water can do to missile launchers in the South Atlantic during the Falklands War. The only downside to VLS is that is makes the ship visually look less well armed.

[@Mark-xm5eo]

Really enjoy your videos.They're very thorough easy to understand logical.And I hope the surgery goes well

[@Trojan0304]

Red Sea combat has woke Navy up that short term combat planning is faulty.

[@MattHuey]

They need too install small cranes!! since only lifting 3,000 Lbs on ships...then put the extra launch tubes on deck. or use Space X autonomous ships loaded with tubes!! 🚢😅💯

[@jaypoe6326]

I was stationed on the USS Fletcher ( DD-992) in '94. The ship went into drydock to install mk 41 VLS launchers. We've been at this for a bit longer than what you e said..

[@bigdiddy45]

So glad your surgery is scheduled. I'll be praying for you.

[@deansmits006]

This reminds me when i was in a cargo handling battalion in the Navy reserve, during one of my annual trainings in Virginia. The ship we practiced on had another crane of a different design, instead of the standard shipboard pedestal crane. They said it was gyroscopically stabilized, used cameras to match the other vessels movements to accurately place cargo from one ship to another. It was in testing. I thought it would be odd to load 40ft containers while at sea, but this would make more sense. FYI, I'm not saying what i was told was accurate, it even for the purpose of reloading VLS at sea

[@CitiesTurnedToDust]

I would think the solution would be to use the simple methods for moving the systems off the supply ship, but to then have a robotic arm, instead of just a crane, on the destination ship which is tasked with picking the systems up and installing them rapidly.

[@CharlesFosterMalloy]

Can USN surface ships re-load with the smaller Sea Sparrow missiles while at sea ? If carrying a variety of missile types, any given ship or even floatilla would soon run out of high demand weapons within days of a conflict, if not the first day. USN needs floating, seagoing, loading docks the size of aircraft carriers, or larger. Resupply ships deliver/offload to the floating dock, then the floating dock reloads the destroyer or cruiser. Why couldn't retired aircraft carrier hulls in pairs be converted to floating dock catamarans ?

[@bigirr]

VLS in cargo containers+ HiMar rigs = cargo ship MLS bases❤❤❤

[@bjl1226]

For reloading, consider the Drill Rig process for racking and stacking drill pipe. Very efficient and functional.

[@stephennelmes4557]

I did 25 years Royal Navy, my background was warfare, followed by 18 in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The RFA is a UK version of the MSC. I'm Now retired. Ive thought about this problem for quite a while and the simplest solution and probably the cheapest would be to use ships taken up from trade ( STUFT ). Take a commercial vessel that is able to keep up with the carrier battle group, add on some ballisic armour if necessary and fill it with as many Mk 41 VLS as possible. When the fight starts the fleet can draw upon these missiles first before their own, firing directly from the STUFT using whatever data link is in use at present. Think of a cheap, easily modified, semi disposable Arsenal class ( never got built but made it into Janes ). When its ammunition is expended it can be returned to port for a reload and/or relived by another STUFT waiting in a safe port or location. This problem as I see it is about logistics, not engineering.

[@Kriss_L]

Think Atlantic Conveyer. The US Navy doesn't buy that many missiles, so putting a large number on one ship is just asking to loose them all when you really need them.

[@stephennelmes4557]

​@Kriss_L Yeah, you're probably right.

[@peterclarke3020]

Well, one solution would be to have large ‘super cartridges’ carrying say 16 cells, The whole super cartridge would be unloaded to sea, which then independently motors a short distance over to the receiving ship, and then with robotic assistance slot into it. That would require custom designed ships, build to accept these super cartridges. They might for example ‘side-load’ into the ship or they could top-load. Either method would require robotic handling systems on the receiving ship, which might even be part of a still larger modular cartridge system - allowing that module to be swapped out, and replaced at a port for maintenance. So modules of modules of modules. Probably your ship should carry say 64 cells each, in 4 groups of 16-cell clusters. The as sea loading system should be designed to work up to say sea state 6.

[@Mr_Bullay_SlideRule]

Was is Napolean that said something to the effect of "Wars are fought and won on the belly of the armies?" It's all about logistics. Too bad LM/BAE (or whoever) didn't figure out the methodology on reloading VLS at-sea when they won the original contract design. But it looks like the Navy is working on possible solutions. Great content, and best wishes on a speedy recovery Brother!

[@BillWhittleChannel]

Absolutely first-rate!

[@ARabidPie]

Solution: Have a mechanical erector system attached to a sliding frame around the vls system. Transfer the new vls tubes to the ship deck horizontally by the pallet-full for quick and easy resupply. Use simple deck equipment to load the horizontal tubes onto the erector mechanism. Erector slides into the correct position and then does its thing. No swinging cranes. No complex lifts. Quick transfer process.

[@pauljs75]

Such makes perfect sense, but who knows what's tied up in contracts? The issue isn't technical but political.

[@wacojones8062]

The original system used 3 of the cells for a crane. It was called a strike down crane. I know there were problems with the system and it was removed on some ships.

[@Kriss_L]

61 cell VLS launchers were also installed on the SPRUANCE (DD 963) class destroyers, repalcing the forward ASROC launcher and TLAM ABLs.

[@johnpelar]

Philippines is God sent for the navy. Batanes was just recently added as a port and Santa Fe at the tip of Luzon is a naval base. You also have Lolilo airport nearby can accommodate heavy transports so there’s a slew of options. Besides Subic, Sangley, Cebu. There’s plenty to go to during the war. The whole Philippines will be open for use when war breaks out.

[@dan725]

I hope all goes well with your eye surgery! We love your content, so I know I speak for everyone here that your health is the no. 1 priority, so do take good care of yourself, and we’ll be calling you Alex “Eagle Eyes” Hollings pretty soon!

[@Four_Words_And_Much_More]

Spoken like a true system thinker. The whole is indeed much greater than the sum of the parts. TY Alex.

[@toddanderson5378]

Outstanding topic and commentary! Rearming "Cheaply" fits the model of low cost but little value. Rearming "Inexpensively" means it may cost more but has much value added. More time on station if needed and fewer grocery runs to any port. If we (USA) can land a rocket on it tail on a barge after a trip to space, then we( US) ought to be able to put a Square Peg in a Square Hole at sea.

[@Chas_Reno]

Ya, I was on AKA96 ..we delivered beer (c rations, metal landing strip, etc) to the Vietnam DMZ in 6' swells and fuel to LSD's mid Pacific .... not much of a target, but a large load of missiles on a slow moving.. cork and you have a hell of a prime target (with the help of TicTok)!

[@robertfoster347]

The strike down cranes could only be used in harbors. It was next to impossible to lower a middle into a cell on a rocking ship.

[@PDXdjn]

We need to combine the Rapid Dragon effect with Loyal Wingman for ships: Make inexpensive arsenal ships by putting VLS cells into shipping containers, securing these vertically in (mostly) standard Navy cargo ships or drone ships, and data link them to nearby warships for targeting and fire control. No need for tricky/risky resupply at sea, if you can just launch from the resupply ships.

[@franklentz5388]

This was addressed when VLS was first deployed, the concept was “Arsenal Ships”. The arsenal ship was nothing more than a hull that carried a mass of vls canisters that a launch could be directed from the ageis system within the battle group. Just a few years back a test was done via a drone ship carrying a vls module. The point is ships would have defensive missiles and offensive weapons carried in the drone ship.

[@NathanDean79]

I worked offshore drilling oil wells and those dynamic positioning systems on this big semi submersible rigs and drill ships are VERY good. They will keep you within 6-8 inches of the point you pick. Doesn’t matter what the seas. Are doing. This is vital when you are drilling. If the rig moved like 5-6 feet it can snap the pipe off in the hole damage your top drive and just really fuck your day up. Then you would have to repair the top drives but would have to send off for the parts and when we get it going again we would take another day fishing all that shit out of the hope. Yea but the DPS systems are excellent.

[@franklentz5388]

Back in the first gulf war a AD I was on we got certified to load vls canisters, we did inport, anchored in a harbor but anchored outside of a harbor was a failure.

[@henrycarlson7514]

So Wise , Thank You. We Must remember that there is No single ship or strategy that can do Every thing . As an example an Aircraft Carrier with No planes in the air is Almost completley helpless. Put the planes in the air with proper support , training and resupply Almost invinsebal, and can hit almost Any target at least 1000 miles away. Everything MUST work together , Must be Repairable , and Reloadable

[@prod.glitch]

I'm actually glad you're back and ok.

[@wrekced]

@Alex I love Ground News! I used to get my world news from shortwave in the '90's. I would hear about huge news stories that involved the US that I never heard from domestic news sources! Brodcasts by Deutche Welle and other European news agencies were far more infomative than our US news agencies were. Now, Ground News gives me an overview and blindspot coverage that is very thorough. I'm glad to see that you are using them too.

[@seandees9432]

The answer is airpower using using aresenal planes and cargo aircraft launching missles using rapid dragon

[@DennisFahlstrom]

We had no problem reloading SM-1 and SM-2 missiles at sea on ships prior to the advent of the Mk41 VLS. We took one step forward and 2 steps backward with VLS. Its high time the US navy got around to fixing this big problem its had since the mid 1980’s. The British Navy also has had the same problem.

[@rael5469]

0:25 I never liked America's practice of placing CIWS in single emplacements. What if it breaks down? What happens during reloading? A thing like that should always be in pairs. At LEAST in pairs.

[@Kriss_L]

Money, and physical space for more stuff.

[@rael5469]

@@Kriss_L The enemy doesn't care about your petty problems. See what I mean? I say that if any CIWS is worth having it's worth having them in pairs.

[@secondamendment8773]

Instead of replacing individual canisters why don’t they replace an entire row or the whole grid at once? The ship to be reloaded lets the supply ship know what it wants/needs. The packs are already pre loaded before the ship gets there loads it and then takes the empty or semi empty row or grid and reload the empty slots with what the next ship that is to be reloaded needs.

[@jwbttyssn]

I found this very interesting and you did hit on some key issues. I work in the industry and to give you some takeaways, we are not alone in this issue. So for now and near future naval engagements, all the world's navies are to say "in the same boat". At this time, navy engagements would be fast and short as both sides would basically shoot their loads and retreat to rearm/reengage. Now the big game changer for the US is we are pursuing and soon to indoctrinate our "ghost fleet" use of USVs as standoff vessels that can be equipped with munitions to complement the existing fleet. There are several payloads that can be configured and this will more than double our offensive/defensive capabilities in a fleet.

[@BluegrassKnight]

I don't know why we don't just make a ship that can change out these VLS cells at sea, surely that should be that big of a deal for the US, we could make a specialized ship type that can do the required tasks, perhaps a catamaran design that can striatal the other ship or maybe a platform style!

[@65gtotrips]

Floating wet/dry docks ? Use some kind of vertical tower that attaches to the ship being reloaded and maneuvers them in place automatically.

[@rangerlongshot]

Chester W. Nimitz was an early pioneer and advocate for underway refueling as a young Lieutenant before WWI. He continued to advocate for improved methods during his entire career. He also did a pretty fair job running WWII in the Pacific!

[@user-neo8888]

A ship stacked with sea sparrows alone makes sense in the scenario of just shooting down drones or as 1 ship as part of an armada that is designated as a purely defensive ship as part of the group, picking up all incoming threats for all of the ships in the armada. Leaving the other ships much more focused on offensive roles.

[@roberthicks5454]

I have wondered about using a conveyor belt instead of a crane. The lifting arm would actually be on the end of the conveyor assembly. The bottom of the missile would go on first, thus not being affected by the motion of wind or wave. A hinged array would be first attached to the empty tube opening, then the arm would raise the other end. By being attached to the ship first, the missile would not endanger anyone and it could be done faster.

[@TheRednecksolder]

Hear me out, the nfl skycam but it's the pod. So the ship that's getting supplied sends 4 or more lines that are attached to 4 or more motors that are attached to the vertical launch pod at the bottom. Then the supply ship crans it over, as it does the motors take out the slack in the lines. Once the vertical launch pod is over the correct arear the motors are able to have control of the bottom as the pod is lowered simular to how the use 4 motors to move the sky cam all over the stadium

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Nice introduction about re- arming (Magiual units)providing solutions for beggest warship reaming systems during wartime

[@marc1829]

Great episode, Alex. The TRAM system really does sound like a game changer. I worked on installing the tactical VLS on Australia's (John Perry) FFG Class in the mid-2,000s and always wondered about combat endurance.

[@davidlambert1102]

It may be sacrilegious to sacrifice a single VLS cell for anything but a missile loadout, but it would make for a great place to mount a telescoping "mast" (for lack of a better term), to secure an articulating arm/crane (from a supply ship) to get a reference point for controlled X&Y coordinates exactly center to the cell being reloaded.

[@marksanney2088]

Thank you for addressing this very real logistical issue facing our military., my friend. It us greatly appreciated. May you and your family enjoy a safe and blessed weekend, my friend. 👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸👍🏻

[@billhenderson7221]

I can think of two solutions for reinstalling missle cannisters to ArleeBurk & Ticonderoga class ships. Both involve oversized holes to the missle canisters. Ist enlarge the width of holes so that the cannisters slip into them with out being too tight and easy install. Then insert spacers as packing to tighten the cannister within the mounting slots. 2nd have the mounting tub (that contains the 16, 32, or however many cannisters), have whole adjustable side walls move out and expand to make room for the cannisters to be inserted. Then close the expanded side walls to form a tight seal around the cannisters. Thus a supply ship transfer the new cannisters while under weigh. With less abuse to the cassisters while in the process of reinsertion.

[@billhenderson7221]

This may sound over simple and dumb. But, the Navy has lots of engineers who can work out the details once a desirable solution is found. We just need to get the weapons to the ships while under weigh.

[@johnfitzpatrick3416]

Alex, it would cost a lot of money but the best hull would be a Swath Ship that would help stabilize the crane. Even better if a ship could fit its bow or stern under the swath. Swath would need to be huge though & possibly towed to a safe harbor.

[@vinak963]

If I had an unlimited budget... I'd rearm from below. Have some sort of semi-submersible resupply module dock with the ship and replace VLS cells from below. This would obviously require the navy to modify the hulls of every destroyer, probably redesign the VLS system, and build new supply ships with a big, bulky thing that would mount to the underside of a destroyer. If we're going to redesign the ships. It might be easier to move the VLS tubes to port/starboard of the hull in some sort of modular pods. Then replace the entire pod when it comes time to rearm.

[@robertbates6057]

Good to see they're working on this.

[@nunya1877-p4f]

Anyone remember how in WW2 the Navy had floating dry docks in the Pacific that followed the fleet around to repair battle damage? These dry docks could submerge and pick a destroyer completely out of the water and repair the battle damage WHILE under way! Those dry dock ships still exist the same ones are still being used, in fact the one the USS Texas was in was an original WW2 US Navy floating dry dock.

[@antonleimbach648]

I was a Firecontrol tech for 6 years in the USN. The core problem is we have a Navy built for peacetime operations. We sent our steel mills and shipyards to China and now our industrial capacity is not able to keep up with them anymore. Just one shipyard in China is larger than lol of our shipyards combined. Globalization has turned our military into a boutique force with small numbers of very expensive weapons that take far to long to build.

[@dereksollows9783]

The USA still builds ships that work. Just not with the efficiency of WW2 levels. China still doesn't take the ring on ships. It is too early for despair. It is just time to get organized and 'back to work'. If we don't the crap WILL happen.

[@Kriss_L]

Over 20 years fighting a land war in the middle east may also have something to do with it.

[@m.a.8425]

same way food gets resupplied. there are ship units that resupply Munitions. Local staging areas have been established to support operations. 5:09

[@Toddnesbitt]

Alex I was on the CG 30 USS horn, I was just thinking that if they had the launch rails of a guided missile cruiser, they could have the additional missiles ss well as the vertical deck missiles system, there missiles are on a kind of like a revolver on a gun l. They carry quite a few missiles so you'll add at least 20 more additional missiles, maybe not a solution but we did carried a boatload of missiles that would slide up to the launcher. It would be a lot better than cruising all the way back to Seal Beach. Good program.

[@theHerathrig]

Why didnt the navy use locking rails and place them on the vls cells and deck of the ship? That way the rails can reduce the problem with sea sway. I think developing a locking rail system can make reloading at sea easier. Imagine tiny railroad track on a deck with locks than a crane that just sways free at sea?

[@romincurrier4328]

A show on the recent destruction of the Tarawa would be very interesting. And answering questions on whether the use of B-2 bombers is practical for this type of assignment or would the exposure for such a ship be too great, would the low-cost bomb work on a technologically advanced war ship and would the outcome also work on a ship that has all the protections in place, including watertight capabilities, fire suppression, and modern defenses built on it.

[@dennisswaim8210]

I had assumed that the Navy could rearm their vertical lunch systems at sea for years. Yikes. Understanding now how difficult such a undertaking is thanks to your video. The Navy has a way of pulling off the most amazing tasks imagable. This capability is a must and I will be looking for the successful implementation for our ships. With the likelihood of a naval conflict with China over Taiwan growing more possible each day, we have to have the ability to rearm the Navy's combat ships while underway

[@Melanie-Shea]

I like the proposal I’ve seen for what is basically a flat deck cargo ship with containers full of VLS. They just dump the full containers on the deck and that’s it.