10 Upcoming Naval Vessels of USA

[@edwinmoy1402]

im just happy to hear another carrier bearing the name Enterprise will be set to sail soon

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

5:44 Enterprise. a favorite USN Name. so many ships under the USN used this name before including one of the best WW2 CV.

[@22steve5150]

If you think the US Navy loves that name, check out that the Royal Navy has had 15x commissioned ships called Enterprise, another was planned but cancelled prior to completion, and another 4 non-commissioned Royal Navy ships bore the name.

[@grandgao3984]

How they simply got rid of Enty citing a lack of funding was a true crime to naval history. Sure, we are getting a bigger fancier far more capable successor, but it's never as good as the legend herself

[@bdwillis8284]

Don't forget Star Trek! Lol

[@benn454]

There shall always be an Enterprise.

[@kennethferland5579]

I'm much more in favor of naming CV's after concepts and animals rather then people. They never should have started that presidential naming cycle and just stuck with the classic names and use them in rotation.

[@virginccyy7645]

The new radar the US navy is using is scalable and on the burkeiii, it can detect units half the size at twice the distance of the spy1, which itself is more powerful then probably all other ship radars including China's Aesa radar.

[@lamarsidoner3250]

china,,,say no more,,,they copy copy copy,,,plus their weapons are untested in battle,,,

[@1951woodygeo]

The UK 🇬🇧 ships already do that can’t track 1,000 missiles at one time .

[@fantasticalhistory4285]

@@1951woodygeo Dont need to track 1000 missiles at one time, just need to conduct evasive maneuvers and only track and target ones that are posing a threat to the ship

[@musa7010]

2 problems. Over estimating own capability & underestimating the adversary's

[@Cl0ckcl0ck]

LUSV, the modern fireship. Pretty cool. A giant floating throw away missile system.

[@jakeg3733]

Yeah but at how much of a cost? What we really should do is take some old destroyer hulls, refurbish them, pack them full of missiles (no defensive systems needed) and crew them with pedophiles. Then they can be sent out as decoys that can do some damage before being destroyed. Solves two problems at the same time

[@Cl0ckcl0ck]

@@jakeg3733 Refurbishing old hulls makes a lot of sense. Drone those bastards and slave them to a carrier!

[@jennifercarruth2811]

Eh

[@watchthe1369]

I am glad we are starting to name CVN's after real fighters rather than politicians. I also would prefer it was the Enterprise class, not just another Ford.

[@liberalrationalist8905]

Thank the insurrection party for the USS Reagan and USS Ford. Someday we'll have the USS Nixon and USS Trump.

[@watchthe1369]

@@liberalrationalist8905 screw that. That is like name the ship after king Louis....... It should be old quality names, constitution, America, Ticonderoga, etc. Either battles or historical events. save the people names for destroyers. If we get cruisers again, use city names. Boomer subs being state names is fine.

[@kennethferland5579]

@@watchthe1369 I think Amphibious landing craft get named after major amphibious landing battles, Tarowa, Iwo Jima etc.

[@jayburn00]

that artist concept submarine at the beginning was pretty cool even though its not real. interesting ideas and very sleek.

[@jacksdrawings4692]

Amazing Naval Vessels of USA! US is the best in the world. 😄💪👊

[@theelectricgamer9889]

Biden is cutting some of the funding

[@kirkthiets2771]

China has been churning out the equivalent of the entire British Royal Navy every four years and now possesses the largest navy on earth.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

The USA is the most powerful and best equipped in the world... but the BEST I'm not sure🤔

[@billgere5293]

@@lightfootpathfinder8218 hmm🤔 tell me who do you think is the best? Then I will explain to you why I think you’re wrong lol

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

@@billgere5293 lol well I'm not saying that the US navy is bad at anything because it's not. I'm saying in certain aspects of naval warfare other countries navies have the edge in terms of experience and/or training. In my completely unbiased opinion lol I would have to say the Royal navy is the best 😉🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧

[@rycriswell2326]

This is great news. Don't stop!!!

[@ericb.4358]

What the US does NOT need is another Ford class carrier. Smaller carriers would create "dispersed targets" and can work together in large theaters, covering much more area.

[@jacksdrawings4692]

Nice video! 💪💪💪

[@vkqtran4721]

Don't forget that the Chinese are claiming the DDG(X) looks like their Type 055 when theirs are already copies of our previous ships.

[@avrocat80]

China literally made the J-20 fighter jet from stolen Lockheed statistics of the F-35 lmao

[@dabo5078]

Huh, however ur new ship even places the CWIS in the same position as the Chinese. The Type 55 is also a stealth guided misssile destroyer which is quite different in both size and design philosophy than the Burkes or Ticons.

[@vkqtran4721]

@@dabo5078 Size and design philosophies are irrelevant when a country copies another design. The US had that CIWS location design first, the Chinese copied that. The overall design is a copy mixtured of the Burke, Zumwalt and the Ticonderoga. They just altered it after that so it doesn't look too familiar, like size and philosophies.

[@dabo5078]

@@vkqtran4721 Chinese CWIS are located in very different location to Burkes and configured differently. First of all Chinese DDG have 1 CWIS systems in front, their point defense missiles are located to pointed towards the side or back. On the Burke you have either 1 CWIS front and in the middle or the point defence missiles(rolling frame) in the front for BLK3 where the Chinese CWIS is suppose to be. Finally the stealth destroyer is shaped completely different to the burkes which I may add have a lot of ugly protruding curves and most of them lack AESA radars and have exposed antennas. Now compare the type 55 to the new ddg concept? They copied not only the layout but also the approximate size and shape too for gods sake. Chinese destroyer design trace linerage from type 51 which was based upon soviet design philosophies not Americans. You can still see it in their CWIS which integrate both missile and gun. The best American contribution could be claimed is the move from Soviet style cold launch revolver VLS to to hybrid hot and cold launch systems (concentric canister launch). Still the Americans use solely hot launch systems instead of the Chinese developed CCL so such contributions is minimal at best. Also the Chinese never referenced the Zumwalt since that ships is a shit design and completely unsuitable for naval warfare. Not only that Chinese stealth destroyer designs predates the Zumwalt by 10 years minimum (starting with the Type52C in 2002 vs 2015 for Zumwalt ). It lacks the VLS launched air defence missiles and can’t to even intercept a 80 era anti ship missile launched from a MIG 21. Its capability is far more similar to a Chinese maritime corvette (for gunboat stuff). Even a single Chinese frigate can comfortably sink 3 of those if we are being very generous to Zumwalt’s point defense systems.

[@vkqtran4721]

@@dabo5078 That's a load bull. The type 52 and 55 look nothing like the 51. Placement of weapons maybe the same but the shape looks nothing alike. The Superstructure/control tower shape of the two chinese ships is an American design with the Aegis system on both sides: The Chinese copied that. The vents look eerily similar as well. You also copied the platform in front of the control tower to place the ciws as well. Also, there is ZERO chance your frigates can do shit to any of our Zumwalts, you won't be able to locate it in the first place. But the things you guys lack most is experience in shipbuilding and battle at sea. You can't even make your submarines right... Both your "stealth" fighters are heavily plagiarized as well. There is so many things you guys copied warfare and welfare...

[@keekdachoseone7]

Yay about time we should of done this back in the 90s and early 2000s but it's way better now then never

[@nesseihtgnay9419]

The US the strongest navy in the world

[@kevinpresley3136]

It's DDG,not double D G.It's FFG, not double F G.It's SSN ,not double S N.A little more informational research is advised instead of reading off a script.The information motion is great,the narrator is not.

[@alfavulcan4518]

Irritated me too

[@wayned5872]

Very irritating narration

[@Pwj579]

Same goes for Top Gun May-verick video … bad narration

[@johnlowther4927]

It’s also not “In ventry”, it’s inventory. I hate robots, even with a southern accent!

[@robf1648]

@@johnlowther4927 There is no southern accent in this video. She sounds Asian, Chinese.

[@timw483]

Is anyone else uneasy about completely unmanned weapon systems?

[@tinypoolmodelshipyard]

Nope, its just a big ass RC warship

[@AlphaWolf789]

raises hand me!!!!!!

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

It’s an optionally maned destroyer, what’s the issues?

[@AlphaWolf789]

@@anguswaterhouse9255 skynet lol

[@thebrewingsailor9172]

Unmanned? No. Because they are still remotely controlled. But AI vessels. Yeah...Let's not start Skynet. My only Unmanned concern is rare chance the control signal is hacked.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

DDG(x) looks like it will be the future king or the seas, what the Zumwalt should have been.

[@richardglady3009]

Thank you.

[@ginoreniedo3793]

If an aircraft carrier named "Enterprise" is to enter service, you can almost guarantee that a war is coming lmao

[@philthai99]

Very interesting.

[@jayburn00]

Pretty sure the power system on the constellation has been used before, maybe not that specific model of engine and generators being used in the past, but the basic ideas are not new I'm fairly certain. Diesel-electric submarines, direct electric drive powered by turbines, etc.

[@swaghauler8334]

It's a FREM mod.

[@pyroman6000]

I think it's the CODAG that hasn't been used before. Combined diesel and/or gas turbines. Common in other navies, we've mainly stuck to gas turbines, nuclear or diesel.

[@virginccyy7645]

In ships not submarines. US was the first to use electric drive shaft in it's Seawolf class subs.

[@jayburn00]

They left out that the DDG(X) will be able to support directed energy weapons and rail guns due to its electric system being derived from the zumwalt's

[@Glidescube]

Will this class replace the Arelegh Burke?

[@Boomkokogamez]

@@Glidescube It will replace both the early Flight I/II Arleight Burke and all 22 Ticonderoga in service. It expected to combine Destroyer and Cruiser function and such into one system so as to be more cost effective.

[@anguswaterhouse9255]

@@Boomkokogamez I pray every night it doesn't become Zumwalt 2 electric bogaloo

[@VectorGhost]

Railguns have been canceled

[@Glidescube]

@@VectorGhost so they say.

[@camerondening6683]

So by 2030 if the US or NATO got into a conflict with Russia or China or both the US likely wouldn’t retire any Nimitz class carriers which is 11 plus 4 more ford class, they could go into any conflict in the next 8 years with any where from 13 to 15 massive carriers plus the 11 wasp class amphibious flat deck that carry F-35b plus the 11 new planned America class amphibious flat deck with 2 already finished and assuming the US puts its economy on a war footing these would be finished very quickly , they could go into any battle now with 26 carriers 13 massive super carriers amd 13 smaller amphibious style carriers that right now but add acouple years that number grows to 30-35 plus if the whole country is on that war footing they could probably put another 3-5 super carriers before 2030 now your taking almost 40 carriers!!! that’s is absolutely insanity if any one of China or Russia stands a chance and that’s just the US you add UKs 2 new carriers plus probably another 1 or 2 if they to put there country in a war footing, then the French, Italy, spain your talking 50+ carriers to battle Chinas maybe 3-4 and Russias 1 and that’s just carriers, not including the new Frigates the US, Canada, UK are building in big numbers. Then the already very large existing destroyer fleet the US has and The UK plus other Allies, then you also have the massive fleet of Nuclear submarines the US has plus the UKs , French and the new Australian nuclear Subs coming that are all far more advanced then anything China has and where only Russia can sort of compete but in light of how there military has proven to be very incapable in Ukraine it makes you wonder how there submarine force actually operates vs the propaganda. What i’m getting at is the US and it’s Allies will absolutely wipe the floor with China and Russia on the ocean and that’s not getting into the Airforce and how well trained Nato forces are compared to any rival. This alone really shows you how absolutely massive the US military is, it also shows you how incredibly astronomically massive NATO and other Western allies forces are when all combined!!! Nothing comes remotely close!!! And that’s why they have nukes i guess

[@backroadscamaro541]

Don't forget India would probably take the opportunity to go after China as well

[@LS2258]

@@backroadscamaro541 India would stay neutral I think.

[@DaveCLL]

We don't have the shipyard capacity to build all of these ships by the planned dates.

[@rigoeats3654]

Canada needs to step up.

[@montys420-]

I cant wait for the US to decide on the platform that will replace the Ticonderoga class cruisers, and the US need to make sure there FFG have as many if not 10 more missiles then there chinese equivalent i.e 48 not 32 vls, and the DDG flight 111 need to match the Chinese type 55 with 100+ vls tubes until the New cruisers are chosen.

[@jamison884]

There won't be a new cruiser class. The DDG(X) will be larger than Arleigh Burke (but smaller than DDG-1000), and it will be replacing both the Tico cruisers and older Arleigh Burkes. It will likely utilize a payload module to add flexibility into the future so the destroyers can be highly specialized, but in full VLS mode, it should have at least 128 cells.

[@how9303]

Finally

[@amochswohntet99]

Seems like the guided missile platforms are being deprioritized. Mistake?

[@jeffi854]

I would think that any Navy’s number one goal would be to find track and destroy enemy submarines very very quickly !

[@wolf13xxx]

I'll respectfully disagree. I think any Navy's primary goal will be anti air capabilities. Airplanes and missiles are far more numerous than submarines and torpedoes. Don't get me wrong, submarines are a threat as well, a definite close second.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

I think it depends on the country and who that country is fighting against

[@kiro9257]

@@lightfootpathfinder8218I agree. It really depends on what naval doctrine US adversaries will field against the US. If it's Russia, then the US will have to find and track submarines since Russia isn't much of a fan of surface vessels. If it's China, then the US will focus on surface vessels and anti-ship capabilities.

[@robertbates6057]

I don't think our subs ever lost that capability. I suspect we're up their asses right now.

[@jeffi854]

@@robertbates6057 And I’d bet your 100% correct.

[@montys420-]

And I can see Australia ordering the same light amphibious/ small LPD/landing craft the US marines are developing aswell.

[@raymondhatch3679]

Hopefully the cost will be low enough so that any of our allies could get them.

[@LS2258]

Australia is already purchasing countless new things from America. Including like 100+ M1A2 SEPv3’s, other land vehicles, Apaches, submarines, they’re also increasing their Military spending so the defence workforce will grow by 18500+ within the next 10-20 years, they’re also working on their own Hypersonic missile program with the US.

[@peterharrop179]

DDGX will arrive in 2032, not 2028. The contract for its construction will be signed in 2028 but it will take 4 years to be delivered.

[@adamscease4126]

Russia has one diesel powered aircraft carrier 😂

[@davidreeves-turner6572]

Diesel powered? I thought it had auxiliary tug-boat power too?

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

The Russian carrier admiral kuznetsov is a major threat to the NATO powers .... It could unexpectedly sink somewhere and become a navigational hazard😂

[@jrodstech]

Lol, great comments. Yes supposedly it's a piece of shat. So many issues is basically worthless.

[@lightfootpathfinder8218]

@@jrodstech It's more trouble than its worth. I think they keep it in comission just so they can say they are one of the few countries that operate aircraft carriers. I'd rather have a 1970's vintage British invincible class in my fleet than that bag of sh*t lol

[@JohnR22926]

I hate naming carriers after people. So many great names to choose from.

[@78.BANDIT]

Miller should have a Destroyer named after him NOT a Carrier.

[@DunedinMultimedia2]

He served on a carrier. He was killed when it sank.

[@gcb345]

Why is that? Do you think carriers should only be named after officers or politicians? I think I know your motive, and you don't want to sound like an asshole!

[@KB4QAA]

The navy lost that game 60 years ago when they started playing politics with congress in order to get nuclear submarines funded.

[@DunedinMultimedia2]

@@gcb345 that's the Navy's policy.

[@deveryhenderson8335]

He served on a carrier: stop pretending to be American.

[@liberalrationalist8905]

If there is one thing the russo-Ukraine war has demonstrated it is that no surface ships stand a chance against modern sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.......at least without autonomous chemical laser self-defense systems (much higher power than solid-state lasers). Larger ships could reprocess chemicals for reuse. But also would need at least 100KW solid state lasers for continual defense. But all these laser system would need to be autonomous due to reaction time. Aircraft carriers will need CAP aircraft armed with solid-state lasers and anti-missile missiles for outer perimeter defense of the fleet reaching out to 100+miles..

[@roaklin]

Ships lost are cold war relics, try again

[@Liberty_or_Ded]

You should look into the 300kw lasers the US is already beginning to produce.

[@KrXstoop]

Great vid but no one in the military calls them double d g x. Either call them by there designator DDG or call it a destroyer.

[@franciscody9622]

More targets for hypersonic anti-aging missiles

[@Liberty_or_Ded]

They successfully tested one missile, and by all accounts only have the capacity to build 12 of them by 2030. We already have interceptor systems capable of taking out hypersonic missiles during their terminal phase. The US experimented with hypersonic missiles back in the 70s. There's a major flaw with hypersonic missiles: They cannot maneuver effectively once they reach their hypersonic velocities, making them rather easy to intercept by modern SAMs. You wind up trading dummy payload for speed with hypersonics, too.

[@BenyoSid]

Great ✌ ✔ 💯

[@macewindu2255]

When does Chevrolet class coming out and the Dodge?

[@natureofparadise2380]

Russian will cry for this

[@MrRoninGT]

The Russians have weapons that are ahead of this trash. Apparently, your butt burns strongly from Russian and that's good😁

[@CDNShuffle]

LUSV's look the most futuristic

[@joelspringman523]

Welcome to the future. War is going to become even more deadly, as our defenses against evil regimes must become potentially devastating

[@fredtedstedman]

double d-cup will be a plus !! at least she pronounces Nuclear correctly >

[@oubrioko]

she loves to say, _"double D"_ 😂

[@fredtedstedman]

@@oubrioko thought the same thing at least she didn't say noooooo-killer !

[@christophelongin4744]

petite erreur sur les porte-avions. Ce ne sont pas 3 de classe rford mais 4 . Il y a le ronald reagan le 2eme de classe rford qui sort cette année.

[@coolbear6441]

Well at least she got calling a sub a boat right…

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

1:39 Will DDG (X) comes with externally armored hull like olschool cruisers and BBs?

[@KB4QAA]

No navy has produced armored hulls since WWII.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

@@KB4QAA Is it because armor is useless since the end of WW2? Every warships built since then were built 'naked' right?

[@KB4QAA]

@@DiscothecaImperialis WWII showed the rise of long range air attack and the end of line of sight gun battles. High speed manuever became key. Armor became a hindrance and no longer necessary.

[@vildanlatypov8696]

@@KB4QAA destroyers as a class never had much armor to begin with. Although you'll definitely need antitorp and antimissile protection on larger ships - and that's means armor too

[@KB4QAA]

@@vildanlatypov8696 There is no need for torpedo armor on modern ships. Surface torpedoes have not been au current since the 1940s. Similarly, since WWII modern ships have not been built with anti gun/missile armor since WWII.

[@vigneshammu635]

Next video Indian🇮🇳 navy⚓

[@lamarsidoner3250]

with the us cutting its military budget,,,and with the woke pentagon,,,our military is heading towards a very scary time,,,,

[@redtsunami8679]

The new attack submarines should be unmanned. Allow them to operate in wolfpacks. They would bring terror to an enemy fleet just knowing their out there.

[@Prolificposter]

Seems like the U.S. Navy expects potential adversaries to wait 10 or 12 years until ships and subs are completed. Columbia begins construction in 2021 but won’t be ready until 2031, of course barring the delays, cost overruns, and other problems these projects have become known for.

[@Rob_F8F]

The US Navy currently has some of the best ships in the world, certainly the most in large combatants. These are just the future ships, most will serve between 20-30 years.

[@MaCcAM40a3]

Yeah bro let’s just develop, engineer, build, sea test a war ship in 6 months. You flop

[@TheLAGopher]

The Ohio Class SSBNs are still the best of their type and able to get the job done until the Columbia class is ready. The US enjoys such a technological edge it can afford to take a revolutionary approach to new ship classes with a long development period vs an evoluntionary one with a shorter development period.

[@mauryhan]

You do realize that of the world's 23 aircraft carriers 11 are in the US Navy. Nobody else has more than 2. The US has 62 destroyers, which is more than the next three nations combined. The US has 22 guided missile cruisers while the rest of the world has 7. We have twice the nuclear submarines of the number two nation. So where exactly do you think the danger lies. We man not have the most ships, but we do have the most that matter.

[@Prolificposter]

@@MaCcAM40a3 Well “bro” I don’t expect six month time frames either any more than 10 year ones. Let’s not be ridiculous. My point is are we getting the most bang for the buck. We are broke, so I just wonder if we can really afford to continue down this path of maximum waste and inefficiency and can we not be more efficient. I believe in a strong national defense, yet we have the Zumwalts and the Littoral Combat ships- multi-billion dollar flops. I’m not the flop here buddy.

[@privateer9181]

everytime she said double D G i got excitted

[@derrickholzhey9685]

🇺🇸💪🇺🇸💪😎

[@phil20_20]

The "X" Sub 🤔

[@MrBobborino]

We need more missiles on our ships, China has 130 missiles on their new ships, every test I've ever seen we end up running out of missiles.

[@deveryhenderson8335]

China can’t even power their ships and depend on German engines:. And they only have 4 type 055s lol

[@outdoor07]

A 10,000 ton Destroyer. Would have been a light cruiser in WW2?

[@truepercula]

It is unmanned why does it show a bridge on the mock up?

[@nikkotan2840]

I don't understand why would the new US Naval Ships will still be employing the Old Era Navigation Mass as it will certainly take away the low radar profile of the ship. Other nations have been introducing new low-profile design ships along with their low-profile mass where all the navigation and radar arrays are stored within the mass hull for a greater low observable silhouette.

[@Dhakki-tiki69]

In which country you live?? Please reply 🥺

[@josephpadula2283]

1000 foot long merchant ships have crews of 18-24 people. The US navy has Many more on the new LSC ships and they complain it is not enough. Good luck going to unmanned without getting as good the the merchant fleets first.

[@Liberty_or_Ded]

1000 foot-long merchant ships have 1/10 of the systems, though. By LSC, did you mean the LCS? The Little Crappy Ship? Yeah there's a lot more behind those things' faults than just the crewing issues... it's because they were designed to give defense contractors endless revenue, by the Bush-era Pentagon. There's a whole heap of contract issues that are involved with them. It's a ship class ruined by politics and lobbyists, basically.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

3:28 Why didn't US Navy likes 'Yamato' slanted smokestack much?

[@michaelwong4303]

🇺🇸 warships always have a large no of VLS ,👍👍👍

[@ericclausen6772]

Better get that flat top on the water

[@USViper]

🇺🇲Our Might Always🇺🇲

[@hjjk6965]

R they really gonna have all this stuff??

[@stevencrouch6036]

Why two new destroyer types? Can they not incorporate the systems of both into one design?

[@Yamaha_Kid]

The DDGX program will is a new program and will not be ready for two Decades

[@thebrewingsailor9172]

It's just DDG(X). You don't have to say Double D.

[@usamwhambam]

What four-word phrase means the same as make it as shitty as possible in Naval warship construction-Based On Commercial Designs.

[@Liberty_or_Ded]

Yeah the LCS was proof of that. They're having a giggle if they think they're gonna make unmanned ships based on commercial designs. They tried it with the LCS and hooboy...

[@sparkiegaz3613]

By 2050 there wanting to build 550 new ships their ship yards be very busy ..we can’t get two donkeys carriers that work

[@vyros.3234]

Unmanned ship? Damn

[@jimdennis2451]

That should work out well. /s

[@arrjay2410]

Interesting. Your English pronunciation is improving, but still needs work. The errors are still too many to list. Interesting depictions of the submarines, but perhaps a little too much artistic license, cool looking though.

[@DunedinMultimedia2]

I enjoyed the narration very much.

[@thebuzz4108]

Thankyou very much for your feedback

[@thebuzz4108]

Why thankyou @robert clyde

[@SNOWDONTRYFAN]

Ice breakers ??

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

4:58 Will Dorris Miller class be a Landing Support 'light' carrier or Supercarrier flagships?

[@Gorilder]

She’ll be a Ford class Supercarrier

[@markgrove2030]

@@Gorilder And named by a TRUE warrior, relegated to mess duties by his skin color and the era he lived in. With little/no training, he fought like he MEANT it. GOOD for him in every way.

[@richardsbrandon5027]

Wow, that voice sounds a lot like the voice for a bunch of cat vids!

[@garycleveland6410]

She should just say destroyer.

[@love_all_countrys1688]

Can you make pls Germany ?

[@rpcook98]

10 years to build a sub?

[@virginccyy7645]

She tries and it's great KZbin material even if she gets some of it wrong.

[@lasindumadurapperuma2132]

2030 September 22 will be the date for world. Remember.

[@tinypoolmodelshipyard]

Ok karen

[@Renshen1957]

In-ven-Tory and di-a meter. Interesting video however English isn’t pronounced in a manner that a native speaker would use or by some cognizant of the terms.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

No oversized 'Cruisers' like what Russia have anymore??

[@Rob_F8F]

US Navy doesn't suffer from "inadequacy" issues as it has 10+ super carriers, therefore, no need for a big cruiser. Besides, Russian big ships are all hand-me-downs from Soviet Era. Russia is not capable of building new ones.

[@DiscothecaImperialis]

@@Rob_F8F So US Navy doctrine regarding to littoral offensive combat ships will be little cute frigate sizes like Burkes and Ticoes instead of Real size Cruisers like before?

[@gordonormiston3233]

They’re ship class designations not bra sizes !

[@park7738]

South Korea does not have military satellites

[@mingkwong9277]

DDGx only has 32VLS....!!!

[@marksaunders1789]

Can anyone tell me where the woman is from plz

[@coolbear6441]

Possibly German or Eastern European

[@saschawagner5167]

Rofl .-) "new" SSN the concept sounds like a modernized Seawolf. The reson Virgina were made in the 1st place was that Seawolfs were too expenceive .Also larger transit speed and more weapons do not mesh with " all Ocean Enviroment" there is a reson for small costal subs to exist. Sond they have a nonaceivable wishlist again: So much for learning from the LCS progam. The Autonomos with men in the loop build to comercal specifications sounds fake too. Warships and comercal ships have too diferent prioritys and LCS (again) did showed that automation does not work with military standards. Would be better to use a suped up LHD type ship with a Welldeck to act as a drone comand ship/drone maintenence base. As for the marine ships....1st they should decide if they want to keep marines. They just recently dicomised a realtively new suport ship and guted tanks from the force. They get more and more dependend on airforce and army delivering the suport for their operations.

[@22steve5150]

you know, smart guy, that "small coastal subs" is NEVER going to be something that is feasible for the United States. Small coastal subs (which by their nature have relatively short sea legs and low transit speed) are for small coastal nations, not a country like the USA which has 95 fuckin thousand miles of shoreline. Also, the reason that automated ships can be built to modified commercial standards and not military standards is BECAUSE THEY ARE UNMANNED. That's literally the fucking point of unmanned ships, they are much cheaper to make, much cheaper to operate, and in event of accident or war damage, they are a fucking write off, not a tragedy at sea that requires other warships to respond to pull sailors out of the water.

[@saschawagner5167]

@@22steve5150 Thats the point Seawolfs are not the best platform in costal water and thats what it means to be a "all Ocean" platform. its suposed to work in all marine enviroments. Having a large store of weapons and being small enogh to be efective in an non deep water enviroment is like saying you have a small 100000 ton aircraft carrier. Unmaned does not have anything to do with comercal or military standards. Unmaned means you have to do less to keep humans alive and send it into a much more hostile enviroment. Millitary standards means material strengh and relayability under high performance. There are no comercal gas tubines that go for 30kn+ that are selfmaintaining. The LCS program basically allready showed that using automation to lower the crew requirements dosnt work for the US. (look for the crew requirements of a Alpha class ssn when you want to see a working weapon that does compared to US. with MUCH lower tech) So why do you think if they cant really get ships working with less crew they can without crew under a lower standard? Unless its acepable that they break down all the time and gets either abandomed or slow down fleets they asigned to. Thats why i sugested a faster LHD (or basically a Welldeck ship) as a drone comand ship to do the maintanence on thease drones in the same way a Aircraft carrier does for its planes. thogh that limits size wich in turn means they are not that relyable in higher seastates.

[@22steve5150]

@@saschawagner5167 1--what "new seawolfs" are you talking about? It mentioned Columbia, Virginia block V, and a future umanned sub. The closest any of those come to a Seawolf class is the Virginia block V and that's only because it will be lengthened with Virginia Payload Modules providing additional VLS capability. 2--Seawolf works just fucking fine in littoral waters. That was never the problem. Hell, had they built the entire production run they'd have hardly been much more expensive than the Virginias but when you cut the numbers of a given class you greatly increase the unit costs since the R&D for the class is spread out among less units. Seawolf's problem was when it came along was right at the start of an era of post cold war downsizing, practically every new design (including most of the weapons being designed specifically for Seawolf's larger torpedo tubes) were all cancelled. 3-for all the problems the LCS program has had, automation is NOT one of them. The corrosion and propulsion train problems are a design issue, not a crewing and maintenance issue. And the fact that the only arguments that are made against the LCS program having less than full military grade construction / protection is CREW SURVIVABILITY arguments, and with the Navy gaining more and more experience running unmanned platforms like seahunter, ghost overlord, it would only make sense that modified commercial grade small ships that don't have crews to protect is an obvious solution to that problem.

[@wayneyd2]

Naming of US Carriers are past President names.

[@samoldfield5220]

dee dee gee ecks

[@RockDocNeal]

So, the synopsis of this video is...my taxes are going to go up! I guess the bright side of all these upgrades is it's highly unlikely that I will ever be paying the taxes to Russia or China. 😆🤑💰⚓

[@brendenstyre4784]

youll be happy that you paid taxes for military when were at war and you dont have to fight it

[@mztk8558]

First view!!!!!!!

[@Justguywholikesskippingandps]

😃

[@ulrichkristensen4087]

FFS double D is a bra seize, my sweet Darwin this narrator has a voice that could be used as torture

[@ifga16]

Good grief. Who wrote the script for the narration? Double D? Double S? Who the Hell uses that pronunciation for US ship classes? A DD is pronounced DD and the same for submarines. SS followed by it's job and power plant. SSN is a nuke attack submarine. I'm a Navy retiree and have never heard such usage.

[@russellblake9850]

it's "DeeDee" not "double D"

[@888jackflash]

Why does the narrator have a distinctly Chinese accent?

[@DOHA104p3]

I don't think that's an Chinese accent

[@jamesk370]

I just assumed it was a more feminine robo-voice.

[@FP194]

I guess this channel can’t take criticism of their robot narrator not knowing how to pronounce ship designation as they deleted the post and comments

[@Justguywholikesskippingandps]

E

[@ljbunso4450]

regrdless its power.. i just dont like the designs of these ships.., especially the skeletal radar tower..

[@MarkZukas]

Got to agree….Double D G etc is really annoying. Most people who view this content are military minded and inconsistent terminology like that is just a turn off to us

[@parrot849]

Stop with the “double D” description for the ships’ designation. It’s like fingernails across a chalkboard!!

[@pangchinghung1082]

woo. what a big dream. good. keep sleeping and sweet dream.

[@fox19delta21]

A bigger dream is the Chinese PLA-N thinking that the United States Navy is intimidated by the dozens and dozens of Chinese PLA-N super carriers which the PLA-N does not have

[@rennielalbano613]

Update new navy from Russia

[@joemcnulty6814]

The video is about the US not Russia, stay on topic

[@roberthudson1959]

Can't deal with the computer-generated narration.

[@lancerevell5979]

One should NEVER say "double-DG". Makes one sound rather..... uneducated. This narrator just keeps massively embarrassing herself. Literally painful to listen to.