Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "Not What You Think" channel.

LCS were created in Obama times to fight pirates. Pirates are gone. New enemy is the Chinese. LCS cannot fight Chinese as they are not designed for such role at all. Even other navies looking to buy LCS are saying - well it is nice but we don't have pirates & these are no match for regular frigates or destroyers.
8
Official is 30+ Real could be as high as 35. Every knot speed increase is massive addition in power.
6
In current war in Ukraine, heavy on tanks and APCs Russian army was able to attack much larger UA force, which was also had lots of tanks and APCs thanks to air superiority and artillery superiority. Tanks multiplied Russian forces combat ability. Hordes of NLAW armed light infantry were unable to stop small tank force. Tanks + artillery + airpower have proven in the war to be a decisive trump card. This is why tanks are now selling so well all over the world. Everyone wants more tanks.
5
Note that nuclear reactors for subs are not the same as for a carrier - subs are much smaller. You could use sub reactors on a carrier but you would need to go with many of them - like 8.
5
@f-5e126 Hitting auto loader is very rare. Almost impossible. What happens is tank is set on fire, crew leaves, and an hour or so later the fire causes ammo to cook off. In some cases ammo is stored outside of auto loader - and that can be hit.
4
Unlikely. If Kursk could have all of her torpedos explode and still had no leaks there is little concern. Peter the great has some armor plating around reactors.
4
@maxkennedy8075 Non nuclear design is cheaper. No catapult == more planes == defensive in nature. Also if you do not want to harass people 10,000 miles away from home no need to have nuclear power. Hence Soviet design with a smaller ship / hybrid in the 1970/80s. If you are only extending the range against enemy bombers off your shore there is little need to have nukes to power you. If you don't need to load planes for heavy strike missions there is little need for catapults (at least powerful ones).
2
@f-5e126 I am unsure what do you mean performing poorly. Its upgraded version (T-72 chassis + T-80 turret aka T-90) is by far the best selling tank in the world right now.
2
@f-5e126 I think British should either make a new tank or buy latest Leopards. Challenger was a disaster. Trying to fix broken design is just throwing good money after bad. I guess they are too cheap in MOD to buy new tanks and thus British are stuck with that junk. Certainly upgrading it will make it join 21st century but the bones that tank has are of poor design quality. I certainly would rate more modern T-72s as far and wide better tanks then current Challengers. Challenger tank is a meme - together with its cousin Arjun from India. All tanks have issues - however, except for Arjun and Challenger these can be gotten over in single video. For Arjun + Challenger a whole series is need ;) For Arjun they got right Indian flag, for Challenger is the hot water dispenser. All else... part of the video.
2
It is actually possible to sell nuclear carriers - problem is that you do not want to sell these as usually they are top end tech vs. somewhat tame diesel. US would never sell its old carrier to say... China (!!!)
2
Why? B/c they wanted to experiment. Epic failure.
1
Conclusions are simple. Everyone is going heavy. Tanks. Tanks and more tanks. More APCs. Much more APCs. Artillery. Much more artillery. More and more Artillery. Drones, yes, but TB2 has proven ineffective in Ukraine due to heavy anti air presence. Essentially you cannot have that 40k weapon can easily destroy 4m or 40m weapon. Ukraine has clearly proven that. The renaissance of the tank is now - as proven by Ukraine. Poland is buying 250 new tanks in response to the war. Be heavy or be out!
1
@ChubakaSteven You can probably calculate top speed to within less then 1kn knowing installed power and displacement. After all back in WWII when designing ships they could tell top speed of a design quite close to actual speed test speed.
1
@yeetspageet6707 You cannot have slow carrier with fixed wing aircraft as they need lift for which wind over deck is used. BUT she mostly will have vertical start aircraft so this may be only limited addition. Problem is she cannot go 32kn for more then say a day as she will run out of fuel rather quickly. Going 32kn vs. economical 15kn uses at least 4x as much fuel. So at top speed her range is cut by more then half. This may not be such a big deal for UK but is for US which traditionally builds ships with very long ranges.
1
Basically smaller carriers such as QE or helicopter landing ships such as America are less capable and cheaper versions of large carriers such as Nimitz / Ford / type 004. Of note is the 7 times power (!) this does not come as "free" add on. You pay billions for this. QE class is less capable smaller cheaper carrier. You get what you pay for. Also conventional powered no catapult carriers are more "defensive in nature" Soviet carriers were meant to only extend the combat range of ground based aviation not go half around the globe and harass someone. There are numerous advantages nuclear has over conventional - the main con is price. No one would spend big $$$ to get almost nothing in return - advantages of nuclear are huge but so is the premium you pay - hence why US is building nuclear carriers and so is China.
1
Exactly - UK could afford a single carrier with nukes. Sure it would be better then QE - but would be ONE. Having two less capable ships >> single ship.
1
@anignorantbrit Yes, even if you did not mind selling your nuclear carrier very few nations could afford one - and these that could afford one are usually competitors (i.e. China would easily pay 10B for decommissioned Nimitz class). Certainly even small conventional carriers are not sold a lot as few nations can afford these & don't build their own. Even India is working on their first domestically build carrier. British only hope for sale will be Australia.
1
@ffrederickskitty214 Not true at all - see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_hull
1
@ffrederickskitty214 To move 2x as fast a ship needs 2^3 8x as much power rough estimate as actual curve is different. But that is the *same * ship. Now at low speeds a regular ship viscous resistance of water is most important (we have viscous water, air resistance and wave making resistance). At high speeds wave making resistance dominates. Also for a carrier the total resistance of rather tame air can be up to 10% of total resistance. The topic of ship resistance etc. was studied for past 200+ years. Subs have the most economical shape for traveling under water - a teardrop shape with viscous drag of just 0.04. There is no wave making or air resistance to square shape of a deck. In your car example you are comparing two vehicles traveling in the same medium & try to project that onto two other vehicles traveling in different to each other mediums. You can read more here: https://www.usna.edu/NAOE/_files/documents/Courses/EN400/02.07%20Chapter%207.pdf Also this is all for calm waters - no one adds things such as wave resistance, current resistance, wind resistance - 20kn wind can add 25% extra to resistance and current of 4kn is that much substracted from power - subs are under water - no affect by waves, wind and most of the currents. As a side not this explains why subs cannot go fast when not submerged - in your simplistic example a sub that is on the surface would have lesser area subject to resistance but still same installed power - so it should be able to travel faster. It cannot as at higher speeds (as mentioned above) the viscous resistance is lesser component of total and wave resistance takes over. Turns out teardrop shape is not ideal here.
1
@ffrederickskitty214 To be honest most subs do indeed have more installed power per displacement then an aircraft carrier. But given that both the carrier and sub have classified speeds it is hard to say where it all goes. Ford class is same as Nimitz class displacement wise yet has 25% more power installed & same posted 30kn+ speed. Akula sub is 8x smaller then Nimitz but has over 1/3 more power per displacement for "similar" speed. But Akula has only marginally more power (per displacement) then Ford again for "similar" speed.
1
It feels a bit wasteful of space - single small island would maximize deck space and decrease return signature. I understand two engine rooms separation but wonder how this is done on US carriers - I assume its advantage of having nuclear propulsion. I also understand why UK went with "defensive" carriers same as Russia / India.
1
@steve-iw2bg If it was for power projection it would be nuclear based. I am unsure UK has that capability but given that France does I am sure UK could as well (for ships larger then a sub). Also it would have catapults and no ski jump. Ski jump is to save on internal machinery and on cost at the expense of less load per aircraft. For strike missions you want maximum load but for defensive missions lower load is OK. The F-35B does help somewhat with the load aspect but is more expensive per aircraft and more suitable to assault ships. All new US carriers are all catapult based flat tops same as new Chinese designs (Ford class for US and type 004 for Chinese - type 003 is conventional power CATOBAR). Nuclear power also means a lot of electricity for future weapon expansion.
1
@steve-iw2bg if nuclear did not give you any benefits US and China would not get it. It not only gives you unlimited range at top speed but also huge amounts of available energy. Cats allow fighters to start loaded for bombing missions not just with few missiles. There are advantages to both, US is clearly aggressive while UK is defensive.
1
@steve-iw2bg If that were true US would be rather unwise to do so. Given US navy is #1 in the world for like around 100 years now I do not think decisions they make are unwise. Also Chinese are doing the same. US considers type 004 carrier equal to about their Kitty Hawk class - pre Nimitz. So that would put UK at maybe 1 Nimitz == both QE ships for defense or at most 1 Ford class = 2 QE.
1
@steve-iw2bg The carriers make sense for UK but do not for US. UK carriers may have 1/2 or less capability then a Ford but UK cannot afford 2x Ford. 2 carriers can be in two places. Since US has at least 10 operational carriers it makes little sense for it to have 20 to be in 20 places - 10 is already plenty - it means at least 3 or 4 are available even at worst of times. Also UK will have a carrier even if one is in refit. This is why UK has budget carrier. Chinese for their 4th carrier are also picking one that is more capable and there is supposed plan for 4 of them. One has to also note that US has a large number of rather capable marine assault ships (Wasp class) - China is also adding these - 3 40k ships are in sea trails. So US already can be said has smaller carriers (America class is 45k) in large numbers and large carriers in ... large numbers. Thus it makes little sense to add... mid sized carriers. Note US smaller carriers can utilize F-35B.
1
@steve-iw2bg when acting as a carrier America class has about half the capacity of a QE of F-35B. It can carry about 20 vs 36 for QE.
1
@juris33 "The first littoral combat ship, USS Freedom, was commissioned on 8 November 2008 in Veteran's Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[4] The second ship, the trimaran USS Independence, was commissioned on 16 January 2010, in Mobile, Alabama." Trump started in 2017 so Obama in 2011. Certainly the idea was there before Obama but he was a President when almost all ships were approved and build. During his 8 years program was scaled back.
1