Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Royal Marine Reacts To Norway's camouflaged Skjold-class corvette designed to hit hard!" video.

  1. ​ @ohauss  To be fair, the US has laws intended to force the US armed forces to buy stuff inside the US instead of buying foreign made stuff a lot of the time...
    3
  2. I'd love for that to be true, but I'm not exactly convinced. :-P
    3
  3. Maybe that could work? It's designed for operation in our protected waters, if there's too much waves and wind it can't reach its high top speed. It's essentially a middle ground between a hovercraft and a catamaran, and hovercrafts aren't exactly suited for rough seas, but the catamaran part does mean that it'll manage without sinking at least. But essentially the idea is to move behind islands and in fjords where the waters are always calm to the position to strike, then do a quick attack out into the open before ducking back behind cover and escaping again in protected waters. Do you have that kind of protected waters in Canada? In the Nordics you can stay within the shelter of our islands and islets almost all the way from the Norwegian-Russian border in the north and all the way to St. Petersburg with only a few exposed areas of the coast where you'd be forced to expose the ship to the elements, and even there we're planning on building a tunnel for ships to sail through to avoid those parts of the coast.
    3
  4. You're essentially right about them being designed for the protected waters of the Norwegian coast and not to operate out in the open seas. However they're meant to be able to pop out into the open seas briefly to engage the enemy, and the sea off Norways coast definitely isn't protected, and has really, really bad weather, that these vessels can handle. Just don't expect good performance there. A aircraft carrier will be faster in open waters then these. But these are way faster in protected waters.
    3
  5. It's able to operate in blue waters. But you're right, they're not well suited for blue water operations... And they lose their amazing speed there.
    3
  6. World you mean?
    2
  7. It's more related to a F35 then a tank. It's designed to be stealthy, fast and deadly, not particularly armored.
    2
  8. Um, why is your salary in any way, shape or form relevant to this video? Don't get me wrong, the US exports a lot of weapons to Europe, so trade with Europe is important... But the only connection I can think of is that Norway has invested some serious money into the US economy... And are close to owning 2% of all the worlds stocks... So perhaps the Norwegian government provided some of the funds enabling your employer to hiring you... But that's about all I can think of...
    2
  9. They'd have to be a lot cheaper too, these are expensive vessels.
    1
  10. ​ @WinnyJ1  Yeah, they're made for performance, not efficiency.
    1
  11. ​ @WinnyJ1  We we know that it's a lot more then 50 knots. We just don't know exactly what, given that it's a classified, and also intentionally avoided, top speed. We have plenty of Russian spies here after all...
    1
  12. I don't think that their main issue is the size. But rather the lack of funding... They don't have the funds for all the weapons that their ships are supposed to be equipped with...
    1
  13. 3:26 It's not necessarily as well suited for the UK as for Norway although you could probably make use of it too. It would be better suited for Sweden and Finland. Possibly the Canadian west coast or parts of New Zealand too? Possibly Indonesia? I don't know... 5:41 This is not a cheap ship. Indeed we planned on making many but it was just too expensive. It's custom made for our conditions, but it would need to come down a lot in price to really have a impact. Honestly they've been a bit of a failure in terms of meeting our doctrine goals... Don't get me wrong, the performance is amazing. But it's just not enough to justify the price, as you'd need way too many of them to cover our doctrinal needs compared to what we're getting for that price... If a redesign would make it possible to mass produce them at a significantly lower cost without impacting the capabilities too much then that would pretty much be perfect for us. 7:35 No, we have 6. That's it. It's just way, way, way too expensive. We wanted thousands... But it failed to live up to our goals. But we learn and develop the technology and hopefully a future model will be cheap enough to be mass produced.
    1