December 8, 2019
  • 1:50 pm Gunman watched shooting videos before rampage, says official
  • 11:50 am Retired Lt. General slams idea of pardoning soldiers accused of war crimes
  • 11:50 am Aquaman vs Atlantean Soldiers | Aquaman [4k, IMAX]
  • 9:50 am Cutting Germany’s Wings – The Dawn Of The Air Force I THE GREAT WAR Week 96
  • 8:50 am THE ART OF WAR – FULL AudioBook 🎧📖 by Sun Tzu (Sunzi) – Business & Strategy Audiobook | Audiobooks
WHY LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) IS AN IMPORTANT ADDITION TO U.S NAVY ?


The U.S. Navy has received delivery of two
Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). These are USS SiouxCity and USS Wichita. The two vessels are the 14th and 15th LCSs
to join the U.S. Navy and the 6th and 7th of the Freedom-class vessel. In this video Defense Updates analyses why
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is an important addition to the U.S Navy? Let’s get started. The littoral combat ship (LCS) is a set of
two classes the Independence and Freedom. Construction of the Freedom-class is spearheaded
by Lockheed Martin at Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin, while that of
Independence-class ships is led by Austal USA in Alabama. These are relatively small surface vessels
and basically designed for operations near shore. During the late 1990s, the U.S. Navy understood
that cruisers and destroyers would be vulnerable to attacks in shallow coastal waters. Large warships like cruisers and destroyers
are designed for open-ocean warfare and not for shallow water where these can be targeted
by high-speed boats, missile-firing fast-attack craft, small submarines, sea mines, and land
and air-launched anti-ship missiles. The idea behind the littoral combat ship,
as described by former Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, is to “create a small,
fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships.” If required these ships will absorb an attack
and protect the much more expensive cruiser or destroyers. The LCS is envisioned to be a networked, agile,
stealthy surface combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in coastal
waters. Interestingly, the LCS has a modular design. The vessels can be configured with different
modules for specific roles that include anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-surface
warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, homeland defense, maritime intercept, special
operations, and logistics. In the long run, the LCSs are expected to
slowly replace slower and specialized ships such as minesweepers and amphibious assault
ships. Freedom class LCSs have a displacement of
3,400 long tons being 115 m in length. These have a top speed of 87 km/ h, a range
of 6,500 km and endurance of 21 days. In a standard configuration, Freedom-class
LCS’s armament consists of an 11-cell Raytheon RIM-116B SeaRAM missile-defense system, BAE
Systems Mk 110 57 mm naval gun, and Mark 50 light-weight torpedoes launched from torpedo
tubes. RIM-116B SeaRAM missile-defense system can
launch MK 31 Rolling Airframe Missiles that have a range of 9 km and has a speed of Mach 2. The 57-millimeter naval gun is designed for
close range combat and has a range of 1.7 km. Mark 50 torpedo is a U.S. Navy’s advanced
lightweight torpedo for use against fast, deep-diving submarines. It has a range of 15 km and speed of 40 knots. Freedom class LCS also accommodate one MH-60R/S
Seahawk helicopter or MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned autonomous helicopter. In future, LCSs will also be armed with a
24-shot vertical launch system that will be a lunch AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire missiles. The missile can carry 9 kg warhead and has
an 8 km range. Furthermore, the Anti Submarine Warfare (ASW)
warfare package is expected to become available by next year and the Mine Detection & Clearance
(MCM) package by 2020.

Tony wyaad

RELATED ARTICLES

100 COMMENTS

  1. Boboy Ningthoujam Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:12 pm

    U people don't know about this ship.whatever the us produce it will be more effective thsn others

    Reply
  2. terry boyer Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:13 pm

    This is the first I've heard anything good about them. Consensus is they're useless junk.

    Reply
  3. The Gaming Forge Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:24 pm

    does anyone know the intro music?

    Reply
  4. Chris Rinaldi Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:32 pm

    Looks like a Little Crappy Ship (LCS). Nice target practice for enemy anti ship missile. 400 – 500 million a ship and can be sunk by land artillery or anti ship missiles costing significantly less. Would have been smarter to just copy Russia's small missile boats. It's not the Governments money it's ours, so why should they care. Comey probably put the deal together.

    Reply
  5. DBSstudent927 Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:36 pm

    My wife is literally twerking as I watch this video. I'll listen to the video and watch it later lmao

    Reply
  6. jonathan lavezzi Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:43 pm

    They look very similar to the US Coast Guard long endurance Cutters

    Reply
  7. A Badshah Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:48 pm

    All Yankee's weapons r junk

    Reply
  8. Aurobindo Ghosh Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:52 pm

    littoral combat ship is the politically correct version of corvette

    Reply
  9. Bob Beckel Posted on September 1, 2018 at 4:53 pm

    I wonder what the US position is on artificial islands being placed in open sea lanes for military purposes?
    The latest I have heard is the CCP is forward deploying nuclear capable bombers on artificial islands in
    the Sea of Japan. I am sure submarine bases are next. Clear acts of aggression that could be blockaded
    until starved out or pulled back and dismantled. Clear acts of aggression.

    Reply
  10. Daniel Kunkle Posted on September 1, 2018 at 5:49 pm

    The surface warfare mod at least gives it some additional firepower but it's still way too under armed for its size.

    Reply
  11. Siiello Posted on September 1, 2018 at 6:10 pm

    You are not pronouncing the class correctly. You are saying it like the word "Literal" or literally speaking. The name Littoral comes from the shallow reef French Littoral islands and in Indian ocean, not the typical english spoken variant of the word. The CORRECT way to pronounce is Le-TOR-al if you are not emphasizing the TOR in the middle your effing up.

    Reply
  12. alienevents Posted on September 1, 2018 at 6:19 pm

    But where are the figurative combat ships?

    Reply
  13. Saksham Madhok Posted on September 1, 2018 at 6:48 pm

    Just waste of money. Hardly any important role these ships have to play. Weapons carried by them also not impressive.what they think when they order to build a new class of ships??😄🤪

    Reply
  14. romeo5-5 Posted on September 1, 2018 at 7:02 pm

    Needs more guns.

    Reply
  15. Sierra Vortec Posted on September 1, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    It’s the same idea that doomed the F-35 to failure. A one size fits all. It ends up being a jack of all trades master of none. And as a result it seems, a massive waste of money. The idea of a smaller, cheaper warships to operate in shallow waters makes perfect sense, but the way they went about it was ridiculous

    Reply
  16. Jay Whoisit Posted on September 1, 2018 at 7:40 pm

    Sounds like a very useless boat!

    Reply
  17. Brian Jordan Posted on September 1, 2018 at 7:42 pm

    Not powerful enough, not adaptable enough, and not enough room for growth. Will never replace amphibious asault ships.

    Reply
  18. trankt54155 Posted on September 1, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    "Clitoral Combat Ship" Is it highly arousable?

    Reply
  19. Sayan guria Posted on September 1, 2018 at 8:51 pm

    So LCS is just american name for Corvette type of ships

    Reply
  20. psuedozardozz Posted on September 1, 2018 at 9:10 pm

    The Lockheed Martin version of the LCS, Freedom class, is holding the entire program back. 75% of the teething problems with the concept originate with the Lockheed version, not Austal's.

    Reply
  21. psuedozardozz Posted on September 1, 2018 at 9:17 pm

    I was hoping the LCS would get compared to the Russian Buran class, which the RF navy can't be completely happy with as they keep changing it.

    Reply
  22. VectorGhost Posted on September 1, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    most usless ship. They have no fucking firepower

    Reply
  23. Dennis Posted on September 1, 2018 at 9:59 pm

    Why…..
    I keep watching video after video praising these Littoral Ships, yet IF you really look at their capabilities they have weapon systems that can't reach past 6 miles, 30 mm gun with a range of 4400 yards, and a 57 mm gun turret with a range of 9,300 yd. With a weapon system with roughly a 5 mile range this is a complete joke when you realize we are putting sailors LIVES at stake serving on a ship that would not last minutes in a shooting fight.
    Why are we wasting $$ on these ships when the US Navy should have replaced our very OLD and OUTDATED Cruisers.
    Remember a Cruiser is the main ship in the Task Force to protect from aerial attack. I.E. Ballistic Missiles, High Speed Cruise Missiles, Aircraft etc. With technologies such as swarming and others the New Cruiser Design is where our Tax $$ should have been spent.
    Certain Countries in the world are smiling at our US Navy lack of focus on reality.

    Reply
  24. Dr Bendover Posted on September 1, 2018 at 10:05 pm

    seems like the right ship for coastal patrol.

    Reply
  25. Jesus Diaz Posted on September 1, 2018 at 10:11 pm

    🇺🇸 TRUMP 2020 🇺🇸
    ⚪ D
    🔵 BUSINESSMAN
    🔴 PRESIDENT

    Reply
  26. Jared Young Posted on September 1, 2018 at 11:14 pm

    It's shit sorry

    Reply
  27. Jared Young Posted on September 1, 2018 at 11:17 pm

    The modularity has been abandoned. See War Is Boring

    Reply
  28. Aghate Wahedi Posted on September 2, 2018 at 12:09 am

    Too much money for too few guns and capabilities. If all of the r&d money would've been saved they could've bought some more Aegis destroyers. Those at least pack a punch.

    Reply
  29. shaquille mccray Posted on September 2, 2018 at 12:13 am

    it needs Railguns and Laser Weapons

    Reply
  30. Mark Paintner Posted on September 2, 2018 at 12:25 am

    57mm gun is not big enough.

    Reply
  31. David Himmelsbach Posted on September 2, 2018 at 1:24 am

    LCS are not designed for peer competitor navies. These are all obviously designed for the Middle East — think Iran — and its fleet of dinky boats. LCS are designed to ruin any Iranian attempt to blockade the Persian Gulf. They'll never fight main combatants. Get it now?

    Reply
  32. Zachery Loop Posted on September 2, 2018 at 1:33 am

    So basically, small under armed, short range, very expensive coast guard boats!

    Reply
  33. Mug Gum Posted on September 2, 2018 at 3:13 am

    Too Light to Fight. A better defended Coast Guard Cutter.

    Reply
  34. lemmonsinmyeyes Posted on September 2, 2018 at 4:25 am

    I think the conventional weapons are only temporary until DEWs can be developed sufficiently.

    Reply
  35. YorktownUSA Posted on September 2, 2018 at 6:48 am

    If we get into a war with China these things will only do us so many favors. Perhaps they could be a utility ship for resupply, point defense, dedicated electronics, or a coastal defense ship to keep an eye out for Chinese submarines. In a full scale battle though? Forget it. We need a new destroyer/cruiser, for that.

    Reply
  36. Arjun Goyal Posted on September 2, 2018 at 7:39 am

    Read defence news in hindi
    https://defenceupdatebharat.blogspot.com/?m=1

    Reply
  37. Captain Broady Posted on September 2, 2018 at 9:07 am

    the LCS don't even have harpoons and the range of the gun is way too short. easy target for China and Russia

    Reply
  38. Hamza Kaoje Posted on September 2, 2018 at 10:55 am

    I like the name "Littoral combat ship" …

    Reply
  39. Andrew Coetzee Posted on September 2, 2018 at 11:54 am

    understaffed, under armed, under armored over priced

    Reply
  40. darren b Posted on September 2, 2018 at 12:33 pm

    Freedom class carry hellfire missiles those ships is perfect for sinking Iran fast attack navy ships.

    Reply
  41. Regina Baker Posted on September 2, 2018 at 5:05 pm

    I miss the golden days of the battle ship with those babys we we're unstopble

    Reply
  42. Regina Baker Posted on September 2, 2018 at 5:08 pm

    can someone please exsplain to me why their is a ? mark on every video

    Reply
  43. VAMobMember Posted on September 2, 2018 at 8:36 pm

    The LCS maybe a great ship if the mission was not canceled.

    Reply
  44. Nir Harpaz Posted on September 2, 2018 at 9:40 pm

    that's the thing dude.. they are literally unarmed.
    LCS = "Literally unarmed Combat Ships".

    super expensive for their kind comparing to other corvettes and come on.. hellfire as main weapons?

    here is the armament of the oh so big 430tonnes sa'ar 4.5 Nirit of the Israli navy (from wiki):
    8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles (or 4 + hellicopter)
    32 Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles
    Otobreda 76 mm / Typhoon 25 mm naval gun
    Spike-NLOS launchers (25-30KM)
    1 Phalanx CIWS
    2 M2 Browning machine guns

    I doubt if the Sa'ar cost even 1/4 the cost of the 700million$ LCS
    but at their current state I have no dubt on board of which ship i'de perfer to be on during battle

    Reply
  45. 3333glen Posted on September 2, 2018 at 10:59 pm

    So, Cruisers and DDs are not safe in coastal waters. These don't seem any safer except for some stealthiness. If they could carry all of the modules at once, they would be competitive – but they can't. Lightweight torpedo + 40 kts against fast seep diving enemies?

    Crew: "Captain – mines ahead!"
    Capt: "Poop! We don't have that module."

    I hope the LCS gets a bow shot. If the sub is already in front and heading away, I doubt the torpedo can catch it. The WWII Japanese Long Lance torpedo could be set for faster speeds than this.

    Reply
  46. Zak Browne Posted on September 3, 2018 at 7:25 am

    How about a segment on clitoral ships?

    Reply
  47. Mr.J. Posted on September 3, 2018 at 1:50 pm

    Aah it's called Freedom because it brings freedom around the world..

    Reply
  48. Paul Ipock Posted on September 4, 2018 at 1:52 am

    A WW2 destroyer would defeat this fiasco hands down.

    Reply
  49. mark brooks Posted on September 4, 2018 at 5:20 am

    Why does it not have suffice to air, anti aircraft missile system ???????????????????

    Reply
  50. Bill Ryland Posted on September 4, 2018 at 12:48 pm

    These are a waste of money and resources. They cannot defend themselves in a real combat area. We need more destroyers and cruisers.

    Reply
  51. John nichole canto Posted on September 4, 2018 at 1:51 pm

    a simple floating 500 million $ target

    Reply
  52. kevin cvalciuc Posted on September 4, 2018 at 7:00 pm

    Its pronounced LI TORAL not LITERAL. Littoral warfare has been a stupid idea ever since the contractors sold the idea to the navy 30 years ago. Do you really think its a good idea to operate a major combatant in range or shore artillery an mortars and RPG's? No it is not and the first time one is sunk by a coordinated RPG attack the admirals will withdraw them to the ocean and never send them back.

    Reply
  53. dugclrk Posted on September 4, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    This sounds like a Frigate FFH class ship. Still very under armed, maybe in a few years when these new modules become available it could survive anything more than Somali pirates or gun boats, now it is just a target.

    We have too few DD's and DDG's so anything is welcome. They still should be armed up quit a bit.
    Thanks for not using a robo voice.

    Reply
  54. capt rodgers Posted on September 5, 2018 at 2:42 am

    these ships all of them should be transfered to the coast guard, with no over the horizen weapons these ships are very useless to the US navy and thats what they baiscly are is coast guard cutters with short range anti aircraft defense

    Reply
  55. Hyperregression Posted on September 5, 2018 at 4:35 am

    I think its designed to deal with swarm attacks that Iran (among others) seems to favor/threaten with.
    Current frigates and destroyers are better tasked with neutralizing other small warships, not fast attack boats.
    Per this video with a top speed of 87kph or 54mph, thats damn fast.
    Fast attack boats, although faster slow down more in rough water, especially it used as a weapons platform. Something that the Freedom LCS wont suffer as bad from because of its size and displacement. Meaning a more stable weapon platform with multiple weapons designed to close range, engage and obliterate fast small targets.
    Its designed to provide screening and fast reaction in confined areas (relatively speaking) in places like the Persian Gulf. Meaning they intercept a fast boat swarm, break it up, and return to the task group. Anything bigger than that and you use frigates and destroyers.

    Reply
  56. fanman71 Posted on September 5, 2018 at 10:17 pm

    Unfortunately the US Navy continues to insist on modularity & flex fuel capability, it makes this ship a maintenance nightmare. The Saudis are buying a far more effective version with VLS systems, more effective 76mm (vs. 57 mm) & Harpoons. It's what our Littoral ships should be, instead we get a limited effectiveness ships.

    Reply
  57. albie071 Posted on September 6, 2018 at 8:20 am

    At least it has a lot of deck space for migrants.

    Reply
  58. Jason Wills-Starin Posted on September 6, 2018 at 8:35 pm

    Its electrical output from its turbines makes it a prime candidate for carrying laser weapons and a better EW suite on a cheaper platform than a Destroyer. They're cheap enough to eventually lend lease to South Korea, Japan and maybe even Taiwan, where a point defense system would make the Chinese LCACs useless.

    Reply
  59. Phaire Couchpotato Posted on September 6, 2018 at 11:54 pm

    lit-or-all that is how you fucking pronounce it! it's not lidoral it's LIT-OR-ALL!!!!!!

    Reply
  60. Ian Camarillo Posted on September 7, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    Is the title grammatically correct punctuation wise?

    Reply
  61. Dan Boren Posted on September 14, 2018 at 10:01 pm

    The LCS's are not combat ships. It has been determined that they can't defend themselves against a modest attack and have very little offensive weaponry. They are simply hulls on data sheets showing the US Navy has more ships. But the LCS is a disaster as a truly combat effective ship.

    Reply
  62. RICHARD GORDON Posted on September 25, 2018 at 8:20 pm

    I DONT KNOW THE METRIC SYSTEM.

    Reply
  63. Lairdriver Posted on September 28, 2018 at 8:45 am

    Bringing some Freedom to you!!

    Reply
  64. Lairdriver Posted on September 28, 2018 at 8:46 am

    Take that Iran!! Sink your inflatable Navy..

    Reply
  65. helen he Posted on September 29, 2018 at 4:15 pm

    America just refuses to use the term "Corvette Class", don't they ! haha

    Reply
  66. j livingston Posted on October 2, 2018 at 3:54 am

    I believe the attack on the USS Cole brought on the idea of the LCS.

    Reply
  67. BlackPage Posted on October 12, 2018 at 5:19 pm

    it doesn't even have a cannon. perhaps they plan on adding a railgun in the future?

    Reply
  68. eefhvodv yorue Posted on October 13, 2018 at 2:56 am

    It's pronounced Lit-tor-ol, you keep saying literal.

    Reply
  69. Cristian Reyes Posted on November 12, 2018 at 12:00 am

    I just got orders saying I’ll be on one of these. It’s non commissioned

    Reply
  70. Mug Gum Posted on November 14, 2018 at 9:00 pm

    Just adding a couple of 4-Pack Harpoon external racks would have doubled the combat effectiveness of this class of vessel.

    Reply
  71. Southeast Uncensored Posted on November 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm

    So this ship actually work just like a bodyguard for the carrier's and coast? Interesting.

    Reply
  72. Command Lion Posted on November 25, 2018 at 6:33 pm

    This thing is seriously outgunned. Wouldn't want to be on one in any sizeable conflict.

    Reply
  73. Marty Heller Posted on November 27, 2018 at 1:42 am

    Why does the Navy continue to build two different hull configurations……seems to be a waste…..now you have to keep spares for both hull configurations

    Reply
  74. Marty Heller Posted on November 27, 2018 at 1:50 am

    Also it has been reported the all aluminum Austal hull configuration …….is developing cracks…..Navy should have dropped Austal and continue with the Lockheed Martin steel hull (Freedom Class)

    Reply
  75. Brian Anthony Posted on December 10, 2018 at 6:25 am

    Anti piracy is the perfect mission for the LCS, why use a Destroyer or Frigate for such a mission as now happens, that's overkill and I'm sure they can be used elsewhere, the combination of shallow draught, hi speed, a helicopter or large drone, adequate senses and weapons for such a role make it ideal. In fact this is the mission I would give to the LCS.

    Reply
  76. Sam Burdge Posted on December 13, 2018 at 11:00 pm

    should be mine sweepers and patrol craft…it is not replace America or san antonio class

    Reply
  77. David Hernandez Posted on December 29, 2018 at 10:38 am

    There are basically mine-sweepers if today in open warfare that hostile forces still use underwater mines.

    Reply
  78. lunabranwen Posted on December 29, 2018 at 9:12 pm

    Expensive thin skin tooth less waste of money

    Reply
  79. lunabranwen Posted on December 29, 2018 at 9:17 pm

    All that wasted open space on the bow/front. One small gun. Should add VLS with anti ship over horizon capability. Hell fire not right fit for such a large ship

    Reply
  80. mausolos8 Posted on January 15, 2019 at 5:58 pm

    Strangely devoid of weapons and electronics. Yet relatively expensive.

    Reply
  81. storywolf 69 Posted on January 19, 2019 at 3:18 pm

    too costly and too light armed to fight most other navy ships.

    Reply
  82. Scott Hulsey Posted on February 5, 2019 at 3:57 am

    Independence class are being fitted with Harpoon launchers!

    Reply
  83. Patrick Rush Posted on February 6, 2019 at 10:00 am

    Overpriced Weak Ineffective Garbage!

    Reply
  84. Toby W Posted on February 21, 2019 at 3:37 am

    No sense making modern Navy/battle-space upgrades unless they all network together. Lots of high price ships and planes to hide the electronics development in. The current inadequate weapons are likely to be place holders to exercise the network and fire control until modern weapons come online. “The network is the computer”- Scott McNeally, I believe. Plenty of modern technology to weld/bolt on when the time is ripe.

    Reply
  85. rayroad Posted on February 24, 2019 at 9:26 pm

    More military bullshit. They want all the toys but they can’t staff and run what they have already. They can stop anyone but they can’t see container ships that are 100 yards off the bow. Give me a break!

    Reply
  86. Toby W Posted on February 24, 2019 at 10:25 pm

    Wait until the literal ships are replaced by the figurative ones!

    Reply
  87. PCShogun Posted on March 8, 2019 at 12:38 am

    I heard 'literal combat ship' too many times. Could not take it seriously after that.

    Reply
  88. HW2800 Posted on April 29, 2019 at 9:52 am

    The new U.S. patrol boat is better. It has more fire power, 10 crew only and is faster!

    Reply
  89. SmyrnaK Posted on May 6, 2019 at 6:00 pm

    If you just ask me, what USN needs is a wide catamaran ship with 64 to 80 small cells of extended range Hellfire missiles, hangar for dropping underwater drones and other devices. A helipad that would accomodate kamikaze UAV launch ramps, helicopters and various light class UAV/UCAVs would give it a second eye. For guns, I think that there could be a Mk45 fitted with hypervelocity shells those are truly multirole and efficent. Mk45 would be supplemented by two 35mm DP autocannons those can tear apart incoming air targets or closing attack boats.

    I just think that a littoral combat should be well armed to actually deal with duch swarms

    Reply
  90. Gene Hess Posted on June 19, 2019 at 2:42 am

    Navy keeps building BS boats, Need to get some real designers, need to bring back PT boats,

    Reply
  91. Zachery Loop Posted on June 22, 2019 at 9:31 pm

    This ship type is so under armed it can't even defend itself, much less anything else! Very expensive for very little usefulness of power projection. Cruisers and Carriers are the Main Force for power projection of any Navy. Cruisers are what the U.S.Navy Needs most importantly Right Now! Coastal defense is important. But not nearly as important as Carriers and the battle groups.

    Reply
  92. William H. Langeman Posted on July 21, 2019 at 11:08 pm

    https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-littoral-combat-ship-problems

    Reply
  93. William H. Langeman Posted on July 25, 2019 at 2:04 pm

    A massively embarrassing failure. Not combat worthy, expensive and unreliable.

    Reply
  94. JRT 4JUSTICE Posted on July 27, 2019 at 3:09 pm

    Perfect for Pacific Ocean ..China seas operations and quick enough for gulf commerce protection.

    Reply
  95. Claudio Santos Posted on September 17, 2019 at 3:18 pm

    Os americanos alem de terem seus sistemas de defesa contra missil devem ter um quantitativos de navios tambem com sistema de defesa contra missil para dar apoio terrestre e contra submarinos para ter mais proteção ao litoral americano e pelo Canada, a Russia esta instalando posições militares por la, os americanos devem ficar de olho. E ainda tambem tem o Alasca. O Canada deveria dar suporte na defesa. De olho na Venezuela e Cuba.

    Reply
  96. Claudio Santos Posted on September 17, 2019 at 3:20 pm

    Enfim proteger o Continente Norte Americano.

    Reply
  97. Lucas Delraso Posted on October 9, 2019 at 6:41 am

    WOW you not only use the same tone and sentence structure EVERYTIME, you also are retarded. LITERAL and LITTORAL mean different things, the latter meaning mainly shallow, coastal waters. ASSHOLE

    Reply
LEAVE A COMMENT