The notion for an Arsenal Ship -- part battleship, part LCS -- had a lot of supporters over the years, and naturally many detractors. It's genesis came from strategic assessments of what kind of power projection the Navy would need in the future. And clearly for lots of bush wars, the idea of having a platform (with associated C3 and integration) that could provide massive firepower in the first week of operations against a land-based aggressor is very attractive. The same vessel was imagined as being able to provide some fleet defense.... which becomes more significant with the so-called "carrier killer" ICBM's China is testing for sea denial to the US Navy in its local seas. But the idea was kicked to the curb with the DD(X) program. Or was it?
Huntington Ingalls Industries has tried to revive the idea last year, proposing a variant of their Landing Ship Dock hull with over 250 VLS tubes installed. So far, no go apparently.
The idea for the Arsenal ship also grew out of the idea that Navy vs Navy ocean combat was a thing of the past. However, China's efforts to upgrade and field a semi-blue water combat fleet could adjust, if not change, that equation.
But the idea has been promoted once more to select members of Congress in a paper by the National Security Executive think tank, suggesting possibly two versions. The first would be like the standard Arsenal ship, carrying 600 VLS tubes with one reload, for a total of 1200 missiles. (Reloading the missiles would be done moving canisters within the hull. No cranes involved.) The bulk would be land attack cruise missiles, with a percentage for anti-ship cruise missiles.
The second variant is for fleet air defense. It would be primarily stocked for IADS to counter ICBM's, cruise missiles, and aircraft threatening the fleet elements.
Both variants might be connected at the hip with an Aegis combatant.
Here is the question: does an arsenal ship still make sense in the strategic and tactical environment developing in both the Middle East and South East Asia? Or is it a ship whose time may have come and already passed due to changing world dynamics?
Huntington Ingalls Industries has tried to revive the idea last year, proposing a variant of their Landing Ship Dock hull with over 250 VLS tubes installed. So far, no go apparently.
The idea for the Arsenal ship also grew out of the idea that Navy vs Navy ocean combat was a thing of the past. However, China's efforts to upgrade and field a semi-blue water combat fleet could adjust, if not change, that equation.
But the idea has been promoted once more to select members of Congress in a paper by the National Security Executive think tank, suggesting possibly two versions. The first would be like the standard Arsenal ship, carrying 600 VLS tubes with one reload, for a total of 1200 missiles. (Reloading the missiles would be done moving canisters within the hull. No cranes involved.) The bulk would be land attack cruise missiles, with a percentage for anti-ship cruise missiles.
The second variant is for fleet air defense. It would be primarily stocked for IADS to counter ICBM's, cruise missiles, and aircraft threatening the fleet elements.
Both variants might be connected at the hip with an Aegis combatant.
Here is the question: does an arsenal ship still make sense in the strategic and tactical environment developing in both the Middle East and South East Asia? Or is it a ship whose time may have come and already passed due to changing world dynamics?