The Arsenal Ship Revisited. Again.

Quiller

New Member
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?
 
Last edited:

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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?
Nope, and it never really made sense. The main flaw to the Arsenal ship concept has always been that it is 100% dependent on its comm links to other assets to function in its role. The second is that it is still enormously expensive, and puts a LOT of eggs in a very vulnerable basket. From a capital investment standpoint, a fully armed arsenal ship is quite likely to be enormously expensive. The missiles alone are a minimum ~$600M investment, probably more depending on the missile mix.

In the future, it may make a little more sense as remote engagement technology and network defense matures. But the very very important part of the problem is that any new shiny object ideas have to fit into the puzzle with all the other pieces currently in service and being procured. Nobody's ever really articulated how that may happen, what the other pieces would be, in a way that isn't completely redundant to existing systems or turns the Arsenal Ship into a single point of failure for success.

Without the ability to predict the future, an enormously expensive, network dependent one trick pony that only performs redundant functions doesn't really make sense in a defense budget.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Honestly, the Arsenal Ship only makes sense;
  • If you need to generate a huge wave of land attack missiles, by launching the entire load as the opening move in a conflict.
  • As an alternative to an aircraft carrier using cruise missiles. However it lacks the sensor capabilities that the aircraft provide the fleet.
2x to 10x the missile load of a cruiser (3x to 15x that of a destroyer). A lot of eggs in a fragile basket, and a prime target that will require an escorting force.
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.
Slow target. When and where is it every likely to be and survive long enough that would require that many cruise missiles?
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.
Sounds like a parking lot problem under the deck (you know, the one where you have to move x number of cars to get out the one in the middle). And 600 tubes(!) + reloads and room for handling equipment would require a huge hull, probably the size of a carrier, with enough speed to keep up with the fleet.
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?
  • The Middle East -- No.
  • South East Asia -- Only if you assume a shooting war involving a conventional attack attempting to cripple mainland China. Not very likely.
 

the concerned

Active Member
I would prefer some type of hybrid cruiser that had 2 155mm guns plus the electrical capacity to employ a laser defence weapon and then have some sort of extended flight deck to operate vtol ucav's. Bae made something similar with a modified type 45 destroyer but I was thinking around the 20,000 ton mark.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I would prefer some type of hybrid cruiser that had 2 155mm guns plus the electrical capacity to employ a laser defence weapon and then have some sort of extended flight deck to operate vtol ucav's. Bae made something similar with a modified type 45 destroyer but I was thinking around the 20,000 ton mark.
So...basically you're describing DDG-1000.

It doesn't have a laser quite yet, but certainly has the powerplant to take one when one becomes ready, and the flight deck/hangar may not be large enough to operate large VTOL UCAV's, but otherwise, that's pretty much it.
 

the concerned

Active Member
Maybe a flight ii variant , I do think vtol ucav's are the way forward plus I also think the rail gun technology will render anti ship missiles unnecessary.
If you think about it if you could build a ship with a rail gun and a laser defence system then nothing is going to touch it no matter what you use bar maybe subs.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Rail guns & lasers still need to be aimed.


The huge arrays of missiles mooted make no sense. One missile or torpedo (or accident) & you lose the lot.

If there's a real concern about warships needing reloads (& I'm not convinced this is a problem for the USN), then perhaps some modest (frigate?) sized hulls, with machinery to enable 'em to keep up, but lacking hangars, helicopters & most of the expensive sensors etc of a real frigate. Short-range self-defence weapons only (it'd be embarrassing to lose one to a skiff full of pirates), plus a battery of VLS to be paired up with offboard sensors (but I share the concerns of others about that). Gets round the eggs/basket problem.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Maybe a flight ii variant , I do think vtol ucav's are the way forward plus I also think the rail gun technology will render anti ship missiles unnecessary.
If you think about it if you could build a ship with a rail gun and a laser defence system then nothing is going to touch it no matter what you use bar maybe subs.
Why would railguns make AShM unnecessary? One has the reach to touch surface ships hundreds of miles away and take her out of the fight, the other does not.

Different performance characteristics, different roles.
 

bdique

Member
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?
Re: SEA

Such a ship will more likely cause or inflame, and not alleviate tensions between nations, even if the expressed intention is to counter/deter the PLAN. You can label a LHA as a Joint Multi Mission Ship with strong HADR role, but how do convince others that an Arsenal Ship has other more benign roles?

Also logistically, missiles have expiry dates, so keeping the Arsenal Ship battle ready is going to be a really pricey affair.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The USN doesn't currently have enough missiles to fill all it's VLS cells in ships at sea - when there are ships leaving port with piles of missiles left behind because there's no room for 'em, then perhaps the position needs to be revisited but building arsenal ships wouldn't be the way I'd do it.

If you wanted to keep some TLAM on station then I'd suggest the way to do it would be to get some late flight Virginia's on station, assuming an SSGN wasn't on tap.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
assuming an SSGN wasn't on tap.
And there lies the answer.

The USN already has four Arsenal Ships. They are called USS Ohio, USS Michigan, USS Florida and USS Georgia.

Slated to be replaced by Virginia class SSN's sometime next decade.

Besides, as stated by Stobiewan also in that post, the USN doesnt have enough missiles to fill the VLS cells that it has, let alone a few hundred (or thousand) more.

The USN currently has 8510 Mk.41 VLS Cells aboard its 84 active CG-47 Cruisers and DDG-51 Destroyers.

Plus additional cells for cruise missiles aboard its dozens of active Los Angeles and Virginia class SSN's.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Which is exactly what the USN wants to go once their SSGNs go, beef up later block Virginias.

Block I and Block II have 12 TLAM VLS, Block III swaps those out for 2 VPM tubes (7 TLAM a pop) and that's the same for Block IV. Block V will add another 4 VPM tubes making 6 VPM tubes for 42 TLAM capacity per boat.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
My mild case of anal-retentiveness necessitates I point out that the Block III Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) only hold six TLAMs, not seven.
While the VPTs are the same diameter as the similar systems used on the Ohio SSGNs, they are significantly shorter.
Now a sophisticated wild ass guess (SWAG) leads me to suggest that the lost missile space is taken up by electronics space lost with the shorter tube.

Everything I've seen states the VPMs payload tubes, being longer, will hold seven TLAMs (hence my electronics SWAG)

I would also point out that Virginia Block V is a bit of a way out. I would not be surprised if the Ohio Replacement Program ate into the Block V/VPM program funding.
 

CB90

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why would railguns make AShM unnecessary? One has the reach to touch surface ships hundreds of miles away and take her out of the fight, the other does not.

Different performance characteristics, different roles.
It's a long term S&T aspiration.

Railguns could theoretically provide cruise missile like range performance.

So once you know you can put something that far, you can look at doing different things with it, like guidance packages and different terminal effects. And you know it'll get there pretty damn quick, and they're relatively inexpensive (compared to missiles).

Probably still sounds like a long shot, but if we ever get there, it'd be a game changer.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
If there's a real concern about warships needing reloads (& I'm not convinced this is a problem for the USN), then perhaps some modest (frigate?) sized hulls, with machinery to enable 'em to keep up, but lacking hangars, helicopters & most of the expensive sensors etc of a real frigate. Short-range self-defence weapons only (it'd be embarrassing to lose one to a skiff full of pirates), plus a battery of VLS to be paired up with offboard sensors (but I share the concerns of others about that). Gets round the eggs/basket problem.
Put like this it would almost make some sence for mid sized navies like Australia and Brazil. Kept in extended readiness, manned by reservists and used as a surge cappacity.

But a mid sized navy would most likely have more pressing everyday requirements to spend the money on.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
You could decide to build OPV's with plenty of margin in them? Something that works right now in a low intensity situation, as they've got space to handle RIB's, a landing deck etc, but woven into the margins in a large OPV you could easily find some weight for mk41 ? Normal peace time crew for stop and search, balloon goes up, open some soft patches, drop the mk41's into place and insert some hostilities only guys to handle some more tasks, and you'd have some extra shooters if need be, inside of possibly a few weeks?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
You could decide to build OPV's with plenty of margin in them? Something that works right now in a low intensity situation, as they've got space to handle RIB's, a landing deck etc, but woven into the margins in a large OPV you could easily find some weight for mk41 ? Normal peace time crew for stop and search, balloon goes up, open some soft patches, drop the mk41's into place and insert some hostilities only guys to handle some more tasks, and you'd have some extra shooters if need be, inside of possibly a few weeks?
The principle problem are probably:
  1. The Mk41 is over 25 feet tall. This will penetrate 2-3 decks. It will also require bracing at intervals.
  2. Requires much more than just electrical connections. There are requirements for fresh water, large volumes of salt water, drains, and air conditioning.
  3. The system generates a lot of recoil when fired.
Now, you can design all that in, but it is complicated and wasteful of space. In practice you would probably require some lower deck storerooms that can also be repurposed, and may impose on machinery spaces. Ships that use the Mk41 are generally designed around it, you can’t just slap/drop it in.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
You'd have to design the spaces and the interfaces from the outset of course - some spaces that could perhaps take Stanflex modules to do other things or modular accoms blocks etc, so you could usefully manage the space reserved.

I'm not saying it's a great idea, more just tossing it out there for discussion. Depends on what you want the OPV's to be carrying - if it's just a few more SDS length silos, they are a lot easier to fit in and around an area. Strike length, total other fish containment scenario.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Or use the Danish Stanflex modules that include a 12 cell ESSM VLS module as an option. Same module can be dropped into a FAC, an OPV, MRV or AWD with the Stanflex slot. There is also another module with 8x Harpoon, so why not one with RBS 15 or even a TLCM of some sort? Actually why not Spike NLOS?
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Or use the Danish Stanflex modules that include a 12 cell ESSM VLS module as an option. Same module can be dropped into a FAC, an OPV, MRV or AWD with the Stanflex slot. There is also another module with 8x Harpoon, so why not one with RBS 15 or even a TLCM of some sort? Actually why not Spike NLOS?
When an Arsenal Ship is being discussed the important round is the Tomahawk cruise missile, the other weapons aren’t in the same class. A VLS for those won't fit in a Stanflex module. You could mount 4 in 2 pairs (Tomahawk weights 2x Harpoon) firing across the ship, but with the canisters being over 6.25m long (vs. 5m for Harpoon) and the Stanflex only 3.5m wide there is going to be quite a bit of overhang. There are also likely to be problems from exhaust damage because of the more powerful booster.
 
Top