Arsenal Ships

[B.Smitty]

I would argue that yes, it would be worse, because the arsenal ship would be essentially unable to defend itself (unless it was fitted with the appropriate systems like are found aboard a DDG) and would likely not even be aware that it was being targeted or engaged until it was too late. If the USN to operate a 500-cell arsenal ship within striking range of mainland China, the PRC would become aware of that fact. I would then expect them to make finding it a priority, and following that, finding a way to neutralize it before the missiles in the VLS cells could be launched. In order to prevent that, the USN would need to embed arsenal ships into CSG's to protect them vs. aerial, surface and undersea threats. I frankly think the cost too high, and potential strike value too little for it to really be considered worthwhile.

If the USN really did wish to increase it's potential strike capability and add a conventional strike deterrent, then I believe that modifying some of the plans for the upcoming Columbia-class SSBN to make a SSGN variant, like was done with four of the Ohio-class subs, would be the way to go. The PRC would likely be able to tell where the USN had such subs based, and might be able to keep track of when they were in port, but once underway out at sea...

The VLS cell count would likely be quite a bit lower than a concept arsenal ship, but being a sub would be much less vulnerable when deployed to air and surface threats, and honestly would likely be better kitted out to evade or engage underwater threats.

Otherwise the only way I can really think of an arsenal ship being valuable would be if the vessel was disguised like a q-ship, if that is something that could even be done today.

Arsenal ships would require escort, for sure. They could be embedded in CSGs, or just operate within the influence area of a CSG or land base. Assuming Guam was hardened to survive missile strikes, arsenal ships could operate under its fighter and AEW air cover.

A longer-range Tomahawk follow-on could further improve standoff. Even without one, arsenal ship task forces could operate outside the range of Chinese air-refueled fighters in peacetime, and only push in during wartime.

I'm counting on the Chinese knowing they're out there. That's part of their deterrence effect. They can try to find them and neutralize them, but remember even a 500+ cell arsenal ship can dump its entire warload in a few minutes. Not much time to kill them if they're hitting pre-planned targets.

SSGNs really don't move the needle enough to be worthwhile, and they cost a TON. The procurement costs for a new Columbia-class boat are on the order of $7.4B each. Add in their paltry missile loadout, and you could buy four of the 512-cell arsenal ships mentioned above. That's over 2,000 missiles vs a mere 112 for the SSGN.

Of course my arsenal ship cost estimate was just a guess. It could be more or significantly less.

Commercial conversions (e.g. q-ships) might be an option, but the more missiles you put on it the more you'll want to control signatures and add survivability features. And I don't think we'll be fooling the Chinese with q-ships. Given their expensive payload, they'll still need to be escorted.

If we did go on the larger end, it might be worthwhile to add a modest sensor suite, such as that on the the forthcoming FFG (i.e. EASR, VDS). It probably wouldn't cost that much more. EASR is fairly cheap, and provides roughly SPY-1D(V)-equivalent sensitivity. It could then host and target its own ESSM/SM-6/VLAs for self defense. That would take some of the escort pressure off of the rest of the fleet.

 

[Feanor]

This thread is to consolidate the repetitive discussions around the arsenal ship concept that spring up on defencetalk every once in a while. Before starting a new thread on arsenal ships, please read this thread, and make sure you have something new to contribute to the conversation.

 

[Toptob]

This is kind of a weird discussion because we (people that know about defense issues) usually treat the concept of an arsenal ship as something silly that wasn't very realistic, even at the height of the cold war. But it is also something that has been theorized and thought about by serious people of the highest level of competence and expertise. And it seems to keep popping up every few years. I don't know if this has been discussed somewhere else on the forum.

But this recent South Korean white paper calls not only for a new batch of KDX-III destroyers (with 128 VLS!) and an aircraft carrier, but also an arsenal ship. Based on the KDX-II destroyers it would weigh 5 to 6000 tonnes.

ROK Navy to get Aircraft Carrier, Arsenal Ship as part of Ambitious 5-year defense plan - Naval News

Now from what I gather this is not something that is aimed at countering China but North Korea. So would I be correct if I thought this would be a floating missile battery that bobs around in the Sea of Japan threatening NK with cruise missiles? Would they deploy it with an escort squadron? I don't think they would operate something like this in the Yellow Sea because of Chinah, or am I wrong about that? SK does seem to have a lively missile industry so I don't doubt they could fill something like 4 to 500 cells with things that go boom.

Even so, the whole thing still seems like a silly idea to me. As a lot of posters above I question the survivability of such an arsenal ship. Even if not monetarily, the value in terms of combat power would be such that they would be a prime target for any opponent. And being a surface vessel makes it vulnerable to all manner of optical and other types of sensors. If we look at the technology and operational disposition the concept of an arsenal ship fits much more with the Soviet navy than it did (and does) with the US navy. The former relying much more heavily on stand off weapons, and arguably being more successful at developing those.

If we look at the US today, what are they even going to load into a theoretical arsenal ship. The Tomahawk's replacement should realistically speaking have been in service by now. And despite what anyone says, I have to believe that at least some where shot down over Syria. When I take that into account I do question it's efficacy in a serious combat environment like disabling high value targets in a kinetic conflict with China would be. As for other munitions... well if something the size of what an American arsenal ship would be, has to exchange salvo's of ASM's and AAM's it's pooped anyway if it's without an escort group.

If you want to be big, survivable and still provide a credible second strike and stand off capability in a single hull. You'd have to go back to Russia and you end up with something like the Kirov Class. And while I revel in it's opulence, today it's role is little more than to look impressive. And while they have their reasons, the Ruskies seem to be fine with launching their long range cruise missiles from smaller platforms. And for many nations small missile craft still seem to be popular solution to throwing a lot of munitions into the fight. That Type 022 looks like a really nasty opponent and they operate dozens of those. If an arsenal ship's task is to strike pre-determined targets and carry limited sensors and targeting capabilities itself, wouldn't it be much better to distribute that capacity in many different creative ways?

Here we come to the crux of that arsenal ship matter, consolidated versus distributed firepower. In the past most navies have concluded that distributing their load was the preferred solution. The Soviets fielded hundreds of missile boats, and submarines carry out the strategic mission. And personally I think that this conclusion is still correct. The only class where major consolidation has been the result is with the US's super carriers, and their staying power in a real conflict is questioned all the time. But a carrier is so much more versatile than an arsenal ship, and I have more faith in an F-35 carrying a mk82 than a Tomahawk in most cases. Plus that's much cheaper in most circumstances. So I still think that a big flat top is a good investment, and consolidation of combat power is warranted to some extent. In an arsenal ship however, this is a different matter.

With todays tendency to go towards automation and distributed information networks. There are many solutions that make the traditional idea of an arsenal ship an outdated concept. If you just need launch tubes at sea and if targeting information would be provided from an outside source. You could, like one poster suggested above, put some kind of modularized system on any old hull. Don't the Iver Huidtfelt class use a modular VLS they can lift out of the ship? You could design stand alone system and mount them in anything from a container ship to an offshore supply vessel and create dozens of targets. Another idea would be to use drones. An arsenal ship could be a drone tender that disperses combat drones when tensions flare.

But when we consider the South Korean case it becomes a more realistic proposition. Because it would be applied in a limited operational scenario, when compared to the US navy. For one their concept is limited at 5 to 6000 tonnes, and it would be based on one of their destroyer hulls. And they have a relatively large fleet of escorts, so they could more easily spare the ships to form a battlegroup around such a vessel. In the case of the US navy with it's many commitments worldwide such an escort would be less likely. And as such it would be more practical, economical and survivable to install some sort of distributed capacity on random hulls.

 

[the concerned]

Could you not create the zumwalts into operating like a mothership and have numerous unmanned vessels basically acting like naval versions of the loyal wingman . Its still technically a arsenal ship just the weapons are on numerous vessels around one.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is kind of a weird discussion because we (people that know about defense issues) usually treat the concept of an arsenal ship as something silly that wasn't very realistic, even at the height of the cold war. But it is also something that has been theorized and thought about by serious people of the highest level of competence and expertise. And it seems to keep popping up every few years. I don't know if this has been discussed somewhere else on the forum.

But this recent South Korean white paper calls not only for a new batch of KDX-III destroyers (with 128 VLS!) and an aircraft carrier, but also an arsenal ship. Based on the KDX-II destroyers it would weigh 5 to 6000 tonnes.

ROK Navy to get Aircraft Carrier, Arsenal Ship as part of Ambitious 5-year defense plan - Naval News

Now from what I gather this is not something that is aimed at countering China but North Korea. So would I be correct if I thought this would be a floating missile battery that bobs around in the Sea of Japan threatening NK with cruise missiles? Would they deploy it with an escort squadron? I don't think they would operate something like this in the Yellow Sea because of Chinah, or am I wrong about that? SK does seem to have a lively missile industry so I don't doubt they could fill something like 4 to 500 cells with things that go boom.

Even so, the whole thing still seems like a silly idea to me. As a lot of posters above I question the survivability of such an arsenal ship. Even if not monetarily, the value in terms of combat power would be such that they would be a prime target for any opponent. And being a surface vessel makes it vulnerable to all manner of optical and other types of sensors. If we look at the technology and operational disposition the concept of an arsenal ship fits much more with the Soviet navy than it did (and does) with the US navy. The former relying much more heavily on stand off weapons, and arguably being more successful at developing those.

If we look at the US today, what are they even going to load into a theoretical arsenal ship. The Tomahawk's replacement should realistically speaking have been in service by now. And despite what anyone says, I have to believe that at least some where shot down over Syria. When I take that into account I do question it's efficacy in a serious combat environment like disabling high value targets in a kinetic conflict with China would be. As for other munitions... well if something the size of what an American arsenal ship would be, has to exchange salvo's of ASM's and AAM's it's pooped anyway if it's without an escort group.

If you want to be big, survivable and still provide a credible second strike and stand off capability in a single hull. You'd have to go back to Russia and you end up with something like the Kirov Class. And while I revel in it's opulence, today it's role is little more than to look impressive. And while they have their reasons, the Ruskies seem to be fine with launching their long range cruise missiles from smaller platforms. And for many nations small missile craft still seem to be popular solution to throwing a lot of munitions into the fight. That Type 022 looks like a really nasty opponent and they operate dozens of those. If an arsenal ship's task is to strike pre-determined targets and carry limited sensors and targeting capabilities itself, wouldn't it be much better to distribute that capacity in many different creative ways?

Here we come to the crux of that arsenal ship matter, consolidated versus distributed firepower. In the past most navies have concluded that distributing their load was the preferred solution. The Soviets fielded hundreds of missile boats, and submarines carry out the strategic mission. And personally I think that this conclusion is still correct. The only class where major consolidation has been the result is with the US's super carriers, and their staying power in a real conflict is questioned all the time. But a carrier is so much more versatile than an arsenal ship, and I have more faith in an F-35 carrying a mk82 than a Tomahawk in most cases. Plus that's much cheaper in most circumstances. So I still think that a big flat top is a good investment, and consolidation of combat power is warranted to some extent. In an arsenal ship however, this is a different matter.

With todays tendency to go towards automation and distributed information networks. There are many solutions that make the traditional idea of an arsenal ship an outdated concept. If you just need launch tubes at sea and if targeting information would be provided from an outside source. You could, like one poster suggested above, put some kind of modularized system on any old hull. Don't the Iver Huidtfelt class use a modular VLS they can lift out of the ship? You could design stand alone system and mount them in anything from a container ship to an offshore supply vessel and create dozens of targets. Another idea would be to use drones. An arsenal ship could be a drone tender that disperses combat drones when tensions flare.

But when we consider the South Korean case it becomes a more realistic proposition. Because it would be applied in a limited operational scenario, when compared to the US navy. For one their concept is limited at 5 to 6000 tonnes, and it would be based on one of their destroyer hulls. And they have a relatively large fleet of escorts, so they could more easily spare the ships to form a battlegroup around such a vessel. In the case of the US navy with it's many commitments worldwide such an escort would be less likely. And as such it would be more practical, economical and survivable to install some sort of distributed capacity on random hulls.

Normally I would dismiss a story about arsenal ships as rubbish, but Xavier's no fool and knows what he's talking about. Not a lot of detail yet so any suppositions, apart from the location, are really just pie in the sky at the moment. The KDX-III is basically a CG armament wise and gwad knows how may VLS cells they could cram into a KDX-III derived hull. I am still somewhat sceptical though, because the cost of filling the cells.

Could you not create the zumwalts into operating like a mothership and have numerous unmanned vessels basically acting like naval versions of the loyal wingman . Its still technically a arsenal ship just the weapons are on numerous vessels around one.

You could but it would be expensive and not even the USN would be in the position to afford such a program. You only have 3 DDG-1000 and it still would be the cost of developing and building the USVs plus the costs of the ordinance.

 

[Toptob]

Normally I would dismiss a story about arsenal ships as rubbish, but Xavier's no fool and knows what he's talking about. Not a lot of detail yet so any suppositions, apart from the location, are really just pie in the sky at the moment. The KDX-III is basically a CG armament wise and gwad knows how may VLS cells they could cram into a KDX-III derived hull. I am still somewhat sceptical though, because the cost of filling the cells.

In the articles I can find they're all talking about basing it on the smaller KDX-II hull. At about 5500 tonnes full load it's a lot smaller than the KDX-III which are indeed very cruiser-like at 10,000+ tonnes. As such the scope of the program seems to be smaller than you imagined and thus perhaps a little more realistic?

Even so the KDX-II is no slouch, with 56 VLS and 8 ASM it seems to be better armed than most European analogues. But I wonder what they would take off to make space, and how many VLS would fit in that space? Should they take of the hangar? Should they change the entire superstructure/ And does such a ship need targeting and self defense systems?

On the other hand, the South Koreans do build their own VLS systems. And they have developed a diverse and interesting collection of domesticly produced missiles including cruise missiles and AAMs. So in the case of a program of limited scale, aren't the Koreans no exactly the people that could build something like this?

Realistically speaking that hull won't fit more than 2 to 300 cells. This is something that South Korea could build and operate... But eventually we come back to the same questions! Are this not again too many eggs in one basket. And would submarines not bring a much more robust capability for getting some strikes in?

 

[StingrayOZ]

And would submarines not bring a much more robust capability for getting some strikes in?

If you are going to have an arsenal vessel, an arsenal submarine starts to make a lot more sense, particularly against opposition with even moderate capabilities and you intend to get in close to use shorter range missiles (<500 NM). It doesn't have to be fast, it doesn't have to be nuclear powered, doesn't have to be deep diving, it doesn't have to be long ranged (particularly for Korea). Carrying say only two torpedoes for self defense, then loaded up with say 100 land strike missiles. Such as ship could get in nice and close, hitting all the more difficult targets.

 

[cdxbow]

SK does have some pretty unique challenges, so for them an arsenal ship filled with hundreds of land attack missiles may make a lot of sense. Here is the 'conceptual image' they showed.

​

If it's half the price of a destroyer because it lacks a lot of the gear a destroyer has, and is cheaper to run because of less crew, while at the same time increasing magazine depth considerably, then I think there is a good case for it. In SK case it's sort of a one use ship against NK artillery and other assets if the worst happens.

 

[ASSAIL]

SK does have some pretty unique challenges, so for them an arsenal ship filled with hundreds of land attack missiles may make a lot of sense. Here is the 'conceptual image' they showed.

View attachment 47512​

If it's half the price of a destroyer because it lacks a lot of the gear a destroyer has, and is cheaper to run because of less crew, while at the same time increasing magazine depth considerably, then I think there is a good case for it. In SK case it's sort of a one use ship against NK artillery and other assets if the worst happens.

I reckon damage control from a direct hit from anything would be a lost cause.
Big Bang Theory Mk II.

 

[DDG38]

I reckon damage control from a direct hit from anything would be a lost cause.
Big Bang Theory Mk II.

Exactly. One well placed shell/ASM/torpedo and you'll have a very expensive fireworks show. A submarine would be a much better platform to achieve this mission given it's ability for stealth and survivability in contested waters. I've always thought the arsenal ship concept was just the Yanks having more money than sense.

 

[cdxbow]

I reckon damage control from a direct hit from anything would be a lost cause.
Big Bang Theory Mk II.

True, but any platform that gets hits from fast modern missiles could mean you are out of the game.

I still think SK is a special case. They would want their opening salvo in the event of an NK invasion would have to be precise and devastating. Arsenal ships would add to the weight of that. I would argue they may be more survivable than ground based units to an initial NK assault.

Exactly. One well placed shell/ASM/torpedo and you'll have a very expensive fireworks show. A submarine would be a much better platform to achieve this mission given it's ability for stealth and survivability in contested waters. I've always thought the arsenal ship concept was just the Yanks having more money than sense.

I agree a submarine would be better in terms of survivability and stealth, but vastly more expensive. What size sub would you need to hold 250 cruise missiles? That would be many billions of dollars of sub. They don't even have a platform to start with. We have to live with real world constraints.

In this case they are taking a small destroyer hull, which they know well and is sorted out, and adapting it to be a missile platform. The cost will be in the hundreds of millions, they are pretty proficient ship builders. The cost to run will be less because it's a simpler platform than a conventional destroyer, with less sailors and less gear. All reflecting a smaller, almost unitary mission set.

They may be able to build 3 of these compared to conventional destroyer (eg 3x $300 m versus $1 billion) Three of these gives you one at sea at all times with 250 cruise missiles pointed at NK targets, plus the potential for an attack with even more mass or using them in salvos over time to keep consistent pressure. The more I think it through the better value it seems for SK.

 

[Todjaeger]

True, but any platform that gets hits from fast modern missiles could mean you are out of the game.

I still think SK is a special case. They would want their opening salvo in the event of an NK invasion would have to be precise and devastating. Arsenal ships would add to the weight of that. I would argue they may be more survivable than ground based units to an initial NK assault.



I agree a submarine would be better in terms of survivability and stealth, but vastly more expensive. What size sub would you need to hold 250 cruise missiles? That would be many billions of dollars of sub. They don't even have a platform to start with. We have to live with real world constraints.

In this case they are taking a small destroyer hull, which they know well and is sorted out, and adapting it to be a missile platform. The cost will be in the hundreds of millions, they are pretty proficient ship builders. The cost to run will be less because it's a simpler platform than a conventional destroyer, with less sailors and less gear. All reflecting a smaller, almost unitary mission set.

They may be able to build 3 of these compared to conventional destroyer (eg 3x $300 m versus $1 billion) Three of these gives you one at sea at all times with 250 cruise missiles pointed at NK targets, plus the potential for an attack with even more mass or using them in salvos over time to keep consistent pressure. The more I think it through the better value it seems for SK.

Realistically I do not see this as being a viable, functional surface warship. It almost sounds more like this is supposed to be a threat aimed at N. Korea, rather than a 'real' capability.

IMO S. Korea would be better off developing mobile ground launchers for SSM's rather than have a large missile inventory packed into a relatively easy to detect and track surface vessel which would be either at immediate priority target if hostilities were to break out, of a target for a preemptive strike. Land-based vehicle launched land attack cruise missiles would be mobile, and have the advantage of being able to be concealed prior to launch.

I do agree with others though, in that a sub would make a better LACM launch/strike platform because not only would there be problems tracking and therefore targeting the sub, the sub could also creep up close to strategic N. Korean targets and then lurk awaiting launch orders. Doing so would reduce the window of opportunity to defend or evacuate locations of strategic importance.

 

[Feanor]

Realistically I do not see this as being a viable, functional surface warship. It almost sounds more like this is supposed to be a threat aimed at N. Korea, rather than a 'real' capability.

IMO S. Korea would be better off developing mobile ground launchers for SSM's rather than have a large missile inventory packed into a relatively easy to detect and track surface vessel which would be either at immediate priority target if hostilities were to break out, of a target for a preemptive strike. Land-based vehicle launched land attack cruise missiles would be mobile, and have the advantage of being able to be concealed prior to launch.

I do agree with others though, in that a sub would make a better LACM launch/strike platform because not only would there be problems tracking and therefore targeting the sub, the sub could also creep up close to strategic N. Korean targets and then lurk awaiting launch orders. Doing so would reduce the window of opportunity to defend or evacuate locations of strategic importance.

Wouldn't truck-based systems also be cheaper, and easier to reload? One could even make a TEL that can take multiple munition types, including LACM and MLRS, and possibly other systems. This could drive down costs even further.

 

[cdxbow]

Wouldn't truck-based systems also be cheaper, and easier to reload? One could even make a TEL that can take multiple munition types, including LACM and MLRS, and possibly other systems. This could drive down costs even further.

Perhaps, but they are still going to be constrained in the relatively small space of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. Again, I point out the uniqueness of the SK position. Given NK has nukes, wouldn't you want to disperse your retaliatory forces as far as possible? Employing your retaliatory strike in the sea provides an area that's at least x10 larger than land basing provides, and significantly far away from NK, nullifying the ability of the large numbers of artillery/rocket NK have to affect your retaliatory strike. It also causes very poor NK to divert resources into addressing the threat. I think it's brilliant.

 

[John Fedup]

If you are going to have an arsenal vessel, an arsenal submarine starts to make a lot more sense, particularly against opposition with even moderate capabilities and you intend to get in close to use shorter range missiles (<500 NM). It doesn't have to be fast, it doesn't have to be nuclear powered, doesn't have to be deep diving, it doesn't have to be long ranged (particularly for Korea). Carrying say only two torpedoes for self defense, then loaded up with say 100 land strike missiles. Such as ship could get in nice and close, hitting all the more difficult targets.

Agree, a large SSG makes more sense. For SK, it doesn’t need long range, deep depth capability or speed. It would be interesting to see a price estimate for such a sub.

 

[Toptob]

Agree, a large SSG makes more sense. For SK, it doesn’t need long range, deep depth capability or speed. It would be interesting to see a price estimate for such a sub.

South Korea Launches First-of-Class 3,000-ton KSS-III Diesel-Electric Attack Submarine

This article says they're building the KSS-III subs for about $900 million a piece. Although this article from Naval News states that DSME signed a contract for $1.56 Billion for the first two batch 1 ships which is less.

MADEX 2019: DSME On Track with KSS III Batch 2 Submarine Program for ROK Navy - Naval News

The first subs reportedly have 6 KVLS and the second batch is rumored to be redesigned to mount 10 KVLS cells. I have not found pricing for the batch 2 boats yet. But they seem to have added 5m for 4 VLS, but perhaps they could fit more on a similarly sized and priced hull if they forego some of the hunter-killer capabilities and reduce the crew size. Something like 1 to 1.5 Billion dollars for a modest semi-boomer with something like 24 to 36 VLS for cruise missiles would certainly be something very interesting to build. However, I think 10 or even 6 VLS cells on these boats will provide a very powerful and persistent strike capability! (TBH I think these ships would be a mean competitor for the Dutch submarine program)

Perhaps, but they are still going to be constrained in the relatively small space of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. Again, I point out the uniqueness of the SK position. Given NK has nukes, wouldn't you want to disperse your retaliatory forces as far as possible? Employing your retaliatory strike in the sea provides an area that's at least x10 larger than land basing provides, and significantly far away from NK, nullifying the ability of the large numbers of artillery/rocket NK have to affect your retaliatory strike. It also causes very poor NK to divert resources into addressing the threat. I think it's brilliant.

I certainly agree that that the prospect of floating an arsenal of cruise missiles in the Sea of Japan is a tantalizing one. However you're missing and hitting at the same time, one of the most salient points that was made in the discussion above in several different ways. And that is the idea to increase resilience of your capability by dispersing your assets. You're correct in that the sea is large and it's a chore the find and track a mobile target that is moving at sea. Even so, an arsenal ship would still be a single target and there would be a lot of eggs in one basket. And if you wanted to protect it, you'd be diverting front line resources to protect a single point of failure.

But what if they would invest in a system for distributed communication where you could share targeting information through some unobtrusive, maybe modular, system. You could for instance put truck (or trailer?) mounted launchers onto a wide variety of ships! Anything from ferries to fishing boats could be used to mount a modest number of missiles, and you could find any number of creative ways to hide where your missiles actually are. This way you increase the resilience of your capabilities by providing both dispersion as well as a degree of camouflage. I believe one of the posters above shared how the yanks where testing firing a HIMARS from the deck of an assault ship.

On the other hand you could mount launchers on smaller ships. The Koreans are well versed in building and operating small warships like corvettes and missile boats, why not bolt on some cruise missiles? The Russians certainly seem to be fine with using small ships to launch long range cruise missiles. And if you build something like 30 missile boats, and you add 6 VLS to each that's a cool 180 cells that can be emptied at the word go. Another idea would be something like CB-90 class vessel that can launch two or three missiles, or even a missile drone.

 

[Feanor]

Perhaps, but they are still going to be constrained in the relatively small space of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. Again, I point out the uniqueness of the SK position. Given NK has nukes, wouldn't you want to disperse your retaliatory forces as far as possible? Employing your retaliatory strike in the sea provides an area that's at least x10 larger than land basing provides, and significantly far away from NK, nullifying the ability of the large numbers of artillery/rocket NK have to affect your retaliatory strike. It also causes very poor NK to divert resources into addressing the threat. I think it's brilliant.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand why. DPRK artillery has ranges in the tens of kms not hundreds. Presumably you would have most of the peninsula to spread out in. Conventional IRBMs are relatively few in number, and can be shot down, reducing the totals. Plus I'm not sure how accurate they are, or how good the DPRK would be at locating dispersed missile brigades. As for nukes... if they're air-dropped bombs, they would have to fly over the target. And survivability of an Il-28 against the RoK airforce is... poor, to put it mildly. If they've using nuclear IRBMs, then that's a concern, but at that point the dispersal of the trucks should keep at least some alive. And if the DPRK is at all smart about it, they will nuke cities, not try to find tens of missile trucks dispersed throughout the countryside. Or are you thinking the DPRK arsenal can achieve sufficient saturation to ensure almost everything on the peninsula is hit with nukes? But if that's true, who cares? What's the value of a floating arsenal if the entire country is a smouldering radioactive ruin?

Once again there's the question of cost, thus increasing the total number of launch tubes you have, and the question of reload speeds. With missile bdes you could have a transporter-loader vehicle that carries extra missiles and can reload in under an hour, and then strike again. I still don't see the value of the arsenal ship.

 

[Toptob]

Once again there's the question of cost, thus increasing the total number of launch tubes you have, and the question of reload speeds. With missile bdes you could have a transporter-loader vehicle that carries extra missiles and can reload in under an hour, and then strike again. I still don't see the value of the arsenal ship.

I bet you're just saying that to distract us @Feanor !!! Because your Ruskies are doing exactly what I was talking about!

Russian Navy to Begin Trials of Modular Systems for Surface Vessels - Naval News

The article says the container can operate autonomously. Does this mean they can remotely send target data to their missiles? In that case could you operate these containers from, say, the top layer of a container ship. For instance could you share targeting data between an escort vessel and a container on a container ship, or maybe from even further away?

 

[John Fedup]

Yet another take on arsenal ships, the missile barge, not really a barge but a commercial ship with containerized missiles. The article goes on to consider modifying cargo vessels with VLS which gets us back to the arsenal ship concept. The containerized solution seems like a better idea. As the article mentions, used cargo ships are cheap, buy four, equip one with missiles and make the Chinese waste missiles on the other three which likely are worth less the the missiles. Might be a fast doable force multiplier.

'Missile barges' could be US secret weapon in the Pacific

The U.S. Navy is seriously outnumbered in the Pacific, but a proposal to convert cargo ships into missile barges could turn the tide.

www.sandboxx.us

 

[Blackshoe]

Yet another take on arsenal ships, the missile barge, not really a barge but a commercial ship with containerized missiles. The article goes on to consider modifying cargo vessels with VLS which gets us back to the arsenal ship concept. The containerized solution seems like a better idea. As the article mentions, used cargo ships are cheap, buy four, equip one with missiles and make the Chinese waste missiles on the other three which likely are worth less the the missiles. Might be a fast doable force multiplier.

'Missile barges' could be US secret weapon in the Pacific

The U.S. Navy is seriously outnumbered in the Pacific, but a proposal to convert cargo ships into missile barges could turn the tide.

www.sandboxx.us

The central problems with all ideas of putting containerized weapon systems on various merchant ships as a counter against the Chinese is that:
a) the Chinese own most of these merchant ships
b) the merchant mariners-mostly neutral country citizens-are extremely unlikely to be willing to crew vessels that are armed (which also ignores lots of flag issues and legal problems about putting weapons on merchant ships).

Heck, I doubt even US civilian mariners would be willing to be on the new Q-ships.