Missile Carrier.

[nightsight971]

Actually an Arsenal Ship would most likely not have a longer strike range than aircraft from a carrier. Using some of the longer-ranged air-launched PGM's like the AGM-158V JASSM-ER, an F-35C would likely have a strike range of 2,000+ km without in-flight refueling, vs. a roughly 1,700 km range for an RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV.



Indeed, given the potential size of a carrier air group aboard a USN carrier, it can be about the same size as the fighter force of a number of middle power nations.

Here is an interesting article that just came out. How the Russians feel about our Aircraft Carriers. A little bit of jealousy and a little bit of redundancy.

Here's What Russia Thinks About the Future of America's Aircraft Carriers

The Aircraft Carrier can only be as good as its jets and their armament. If it doesn't exist, a missile could be developed to make the Arsenal Ship more deadly than F18's and F35's hauling missiles and bombs. This article seems to point that out. Missiles taking the place of aircraft, and less crew on the ship.

 

[Todjaeger]

Here is an interesting article that just came out. How the Russians feel about our Aircraft Carriers. A little bit of jealousy and a little bit of redundancy.

Here's What Russia Thinks About the Future of America's Aircraft Carriers

The Aircraft Carrier can only be as good as its jets and their armament. If it doesn't exist, a missile could be developed to make the Arsenal Ship more deadly than F18's and F35's hauling missiles and bombs. This article seems to point that out. Missiles taking the place of aircraft, and less crew on the ship.

I admit I did not bother reading the article, once I saw what the site was. I have been sufficiently underwhelmed by the site's quality and accuracy in reporting on defence matters to no longer bother reading any of their clickbait, sensationalist or alarmist articles. To give others an idea of what I am referring to, at one point I looked at an article about a piece of US military kit and all the photographs were for a completely different piece of kit. I forget exactly which ones it was, it might have been M60 pictures in an M1 article, or an F-22 article with F-15 photos...

If they are thinking that a carrier is only as good as the fighters and their armament, I am perfectly happy with them continuing to delude themselves. A carrier is essentially a floating, mobile short airfield, with all the flexibility and capabilities that includes. An Arsenal Ship, regardless of missile load, would not be able to provide a loitering detection capability out to 200+ n miles, but a carrier with embarked E-2 Hawkeye AWACS can, and of course there are other capabilities available as well.

As for the improvements in missiles, there can also be (and have been) improvements in the ordnance aircraft can carry, like the JASSM-ER. Suggesting that Arsenal Ship missile improvements would make the concept more viable would seem to ignore that improvements are also made for aircraft ordnance.

Honestly the closest I think we have come to having a workable, worthwhile missile carrier platform is the Ohio-class SSGN, since they are subs, they are difficult to detect and target, and also have the potential to get close to a target prior to launching a missile strike, which shrinks the OODA loop.

 

[seaspear]

A number of years ago I read a report that a battleship within range of its target could drop more explosive weight on its target than the aircraft from an aircraft carrier in a given time period.
,I dont have that report to cite ,this might be behind some of the thinking in the arsenal ship and ships like the Zumwalt class ,there has been development of rocket assisted naval shells with a longer range if this is developed with a high rate of fire then possibly multiple guns can be fitted on ships instead of large numbers of the more expensive VLS and various missiles , a question may be do a few ships of this class fill a niche in a navy that has a large budget

 

[Todjaeger]

A number of years ago I read a report that a battleship within range of its target could drop more explosive weight on its target than the aircraft from an aircraft carrier in a given time period.
,I dont have that report to cite ,this might be behind some of the thinking in the arsenal ship and ships like the Zumwalt class ,there has been development of rocket assisted naval shells with a longer range if this is developed with a high rate of fire then possibly multiple guns can be fitted on ships instead of large numbers of the more expensive VLS and various missiles , a question may be do a few ships of this class fill a niche in a navy that has a large budget

That is the thing, an Arsenal Ship would be a niche capability, and an expensive one at that. The USN and in the future possibly the PLA-N could potentially afford such an expensive niche capability, but from what analysts have determined the capability is not worth it. The same goes for battleships at this point.

An Arsenal Ship, due to the potential strike capability it would have, as well as the cost due to the missile loadout, would require escort vessels to protect the Arsenal Ship from hostile air, surface, and underwater attacks in the same manner that a carrier in a CSG requires an escort. A few of the major differences between the two would be that a CSG TF would have a significantly greater sensor footprint as well as having much greater flexibility in attack and defence, as well as being easier to sustain operations.

An Arsenal Ship OTOH, once the VLS cells are empty, back to a friendly port it has to go to reload. The sensor footprint of a TF built around an Arsenal Ship would be significantly smaller and less capable, which means potentially hostile air and surface contacts could get much closer prior to detection, and the TF would have fewer options and less time to 'check out' an unknown contact. Lastly, the engagement capability of an Arsenal Ship would be set when the vessel is loaded or re-loaded at port. If an Arsenal Ship were to deploy with a LACM loadout, but during a deployment find it needs to launch air defence missiles, then the Arsenal Ship would be out of luck. Also if tasked with an air defence role, an Arsenal Ship would find it's engagement range limited to the onboard air defence missiles which would likely be of the same types as carried aboard the escorts, while a carrier with a CAP would have a much longer potential range to conduct air intercepts and/or engagement.

Once again, this has been looked by analysts who have determined that the capability gained would not justify the costs and/or the potential risks.

 

[seaspear]

I dont disagree with your points but would wonder if such a vessel could be configured in its loadout to add a benefit to a carrier group

 

[Todjaeger]

I dont disagree with your points but would wonder if such a vessel could be configured in its loadout to add a benefit to a carrier group

Probably not, or at least not for what it would cost to achieve. If there was a scenario which called for a CSG to have an 'extra' 500 VLS cells loaded with a mixture of missiles, I would much rather have those cells spread across several additional Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, because that would increase the number of radar, sonar and anti-surface pickets around a carrier, rather than have the cells all concentrated in a single vessel. Having the cells concentrated into just one hull increases the potential for a significant loss of VLS cells due to accident, damage, malfunction, etc. Also, unless the Arsenal Ship concept was revised to fit comprehensive sensors and a CMS suite to match, the Arsenal Ship would be basically completely dependent on other assets to be useful in an engagement.

 

[seaspear]

With the U.S.N unlikely to be replacing its Ticonderoga class cruisers before 2040 as funds are being allocated to the Columbia class submarines perhaps the discussion may be moot ,the Ticonderoga with advanced sensors already provides some of what an arsenal ship may provide in conjunction with the carrier group

 

[Todjaeger]

With the U.S.N unlikely to be replacing its Ticonderoga class cruisers before 2040 as funds are being allocated to the Columbia class submarines perhaps the discussion may be moot ,the Ticonderoga with advanced sensors already provides some of what an arsenal ship may provide in conjunction with the carrier group

A Ticonderoga-class CG has a similar role to the slightly smaller Arleigh Burke-class DDG, though the Flight III Burkes are planned to have a full load displacement the same as a Tico. Both classes have SPY radar arrays and use the Aegis CMS, and have a comparable number of missiles. IIRC the main role difference between a CG and DDG in the USN is that a CG has a potential command role, with space for an admiral and staff in addition to the normal crew complement.

Since USN CVN's already have a command role and room for an admiral, staff and other TF command personnel, the core combat capabilities a Tico would provide to a CSG are comparable to what a Burke would provide. Others might be able to clarify this better, and/or provide more accurate and detailed information, but as I understand it a normal USN CSG would include a Tico, and two Burkes. At a minimum, that would mean a normal CSG would have nearly 300 VLS cells, loaded with a mix of ASROC, air defence missiles, and TacToms.

 

[76mmGuns]

There's a chance the future cruiser, being based on the Zumwalt, might become a Kirov level cruiser, a semi Arsenal ship

My amateur hope is that they keep the good stuff, like stealth, Mk 57 VLS, ability to submerge 3 feet, , and remove the 155 guns and gun system, and replace them with 1-2 5 inch guns and 2-3 x 64 Mk 41 VLS, giving about 190-250 odd missile cells.

If the Zumwalt truly looked like a fishing boat on radar, then 3-4 of them could theoretically park off the coast of China for a while without any worries, unless the Mk 1 eyeball notices them. In case someone blasts me for saying that there's always satellites, patrols etc, I think it's been pointed out many times that the oceans are vastly huge places, which makes ships difficult to detect, even today. And ships are often spotted by their wakes, which are hundreds of metres long. Submerging makes them slightly less, travelling at slower speeds makes them slightly less.

Anyway, for the price of a non functioning Ford, you could get 3-4 Future Zumwalts, which I think would be a better alternative. (or , if the $800m pricetag holds true, 15 FFG(X) )

 

[Unric]

I think comparing an arsenal ship to a carrier is a little unfair. Carriers are heaps more flexible but also heaps more expensive. Maybe navies without the means to afford carriers might consider smaller arsenal ships as a cheaper alternative.

 

[John Fedup]

I think comparing an arsenal ship to a carrier is a little unfair. Carriers are heaps more flexible but also heaps more expensive. Maybe navies without the means to afford carriers might consider smaller arsenal ships as a cheaper alternative.

Smaller navies would be better off with frigates maxed out with VLS as per earlier posts. A small arsenal ship is just a excessive missile inventory in a single vulnerable location which doesn’t offer much additional capability.

 

[OPSSG]

I think comparing an arsenal ship to a carrier is a little unfair. Carriers are heaps more flexible but also heaps more expensive. Maybe navies without the means to afford carriers might consider smaller arsenal ships as a cheaper alternative.

Bad idea, as small navies need more hulls in the water. They are smaller because of budget limitations — so don’t blow it all on missiles.

 

[seaspear]

Is there though realistic development in the ammunition of naval guns that are rocket assisted and with a high rate of fire presenting a cheaper option to more vls tubes ?

 

[John Fedup]

Is there though realistic development in the ammunition of naval guns that are rocket assisted and with a high rate of fire presenting a cheaper option to more vls tubes ?

Probably some army stuff coming that could be modified for naval use but naval lasers are likely the best AA solution to prevent missile exhaustion. Rail guns are another possible solution to minimize expensive missile usage. These technologies may be essential for dealing with new hypersonic missile threats.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there though realistic development in the ammunition of naval guns that are rocket assisted and with a high rate of fire presenting a cheaper option to more vls tubes ?

What role are you referring to for the naval guns, AA or NGFS? There are a variety of specialty munitions available for naval guns, depending on the size of the gun. There are guided AA rounds, as well as guided extended range for fire support. However, neither of these can really compete with what is currently available in terms of missiles for long-ranged usage.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think comparing an arsenal ship to a carrier is a little unfair. Carriers are heaps more flexible but also heaps more expensive. Maybe navies without the means to afford carriers might consider smaller arsenal ships as a cheaper alternative.

And if they were to do so, would end up with a potential strike-launching platform that they would likely be unable to protect, after having run up a flag saying, "sink me," for every hostile maritime strike, MPA, or sub, never mind the usual hostile warships.

Again, an Arsenal Ship is a really limited, expensive, niche capability, that would require all sorts of other capabilities in place to be used effectively. The likely cost of a long-ranged strike missile loadout is nearly USD$1 bil. and that is without having any extra missiles as war stocks, or calculating the cost of the vessel itself.

 

[seaspear]

The type of shell I was thinking of is attached in the article used in the short to medium range aaw,Im not suggesting this is ready now but may provide different options in the future
Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun - USNI News

 

[John Fedup]

Certainly the $75-100k price per round is very attractive compared to a million dollar missile. No mention of the realistic range for this HVP but it would less than the ESSM and maybe the RAM as well. However, assuming a reasonable hit probability, even if 2-3 rounds are needed, it is an economical improvement over RAM as would 5-10 rounds over a ESSM. However an effective high power laser should be even more economical and likely more effective. In a few years the verdict will be in.

 

[Ranger25]

Smaller navies would be better off with frigates maxed out with VLS as per earlier posts. A small arsenal ship is just a excessive missile inventory in a single vulnerable location which doesn’t offer much additional capability.

Agreed, if you look at USN distributed lethality concepts they are moving away from larger (more vulnerable) formations to widely distributed nodes and shooters.

as far as the Arsenal concept, look at the new Virginia Payload Modules on the SSN. It increases the TLAM load out from 12 to 28 per hull from Block V hulls moving forward. Again distributed shooters and far less vulnerable

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Certainly the $75-100k price per round is very attractive compared to a million dollar missile. No mention of the realistic range for this HVP but it would less than the ESSM and maybe the RAM as well. However, assuming a reasonable hit probability, even if 2-3 rounds are needed, it is an economical improvement over RAM as would 5-10 rounds over a ESSM. However an effective high power laser should be even more economical and likely more effective. In a few years the verdict will be in.

I think there is a place for HVP over a laser - if they can get the rail gun working cost effectively and reliably. For surface targets, the HVP has over the horizon capability, the laser does not. For air targets, the laser has to be very high power to take out a target, and time on target matters as well (5 to 10 seconds on a hyper-velocity missile is a long time). Atmosphere is also an issue with lasers (clouds, rain, etc), and finally, targets could be painted with a reflective coating to defeat lasers (lots of shiny missiles). I think kinetic weapons will likely be a preferred option for a long time to come.

Don't get me wrong, I like the laser technology and think it has its place. But I think it will be relegated to CIWS/last ditch status. Whereas the HVP may eventually be a more effective weapon, longer range weapon given time.