"Can the arsenal ship replace the battleship?" Topic

I came across this and found it a very interesting read. Being as I like Battleships it caught my eye. Does anyone think that a "arsenal ship" will/would be more effective then a modified Battleship and what does the Navy have now that is close to being an "arsenal ship"? Or has this concept stalled?

"Can the arsenal ship replace the battleship?

"This monograph examines the U.S. Navy's proposed arsenal ship and its potential for support to land forces operating in littoral regions. The undisputed platform of choice for naval surface fire support was the now deactivated Iowa class battleships. The arsenal ship will attempt to replace the battleships, while adding a new deep strike capability. The paper addresses the genesis of the arsenal ship program by tracing the history of its predecessors. From the 'long ship' of the Phoenicians, through the various ships-of-the-line, and finally to the Iowas. It examines the improvements in armor and armament along the way, and it culminates with the operational history of the Iowas. The monograph then introduces the arsenal ship program as the logical descendant of the battleship. It highlights the arsenal ship's required capabilities and concept of operations, and it attempts to compare battleship and arsenal ship capabilities. This monograph concludes with the decision that comparing the battleship and the arsenal ship is difficult at best. Their purposes are too different, and the intervening sixty years make objective assessments questionable. The arsenal ship is clearly the future of naval surface fire support, just as the battleship is clearly the past. "
link

Hope you enjoy!
Robert

I think that ship has metaphorically sailed already and the USN has rejected the concept as too expensive and not really appropriate for the current likely naval missions.

It certainly seemed like the concept was ambitious. I cant see how it could have been pulled off. Robert

"Conceived as a Fire Support Ship, the Arsenal Ship
will serve primarily as a sea based, long-range strike
and invasion stopping platform, providing direct
maritime support of the land battle. On station, it
will provide massive firepower early with little or no
strategic warning. Capable of launching advanced long-
range strike missiles equipped with submunitions
[sensor-fuzed weapons (SFW), brilliant antitank (BAT) weapons, or wide-area mines (WAM)] this ship can deter mechanized invasions from outside the range of enemy land-based defenses.

Once friendly forces have gained a foothold ashore, both naval expeditionary and joint ground forces will require sustained on-call tactical strike and direct fire support during counter offensives. The Arsenal Ship, employing large numbers of extended range tactical missiles, can provide responsive support to forces ashore. 54
The arsenal ship program began as an extremely ambitious and at least mildly controversial concept. The original 1995 study listed the proposed arsenal ship roles in sequence: 1) long range strike and invasion stopping; 2) tactical strike and fire support; 3) battlespace dominance support -theater air defense (TAD) to include tactical ballistic missile defen~e.~' To build one platform with the required capabilities would be an impressive feat, but potential contractors face other challenges also. The Navy also desires reduced manning, reduced acquisition and life-cycle costs, and reduced onboard target acquisition
56
sensors."

There will never ever be another amphibious landing in the face of opposition.Building 21st century ships to storm Normandy beaches or Iwo Jima.Thus this fire support vessel is already present via the carrier battlegroup assets.

That what I was thinking until I read this,

"While preparing for regional littoral challenges,
the Navy examined a 1993 RAND Corporation study prepared for
the Air Force, The New Calculus: Analyzing Airpower's
Changing Role in Joint Theater Campaigns. The Navy gleaned
that a major regional conflict (MRC) could present a threat
target array consisting of up to 15,000 armor or mechanized
infantry fighting vehicles. The Navy further deduced a coalition force would have to neutralize one-third of the array to successfully halt an invasion force. 47 U.S. forces had no capability to stop a force of that dimension without allowing for a significant time delay to deploy forces. Realizing a potential foe may not provide the U.S. the time to build up combat power--as in Desert Shield--the Navy began its search for options to address the obvious shortfall.
A search for a new capability required a new
platform. Aircraft carriers could launch strike missions
against an enemy mechanized force, but a carrier air wing,
or even two or three carrier air wings, could not produce
enough attack sorties to blunt a 15,000 vehicle invasion.
Vertical launch system (VLS) configured cruisers and
destroyers could not launch enough Tomahawk cruise missiles
to stop an array that large either. The cruisers and
destroyers 5-inch guns did not have the range or lethality
to seriously affect a substantial armor force. Even
applying carrier air, Tomahawks, and naval gunfire together
would not produce the desired capability."

Robert

The rail gun gets closer to reality every day. We won't need arsenal ships to replace the battleship. Battleships will be making a comeback. . . sort of.

link

I see what Dreadnought posted as the future. The aresenal ship hasn't come up in years but I believe one of the packages the LCS was supposed be able to use was a fire support one. With the way the LCS turned out though I'm not sure if that's in the cards.

Still only 2 types of warship I'm afraid, Submarines and…

Targets!

Particularly true for the Royal Navy now that the MOD has decided in its infinite wisdom that the whole naval carrier aviation thing was a flash in the pan and air power is overated

(unless its conducted by sky blue fairies accommodated in 5* hotels of course, thats completely different…)

Possibly, but it would need a lot of really excellent protection.

Granted, the USN can do that now, vs. most opponents, but perhaps not in the future, especially after budget cuts, or a richer foe.

Personally, I think I'd be more inclined to follow the golden rule, "don't put all of your eggs in one basket", just in case Murphy's Law turns out to be true.

A massed target like that is just a prime target for a nuke.

Arsenal Ship died a death back around 1997 as I recall.

It's an idea that they've been kicking around for a long time (see also Metcalf-class cruiser). Conceptually, take a Ticonderoga, remove all the long-range AA systems, and double or more the number of VLS cells. Some of the design concepts even added significant 'stealth' features and minimal crewing.

Honestly, the closest ship in the US Navy currently is the Ohio SSGN. Up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles or whatever else you can stuff into an 8-foot-diameter tube over 25 feet long. One early concept was replacing 28 of those Tomahawks (4 tubes worth) with a quartet of Lockheed Cormorant UAVs, another 4 tubes of Tomahawks with NATACMs (Navalized ATACMS, MGM-140), and maybe even a pair of modified 155mm vertical guns, leaving 70 Tomahawks. Plus a mast-mounted 25mm cannon for dealing with things close enough to bother a submarine but not worth a Mk48 torpedo.

A significant problem with the 'stealth' Arsenal ship is that the vertical guns had a huge dead zone and required precision-guided ammunition. The dead-zone meant that you'd have to install 2 separate gun systems (compromising stealth), and the guided ammunition was far more costly.

A major flaw with using missiles only for land attack is cost-effectiveness. A Block IV 'Tactical Tomahawk' is 5 million dollars. 155mm DPICM shells are a lot less, even firing enough to cover the same area. A second flaw that's been mitigated by the TacTom is flight time. Tomahawks are subsonic all the way to the target, artillery shells are supersonic almost all the way to the target.

But the Navy and Marines are very interested in something comparable to a battleship or 8" gun cruiser for Naval Gunfire support.

The study makes it sound like some country is just going to gather up 15 thousand vehicles without any prior warning. That would make for a major intelligence blunder. Sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Counterpoint: the invasion of Kuwait. how much warning did we have before that kicked off?

Yeah and we all know major intelligence blunders never happen anymore.

Actually we had weeks of warning on Kuwait. I remember saying to a couple of the secretaries at work that it looked like Iraq was going to invade. A few weeks later they did. The Iraqi buildup was a back page story in the paper until it actually kicked off.

> Counterpoint: the invasion of Kuwait. how much warning did we have before that kicked off?

I thought they were implying a sea invasion. If they think a ship (with 5000 missiles, yeah right (*)) is going to stop a land invasion they are even more loony.

(*) – 5000 vehicles nuetralized out of 15000, depending on just what nuetralized means.

THE ARSENAL SHIP AND THE U.S. NAVY:
A REVOLUTION IN
MILITARY AFFAIRS PERSPECTIVE

link

Arsenal Ship
link

How many countries can deploy 15,000 AFVs?

I would have thought that a treaty cruiser with armour swapped for electronics, a point defence system and 2-4 auto 8" guns would be perfectly adequate for fire support. It has the great advantage that you can have more than one and then you can build forces adequate for your needs.

And I would think an existing hull would work, if the job is chucking 8" shells accross a beach, just how important is stealth anyway?

Are there any cruisers carrying 8" guns anymore? Or even just 8" guns? I Thought they were all armed with the 5" gun IIRC. Any in reserve?Robert

Not any more. The last of those big boys went out in the 60s and 70s. That's one of the reasons why they brought back the Iowas.

Yeah it looks like the USS Newport News was the last active duty 8" gun cruiser and it was scrapped in 1993. The USS Salem is still around but as a museum ship. Robert

Maybe they could restore and update the USS Salem? Robert

Raise the Yamamoto, add a wave gun and send it into space… and I'll go have a nice quite lie down now… ;-)

Are there any cruisers carrying 8" guns anymore? Or even just 8" guns? I Thought they were all armed with the 5" gun IIRC. Any in reserve?

Nope, the Newport New and Des Moines were scrapped, and the Salem is a museum.

There was an attempt to build a 'Major Caliber Lightweight Gun', mounting a single-tube 8" turret in place of the 5"/54cal. It was not very accurate, and a 5" gun with a rocket-assisted projectile had similar range (~17 miles).

The 155mm Advanced Gun System is throwing a 225lb shell 60nm (design goal is 100nm), as opposed to the 5"/62cal Mk45mod4 gun's 70lb shell 20+ nautical miles. However, the 155mm AGS isn't going to be installed on any ships but the Zumwalts.

*I* would be an evil so-and-so and install the 155mm guns on every single gator-freighter.

Yeah. I kinda mentioned that already Lion .

"Yeah it looks like the USS Newport News was the last active duty 8" gun cruiser and it was scrapped in 1993. The USS Salem is still around but as a museum ship."

Funny how it seems that everyone thought the 5" guns would suffice. Robert

And then people built nasty shore-based antishipping missile batteries that make it a little bit hazardous to get within 5" gun range of the coast!

"And then people built nasty shore-based antishipping missile batteries that make it a little bit hazardous to get within 5" gun range of the coast!"

Yup.I wonder what they were thinking really. That the enemy would let get into range to use them? Robert

Which is why I think the Navy should install a 155mm AGS turret on every single gator-freighter (not sure where you'd put it on the flat-tops, though), and every destroyer. Put the 5"/62s on frigates and cruisers (the carrier escorts).

Funny how it seems that everyone thought the 5" guns would suffice. Robert

I think that there has always been a realisation that a bigger gun would be handy, I am sure that the 8" and 6" Autos wer3e being talked about in the '70s, but I guess that the navy has been perceived as a support system for carriers.

Something important about any military toy is "What are you going to use the armed forces for?". The toys you make for protecting Europe against the Russians are quite different to the ones you use for protecting Taiwan and the Spratleys from the Chinese, or for fighting land wars in the middle east.

@GrizzlyMC: The 8" automatic was tested in the '70s as a replacement for the 5" gun turret then in service. It was less accurate than the 5" gun with rocket-boosted shells, and the 5" gun had equal range with rocket-boosted shells.

Now, we've found that 20 miles is too close to shore, with all the fire&forget antiship missiles out there.

"but I guess that the navy has been perceived as a support system for carriers."

Aren't carriers part of the Navy? . I would think that even a 6" gun would have been better. With the way things are going now and what may be needed in the future a larger more longer ranged gun is certainly needed. Robert

In the '70's the USN was basically a submarine service and an aviation support service. Going into Somalia and Iraq would have been unthinkable post Vietnam. The main scenario for which it was designed was all out war against the sovs, which would have involved playing nuclear hide and seek and trying to keep the sealanes open.

There was also a POV that the gun was a bit of a legacy system (funny when you consider the fact that the integral gun was just being brought back to fighters) and that anything useful would be done with missiles.

With the US facing an enormous range of threats and uses some of the gear is likely to be unsuitable. One important issue for what sounds to me like a WWII Brit monitor is that many smaller hulls let you tailor your force to the job and also let you sell to less well endowed navies, sales which will reduce unit costs.

but I guess that the navy has been perceived as a support system for carriers.

Aren't carriers part of the Navy?

Not to hear the pilots talk, and since Carrier captains were fighter pilots…

But yes, the modern US Navy is still very much either centered around the carriers or the submarine fleet. I mean, a quarter of the Navy (by number of ships) is subs. (18 Ohios plus 3 Seawolf plus 8 Virginia plus 43 Los Angeles = 72 total)

With 10 or 11 carriers, you need another 40 or 50 ships, minimum, for screening them (and it's usually closer to 8-10 ships per carrier). That's roughly a third of the Navy, dedicated to supporting the carriers.

The other third of the Navy? That's all the Amphibs and their escorts (and the US has a lot of Amphibs, 4 Austin-class, 5 San Antonio-class, 8 Whidbey Island-class, 4 Harpers Ferry-class, 1 Tarawa-class, 8 Wasp-class, plus 2 Blue Ridge-class flagships = 32).

many smaller hulls let you tailor your force to the job and also let you sell to less well endowed navies, sales which will reduce unit costs.

It would, but there's really only two or three other nations that even want the kinds of capabilities that the US Navy has. And those nations have their own shipbuilding industries.

"It would, but there's really only two or three other nations that even want the kinds of capabilities that the US Navy has. And those nations have their own shipbuilding industries."

There is that. Robert

True, but there is an element of build it and they will come.

After all, it is hard to see what India and Thailand, or even Spain, want with a carrier, but they have them because they can.

Come up with a 12,000 tonne ship with big guns, air defence and a LOOOOOOW cost and flagship facilities for amphib ops and even countries that don't have a landing craft will buy one.

There were only a few nations that needed dreadnought battleships, but a whole pile of countries bought them.

Damn your LOGIC!! LOL Robert

The theory of using a submarine in support for me doesn't seem like an option either. Just being able to launch missiles wouldn't be as effective or precise as a even a 5" gun would be IMO. Robert

The SSGN is really there to support Special-Ops forces with a massive amount of firepower. After all, nothing says "leave now" like a couple thousand pounds of HE coming out of the sky with no warning.

The problem is really one of proportionality. There's currently nothing smaller than a Tomahawk for land-attack. That's not really usable, if you don't need a 1000lb unitary or a massive carpet-bomb. The Tactical Tomahawk is very accurate (GPS plus scene-matching), and can be re-targeted in while flight, but it's still a BIG warhead.

The suggestion to resurrect the vertical 155mm gun for the SSGN was published in the January 2004 issue of 'Submarine Review' as an idea. Basically, you broach the ship (come to the surface without putting air in the ballast tanks), flop a missile hatch or two, volley-fire a dozen or more shells per gun, blast a nitrogen charge through the bore to clear out any powder residue, close hatches, and stuff the ship back underwater. Total time on the surface? 3 minutes (the Naval equivalent of the infantryman's mantra: "I'm up, they see me, I'm down"). It gives you a weapon smaller than the Mk48 or Tomahawk to use.

Of course, all of those require someone (usually on the ground) to give you GPS coordinates to shoot.

There's also the Lockheed-Martin Cormorant UAV ( YouTube link ), but that's still some approximation of vaporware. Brilliant idea, though, if the Skunkworks can get it to work as advertised. Submarine launched, stealthy, it could provide that bridge between the 155mm and the Tomahawks. Or it could just spot targets for you!

I suppose a cluster warhead for the Tomahawk might breach a couple of treaties?

Like the US actually signed them in the first place?

A cluster-bomb payload (specifically, about 300 BLU-97/B bomblets) is what I meant by 'massive carpet-bomb'. But you still can't deliver that cluster-warhead very close to your own troops, which is what I was getting at.

I hadn't thought of a CBU dispenser from a Tomahawk. But you are right Lion. Too much of a chance to hit friendly forces.Robert

Tomahawk BGM-109D is a long range cruise missile equipped with a cluster warhead containing (166) BLU-97 bomblets"

link

Robert