"Does the Navy Need an Arsenal Ship?" Topic

The Arsenal Ship, originally proposed by the late Admiral Joseph Metcalf III in the 1980s, was descriped in concept as a ship built to transport missile systems… and not much else. Its goal: maximum ordnance on target.

Should the U.S. Navy revive this concept?

No, one of the reasons the concept died was because the USN was able to deploy far more VLS capability through existing ships than it needed. That hasn't changed.

The 4 converted Ohio class SSGN's serve a fairly similar role at a lower cost and a greater likely survivability.

The only thing the USN "lacks" is traditional "tube" artillery to support coastal landings by a major force on a hostile shore, not likely in today's world.

not likely in today's world.

You think?

Bangotrstu,

Yes, I do. Mostly in hopes that nobody who has nukes today would be tempted by that density of targets/threat.

Unless the geopolitics changes greatly the most likely places that come to mind off the top of my head for massive landings today would be PRC/Taiwan, Baltic counter-attack against a resurgent Russia, Eastern Europe versus same, Middle East (God forbid,) or to go way out on a stretch/limb – Venezuela/Cuba. I suppose you could have smaller landings in the Paracels/Spratleys but those would not be as massive and CVs should be sufficient for air to mud purposes.

And before you reply, ask yourself where would be the places for larger than MEU sized operations and ask who would be the opponents.

Who has the capability to move troops in sufficient numbers to require that kind of specialty ship for precision shore bombardment that a CVBG can't handle safely?

Britain is unlikely to invade France, India lacks sufficient reason/capability to move troops versus Pakistan (and Bangladesh is not a threat.) I can't see Italy invading anybody in the Med.

The only countries with carriers that in theory would provide air control to allow an invasion of another country are the USA (10 active I believe,) India and Italy (two active,) and at one active carrier apiece (China, Spain, France, Russia,Brazil, Thailand.)

Everyone else has most likely enemies reachable on land or over a narrow sea.

The purpose of an Arsenal ship, if I understand the concept (warning – USAF guy here,) is to support precision targeting for significant naval landings of Marines/Army troops against hostile shores.

I suppose you could build a special purpose ship with Sea/Land attack missiles as "smart" robotic kamikazes but isn't that the current surface warfare roles of many CGs/DDGs already?

Admittedly they would be cheaper than CVAs and currently no one has significant amounts of CVLs operating currently.

Okay, upon reflection I can see why other nations than the USA might build such as an alternative to carriers but I still can't see who would benefit from that mode of ship sufficiently to justify the expense. Vietnam or Japan perhaps?

"Yes, I do"

So do I. Amphibious landings on defended shores are no longer part of the USMC's doctrine. So whilst you can never say never it is certainly exceedingly unlikely.

So the SMC no longer practices amphibious landings?

I'd have thought China and the Pacific would produce a whole variety of possible scenarios, and there's always North Korea.

As I recall the idea was to put a shed load of Cruise missiles on a (relatively) cheap ship. To get carrier like firepower on a simpler vessel, with smaller crew.

The problem then is not that the asset (ship) is so valuable but it turns out the "cargo" is – and you end up having to treat it like a carrier so that it doesn't get sunk on the way to…wherever. And there's all sorts of things it can't do.

But…maybe a smaller arsenal ship with UAVs for reconnaissance and even self protection (fly CAP around home ship with anti-missile missiles as their payload) could be viable with a reduced escort requirement.

Maybe.

Maybe in that reduced aspect as 20thmaine suggests, we could finally find a use for the LCS.

It practices amphibious landings just like the RMs do. But the days of storming the beaches is long gone. You land where the enemy aren't

"Vertical Insertion" or some such – the Last USMC members off my family died off several years ago.

As I recall the idea was to put a shed load of Cruise missiles on a (relatively) cheap ship. To get carrier like firepower on a simpler vessel, with smaller crew.

Yeah that seems to make sense on paper (like a lot of simple ("bad") solutions to problems that really don't exist (for major powers at least.) But it doesn't change the dynamics much.

I think an Arsenal ship or two (ASuW) with good ASW and AAW escorts might be viable but it seems less flexible than a CVBG. Anti-ship missiles and Land Attack missiles are currently not all that easily interchangeable.

That said, I think CVBGs will fight it harder and harder to do their job with acceptable losses in the future, so who knows, this might become viable over time.

Some links for people like me…

link

link

link

link

As always, I am a "flight" oriented guy but this seems pretty damn expensive. A lot like the F-35 to some eyes.

The Zumwalt-class was sorta built to fill the "arsenal ship" role. In fact, the 155mm/62cal guns on the Zumwalt were originally designed for the Arsenal Ship.

The Trident SSGNs each carry more Tomahawks than were fired by all ships combined at the start of the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions.

The two nails in the coffin of the Arsenal Ship were 1) the fact that because of the weapons-load, you'd have to protect it like a carrier; and 2) that the weaponsload would be hundreds of millions of dollars.

Missiles are expensive. Even guided artillery shells are not.

An arsenal submarine would have been a much better design.

@Mako: That's basically what the Trident SSGNs are, though additional modules like LockMart was selling haven't been built (yet). The old intro video for the Cormorant UCAV had 4 of 22 tubes dedicated to the Cormorants, a few tubes with 3x navalized ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles. A junior officer suggested building a few of the original vertical mounts for the arsenal ships into a drop-in canister for the Trident tubes. Gives you a range of engagement options from GPS-guided 155mm up to 24" unitary or cluster.

I'm kinda wondering if the Trident Replacement is going to end up making a few SSGNs as well as SSBNs.

I'm also thinking that the ideal ship for combat in the littorals is something like the SMX-25. It's almost a return to the WW2-era submersible ships, instead of a modern optimized-for-underwater-performance submarine. Some land-attack capabilities, special ops delivery, torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. Would need some kind of gun, but between the vertical guns and the Muraena Gun (30x250mm caseless recoilless revolver cannon mounted in a retractable mast), I think you could have something pretty usable.