Arsenal Ship, USN

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by brian eiland, Mar 24, 2013.

  1. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,948
    Likes: 179, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    I recall seeing a lot of promotions about this new concept ship, an 'Arsenal Ship', that would be loaded with a variety of vertical launched missiles capable of attacking other ships, land targets, and even missiles being launched from an enemy's land sites.
    Arsenal ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Uss Zumwalt,ps.jpg


    The idea went thru a number of changes as it progressed thru various design and funding considerations.
    SC-21 (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Zumwalt-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    etc.
    Until finally it has come down to just 3 ships being built, now designated the DD 1000
    DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer - Naval Technology

    Technology
    ....electric propulsion, reverse wave piercing bow, small crew

    What brought this to my mind to look up the status of these 'arsenal ship projects', was the recent anouncement by Vice President Biden to put more of those anti-missiles up in Alaska....those anti-missilies that have not even proven themselves to work.

    I really thought it was a GREAT idea to station a missile launching ship somewhat nearby the coast of a rogue nation and catch any missiles launched from the nation against another, catch those missles on their way up,....much easier than trying to catch them head on.

    More specifically in the case of N Korea, wouldn't it be much more effective deployment tactically (proven), and much more cost effective method to station one, two, or three such ships on a rotating deployment in the Sea of Japan to simply fire a few missiles right up the tail pipies of anything N Korea could launch??
     
  2. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,048
    Likes: 149, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    The most tactically efficient response would be take out the plants that build missiles and nukes and the launchers before they get fired.
    Israel did a great job in the past.
     
  3. pro from dover
    Joined: Feb 2012
    Posts: 3
    Likes: 0, Points: 1, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: el lay

    pro from dover New Member

    It's just that Israel does it on America's dime
     
  4. philSweet
    Joined: May 2008
    Posts: 2,324
    Likes: 185, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1082
    Location: Beaufort, SC and H'ville, NC

    philSweet Senior Member

    The plume is actually rather effective at protecting the bloody things. It's difficult to see through it and find the rocket. And it is huge once you gain a bit of altitude. You are talking about a roughly mach 25 oblique intercept in the upper atmosphere during the first 2-and-a-bit minutes of flight. The ICBM launch sequence can be run up to t minus a few seconds and the launch held while the boat is dealt with. I think that is probably the biggest issue with forward defensive strategies. There is also the issue of interceptor size. If you give an ICBM a 30 second head start, you aren't going to catch it with a model-sized rocket.

    At Minot, North Dakota, we had to motivate a bunch of mostly southern kids to go out and maintain a fleet of 150 ICBM's in any weather and at any time. Got a date? Too bad. Christmas? Don't make any plans. Why? because we're just like a Domino's Pizza. We gar-un-tee fast, hot, (nuclear) delivery in twenty minutes or less or your next one's free. And my job was to make sure nobody had cause to doubt our ability to do just that. I hope nobody doubts we still can.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  5. lewisboats
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 2,329
    Likes: 126, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1603
    Location: Iowa

    lewisboats Obsessed Member

    Take out the butt wipe before he orders the launch in the first place...
     
  6. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,048
    Likes: 149, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Steve Lewis,

    Don't know what you meant, but there were others of us who were ready to throw sublaunched ICBMs at "them" and proud of our service.

    On the other hand I didn't ever want it to happen.
    I went to Hiroshima to the museum and that will slow down the most gung ho patriot. And I am not saying we did the wrong thing. No real difference to me between a fire raid and the two bombs we dropped.
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,948
    Likes: 179, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Technical Aspects of Ballistic Missile Defense

    ...excerpt...
    In the early seconds of boost, an ICBM is vulnerable to a command-detonated mine adjacent to the site or to a rocket-propelled grenade. Even short-burning Scuds could be destroyed by small homing interceptors launched by radio from as much as 50 km distance from the launch site. Normal ICBMs would be vulnerable in boost phase to ground-based interceptors (GBI) (or sea-based interceptors) from anywhere within a region of about 1000 km of the launch site. Such an interceptor would be launched by command on the basis of DSP data, without there ever having been a radar detection of the ICBM. Fitted with a sensor capable of detecting the missile flame, it could direct its limited field of view in the direction commanded according to the data from DSP, and accelerate toward a predicted intercept point. The prediction would need continued refinement, by observation from the interceptor of the current position of the ICBM booster.

    Because of the ocean area east and north of North Korea, North Korean ICBMs aimed at the United States are an ideal target for ground- or sea-based boost-phase intercept. Specifically, it should be possible to use an interceptor of the same gross launch weight as the GBI of the NMD program (about 14 tons, with 12.5 tons of solid fuel) to boost the kill vehicle (of perhaps 60 kg mass and containing some 15 kg of liquid fuel) to a speed similar to that of the ICBM-- 7 km/s, but with larger engines relative to the mass, so it will reach its final speed more rapidly. A simple calculation shows that the sea-based interceptor could be deployed as much as 2100 km downrange from the launch site and still be able to catch the ICBM while it is still burning.
     
  8. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,948
    Likes: 179, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

  9. lewisboats
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 2,329
    Likes: 126, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1603
    Location: Iowa

    lewisboats Obsessed Member

    I never said anything about ICBMs or nukes. I am a retired E-6 with plenty of time around GLCM's, ALCMs and most forms of Chemical munitions. I wouldn't like any of them to be used either. Surgical removal of the cancer is always the best and least disturbing way of treating things.


     
  10. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    The ship was a failure. Its missile systems didnt work and its design...sharp reverse bow with no reserve buoyancy above the waterline was condemed by many NAs as unseaworthy and unable to survive in battle.

    To be stealth, a ship needs low power to reduce its infra red footprint with small propellors to reduce its sound footprint. That ship had a huge powerplant and could be detected with the simplest technology

    The whole program was a poorly conceived cash cow.
     
  11. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,048
    Likes: 149, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Ships are quite hard to make as true Stealth.

    Too big.

    How did the ship do as a floating missile command?

    Subs have a pretty big prop - 28' on the old one I was familiar with. Clearly intended for quite operation. What does this have to do with stealth? Even the sub prop doesn't work unless it is going slow - 3kts or less.

    What does the reverse bow have to do with combat? I can understand an issue with sea keeping. Of course, I am no fan of reverse bows.
     
  12. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    The report said that it didnt work. Google it. I dont understand missile terms and military gooblygook.
     
  13. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,948
    Likes: 179, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Seems a form of it is still in production,...due to launch 2013-14, ...only 3 total ships planned at this point

    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/

    ...and Militaryphotos.net

    2336736-sternultra.jpg
    Under the lights on September 29, 2012, BIW shipbuilders moved the 1,850-ton Ultra Unit comprising the stern section of Zumwalt (DDG 1000) on to the Land Level Transfer Facility. This unit now joins with the two other Ultra Units and the bow section which were already in place on the building station to make up the ship's full length of 600 feet.
     

  14. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 4,948
    Likes: 179, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Arsenal Ship vs Zumwalt

    Just happened across an old article I had referenced once before on the Arsenal Ship

    Arsenal Ships for Ballistic Missile Defense

    Arsenal Ship rather than Zumwalt.jpg

    It is welcome news the US Military won’t be placing vulnerable and intimidating anti-ballistic missile sites right up against the Russian border in Eastern Europe, but I fear the plan to place them on US Navy ships will do this service more harm than good. Already completely obsessed with land threats, the USN will now have less concern for the essential role of defending the sealanes. With a shrinking fleet and declining funds, they can hardly protect the fleet they have, let alone fight new space wars.

    The Navy seems to consider the oceans as their own personal domain and it can afford to dispose of essential anti-submarine escorts and coastal warships, while building large Aegis battleships which are currently doing the work once performed by cheaper, less capable, but vital small warships. Already the cruisers and destroyers are duplicating the aircraft carrier’s land attack role, with 400 mile range cruise missiles and now are shouldered with yet another burden of defending our allies from rogue Iranian or North Korean rockets. Already we see the infighting of whether even more $2 billion new Burke destroyers will be needed, on top of the 60+ already in service or ordered. Colin Clark at DoD Buzz wonders about this conundrum:

    One of the most difficult issues is, do we have enough Aegis cruisers to execute the mission. Gates wants two to three cruisers in the Mediterranean and North Sea on a regular basis. That comes on top of the Pacific mission. And I hear that the Aegis fleet is already operating at 160 percent of its readiness rate, mostly to cope with the North Korean threat. One source with detailed knowledge of European missile defense efforts said the new mission will require at least one and perhaps more Aegis class ships to do the job.

    As an alternative to our over-worked missile battleships in the role of ABM defense, we would suggest reviving the 1990s proposal for an Arsenal Ship. You may recall this revolutionary hull design as an attempt to replace the Iowa class dreadnoughts with a low cost “missile barge”, until canceled in favor of a more traditional and more costly Zumwalt class destroyer. The arsenal ship was a great idea which never saw the light of day, but also refused to die out completely.

    The modern concept would be to use a low-cost ship hull, preferably of mercantile specifications (T-AKE?) equipped with vertical launchers (VLS) for missiles. Keeping the hull cost low would mean the SM-3 missiles would be worth more than the ship, as it should be. Other benefits would be extremely low manning, which could allow for crew swapping, keeping the ship on station for as long as possible.

    The arsenal ship would carry nothing but a basic navigation radar, but would depend on other Aegis vessels in service for targeting. This would not be stretch for the service, since common practice already is to use 2 vessels for this role, one for tracking the other as the shooter. In this case, instead of less than 100 Standard missiles on average with the 2 Burkes, there would be up to 1000 (just potentially though not very practical) on the arsenal ship alone! It may also be possible to use aircraft or satellites for targeting purposes, or even a low cost Aegis mothership proposed earlier on this site.

    The cost of the hull would be run between $300-$500 million. The Standard SM-3 is priced at $10 million each with the older Block IV Standard at $1/2 million each, so depending on how many you can afford would be the ultimate cost of the vessel. When you think about the real cost, the relief to our sailors and stretched thin fleet for not adding yet another burden on them, the arsenal ship would be Priceless!

    (BTW have you seen the final pricing on the Zumwalts :!::!: I suspect we will build only one or two at that price,....stupid military spending)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Dominika
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    157
  2. Squidly-Diddly
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    452
  3. why crazy
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    402
  4. thenavalarch
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    230
  5. thenavalarch
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    289
  6. Tasnel Tayyar
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    812
  7. clmanges
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    291
  8. thenavalarch
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    320
  9. shrijeet mishra
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,357
  10. thenavalarch
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    454
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.