The Evolution of the Arsenal Ship.

GDS_Starfury · April 11, 2013, 12:37:54 AM

I really like the idea behind this design. the cost is way less then a carrier and the USN can split up its aviation assets over a lot more ships. we could still keep the CVGB concept and boost its combat power by orders of magnitude.

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/

Gusington · April 11, 2013, 07:50:28 AM

Interesting...so aircraft would be spread around to a latge number of these ships instead of concentrated on a conceivably more vulnerable carrier?

I like that it still sports a big ass gun too.

LongBlade · April 11, 2013, 08:49:42 AM

I'm not sure it'll replace a carrier. Its design facilitates VTOL aircraft. These can be good aircraft but they don't offer the same reach as traditional carrier based craft.

The cruise missiles could make up for that, but I think most of us agree there's no substitute for having a human in the cockpit.

Centurion40 · April 11, 2013, 08:56:19 AM

Quote from: LongBlade on April 11, 2013, 08:49:42 AM
I'm not sure it'll replace a carrier. Its design facilitates VTOL aircraft. These can be good aircraft but they don't offer the same reach as traditional carrier based craft.

The cruise missiles could make up for that, but I think most of us agree there's no substitute for having a human in the cockpit.

I'm sure that Marines preparing for an amphibious assault would agree, especially if they're in the mood for some effective air cover!

mirth · April 11, 2013, 09:36:33 AM

The Marines have their baby carrier assault ships. I'd like to see us build more of that type of ship in the 40,000 ton range with the ability to operate a decent air component and land marines. They're a nice supplement to the full size CVNs.

GDS_Starfury · April 11, 2013, 09:52:21 AM

the assault ships we have today dont have Ageis and a VLS cells. a future carrier group composed of a CVN, 4 of these ships and 4 to 6 destroyers would be one hell of a task force. the ship is a little bigger then a Burke and a little smaller then LPD.

mirth · April 11, 2013, 09:57:34 AM

Assault ships escorted by a couple of Burkes and a couple of FFGs or LCS would make a nice little task force for missions that don't require a full-size CVN.

I like the BMD/Arsenal ship concept, but I can see it becoming another over-budget, one-size fits all boondoogle.

Centurion40 · April 11, 2013, 10:02:18 AM

Not to mention that the French seem interested in it....

Mr. Bigglesworth · April 11, 2013, 01:12:48 PM

He's try to figure out how to surrender to it. :P

Mr. Bigglesworth · April 11, 2013, 01:42:47 PM

That looks like a normal gun on the front. A rail gun would look more like a giant tuning fork.

I don't understand what it's purpose is. You have destroyer to patrol, carriers to deliver planes, supply ships to bring everything, subs to sneak, what is it's role? It seems like a bit of this, bit of that, specialist at nothing. If you pack all kinds of systems into every ship you get a huge bill.

The very successful general purpose air force vehicle is the F16. It does all kinds of stuff while being small and cheap. This thing does not look small and cheap.

Centurion40 · April 11, 2013, 01:57:21 PM

'specially if they ever really do plop a railgun on it, and load each hold with a couple of Osprey!!

Mr. Bigglesworth · April 11, 2013, 02:20:56 PM

The first thing that turned me off was the 288 missile launchers. You don't pack that into every ship. You have bombers as the primary vehicle that will do that job much better. If necessary you missile subs to take it all there without being seen. So it is not really the best arsenal of ordnance.

No runway down the side. OK, VSOL and helos only. You already have the very successful Tarawa class for that.

Giant radar. Very useful on 1 or 2 destroyers, if every ship is carrying it most are off. You are paying for nothing. Why not tow a stealth blimp with the radar really high? You can attach one to whatever ship you need it on.

Like 40C I think the new rail gun should be somewhere else. It's own ship. You need a giant generator. You need a huge locker of projectiles. Its the perfect cheap area defense weapon. Park a big rail gun barge where you need it. Fire control can be on a attendant destroyer or several like a ring of spotters 500 miles away. Even recon planes or drones could say put some here. Why do you want a rail gun on every ship?

mirth · April 11, 2013, 02:41:45 PM

The missile numbers makes sense for ballistic missile defense. If the Chinese lob a bunch of DF-21s at a battlegroup, you don't want to be short of rounds to stop them.

Longdan · April 11, 2013, 03:13:33 PM

USS Costoverrun

LongBlade · April 11, 2013, 03:23:23 PM

Perhaps we're starting to understand why the Navy has more Admirals than it has ships.