Joint Force Arsenal

[Kirkhill]

They aren't alternatives to warships. Thinking just shooting missiles is what a warship does is like thinking that all a tank does is shoot a gun, so an unarmoured vehicle with a gun is a "low cost alternative".

Containerized missile systems are interesting, and have potential to be a useful addition to the fight, but they are not a replacement for anything but older launch systems.

War is all about bullets, self-propelled or otherwise. The secret is having more bullets than the other guy, specifically having more in range and at the ready.

I won't argue the toss on the definition of a warship. I will say that any warship commander wants access to as many bullets as he can lay his hands on ... and they don't necessarily have to come from his ship. In fact, I am pretty sure that he would much sooner keep his own bullets for his own defence needs if at all possible.

The containerized systems permit deployment of bullets direct from the warehouse, the railways, the highways and any seagoing convoys.

 

[Furniture]

War is all about bullets, self-propelled or otherwise. The secret is having more bullets than the other guy, specifically having more in range and at the ready.

War is about a lot more than just bullets. The secret is hitting the enemy where it counts to achieve your objective, while using the minimum force required to achieve your desired effect.

I won't argue the toss on the definition of a warship. I will say that any warship commander wants access to as many bullets as he can lay his hands on ... and they don't necessarily have to come from his ship. In fact, I am pretty sure that he would much sooner keep his own bullets for his own defence needs if at all possible.

They want access to the number and type of weapons that will allow them to achieve their mission. Wasting resources dragging around 10x more weapons than you need or will use just adds logistical tail and complexity.

The containerized systems permit deployment of bullets direct from the warehouse, the railways, the highways and any seagoing convoys.

Not really... Those containerized launch systems still require targeting systems, communications systems, and power. Also, you aren't going to risk a train or ship carrying valuable supplies by launching a missile from them. Sometimes missile launches go wrong, and if that happens on a ship/train with little crew and lots of valuable supplies it can go very wrong vary fast.

Again, I'm not arguing against the systems, just your imagined use of them. Dedicated arsenal platforms that can easily be reloaded via a containerized launcher make a lot of sense.

 

[Kirkhill]

War is about a lot more than just bullets. The secret is hitting the enemy where it counts to achieve your objective, while using the minimum force required to achieve your desired effect.

No bullets. No effects.

They want access to the number and type of weapons that will allow them to achieve their mission. Wasting resources dragging around 10x more weapons than you need or will use just adds logistical tail and complexity.

Netfires solution. Warehouses are everywhere. Unattended.

Not really... Those containerized launch systems still require targeting systems, communications systems, and power.

Power - onboard batteries
Comms - minimum - can be reprogrammed in flight
Targeting - offboard - accompanying ships and subs, aircraft, UAVs, land stations

Also, you aren't going to risk a train or ship carrying valuable supplies by launching a missile from them. Sometimes missile launches go wrong, and if that happens on a ship/train with little crew and lots of valuable supplies it can go very wrong vary fast.

Indeed.

Again, I'm not arguing against the systems, just your imagined use of them. Dedicated arsenal platforms that can easily be reloaded via a containerized launcher make a lot of sense.

We're half way there.

 

[FJAG]

War is about a lot more than just bullets.

I know what you are trying to say, but I think in the end that you are wrong and that @Kirkhill is on to something. Maybe its my not-very-subtle gunner background but my book learning tells me that war is not about minimum force; its about mass and redundancy and over-kill.

There are many factors involved all of which come down to the ability to continuously deliver effects when and where needed. To an extent that requires sophisticated delivery systems to get the effects in place but you definitely need mass. For every billion dollar ship you can afford a thousand complex missile systems or a million one-way drones or smart mines. But if you've given up building that ship - which might only have been good for launching twenty missiles before it is taken out anyway - you need cheap alternative delivery systems.

The issues that you raise are real issues, but they are solvable. However, they will never be solved if all that one's navy can do is continue thinking in Cold War capital ship navies. Consider this the analog of the era of the battleship v carrier/submarine/torpedo boat thinkers. There is, of course, a continuing need for those "capital ships" but there is an even greater need to think in the nature of "bullets", many, many "bullets" and effective and affordable systems for emplacing them into the hearts of your enemies.

 

[Kirkhill]

The origins of US Carrier Doctrine

The enemy sank five battleships and damaged three; and sank a gunnery training ship and three destroyers, damaged a heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, two destroyers, two seaplane tenders, two repair ships and a destroyer tender.Jun 25, 2024

Locations Of Warships Of The United States Navy​

Aircraft Carriers (7 + 1 Escort Carrier)Hull #Vessel NameLocationFleet

CV - 2 Lexington At sea transporting aircraft to Midway Island. 460 Miles East of Midway.Pacific
CV - 3 Saratoga At San Diego California. Pacific
CV - 4 Ranger At sea returning to Norfolk Va. Caribbean. Atlantic
CV - 5 Yorktown At Norfolk Va. Atlantic
CV - 6 Enterprise At sea returning to Pearl Harbor from Wake Island. 200 Miles West Of Pearl Harbor. Pacific
CV - 7 Wasp Grassy Bay Bermuda. Atlantic
CV - 8 Hornet Fitting out Norfolk Virginia Atlantic
AVG - 1 Long Island Norfolk Virginia. Atlantic

No Battleships left to support the Battleship Doctrine.

Needs must - Carriers and Aircraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

Navy CNO unveils ‘Project 33’ with a heavy emphasis on robotic systems, information dominance

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti's Project 33 aims to scale robotic and autonomous systems across the fleet by 2027 and acquire new capabilities for information dominance.

defensescoop.com

Lots and lots of Naval Autonomy with a heavy emphasis on developing situational awareness. Nelson called for more and more frigates so that he could track the enemy and concentrate his Ships of the Line out of the enemy's sight. CNO wants more and more autonomous sensors.

It turns out that the sensors are easy to supply and deploy. The problem comes with managing all the information. The solution is lots more couch-potatoes assisted by AI. Instead of sea berths the requirement is for Maritime Operations Centers or MOCs.

...

The USN is experimenting with launching missiles from USVs (USVRON1 with Autonomous OSVs and the LM PDS) but the next USVRON (USVRON3) is experimenting with Autonomous RHIBs rather than cargo carriers and the large sensor carriers like the SeaHunter.

....

My belief is that sensors don't require large hulls. Scattering sensors on small hulls makes more sense, IF, comms can be guaranteed and IF info can be analyzed rapidly and usefully.

My second belief is that given the delivery of the LM Payload Delivery System container the USN has now in hand a real time solution to its missile shortage. It can convert any flat deck, or dock, into a launch platform - including those LCS and EPF boats it really doesn't like. The bigger problem is supplying missiles of any and all sorts to fill the launchers.

In the meantime efforts like mounting SM6s on F18EFs allows the missiles to be delivered faster from Aussie factories, using MRTTs to refuel the aircraft. The F18s can then be used as bomb-trucks, standing out of range, and delivering their cargo speedily to any chosen point of release.

....

Once Canada takes delivery of the F35s, and its F18s are reduced to less than a thousand flying hours each, could those aircraft be used as Autonomous bomb trucks to loft Harpoons, JSMs, JASSMs, AIM-120s and SM6s?

Or would it be cheaper just to supply 3 MUSD RATO Valkyries as bomb-trucks?

 

[Furniture]

My belief is that sensors don't require large hulls. Scattering sensors on small hulls makes more sense, IF, comms can be guaranteed and IF info can be analyzed rapidly and usefully.

That is extremely unlikely in a peer/near peer war.

Some of this thinking makes me think that rather than a "Cold War" mindset, too many have a "COIN/Peacekeeping" mindset, and forgert that the next fight is unlikely to be against people with pagers and ICom radios...

 

[GR66]

Like @FJAG I guess I partially agree with @Kirkhill.

Uncrewed systems (aerial, surface and subsurface) to my mind are ideal for creating sensor networks. Just as UAVs have made Ukraine a "transparent" battlefield, uncrewed systems can help make the maritime domain equally transparent and in naval warfare history has shown that the side that strikes first in a battle often wins. Yes, EW will be a factor in countering the sensors but that in itself helps locate the enemy as well. The key in my mind is making the sensors plentiful and expendable which means you need to keep them cheap...so don't try to squeeze too many capabilties into each one.

On the containerized weapons on flat-deck vessels I'm less convinced. It's not that I'm against the idea of arsenal ships to expand the magazine capacity of our surface fleet, it's that containers are bulky and inefficient use of space. The Mk70 container holds 4 x missile cells in a 40' x 8' footprint. In that same footprint you could fit 3 x Mk57 GMVLS launchers (@ 14.2' x 7.5') giving you 12 x missile cells.

As others have noted in the shipbuilding thread, the hull and basic systems aren't the most expensive part of a warship...it's the electronic systems, etc. So instead of parking a couple of 40 containers on a flat decked ship you instead get a couple of purpose-built arsenal ships with 3 x the missile capacity in the same footprint.

To my mind the containerized systems are better suited to be moved on the ground by truck where they can be dispersed and hidden rather than grouped together on a single flat deck.

 

[FJAG]

That is extremely unlikely in a peer/near peer war.

Some of this thinking makes me think that rather than a "Cold War" mindset, too many have a "COIN/Peacekeeping" mindset, and forgert that the next fight is unlikely to be against people with pagers and ICom radios...

I'm not even close to looking at a COIN/Peacekeeping mindset. I'm looking at a Russian guided missile cruiser sunk by a swarm of stuff.

I'm cognisant of the Black Sea not being the Pacific, but neither is the Taiwan Strait nor the South China Sea nor the Philippine Sea the Pacific.

How about a shallow-dive submersible arsenal ship. The Chinese and Koreans seem to think its an idea worth following up on. Albeit I wouldn't go to the scale they are - I'd go for many more but much smaller cheaper ones holding maybe a half-dozen missiles each.

Question. Do proper operations in the Arctic year-round require nuclear submarines or can we get by with conventional ones?

 

[Furniture]

Uncrewed systems (aerial, surface and subsurface) to my mind are ideal for creating sensor networks. Just as UAVs have made Ukraine a "transparent" battlefield, uncrewed systems can help make the maritime domain equally transparent and in naval warfare history has shown that the side that strikes first in a battle often wins. Yes, EW will be a factor in countering the sensors but that in itself helps locate the enemy as well. The key in my mind is making the sensors plentiful and expendable which means you need to keep them cheap...so don't try to squeeze too many capabilties into each one.

This works in an environment where you can deploy lots of cheap sensors. Oceans are pretty harsh environments, and the distances covered are massive.

To my mind the containerized systems are better suited to be moved on the ground by truck where they can be dispersed and hidden rather than grouped together on a single flat deck.

Where do you plan to leave them alone close enough to be useful, but not so close the enemy can't capture them, and use the systems inside to gain int on our networks?

The Allies didn't crack Enigma right away, but having a functioning machine made breaking it possible. Imagine an adversary stealing an intact launcher and missiles, then reverse engineering our systems.

I'm cognisant of the Black Sea not being the Pacific, but neither is the Taiwan Strait nor the South China Sea nor the Philippine Sea the Pacific.

Correct, but to get to those places you need to cross the Pacific. We need things that can not only fight, but can get to the fight. Small and crossing the Pacific don't mix. Bluntly, I think we should be leaving the littoral concerns over there to the locals and the USN/USMC. We should be focusing on the blue water SAG vs. SAG fight, helping to free up the USN and locals to do their thing.

Again, I'm not against arsenal ships of some variety, and costal surveillance USVs are likely a great idea too. What I am against is reducing the numbers or capabilities of warships, to have a bunch of arsenal ships that serve no purpose outside of a full blown shooting war.

 

[Kirkhill]

New Dutch ship. - OSV as missile transporter and mothership

53 meters
550 tons
~8 crew

The Netherlands plans to buy two support vessels that will act as sidekicks to its air-defense frigates, packing additional missiles to defeat swarms of anti-ship missiles and drones, for an investment in the range of €250 million to €1 billion (US$279 million to $1.1 billion).

The support vessels will also be able to provide fire support for amphibious operations using long-range loitering munitions, as well as equip underwater drones to track and identify suspicious activity in the North Sea, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman said in a letter to parliament on Tuesday.

The vessels will have a length of about 53 meters and a beam of 9.8 meters, for a displacement of 550 tons, a MoD spokesman told Defense News.

The support ships will each have a crew of at least eight sailors. While current technology isn’t sufficiently mature for fully autonomous vessels, the new ships will provide the Navy with experience in operating with small crews, as a first step toward unmanned vessels, Tuinman said.

My guess is that they will be optionally manned with the ability to discard the crew in high threat environments, for example during amphibious support operations.

New Dutch Navy Support Vessels Will Be Missile-Toting Wingmen To Frigates

Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions. Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions.

www.twz.com

Dutch Navy to buy armed sidekick ships for its air-defense frigates

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying interceptors, drones and electronic-warfare equipment.

www.defensenews.com

....


Containerised systems

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying its Barak ER surface-to-air interceptor, Harop long-range loitering munition as well as electronic-warfare equipment. Buying the missiles, long-range munitions and EW equipment from a single supplier will simplify integration work, the defense ministry said.

The Barak ER air-defense missile that will equip the support ships has a range of up to 150 kilometers and can target anything from fighters to tactical ballistic missiles and glide bombs, with eight missiles packed in a vertical launcher, according to the company’s spec sheet.

https://www.iai.co.il/p/barak-er

https://www.iai.co.il/p/harop

The Harop is part of wider Dutch investments in long-range strike capabilities. As we have discussed in the recent past, the Dutch are planning to acquire conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles for their next class of submarines, as well as the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, for its F-35A stealth fighters, and the Israeli-made PULS (Precise and Universal Launch System) multiple rocket launcher for the Royal Dutch Army.

Another role that is being specified for the support vessels is as ‘motherships’ for uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs). Tuinman described using such drones to monitor and identify suspicious activity in the North Sea. Nefarious underwater activity by Russia, or other hostile actors is a growing worry for NATO.

Oil and gas drilling platforms and pipelines, wind turbines, and power and data cables are among the key assets that the new vessels and attendant UUVs should help protect. The type of underwater drones to be acquired has not yet been confirmed, but they will be existing, off-the-shelf designs with long-range sensors.

 

[FJAG]

New Dutch ship. - OSV as missile transporter and mothership