It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Navy Arsenal Ship

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
The Arsenal Ship was a late 90's idea, that was to build a stealth ship that was low to the water and housed more then 500 missiles, its mission could vary greatly, from long range strike to defend troops or Air Superiority.

It would have costs half of what a normal ship costs and could of being built in half the time. It would have also being cheaper over time because it would be lightly manned, in which anywhere from 20 to 50 people operating it, but possibly zero people. They had originally planned for six of them, the first one being the demonstrator, but would later be comverted to a full fledged Arsenal Ship. With these ships they figured you would need less combat aircraft and carriers, but still have a very powerfull ofensive capability.



global security
Specifications
Armament 500-cell Vertical Launch System (VLS)
Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAMs)
Army Tactical Missile System

Crew ~~ 50; designed to be highly automated
Design Low radar signature ("stealthy")
double hull
possible length 500-800 feet
Estimated Number Six vessels
Cost $500-800 Million each
missiles will cost ~~$500 million


Arsenal Ship info



Personally I think that this project should be re-opened, since all its objectives can still play a big role, with the world getting more dangerous with rogue countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and the emerging clash of China and Taiwan, I think this ship would give us a good egde, it seems to be a great idea, stealth, hundreds of missiles, posibly unmanned, it would make nations think twice.




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I think the new SSGN ( Ohio subs conversions) are much better option. Arsenal ship can do nothing but fire a misilles and SSGNs can do the same. They can carry only 150+ instead of 500, but you only rarely need so much misilles. Besides they are much more stealthy and survivable(radar and satelites have no chance) and have much better endurance (nuclear propulsion). Plus they can deploy Seal teams.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
not needed unless you are in a full scale war

there is simply no need for such firepower in a short space of time these day's



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
How are 500 missiles "overwhleming firepower"?

Those missiles could only destroy a few square miles.

Do you know how big the Earth is?

We would need 100000 of these things to display "uneeded firepower".

-1 intelligence for Lucretius.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
How are 500 missiles "overwhleming firepower"?

Those missiles could only destroy a few square miles.

Do you know how big the Earth is?

We would need 100000 of these things to display "uneeded firepower".

-1 intelligence for Lucretius.

500 precision guided missiles can do a great ammount of dammage...



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I don't think that these ships are necessary at the present time, like someone said the Ohio class subs can launch 150 Cruise missiles, and I don't thin you would need more than that for one mission.

However I think that these might be necessary when fighting a modern country because why risk the Sub exposing its position by firing it missiles, when you can have these ships who are very cheap compared to a nuclear submarine, go and do the same job.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
I think the new SSGN ( Ohio subs conversions) are much better option. Arsenal ship can do nothing but fire a misilles and SSGNs can do the same. They can carry only 150+ instead of 500, but you only rarely need so much misilles. Besides they are much more stealthy and survivable(radar and satelites have no chance) and have much better endurance (nuclear propulsion). Plus they can deploy Seal teams.


True, but like you said...only 150 missiles and it costs 4 times as much, with that money you could have 4 arsenal ships totaling 2,000 missiles. and they would be low and stealth, so they wouldn't know where there at, and as long as the paint it good it would make it very hard for a satellite to find it (its a BIG ocean).



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Unmanned 500 missile ships sailing on the coastline, thats scary. Really i doubt they could risk such ships to be unmanned, think about jamming those if remote controlled or even taking over whole command and none in ship to stop it, as its mission is to move alone without fleet as support?

I agree the fact that US should look more cost effient ways, but unmanned ships doesnt sound safe, unmanned planes are little different story. Little risky anyway in the end to have 500 missile stores sailing all over. But as manned ship it would add new standard for destroyer, and as its been mostly ships are supporting from sea the ground forces, so why not have ship that is all for it.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
Unmanned 500 missile ships sailing on the coastline, thats scary. Really i doubt they could risk such ships to be unmanned, think about jamming those if remote controlled or even taking over whole command and none in ship to stop it, as its mission is to move alone without fleet as support?

I agree the fact that US should look more cost effient ways, but unmanned ships doesnt sound safe, unmanned planes are little different story. Little risky anyway in the end to have 500 missile stores sailing all over. But as manned ship it would add new standard for destroyer, and as its been mostly ships are supporting from sea the ground forces, so why not have ship that is all for it.


It will be not unmanned, but it should have only 20-50 crew members. This is because it has no helicopters, radar, sonar etc. The cruise misilles are stored in the VLS cellls, so basically all what the crew need to do is to push the buttons, that's why they said that possibly zero crew


[edit on 27-3-2005 by longbow]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Un-necessary unless you get a WWII kind of war again.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Un-necessary unless you get a WWII kind of war again.

I dissagree, but what this ship could do is clear.....deterence.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I agree these ships are unnecessary unless a major global conflict occurs like WWIII. Also the U.S. will probably make them unmanned because there is a big push in the U.S. to make as many things unmanned as possible.
The DOD is pushing to have 1/3 of all army combat vehicles unmanned by 2013. The age of the terminator might be upon us.




top topics



 
0

log in

join