 |
|
Topic started on 29-12-2002 @ 07:01 AM by mad scientist
|
Despite the recent lack of interest, The Arsenal Ship surely has to be the future for naval support.
 The ship would have the equivalent ordnanceóabout 500 vertically launched weapons from a wide variety of the militaryís inventoryóof about
four or five Aegis cruisers and destroyers. Employing the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) ìremote magazineî launch concept, the arsenal ship
would provide additional magazine capacity for Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD) and Air Supremacy missiles.
The Navy envisioned the ship to have a small crew (possibly less than 50 members) and be highly survivable. Associated with minimizing ship costs and
manning is the planned reliance on passive survivability, so that it would be very difficult for the Arsenal Ship to be hit by modern weapons. This
may be achieved by a combination of reducing the signatures of the ship and the tactical use of countermeasures. If the ship is hit by a missile or a
torpedo, the design would insure that the magazines are not violated. Finally, the hull would be sized and designed such that, even if the ship
encounters a large torpedo or mine, the ship won't sink.
The Navy planned to maintain the Arsenal Ship forward deployed in major overseas regions for extended periods by rotating the shipís crew and
returning the ship only for major maintenance and overhauls. This plan would allow the Navy to use fewer Arsenal Ships to maintain overseas presence
than if the ships were deployed routinely from the United States and permit their early availability in a conflict. Additionally, if the Arsenal Ship
concept proves successful and within its cost projections (around $500 million for construction of each ship), DOD and the Navy may be able to retire
or forego purchases of some assets, such as aircraft carriers, surface combatants, ground-based launchers, or combat aircraft.
 ]FAS LINK
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-12-2002 @ 10:01 AM by FreeMason
|
Welcome back Marimack...don't want her? How about the Monitor?
Sincerely,
no signature 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-12-2002 @ 12:18 PM by KKing123
|
high tech version of the battleship
i thought this idea was sunk?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-12-2002 @ 02:46 PM by ultra_phoenix
|
Gee, what a boat !  But it's " just " looking like a new super-cruiser. It should be great for the USN to have some of these babies.
And 500 millions$, that's the price of a B2 Spirit, right ?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 31-12-2002 @ 06:22 AM by MakodFilu
|
As Arleigh Burke class destroyers have 90-96 missiles and SSGN purposed conversions form Ohio class SSBNs could have 154 missiles, I don't think a
big low moving target is a great idea.
[edit]: ...and 5 DDG-51s cost $100,000,000, a fifth of its prize.
Some of the design work has been incorporated into the SC-21 and DD-21 (now SC(X) and DD(X) ) program, thought.
[Edited on 2002-12-31 by MakodFilu]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 31-12-2002 @ 09:06 AM by mad scientist
|
Originally posted by MakodFilu
As Arleigh Burke class destroyers have 90-96 missiles and SSGN purposed conversions form Ohio class SSBNs could have 154 missiles, I don't think a
big low moving target is a great idea.
[edit]: ...and 5 DDG-51s cost $100,000,000, a fifth of its prize.
Some of the design work has been incorporated into the SC-21 and DD-21 (now SC(X) and DD(X) ) program, thought.
[Edited on 2002-12-31 by MakodFilu]
To clear things up an ArleighBourke class ship costs between $US700million and $US790million.
The Navy's original plans were for at least 20 ships of the DDG 51 Class, with the potential for up to a total of 60 ships. Current plans are
for 57 DDG 51 Class destroyers through FY 2004 representing an estimated total program cost of $40-45 billion with the last ship scheduled to deliver
in the year 2009.
They also carry a crew of over 350 men each and cost $US20million a year each to run. Also if you remeber the terrorist attack against the USS Cole (
which was an Arleigh Bourke class destroyer )cost $US300million to repair.
Therefore an Arsenal Ship has much more value for money than 5 Arleigh Bourke class ships.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 31-12-2002 @ 11:05 AM by MakodFilu
|
Originally posted by mad scientist
To clear things up an ArleighBourke class ship costs between $US700million and $US790million.
Ok, maybe www.fas.org is outdated, because cost is $US20million there.
The Navy's original plans were for at least 20 ships of the DDG 51 Class, with the potential for up to a total of 60 ships. Current plans are
for 57 DDG 51 Class destroyers through FY 2004 representing an estimated total program cost of $40-45 billion with the last ship scheduled to deliver
in the year 2009.
LINK
They also carry a crew of over 350 men each and cost $US20million a year each to run. Also if you remeber the terrorist attack against the USS Cole (
which was an Arleigh Bourke class destroyer )cost $US300million to repair.
Therefore an Arsenal Ship has much more value for money than 5 Arleigh Bourke class ships.
Work already started about reducing crew and rising the automationship of the vessel.
But keep in mind DDG-51 is not the contender against arsenal ship, but SC(X), which would be carrying about 150-200 missiles.
An about the USS Cole, I noticed the terrorist attack, but of course I don't know those reparation figures (as I should be aware ).
It's not a bad idea to reduce costs, but if the ship is sunk, most firepower there is lost. If one of two Ticonderogas is sunk, 50% of the firepower
remains.
[Edited on 2002-12-31 by MakodFilu]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 2-1-2003 @ 07:48 PM by f16falcon
|
And 500 millions$, that's the price of a B2 Spirit, right ?
i thought it was $2 billion/bomber if i'm not mistaken
those arleigh burkes are amazing i saw one during the summer at naval station norfolk and they look like they'd cost more than $700 million but i
believe you
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 3-1-2003 @ 03:33 AM by ultra_phoenix
|
500 millions, 1 billions, 2 billions....With the B2A, who knows ?
The company told to the USAF that if they wanted to buy new B2,this time the prices should be 250 millions.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-1-2003 @ 04:05 PM by f16falcon
|
ya $2 billion per plane its in guiness
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-1-2003 @ 07:34 PM by deepwaters
|
I've seen some reports about the Arsenal Ship concept and am very impressed by it. The sealth hull design, low profile and up to 500 missiles makes
it a very powerful deterent. The strategy of leaving the ships deployed in various locations and simply rotating the crews makes good sense to me.
Since it would be part of a battle group there would be support ships for added protection and air support. The Navy is also developing a hydro-foil
stealth attack ship built for speed, similar to the idea of the PT boats in WWII.
I served abord the USS Henry B. Wilson DDG-7, a guided Missile Destroyer, during the Viet Nam conflict. I thought that ship had intense fire-power,
but it is dwarfed by the arsenal design. Below are some links for viewing the arsenal ship designs and more basic information:
Ship design images: www.memach.com...
Arsenal vs Battleship Design: www.usnfsa.com...
Arsenal Ship: www.fas.org...
Ship requirements: www.warships1.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-1-2003 @ 08:32 PM by Boomslang
|
Those pictures are right out of a Popular Scince Magazine i remeber seeing MANY years ago..i will do some searching..lol
This idea of a super ship carrying many hundered missles has been around for a long time!
Boomslang
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 21-1-2003 @ 08:24 PM by Knuckles
|
Christ guys my dad works at Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Station Oceana (used to). I can get pictures and what not of stuff, ships, the base, what
not. I live in the Hampton Roads area, so I see basically every military base in Virginia.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
