bobbymike said:
from popular mechanics MITRE "Magazine Ship." The MGX would be a "wingman" to surface ships and carry up to 4 railguns, 1,000 missile silos, or 96 Pershing-III intermediate range ballistic—or some mixture thereof.Thanks Tzoli. It's surprising that Russia haven't also looked at the old Project 1080 as the basis of a relatively quick way of helping to rebuild their seagoing firepower. Institutional amnesia, perhaps?
bobbymike said:
On that score, have you come across this Missile Support Barge (MSB-1) concept from a year or so back? (image via the SNAFU blog):
We don t have large Arshp because contractors make more $ from small impotent craft. Contractor will exclaim, these are fast, agile and stealth, of course they are non of those. An unmanned Medium might start approaching those characteristics, might. A UMSV could protect lrg ships but the frigate, destroyer, cruiser designations as basis for manufacturing for the future context is BS. as ...have stated repeatedly.
2006....(=ｘェｘ=). But thanks٩( 'ω' )و
Probably for the best. Way too few hulls for the number of weapon systems, and I say that as a perpetually stoned civvie whose command experience is video game spaceships.
Best you’ll find is Friedman’s US Destroyers
I've read the French version of this book. If I remember well, the US are able to construct 3 Arsenal Ships.
The old or new version? I have the old and thst barely touches the Burkes at that time it was still the DDGX design with a more rounded streamlined superstructure and funnels. And why Destroyers? Aren't Arsenal ships are closer to cruisers or even battleships?
The original version came out in 1982, the new one in 2004. The Arsenal Ship concept began to develop sometime around 1993. So, the Revised Edition.
SSGNs (Ohio-class) were not least because those hulls had 20 years of life left in them when they had to be removed from strategic service.
If there's no crew onboard during combat, there's no damage control onboard either.I'd disagree with you there. An arsenal ship only really needs to survive long enough to get off her weapons. For that, a reduced signature and a certain amount of passive protection (including armor and limited damage containment measures), some automated damage control systems such as a few well placed pumps, and a basic enough ECM suite would probably more than suffice. It wouldn't need dedicated escorts (even on those rare occasions where it would be operating independently of a task force or battle group).
And even when operating independently, the sensor information problem may not be as bad as you think, what with the wide range of sensor platforms currently available (although, arguably not as wide as two, or even one decade ago), even leaving out the organic sensors of the control ship.
As for intrusion countermeasures, well, apart from the obvious security sensors and barriers, bobby traps such as sensor/remote triggered claymores and steam jets, maybe together with a few RWSs in strategic locations, would take care of most intruders, I would think.
To turn around something F-14D said, unlike a battleship, an arsenal ship was not necessarily designed to actually survive combat.
Navy ships run on the exact same fuel as their helicopters, it's all JP5.
Just make sure that the Master Chief knows this is happening, and the COCOM's clerk as well, so that the COCOM's response can get recorded for posterity.
Ships are burning F-76 Marine Diesel, no?
I thought it was all JP5, like how the Army and USAF runs on all JP8.
It's technically possible, but the aviation people want to keep their special fuel separate from the icky ship fuel, and get quite precious about it, so there's no operational advantage to using expensive F-44 over cheaper F-76.
Which is still a hangover from running Bunker C sludge and AvGas...
From the ship design viewpoint, my experience is that even if you did use identical fuel - same blend, same purity, same vapour pressure - for both, the aviation fuel would still need to be in separate tanks, with separate piping, pumps, filters etc., so that there's no possibility of putting ship's fuel into the aircraft. At which point there's really no advantage to running the ship on aviation fuel.
Aside from an extra set of filters, why would you need separate tanks?
That was done in practice though. US steam-powered CVAs could trade ship endurance for airwing endurance and vice versa. Initially Heavy-End Aircraft Fuel was stored in conventional fuel tank like bunker oil, and was blended with Avgas (which was stored separately under armour), later JP-5 was universally used for both the ship and airwing.
Electric Greyhounds also goes into this.
It looks like it is based on the Bofors AA guns (available in 40mm, 57mmm, and maybe other calibers as well) with the top loading shells at the rear, but automated. Probably a generic design as mentioned by TomS.
I don't think Group Mike actually designed any ships. SCFRS was just a fleet architecture study, and SOCS was a laundry list of future design practices they wanted.
