Register here

Author Topic: Several Arsenal ship concepts  (Read 55437 times)

Offline zimmerlip

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Werfless
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2006, 05:21:56 am »
Here is a more utilitarian concept from 1999:

http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm

 ;DThanks for the link, TinWing!  Looking at this, I think they've got the right idea!  It's just getting the deadheads at DoD to grasp the concept that's the problem!  This concept would work for a lot more than just arsenal ships, and the way they've got the process worked out is astoundingly clever.  I love the "stubby" concept -- moving the bow and stern as a vessel by sea to the point they add the midships modules.  This would work for our US vessels -- and a consortium of Euro/NATO shipbuilders could monopolize Europe's naval defense buys by spreading the work around like this.  Sort of a seagoing Airbus...     
-- Paul

"Airplanes suffer from so many technical faults that it is only a matter of time before any reasonable man realizes that they are useless!"
- Scientific American (1910)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2009, 01:03:07 pm »
Metro Machine Arsenal Ship concept:
http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm

What do people think of the ZonePak mission-module concept and ships that are mission-configurable swapping in and out modules based on requirements? Is this better than building additional dedicated ships?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 01:12:27 pm by Triton »

Offline Sn1008

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 4
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2009, 06:18:05 pm »
I like the concept of the modular design by Metro Machine Team.  What I have observed from naval history is that when hostilities start, you can never build enough ships to replenish the ones you lost.  With their design you could have several types of vessels that can be build from a common hull.  Another point is that the bow and stern can be separated from the hull.  You could remove damaged parts from the vessel and attach new ones.  I would love to see this concept developed where you could repair/refit a vessel out on the high seas.

Offline Lauge

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 437
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #18 on: June 11, 2009, 11:07:35 pm »
Metro Machine Arsenal Ship concept:
http://www.memach.com/nuhm/arsenal.htm

What do people think of the ZonePak mission-module concept and ships that are mission-configurable swapping in and out modules based on requirements? Is this better than building additional dedicated ships?

Some years ago, the Danish Navy designed the Standard Flex 300 series of patrol ships (some have now been donated to Lithuania, I believe): http://www.navalteam.dk/ships/std_flex_concept.aspx

These ships used interchangeable mission modules that allowed each hull to serve as a fisheries protection ship, a patrol ship, a missile boat, an environmental protection vessel etc. Good ships, although a wee bit small for sustained blue-water operations. The same concept is applied to the two new frigate-size Command Support Ships, HDMS Absalon and HDMS Esbern Snarre. They use a so-called "flex-deck" design, where the rear lower-deck area of the ship can be configured for troop and materiel transport, command & control, field hospital, etc.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark
"Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the crocoducks of war"

"Swinging across on rigging, cutlass in teeth, is regrettably not a practical means of boarding a spacecraft".
The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2009, 02:15:26 pm »
Arsenal Ship Master's Thesis by LT Dawn H. Driesbach, USN:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/rsnlship.htm

Offline PMN1

  • Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2009, 02:32:24 pm »
I've seen that idea of a common bow and stern with an interchangable mid section (cargo section) applied to merchant ship concepts.

Interesting idea but how well would it cope in extreme seas, after all standard ships do have problems.

Edit, just realised, they are not interchangable, it just a modular construction method.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 02:34:09 pm by PMN1 »

Offline PMN1

  • Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2009, 02:35:45 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2009, 03:48:50 pm »
If the arsenal ship had been built, would it have been designated a battleship (BB)? Or was it presumptuous of the concept artist to give the ship a pennant number of 72? USS Montana (BB-72)? A total of six ships were planned. Could these ships also be logically designated as guided missile strike cruisers (CSG)?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2868
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2009, 09:16:24 pm »
Had Arsenal Ship gone forward, it is very unlikely that it would have received either battleship or cruiser designations -- the Navy was at great pains to emphasize that it was not a fully functional warship (it had no sensors to speak of beyond those needed for navigation and could not launch weapons without external control from another platform).  Most likely it would have been designated as an auxiliary ship, in keeping with the Navy's preference for treating it as a floating magazine -- in effect an ammunition ship that did not have to offload its ordnance to another vessel before firing it.  The other leading option would be to class it as an amphibious ship, due to its fire support role.  Here are some possibilities that seem plausible to me:

LFS: fire support ship -- an existing designation, historically used for much smaller designs aimed specifically for amphibious landing support

AA or AAS: Auxiliary Arsenal Ship -- like LCS for Littoral Combat Ship, the Navy these days is happy to invent new designations that look like acronyms

AM: Auxiliary missile ship -- AG is taken (misc. auxiliary), and G for guided missile would imply fire control capabilities that Arsenal Ship lacked anyway

AEM: ammunition ship, missile -- based on the ammunition ship idea, this parallels the old AVM designation for the missile test ship Norton Sound

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2009, 11:49:53 am »
I really like the Auxiliary Ammunition Missile (AEM) designation for this type of ship with EM 1 painted on the side of the first ship since it is essentially a floating missile magazine. I also like the idea of naming these ships for active volcanoes within the United States continuing the naming convention of the ammunition ships currently in service.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 11:54:57 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2009, 04:58:20 pm »
Arsenal Ship minimal manning developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA):

1 Commanding Officer
1 Executive Officer

Operations
------------------
1 Operations Officer
3 Quartermasters
1 Cook
1 Mess Specialist
3 Communications Technicians

Engineering
-------------------
1 Engineering Officer
1 Damage Control/Maintenance Officer
3 Enginemen
2 Maintenance Technicians
2 Electricians
1 Fireman

Weapons Support
-----------------
1 Weapons Officer
1 Fire Control Technicians
2 Missile Technicians

Image is an artist's view of a Northrop Grumman Arsenal Ship concept launching strike missiles against land targets. This view shows a ship with 500 vertically launched land-attack and air-defense missiles. The ship has a stealth configuration, with a Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP) deck forward and helicopter deck aft.

Source: The Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, Seventeenth Edition by Norman Polmar.




« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 08:04:52 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2009, 08:03:10 pm »
The Arsenal Ship may have been armed with the Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS). Twin 155-mm guns--with a range of about 100 nm (185 km)--and their magazines were to be fitted in a modular mounting that would replace a standard 64-cell Vertical Launching System (VLS).

The gun system was to be fully automated, with 1,400 rounds per module. Projectiles up to 6.5 feet (1.9m) long and weighing 300 lbs. (136 kg) could be handled by VGAS. The sustained rate of fire was to be 15 rounds per minute per barrel.

The VGAS evolved into the 155mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) developed for the Zumwalt-class destroyer.

Source: The Naval Institute Guide to Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, Seventeenth Edition by Norman Polmar.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2009, 08:37:52 pm by Triton »

Offline Demon Lord Razgriz

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 188
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #27 on: September 07, 2009, 01:21:02 am »
I've never seen much on how the VGAS works, does the the barrel come up to fire or what? ???

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #28 on: September 07, 2009, 01:47:42 am »
On VGAS the barrels are fixed and do not elevate or train. The system is designed to only fire guided rounds like the BAE Systems 155mm Long Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP). These rounds only need to be fired straight up and into the air and will turn and guide themselves to targets on any bearing (360 degrees).

It was a great disaster for the US Navy and allies that VGAS was turned into AGS on the whim of an Admiral. Just so the new 155mm gun could fire conventional ammunition, of course the cost of developing a trainable turret meant there was no money to develop the conventional ammunition it could fire and the resulting system (AGS) was so big and heavy you needed a special ship to carry it.

You can read more about how VGAS works in this paper on a submarine mounted version: the Compact Vertical Gun System (CVGS) proposal for the Ohio SSGN conversion.

www.dtic.mil/ndia/gun/martin.pdf
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9693
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Several Arsenal ship concepts
« Reply #29 on: September 08, 2009, 12:37:03 pm »
You can read more about how VGAS works in this paper on a submarine mounted version: the Compact Vertical Gun System (CVGS) proposal for the Ohio SSGN conversion.

www.dtic.mil/ndia/gun/martin.pdf

Abraham, the link doesn't seem to work.