I realy like the "bottle shaped" deck plan, so obviously influenced by the Iowa class battleships. Oddly enough, the AOE-type Sacramento class replenishment ships also had a hull form similar to the Iowas - and the first two units each had half the machinery from the cancelled USS Kentucky.pometablava said:Arsenal Ship: La Nave in Rete by Andrea Prati. Italian magazine Panorama Difesa. Ottobre 1996
;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...TinWing said:
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.aspxTriton said:Metro Machine Arsenal Ship concept:
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?
Abraham, the link doesn't seem to work.Abraham Gubler said: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.
Handle / proxy Url: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA365150The Arsenal Ship acquisition program was unique in two respects: it represented a new operational concept for Navy ships, and its management structure and process were different from traditional military ship-building programs. The Arsenal Ship program was, in effect, an experiment in both product and process. Three specific goals of the program were outlined at its inception: demonstrate the capability affordably; leverage commercial practices and technologies; and, demonstrate the reformed acquisition process. This research focuses on the program's acquisition strategy.
Maritech wave-piercing hull may be proposed for arsenal ship
by John Bosma
Defense Daily / April 12, 1996
A radical new monohull being developed under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency MARITECH (Maritime Technology) program may be proposed for the Navy/DARPA "arsenal ship" program, according to industry officials.
According to a program source, a high-speed wave-piercing MARITECH monohull from an industry team of General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works Div. and Norway's Kvaerner-Masa Marine may be an entrant in the arsenal ship design competition. For MARITECH, the BIW/KMM team has studied a 43,000-ton, 800- foot wave-piercer carrying 20,000 tons of containers.
The wave-piercer concept originated from KMM's Finnish yards, where it has undergone extensive tank and open-water testing. The wave-piercer is a very slender hull with a knifelike bow that slices through waves rather than riding over them, as more heavily constructed bows on conventional ships are designed to do.
KMM calls the wave-piercer "breakthrough technology." It says wave-piercer cargo liners could run efficiently at 30-35 knots, using 120,000 shaft horsepower, in transatlantic winter seas, considered the industry's benchmark for the toughest operating conditions. Even higher speeds are possible with more horsepower.
By contrast, today's containerships now run 23-25 knots, with the latest containerships reaching 27 knots. Industry experts say that over 50 percent of transatlantic containership crossings run behind schedule, mostly due to weather.
These speed figures suggest that a wave-piercer arsenal ship would be faster than most Navy surface ships. The low crew manning that the Navy seeks for arsenal ships would mesh with the sharply reduced crews required by modern commercial vessels.
MARITECH is a five-year, $220 million DARPA/Department of Commerce-Maritime Administration program to improve U.S. shipbuilding processes and ship design. It comes under the Clinton administration's five-year National Shipbuilding Initiative, begun in FY 94.
Seems like it would have been (and still would be) quite cost effective.Matt R. said:Some pics of Rene Loire's proposed Striker.
Opinions on the hull form (barge-like) chosen ?
Not necessarily. SSGNs are not by definition readily expendable, and they have a much smaller loadout (with less options) than an arsenal ship design would.sferrin said:The Ohio SSGNs are pretty much taking up this role (minus the SAMs)
You think an Arsenal Ship loaded up with more cells than an SSGN would be "readily expendable"? Good one. ;DGrey Havoc said:Not necessarily. SSGNs are not by definition readily expendable, and they have a much smaller loadout (with less options) than an arsenal ship design would.
Way back when the Arsenal Ship was first being proposed the US Navy held an "industry day" in Washington to discuss it. They handed out 3-ring binders with info on the proposal. I got one, but I think I threw it out not long afterwards because it really wasn't all that interesting. (Typical contractor specs listing all the requirements for submitting a contract--how many copies had to be submitted, how big the paper had to be, what the due dates were. Almost nothing about the actual requirements for the weapons system. Boring boring boring. No illustrations either.)sferrin said:You think an Arsenal Ship loaded up with more cells than an SSGN would be "readily expendable"? Good one. ;D
Yes, I do, especially with regards as to the crew. Not to mention being much cheaper than either a SSGN conversion or new build (in terms of both construction and overall operating costs).sferrin said:You think an Arsenal Ship loaded up with more cells than an SSGN would be "readily expendable"? Good one. ;DGrey Havoc said:Not necessarily. SSGNs are not by definition readily expendable, and they have a much smaller loadout (with less options) than an arsenal ship design would.
Proposed Littoral Dominant Battle Group Centered Around The Arsenal Ship
Subject Area - Warfighting
Title: A Proposed Littoral Dominant Battle Group Centered Around The Arsenal Ship
Author: Lieutenant Commander John P. Looney, United States Navy
Thesis: For the projected $500 million investment in a demonstrator Arsenal Ship, the Navy will likely get what it is asking for, a ship designed to help the aircraft carrier battle group make the transition from a blue-water dominant team to a littoral dominant team. Just as the Navy built the aircraft carrier battle group team and doctrine to dominate the blue-water for the past 50 plus years, the Navy now needs to build the team and the doctrine that can dominate the littoral battle space of the 21st century. The Arsenal Ship concept should center around having industry build a ship that could be the centerpiece of a littoral dominant battle group.
Background: The United States Navy has shifted its strategic focus from the blue-water to the littorals; therefore, it would make sense for the Navy to develop doctrine and force structure to dominate the littorals. The Navy is in the process of building a revolutionary new class of warship--Arsenal Ship. The Arsenal Ship's operational concept is focused on a ship that will enhance the fire power of existing aircraft carriers, land attack capable combatants and submarines. In this period of austere funding and downsizing, the Navy must look not only to new technologies but to new organizations and doctrine to effectively and efficiently meet its mandated missions. There are two areas where shortfalls exist to building a littoral dominant team: 1) the Navy does not have a staff that is organized and trained to plan and execute littoral dominance operations; and 2) the Navy has critical shortfalls in naval surface fire support assets.
Recommendations: The United States Navy should build a littoral dominant battle group centered around the Arsenal Ship: a typical aircraft carrier battle group with an Arsenal Ship in the place of the aircraft carrier, and an Amphibious Group (PHIBGRU) commander leading it instead of a Carrier Group (CARGRU) or Cruiser Destroyer Group (CRUDESGRU) commander. An Arsenal Ship Battle Group, led by an experienced littoral warfare expert, would be a viable forward presence and power projection entity; furthermore, it would be an effective building block for follow-on forces if a large-scale crisis were to develop.