Joint Force Arsenal

[Kirkhill]

They aren't alternatives to warships. Thinking just shooting missiles is what a warship does is like thinking that all a tank does is shoot a gun, so an unarmoured vehicle with a gun is a "low cost alternative".

Containerized missile systems are interesting, and have potential to be a useful addition to the fight, but they are not a replacement for anything but older launch systems.

War is all about bullets, self-propelled or otherwise. The secret is having more bullets than the other guy, specifically having more in range and at the ready.

I won't argue the toss on the definition of a warship. I will say that any warship commander wants access to as many bullets as he can lay his hands on ... and they don't necessarily have to come from his ship. In fact, I am pretty sure that he would much sooner keep his own bullets for his own defence needs if at all possible.

The containerized systems permit deployment of bullets direct from the warehouse, the railways, the highways and any seagoing convoys.

 

[Furniture]

War is all about bullets, self-propelled or otherwise. The secret is having more bullets than the other guy, specifically having more in range and at the ready.

War is about a lot more than just bullets. The secret is hitting the enemy where it counts to achieve your objective, while using the minimum force required to achieve your desired effect.

I won't argue the toss on the definition of a warship. I will say that any warship commander wants access to as many bullets as he can lay his hands on ... and they don't necessarily have to come from his ship. In fact, I am pretty sure that he would much sooner keep his own bullets for his own defence needs if at all possible.

They want access to the number and type of weapons that will allow them to achieve their mission. Wasting resources dragging around 10x more weapons than you need or will use just adds logistical tail and complexity.

The containerized systems permit deployment of bullets direct from the warehouse, the railways, the highways and any seagoing convoys.

Not really... Those containerized launch systems still require targeting systems, communications systems, and power. Also, you aren't going to risk a train or ship carrying valuable supplies by launching a missile from them. Sometimes missile launches go wrong, and if that happens on a ship/train with little crew and lots of valuable supplies it can go very wrong vary fast.

Again, I'm not arguing against the systems, just your imagined use of them. Dedicated arsenal platforms that can easily be reloaded via a containerized launcher make a lot of sense.

 

[Kirkhill]

War is about a lot more than just bullets. The secret is hitting the enemy where it counts to achieve your objective, while using the minimum force required to achieve your desired effect.

No bullets. No effects.

They want access to the number and type of weapons that will allow them to achieve their mission. Wasting resources dragging around 10x more weapons than you need or will use just adds logistical tail and complexity.

Netfires solution. Warehouses are everywhere. Unattended.

Not really... Those containerized launch systems still require targeting systems, communications systems, and power.

Power - onboard batteries
Comms - minimum - can be reprogrammed in flight
Targeting - offboard - accompanying ships and subs, aircraft, UAVs, land stations

Also, you aren't going to risk a train or ship carrying valuable supplies by launching a missile from them. Sometimes missile launches go wrong, and if that happens on a ship/train with little crew and lots of valuable supplies it can go very wrong vary fast.

Indeed.

Again, I'm not arguing against the systems, just your imagined use of them. Dedicated arsenal platforms that can easily be reloaded via a containerized launcher make a lot of sense.

We're half way there.

 

[FJAG]

War is about a lot more than just bullets.

I know what you are trying to say, but I think in the end that you are wrong and that @Kirkhill is on to something. Maybe its my not-very-subtle gunner background but my book learning tells me that war is not about minimum force; its about mass and redundancy and over-kill.

There are many factors involved all of which come down to the ability to continuously deliver effects when and where needed. To an extent that requires sophisticated delivery systems to get the effects in place but you definitely need mass. For every billion dollar ship you can afford a thousand complex missile systems or a million one-way drones or smart mines. But if you've given up building that ship - which might only have been good for launching twenty missiles before it is taken out anyway - you need cheap alternative delivery systems.

The issues that you raise are real issues, but they are solvable. However, they will never be solved if all that one's navy can do is continue thinking in Cold War capital ship navies. Consider this the analog of the era of the battleship v carrier/submarine/torpedo boat thinkers. There is, of course, a continuing need for those "capital ships" but there is an even greater need to think in the nature of "bullets", many, many "bullets" and effective and affordable systems for emplacing them into the hearts of your enemies.

 

[Kirkhill]

The origins of US Carrier Doctrine

The enemy sank five battleships and damaged three; and sank a gunnery training ship and three destroyers, damaged a heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, two destroyers, two seaplane tenders, two repair ships and a destroyer tender.Jun 25, 2024

Locations Of Warships Of The United States Navy​

Aircraft Carriers (7 + 1 Escort Carrier)Hull #Vessel NameLocationFleet

CV - 2 Lexington At sea transporting aircraft to Midway Island. 460 Miles East of Midway.Pacific
CV - 3 Saratoga At San Diego California. Pacific
CV - 4 Ranger At sea returning to Norfolk Va. Caribbean. Atlantic
CV - 5 Yorktown At Norfolk Va. Atlantic
CV - 6 Enterprise At sea returning to Pearl Harbor from Wake Island. 200 Miles West Of Pearl Harbor. Pacific
CV - 7 Wasp Grassy Bay Bermuda. Atlantic
CV - 8 Hornet Fitting out Norfolk Virginia Atlantic
AVG - 1 Long Island Norfolk Virginia. Atlantic

No Battleships left to support the Battleship Doctrine.

Needs must - Carriers and Aircraft.

 

[Kirkhill]

Navy CNO unveils ‘Project 33’ with a heavy emphasis on robotic systems, information dominance

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti's Project 33 aims to scale robotic and autonomous systems across the fleet by 2027 and acquire new capabilities for information dominance.

defensescoop.com

Lots and lots of Naval Autonomy with a heavy emphasis on developing situational awareness. Nelson called for more and more frigates so that he could track the enemy and concentrate his Ships of the Line out of the enemy's sight. CNO wants more and more autonomous sensors.

It turns out that the sensors are easy to supply and deploy. The problem comes with managing all the information. The solution is lots more couch-potatoes assisted by AI. Instead of sea berths the requirement is for Maritime Operations Centers or MOCs.

...

The USN is experimenting with launching missiles from USVs (USVRON1 with Autonomous OSVs and the LM PDS) but the next USVRON (USVRON3) is experimenting with Autonomous RHIBs rather than cargo carriers and the large sensor carriers like the SeaHunter.

....

My belief is that sensors don't require large hulls. Scattering sensors on small hulls makes more sense, IF, comms can be guaranteed and IF info can be analyzed rapidly and usefully.

My second belief is that given the delivery of the LM Payload Delivery System container the USN has now in hand a real time solution to its missile shortage. It can convert any flat deck, or dock, into a launch platform - including those LCS and EPF boats it really doesn't like. The bigger problem is supplying missiles of any and all sorts to fill the launchers.

In the meantime efforts like mounting SM6s on F18EFs allows the missiles to be delivered faster from Aussie factories, using MRTTs to refuel the aircraft. The F18s can then be used as bomb-trucks, standing out of range, and delivering their cargo speedily to any chosen point of release.

....

Once Canada takes delivery of the F35s, and its F18s are reduced to less than a thousand flying hours each, could those aircraft be used as Autonomous bomb trucks to loft Harpoons, JSMs, JASSMs, AIM-120s and SM6s?

Or would it be cheaper just to supply 3 MUSD RATO Valkyries as bomb-trucks?

 

[Furniture]

My belief is that sensors don't require large hulls. Scattering sensors on small hulls makes more sense, IF, comms can be guaranteed and IF info can be analyzed rapidly and usefully.

That is extremely unlikely in a peer/near peer war.

Some of this thinking makes me think that rather than a "Cold War" mindset, too many have a "COIN/Peacekeeping" mindset, and forgert that the next fight is unlikely to be against people with pagers and ICom radios...