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...

 

[GR66]

Like @FJAG I guess I partially agree with @Kirkhill.

Uncrewed systems (aerial, surface and subsurface) to my mind are ideal for creating sensor networks. Just as UAVs have made Ukraine a "transparent" battlefield, uncrewed systems can help make the maritime domain equally transparent and in naval warfare history has shown that the side that strikes first in a battle often wins. Yes, EW will be a factor in countering the sensors but that in itself helps locate the enemy as well. The key in my mind is making the sensors plentiful and expendable which means you need to keep them cheap...so don't try to squeeze too many capabilties into each one.

On the containerized weapons on flat-deck vessels I'm less convinced. It's not that I'm against the idea of arsenal ships to expand the magazine capacity of our surface fleet, it's that containers are bulky and inefficient use of space. The Mk70 container holds 4 x missile cells in a 40' x 8' footprint. In that same footprint you could fit 3 x Mk57 GMVLS launchers (@ 14.2' x 7.5') giving you 12 x missile cells.

As others have noted in the shipbuilding thread, the hull and basic systems aren't the most expensive part of a warship...it's the electronic systems, etc. So instead of parking a couple of 40 containers on a flat decked ship you instead get a couple of purpose-built arsenal ships with 3 x the missile capacity in the same footprint.

To my mind the containerized systems are better suited to be moved on the ground by truck where they can be dispersed and hidden rather than grouped together on a single flat deck.

 

[FJAG]

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...

I'm not even close to looking at a COIN/Peacekeeping mindset. I'm looking at a Russian guided missile cruiser sunk by a swarm of stuff.

I'm cognisant of the Black Sea not being the Pacific, but neither is the Taiwan Strait nor the South China Sea nor the Philippine Sea the Pacific.

How about a shallow-dive submersible arsenal ship. The Chinese and Koreans seem to think its an idea worth following up on. Albeit I wouldn't go to the scale they are - I'd go for many more but much smaller cheaper ones holding maybe a half-dozen missiles each.

Question. Do proper operations in the Arctic year-round require nuclear submarines or can we get by with conventional ones?

 

[Furniture]

Uncrewed systems (aerial, surface and subsurface) to my mind are ideal for creating sensor networks. Just as UAVs have made Ukraine a "transparent" battlefield, uncrewed systems can help make the maritime domain equally transparent and in naval warfare history has shown that the side that strikes first in a battle often wins. Yes, EW will be a factor in countering the sensors but that in itself helps locate the enemy as well. The key in my mind is making the sensors plentiful and expendable which means you need to keep them cheap...so don't try to squeeze too many capabilties into each one.

This works in an environment where you can deploy lots of cheap sensors. Oceans are pretty harsh environments, and the distances covered are massive.

To my mind the containerized systems are better suited to be moved on the ground by truck where they can be dispersed and hidden rather than grouped together on a single flat deck.

Where do you plan to leave them alone close enough to be useful, but not so close the enemy can't capture them, and use the systems inside to gain int on our networks?

The Allies didn't crack Enigma right away, but having a functioning machine made breaking it possible. Imagine an adversary stealing an intact launcher and missiles, then reverse engineering our systems.

I'm cognisant of the Black Sea not being the Pacific, but neither is the Taiwan Strait nor the South China Sea nor the Philippine Sea the Pacific.

Correct, but to get to those places you need to cross the Pacific. We need things that can not only fight, but can get to the fight. Small and crossing the Pacific don't mix. Bluntly, I think we should be leaving the littoral concerns over there to the locals and the USN/USMC. We should be focusing on the blue water SAG vs. SAG fight, helping to free up the USN and locals to do their thing.

Again, I'm not against arsenal ships of some variety, and costal surveillance USVs are likely a great idea too. What I am against is reducing the numbers or capabilities of warships, to have a bunch of arsenal ships that serve no purpose outside of a full blown shooting war.

 

[Kirkhill]

New Dutch ship. - OSV as missile transporter and mothership

53 meters
550 tons
~8 crew

The Netherlands plans to buy two support vessels that will act as sidekicks to its air-defense frigates, packing additional missiles to defeat swarms of anti-ship missiles and drones, for an investment in the range of €250 million to €1 billion (US$279 million to $1.1 billion).

The support vessels will also be able to provide fire support for amphibious operations using long-range loitering munitions, as well as equip underwater drones to track and identify suspicious activity in the North Sea, Dutch State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman said in a letter to parliament on Tuesday.

The vessels will have a length of about 53 meters and a beam of 9.8 meters, for a displacement of 550 tons, a MoD spokesman told Defense News.

The support ships will each have a crew of at least eight sailors. While current technology isn’t sufficiently mature for fully autonomous vessels, the new ships will provide the Navy with experience in operating with small crews, as a first step toward unmanned vessels, Tuinman said.

My guess is that they will be optionally manned with the ability to discard the crew in high threat environments, for example during amphibious support operations.

New Dutch Navy Support Vessels Will Be Missile-Toting Wingmen To Frigates

Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions. Small and with a tiny crew, the new support vessels will add important magazine capacity to frigates, and launch loitering munitions.

www.twz.com

Dutch Navy to buy armed sidekick ships for its air-defense frigates

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying interceptors, drones and electronic-warfare equipment.

www.defensenews.com

....


Containerised systems

Dutch shipyard Damen will build the vessels, with Israel Aerospace Industries supplying its Barak ER surface-to-air interceptor, Harop long-range loitering munition as well as electronic-warfare equipment. Buying the missiles, long-range munitions and EW equipment from a single supplier will simplify integration work, the defense ministry said.

The Barak ER air-defense missile that will equip the support ships has a range of up to 150 kilometers and can target anything from fighters to tactical ballistic missiles and glide bombs, with eight missiles packed in a vertical launcher, according to the company’s spec sheet.

https://www.iai.co.il/p/barak-er

https://www.iai.co.il/p/harop

The Harop is part of wider Dutch investments in long-range strike capabilities. As we have discussed in the recent past, the Dutch are planning to acquire conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles for their next class of submarines, as well as the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, for its F-35A stealth fighters, and the Israeli-made PULS (Precise and Universal Launch System) multiple rocket launcher for the Royal Dutch Army.

Another role that is being specified for the support vessels is as ‘motherships’ for uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs). Tuinman described using such drones to monitor and identify suspicious activity in the North Sea. Nefarious underwater activity by Russia, or other hostile actors is a growing worry for NATO.

Oil and gas drilling platforms and pipelines, wind turbines, and power and data cables are among the key assets that the new vessels and attendant UUVs should help protect. The type of underwater drones to be acquired has not yet been confirmed, but they will be existing, off-the-shelf designs with long-range sensors.

 

[FJAG]

New Dutch ship. - OSV as missile transporter and mothership

 

[Kirkhill]

Activity on the PrSM/HIMARS front and the LRHW front. This brackets the SM6/Tomahawk Typhon Mk70 PDS which has started deployment.

Pentagon marks 2 long-range tests with Army's PrSM and Army-Navy hypersonic missile - Breaking Defense

The US Army recently had 'successful' tests for both its Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and a pair of Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 1 weapons.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Army & Lockheed Test Fire Autonomous HIMARS Mobile Launcher - Warrior Maven

HIMARS has been one of the systems the US has given to Ukraine, which has used it successfully in the war with Russia.

warriormaven.com

“The guidance that we’ve received from our most senior leaders is to use capabilities like artificial intelligence, or advanced robotics, to augment soldiers, not necessarily to replace them, “ Maj. Gen. John Rafferty of the Army Futures Command told Warrior Maven in 2022.

In other words, humans are not being taken out of the loop. For instance, an unmanned HIMARS could surveil targets from a forward position while waiting for attack command specifics from a human decision maker.

Lockheed says another demonstration is planned for the second half of next year. The company says the Army “envisions pairing a manned HIMARS with an autonomous wingman launcher.”

I believe the basic crew of the HIMARS is three. The minimum number of operators, currently required, is one per vehicle. Conceivably what this is proposing is that those three operators could be spread out through three vehicles assisted with auto-pilots permitting two out of the three operators to get some sleep while in convoy. Once at the firing position then the drivers can dismount while the vehicles jockey themselves into position. The three vehicles would then be under the command and control of one of the three driver/operators who would manage the targeting and launch, or maybe just the launch if the targeting is coming from off-board. Once the fire mission is complete then the vehicles could pull out of battery autonomously, retire to an RV to pick up the operators who would then move them to a cache for reloading.

All of this with a weapons system capable of covering ranges from 10 km to >500 km.

 

[Kirkhill]

A new round for the Mk41 VLS / Mk70 PDS / Air Force?

New U.S. Navy Hypersonic Missile Design Unveiled At SNA 2025 - Naval News

The U.S. Navy's premier hypersonic missile program, SM-6 Block IB, based on the SM-6 Block IA, has a new look, seen for the first time at SNA 2025.

www.navalnews.com

“The Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Block IB is an upgrade of the SM-6 BLK IAU, which provides long-range fires capability by implementing improved software and replacing the existing Mk 104 Dual-Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) with a new 21-inch rocket motor to extend the range. The SM-6 BLK IB delivers to the Navy and Joint Force a transformative multi-domain, multi-mission offensive hypersonic kinetic capability.”

U.S. Navy FY2025 Budget Documents

The U.S. Navy’s Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems, unveiled a new design for the hypersonic SM-6 Block IB at the Surface Navy Association’s 2025 Symposium earlier this month, breaking from the previous rifle round design that featured a traditional 13.5-inch diameter guidance and warhead section and 21-inch motor section.

The new design, unveiled during a panel at SNA 2025, shows a new SM-6 Block IB concept with a uniform 21-inch diameter body closely matching the SM-3 Block IIA. The first stage booster is also significantly longer.

21" is the new "standard" ? - Something that can be launched from a torpedo tube on a submarine, a VLS on a ship or GB Aegis, a PDS on a ship, truck, train or fixed station or (possibly) underslung on an aircraft?

I am throwing in that last option because of the recent announcement of the SM-6 / ERAM / RIM-174B being rebranded as an AIM-174B and employed with the F18-E/F

The AIM-174B is a long-range air-to-air missile (AAM) developed by U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and used by the United States Navy (USN). The AIM-174B is a derivative of the RIM-174B Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM, Standard Missile-6, or SM-6) surface-to-air missile, a member of the extended Standard Missile family, with the USN describing the AIM-174B as the "Air-Launched Configuration" of the SM-6. The AIM-174B's existence was first confirmed to the public in July 2024 at RIMPAC 2024. The AIM-174B is only known to be capable of being carried and launched by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as of July 2024.

 

[Kirkhill]

Warship Weapons for Merchant Ship Platforms

Turning merchant ships into warships would expand the combat fleet quickly.

www.usni.org

The number of ships is the wrong metric. Far more important is how many weapons the Navy can bring to bear in a great power confrontation. Retired Navy Captain Wayne Hughes highlighted a fundamental truth about modern naval combat: “Navies are in a new tactical era characterized by missile warfare.”5 Recent events suggest attack drones should be added to the calculations.

No modifications to the ship would be required once the weapon system is on board. In addition to offensive missiles, cargo ships could be equipped with canisterized and/or concealed anti-ship missiles and guns, as well as air- and missile-defense interceptors and sensors—making them asymmetric, concealable warships.8

Containerized weapons and support equipment are multi-modal. They can be used from container ships or the decks of warships or even moved ashore. Containers can be handled by commercial equipment present in any major port, including those throughout the first and second island chains. Marine littoral regiments and Army multidomain task forces are already exercising with land-based antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) in the Pacific. The next logical step would be to move from the specialized launchers and vehicles those services are using now to standard shipping containers and commercial trucks to make the systems interchangeable and multimodal.

 

[Kirkhill]

An interesting Chinese view on the AIM-174B and its effect on the battlespace

That, in turn, has the effect of pushing back the Chinese air force’s Xi’an H-6 bombers, and reducing the effectiveness of the bombers’ anti-ship missiles, which Beijing is largely counting on to damage or sink American carriers in the event of a major war in the western Pacific region. On such a mission, H-6 bombers each carry between four and six YJ-18 anti-ship missiles ranging as far as 340 miles.

Weapons Magazine crunched the numbers. “Originally, F/A-18E fighters could stay on patrol for 125 minutes up to 270 kilometres [167 miles] from their carriers, carrying three external fuel tanks and six AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles,” the magazine noted.

“If they were refuelled once, this range could be extended out to 370 kilometres [186 miles]. A fighter radius of 370 kilometres plus the AIM-120 missile’s range of 160 kilometres [99 miles] equals 530 kilometres [285 miles]. If that fighter is instead armed with the air-launched variant of the SM-6, its effective radius goes up to 870 kilometres [541 miles] or more.”

“This,” the Chinese publication asserted, “is a shocking distance. Basically, it allows them to shoot down the other side’s [bombers] before they can launch their anti-ship missiles.”

That’s precisely what the US Navy hopes to do. Recall that the AIM-174B is a much-delayed direct replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix, a 100-mile-range anti-bomber missile that the US fleet’s F-14 Tomcat fighters carried during the later decades of the Cold War.

The Chinese author breathlessly predicted the US Air Force might also adopt the AIM-174B. In fact, there’s no sign of that happening, as the Air Force seems determined to develop its own longer-range missiles. Moreover, the Pentagon is struggling to acquire more than 125 SM-6/AIM-174B missiles a year, mostly owing to industrial constraints and the missiles’ high cost: around $5 million per unit.

Unless and until the Americans can reliably produce many more AIM-174Bs, the new missile may represent a niche capability – one that air wing commanders can afford to use only sparingly.

The Pentagon is well aware of its constraints, however – and has crafted a plan to expand SM-6/AIM-174B production to 300 missiles a year by 2028. At that rate, the Chinese author’s worst fears may become reality. Their magazines stuffed with AIM-174Bs, US Navy flattops could sail more confidently into the most dangerous waters bordering China. SM-6s launched from their escorting destroyers would also offer a defence against anti-ship ballistic missiles fired from ashore – perhaps even hypersonic ones. Even if the Chinese could develop a firm idea where the carriers were, a difficult feat, they would struggle to hit them through such defences

US Navy’s new Top Gun missile makes aircraft carriers all but invulnerable to Chinese attack

In a surprise move last summer, the US Navy revealed a new and extremely powerful air-to-air missile – an air-launched version of the Raytheon SM-6, normally fired from a vertical launch silo aboard a warship but also compatible with ground-based launchers.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

Next question - How do we maintain access to this type of technology?

Ground-Launched And Powered Air-Launched Versions Of StormBreaker Glide Bomb Are In Development

The Small Diameter Bomb II already brings the ability to hit moving targets at standoff distances in any weather. As well as multimode guidance, Raytheon says the ground-launched version of its StormBreaker will offer greater range than the existing GLSDB.

www.twz.com

GLSDB was a Boeing-Saab solution.
What can Saab, Nammo, Thales, MBDA provide?