Why are arsenal ships happening?
What's changed recently, in doctrine or technology, that has made major navies suddenly decide "I want a frickin' near-aircraft carrier sized monster that's literally just all missile tubes"?
Arsenal ships
Why are arsenal ships happening?
What's changed recently, in doctrine or technology, that has made major navies suddenly decide "I want a frickin' near-aircraft carrier sized monster that's literally just all missile tubes"?
Its fricking awesome
are you sure about that?
the Chinese, Japanese, South Korean and American navies are all designing and constructing such vessels as we speak
>Japan
Doubt
>China
>America
Might I see em?
>The Korean military plans to deploy three 5,000 tons arsenal ships by the late 2020s,
>5,000 tons
Anon, I...
This. The US abandoned this idea in the late 90s, only ROK is building arsenal ships.
>only ROK is building arsenal ships.
Only in name
> This month, Naval News reported that the Republic of Korea Navy had announced that it had selected Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) for its Joint Firepower Ship concept, with plans to secure three of these vessels by the late 2020s, with each capable of carrying 80 missiles for pre-emptive strikes on North Korean military facilities in the event of an imminent missile attack.
> The source notes that the ROK Navy plans to finalize the ship’s concept design, including the size, shape, missile capacity, and ROC (required operational capability), by year-end. Construction will proceed if the concept proves feasible in the subsequent design stage.
Even if the 80 missile count is doubled to 160, that still wouldn't fit the idea of what most people would consider an "arsenal" ship which would be 200+ VLS cells and many people think an arsenal ship should be 500+ VLS cells.
Did you see this in a dream? VLS cells on the arsenal ships will be a minimum of 500 potentially up to 1000, ROK destroyers have 128 vls cells
Lol okay
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/arsenal-ship-south-korean-navy
https://asiatimes.com/2023/04/seoul-eyes-arsenal-ships-bristling-with-ballistic-missiles/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/04/south-koreas-dsme-to-design-arsenal-ship-for-rok-navy/
Korea isn't using MK41 VLS, they want much larger ballistic missiles, so they're going for massive ICBM sized missiles that take up a ton of space and displacement, which is why they're saying ~80 missiles.
It's not directly comparable to MK41 VLS cells since they hold much smaller, less capable missiles.
In any case, it's pretty far removed from the 500+ missile arsenal ships the US were envisioning in the 90's.
If they end up with 80 VLS cells for ICBM-sized missiles that exponentially more firepower than 500 VLS cells with the same gauge as modern destroyers
I mean, they do entirely different things, they're simply not comparable. You don't have 500 VLS cells for sheer damage potential, you have 500 VLS for ICBM interceptors so you can intercept an enemy ICBM salvo.
Maybe have a massive amount of tomahawks for precision land attack potential, but the US never really wanted to put ICBMs on a ship like that since the US has SSBNs with room for 20 ICBMs. A large surface ship that can hold 80 ICBMs just seems like an easy target.
So again, the ROK arsenal ship is really NOTHING like the US's arsenal ship idea.
Koreans cancelled a bunch of shit last year, including aircraft carriers. I doubt they're making memesenals.
ROK cancelled a 30k ton carrier and replacing with a 70k ton carrier + multiple drone carriers, anything ROK cancels is typically followed by something exponentially more, such is the nature of having a nuclear weapons state on their border
>ROK cancelled a 30k ton carrier and replacing with a 70k ton carrier + multiple drone carriers
Which they've never done before, ever.
I'll believe it when it's in service
Last year was Yoon reallocating ROK's military budget away from Moon, the prievious president, initiatives, Moon was a moderate slightly leaning left, Yoon is a hawk to an extreme and borderline far-right, the entire ROK economy is gear towards a military industrial complex and Yoon wants to flex to include leveraging the country's leading position in both nuclear technologies and shipbuilding, he's pushing further government support for corporations to include smaller/midsized businesses with tax breaks and funding to this effect, its a fully coordinated effort that appears effectively on war-time mode
Very based. Now if only they could produce more soldiers too.
Also Moon a lowkey nork sympathizer and tried to use the dove approach with North Korea, balancing act between the US and China, and stoke anti-Japan sentiments
Contrast with Yoon that does everything he can to create a cassus belli with the Norks, gives China the finger while going all-in on the US-ROK "unbreakable" alliance, and has Japanese elites considering ROK as besties, not to mention creating strong anti-China/Russia alliances throughout the world
He also forgave Japanese war crimes and let them shovel shekels to chaebols as "sowwy".
Japan's always been in a weird place with warcrimes. They didn't go through the national self flagellation of Germany, but took two nukes to the face instead so we call it even.
The nukes sadly castrated Japan and after the US tried to rebuild Japan as the "China/India" of the day as cheap labor, the Japs actually ending up copying a little "too good" pissing off the US/west culminating in the Plaza Accord sending Japan back to borderline third world status, incidentally there is a another round of Japan "thank you sir may I have another" scheduled beating occurring over the past year or so, seems "they" want Japan to be below Eastern European levels, probably because they want to soften Japan to use as a military staging post without any meaningful resistance from the natives...
would you like to compare japan's per capita GDP to china and india or are you gonna leave that bit out
Obviously today japan has a higher gdp per capita than china or india but look at the immediate post-ww2 period and japan was about the same as both, japan was selected as the "china/india" of the day because the US/west believed japan could be a cheap source of labor, fast forward a few decades and the japanese copied a little too well (everything japan made money on was a direct copy of the US/west), and then the plaza accord, the plaza accord turned japan from a real US rival to mexico overnight and has yet to recover with all macro analyst projecting even more dire conditions going forward, japan can either let in 50+ million immigrants to keep afloat or turn into poverty argentina
>everything japan made money on was a direct copy of the US/west
>invents helical scan in your path
https://news.usni.org/2022/09/01/south-korea-zeros-f-35b-cvx-carrier-program-in-favor-of-funding-north-korean-deterrence-strategy
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/south-korea-drops-aircraft-carrier-ambitions-doubles-down-on-submarines
CVX's funding got slashed by the Yoon admin. Right now CVX is hanging on by a thread even for the older model. The larger model is almost entirely privately driven by DSME and Hyundai in order to increase KF-21 sales through the KF-21N.
>The larger model is almost entirely privately driven by DSME and Hyundai in order to increase KF-21 sales through the KF-21N.
How far can a carrier realistically go as a private venture?
>we designed this carrier do you want it
>no
>we've laid the keel and built out half the carrier for free do you want it yet
>no
>we've launched the carrier please buy it
>no
>Hyundai fricks off on their private aircraft carrier to go conquer Somalia or something
Right now the skeleton funding is at the design concept stage. They just get a list of vague requirements such as "AWACS launch capabilities" and make a basic design out of it and give an estimate for the cost. Right now Yoon recognizes that a lot of the past naval projects proposed have been shitty vanity projects to one up Japan and not actually meet defense needs which is why most of CVX funding went into subs. This Arsenal ship will likely go the same way as it's just trying to one up Japan's ASEV. If it was an AAW/BMD platform like Japan's then it would be a decent idea, but a bunch of land attack missiles like that are better used on land or sub based platforms.
reminds me of the shitshow surrounding HMS Prince of Wales lol
Hopefully it fares better. ROKS carrier launching Boramae squadrons sounds cool as frick
they could even go on cute little joint patrols with Izumo and shit
>the shitshow surrounding HMS Prince of Wales
Which was? It had a propeller decouple and that's it.
Oh buddy that video is already outdated.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23476873.hms-prince-wales-cannibalised-following-mechanical-failure/
It got much worse.
The KF21N effectively guarantees the large carrier becomes operational, not necessarily because of the security impact but due to the export implications
>export implications
To literally who lol? Who is making a CATOBAR carrier that can't afford making their own Naval fighter or buy the F-35. The next country who will likely enter the CATOBAR scene is Japan and they won't be buying any KF-21s.
India is making a CATOBAR carrier. Possibly Turkey too in the future.
Maybe the French will decide to go with KF-21N as well seeing how it'll outperform Rafale across the spectrum.
>India is making a CATOBAR carrier. Possibly Turkey too in the future.
Again who is making a CATOBAR that won't just make their own fighter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200624192656/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/naval-variant-of-lca-tejas-successfully-lands-on-carrier/article30541842.ece
>Maybe the French will decide to go with KF-21N
No
Tejas is a meme bro, be real. Single engine proto-Mirage. To call it indigenous is too generous.
And India will never develop a fifth gen fighter let alone a carrierborne variant.
Su-57 is pretty much dead in water with the Russian economy, Indians won't buy anything from China so FC-31 is out of the picture and the US will never sell the F-35C to them.
So KF-21/N is the only fifth gen option for India. And India is a juicy cash cow.
>Tejas is a meme bro, be real. Single engine proto-Mirage. To call it indigenous is too generous.
I'm not arguing if its good or not. I'm arguing if India is will buy the KF-21 which it won't because they believe it's indigenous. They're too deep into the Tejas and still actively developing it for them to just scrap it.
But again, it's a tiny 4th gen single engine jet. It's not comparable. They need a 5th gen and KF-21 is the only viable option.
Indians buy EVERYTHING from aboard anon. They know their indigenous products are shit and just for show. Look at Arjun, not just Tejas. They're in talks to buy F-18 for their older STOBAR carriers anyway.
A "5th" gen that will only be 5th gen by the mid 2030s, at best. NTA but I doubt it.
Could very well be sooner. SK's military industry is getting a HUGE boost with Polish orders. They're buying everything. From jets to tanks to drones.
And it's bound to intensify since their industrial capacity is larger than the western Europe. Especially when it comes to arty and shells.
That's not how that works. There are already contracts and agreements in place which would need to be renegotiated and there is much better things they could spend that money on in terms of developing domestic equipment rather than just pushing some time tables ahead a few years.
>They need a 5th gen
And when that time comes they will make their own shitty little 5th gen. It's not that hard to see.
>They know their indigenous products are shit and just for show.
But they still develop and buy them anyways which is the point.
>They're in talks to buy F-18 for their older STOBAR carriers anyway.
That fell through when the naval LCA arrived which again proves my point that they will pick whatever shit they develop in house.
>A "5th" gen that will only be 5th gen by the mid 2030s, at best. NTA but I doubt it.
That too. And it still won't have a domestic engine.
>Maybe the French will decide to go with KF-21N
Yeah FCAS is totally going to spend $2b+ in early R&D and then france will just give it all up to pay SK $100m+ for KF-21N.
Shut the frick up.
>Maybe the French will decide to go with KF-21N as well seeing how it'll outperform Rafale across the spectrum.
It's stupid post like that that remind me there is in fact shills who couldn't even care if their bullshit look credible.
Rafale is subpar and the French aren't capable of developing a fifth gen fighter. Sorry. FCAS is going nowhere.
This. The shill here is a french shill if anybody thinks the rafale is anything more than a choice of last resort.
France has had every opportunity to replace Rafale with F-35A/C if they wanted, it wouldn't even be all that expensive, so why the frick would they spend MORE money on the KF-21N that would be demonstrably worse than an F-35C anyway?
France defense doctrine has no intention to engage in peer warfare and if you know anything about France they would rather have a competent but inferior fighter made in France than a better fighter made in another country, especially an Anglosphere nation
The rafale is clearly enough to get the job done for the countries that buy it as they are all third world nations, so unless a country is going to go up against a US ally the rafale is enough. The KF21 has a different angle, its designed to go against a gorillion Chinese jets and have interoperability with US fighters, the assumption is that the US/ROK fighters will be outnumbered so they are designed to be substantially better than their most likely adversary, Chinese jets
....So how does ANY of that mean france will buy the KF-21?
I wasn't the anon that posted they would buy the KF21N, the reality is that the almost certainly won't but its also as likely that a few NATO countries will buy the KF21N eventually unless Russia can be completely neutralized to a level that we did with Germany and Japan
>likely that a few NATO countries will buy the KF21N
Who? The KF-21N is a CATOBAR fighter, who else but the US and France operate a CATOBAR carrier?
If ROK can pull off an export version of the aircraft carrier there are several NATO nations that would likely get into the carrier game particularly if it comes as a package with KF21Ns
No one has the budget or political will to buy an imported $10B+ carrier project.
No one is even thinking about it.
Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Greece, Turkey among others
Pure fricking delusion
No first world countries would be interested in a carrier to operate 4th generation fighters from 2030s.
KF-21N will be better than F-35C. Modern Amerimutt manufacturing is Zimbabwe tier. Can't compare to Korean or even Japanese products. From smaller things like phones to cars and ships.
Yeah i'm sure a 4.5th gen fighter will be better than a 5th gen fighter
you're delusional
India, Poland, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and another 30+ countries
Stay in your echo chamber stuck in your basement, the world marches on and the KF21N will sell more than any other fighter jet other than the F35, FA50 and KF21...
>polish carrier fighters
Look who just woke up. Make sure to turn on your US East VPN too.
Also I enjoy the idea of the Bulgarian navy that doesn't operate a ship over 2300t operating a full catobar carrier. Same with Romania not breaking 6000t
Fricking BASED don't let anybody crush your dreams asiaticbro
Frick exporting just the jets, export entire carriers!
In some respects ROK is the worst nightmare for the old guard + russia + china, they can arm a country like poland overnight into a regional military superpower and not only give weapons but also infrastructure and technology transfers, the rest of the world are literally lining up begging for ROK support, but ROK will only move forward if the US approves
The future is bright lads~
TRUE actually.
Hopefully the seething Pentagooners get sidelined and SK spreads its wings in this regard. If decrepit American production lines can't compete they should, for the betterment of NATO itself, step aside.
Except nobody in NATO wants Korean weapons except Poland.
Canada is buying 12 submarines from SK
have they signed any contracts?
Except they aren't. They're looking to buy subs and SK put in an offer.
> So far, the government has given no indication it will support the Navy’s request for a larger sub force. In the end, such a sizeable fleet expansion likely won’t make it into Ottawa’s revised defense policy, but the updated strategy document will hopefully address future submarine requirements. The existing subs are being modernized to keep them in service until the late 2030s, but defense officials have estimated it could take 15 to 25 years to field a new submarine.
oh wow, the asiaticshill continues to lie
What's with the needless racism?
Because it happens in any thread on this board, as long as it can tagnetially be related to korea you get the SAME poster coming into the thread shilling absurdly for korea in direct defiance to reality or common sense.
Just like lying about Canada "buying" 12 subs from korea. It's so easy to just look it up and see it's not true, why the frick would he even post it in the first place? Because he's just a asiaticshill moron.
Its one poster that has a massive inferiority complex towards South Korea, this sad character will literally post 100x+ in a ROK related thread and is on 24/7, everybody knows who he is at this point
Its a clear signal that "they" are losing when all they have remaining as a weapon is shitposting on anonymous message boards
The Poland strategic deal is not just about Poland, its about turbocharing Poland into an advanced country where weapons production/sales to other NATO countries will be ubiquitous, there are a LOT of NATO countries that dislike Germany and will take a Poland/ROK offering, particularly since the weapons are better, everytime
>all they have remaining as a weapon is shitposting on anonymous message boards
You get BTFO'd on literally every claim you make. The asiaticshill label is hardly the "only" thing that gets thrown at you in these threads you disingenuous, samegayging wienersucker.
>"they" are losing when all they have remaining as a weapon is shitposting on anonymous message boards
Yep, I figured that out when he started dismissing Poland and Turkey, the two essential and vanguard NATO countries with huge armies. It's literally just coping and seething on his part.
This moron is either a russian, chinese or a moron, probably some combination of the aforementioned, literally has no clue that Poland and Turkey are being positioned to be the line in the sand against Russia
No way in hell those subs make it to the late 2030s jesus chirst Canada is liability
You are being ACTIVELY delusional. Turkey took a stinky, steamy shit on Leopards which got embarrassed in Syria and instead chose to produce K2 Black Panther tank as domestic Altay. They even chose South Korean transmission for it.
>inb4 turkey lol
Turkey is the most powerful NATO country after the US.
And this is only the beginning. There's a huge demand for remilitarization in Europe and only Korea has the output to outfit these countries in a timely and affordable manner.
Okay so the US in it's waning military significance is going to step aside so that SK can spread it's wings and take it's rightful place as the primary arms manufacturer of NATO. And your evidence for this is that Poland (lmao) and Turkey (LMAO) are buying SK equipment?
And to top it all off I'm the delusional one because I doubt that? Incredible. Every single asiaticshill thread that's made makes you guys look even more delusional.
Poland and Turkey are the largest land forces in Europe by a wide margin, there's no other nation even close
Leading European militaries are:
Land: Poland, Turkey
Sea: UK, France
Air: None, up for grabs as no European nation has a top tier air force yet
Traditional production epicenter: Germany
Every NATO country uses ROK weapons to include UK and Germany
What are you even trying to say here?
I mean they could, no cap. Their shipyard output is almost as big as the Chinese, despite being such a tiny country. And seeing how carriers are so coveted that you have the same ancient Cold War era hulks being passed around Brazil/Italy/Turkey/India/Thailand etc. just so they could say that they have one, it can clearly be seen that there is indeed a huge potential market here.
Korea could very easily export well made, affordable carriers on contracts. I can see Spain, Italy and Australia buying them. Pack 'em up with EMALS and KF-21N and the deal would be worth every shekel.
>the export implications
are you fricking moronic?
Who fricking WHO is going to buy a catapult launched fighter?
You realize the prequisite for a catapult launched fighter is a catapult equipped aircraft carrier, of which only the France, the US, China, and maybe the UK soon have (or will have) in service. All of these countries already make their own domestic jets and don't need to import a korean jet.
>doubt
https://news.usni.org/2022/09/06/japan-to-build-two-massive-20000-ton-missile-defense-warships-indian-carrier-commissions
They're basically BCGs specialized in BMD, tbh senpai
Not an arsenal ship, these are 96 to 128 vls cell missile defense destroyers and certainly does not have icbm capabilities
So are the ROK ships, 80 is the current number they're claiming, though they're much larger missiles, that doesn't really change much, it isn't an arsenal ship.
> inferiority complex anything japan related is benchmarked as to how close to ROK standards
Lmfao, you are a fricking moron, an arsenal ship is not a destroyer, the ROK arsenal ship will have 80 VLS cells for ICBMs, the same missiles that are in submarines that are usually maxed out at 20 or 30 SLBMs given the sheer fricking size of ballistic missiles
Define an arsenal ship then, because an 80 cell ICBM ship and a 500 cell Mk41 VLS-equipped ship are NOTHING alike.
We can sit around and bicker about what is or is not an arsenal ship but the ROK arsenal ship is being called...an "arsenal ship" by the industry, it will be the first of its kind ever so whatever it ends up being will effectively define an arsenal ship
Well where do you draw the line for an arsenal ship? 256?
If its ballistic missiles anything more than 20 is clearly arsenal ship category as slbm capable subs carry up to 30 usually
If its non-ballistic missiles, then 500+ vls cells is arsenal ship territory
The ROK arsenal ship will be 80 cells for ICBMs
Why do ICBMs get some special rule that only applies to the new ship south korea is building?
because big silos means multiplexing many smaller missiles, see the Ohio class arsenal submarines
> Ohio class arsenal submarines
The guided-missile version of the Ohio-class maybe, since it has 154 tomahawks.
That's my point, if you build your tubes for ICBMs you can stick a large number of Tomahawks in there with an adaptor. See the Virginia Payload Module, too.
So your defense as to how an 80-missile ship can be an "arsenal" ship is because you COULD replace those 80 large missiles with a 250+ smaller missiles.
They aren't going to do that, but the fact they COULD do that is what makes it an "Arsenal" ship?
lol
lmao even
80 VPM sized tubes is a frickton of firepower whatever you missiles you put in them so it's silly to compare them 1:1 with Mk 41 cells. The Zumwalts are supposed to get big boy silos too, so clearly the US sees merit to the idea.
Sure, but until the US builds a ship that actually holds 250+ missiles, I wouldn't call it an arsenal ship.
You can cram 488 ESSM into a Tico if you really wanted
Its not 80 missiles, its 80 ICBM vls cells so could conceivably have 500+ ICBMS
all of the sources say 80+ missiles, none of they claim 500+ ICBMs lol
It's a volume and energy thing anon. A single Mk 41 VLS tube could have an SM-6, an SM-3, a Tomahawk, 4 ESSMs, an ASROC, an SM-2, etc. You can balance the mix according to what you're doing (so if you're intending on other ships providing air cover you can go full Tomahawk/ASROC, or if you want to JUST do ABM you can go full SM-3/SM-6). It's very compact, very modular, it uses the height available very well.
It also has a path forward technologically. If you suddenly need bigger missiles (idk frickin space wars and shit so now you need an SM-3 variant that can hit shit in MEO) you can scale up the VLS system. Obviously there are limits, but the concept itself is pretty applicable.
>you can scale up the VLS system
If it's designed right you don't need to. Just look at HIMARS/M-270. They load a standard unit, not missiles, so that started (and still is an option) 6x GMLRS, but then you instead have a single ATACMS per unit, or down the road 2x PRSM. No need to change anything about the platform itself. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the approach for a well designed missile ship at this point too, have it loaded in standard blocks of 9/16/27 or whatever, giving the option of having clean multiples of diameter from whatever the standard initial missile size is if desired.
SM3 block II is ~530mm IIRC, Tomahawk also in that ballpark (510? 520?), VLS ASROC more like 360. Figure out a good "building block" small size that then go from there.
yeah but they will one day need a missile bigger than ATACMS
How many Himars can you fit on the deck of a Gerald R Ford and below deck?
With the new 499km range missiles.
ship's ammo will detonate harder than any battleship ever did if hit.
On a similar note, CFA-44 with ADMM's would also blow the frick up if shot down with all its ammo.
Yeah this is a Missile Battle Cruiser
But also that's kind of neat.
Realistically could an arsenal ship run off a crew of like 10 like a cargo vessel?
Probably, but it wouldn't make much sense, the value of the missiles would outweigh any potential lives lost, you would want a decent-sized crew for damage control and fast/smart reactions during a crisis. It could still be fairly minimally crewed especially if you plan to have the arsenal ship as a permanently attached fixture to a CSG or similar flotilla which would allow the arsenal ship to focus EVERYTHING on its role as a pure VLS barge. But even then, I'd guess a minimum crew of ~75-150.
Projected crew size for many of the baseline US Navy designs was ~50, consisting of 12 Officers, 3 CPOs and 35 Enlisted. Not quite as low as a commercial cargo ship but definitely on the low end for a warship.
if you have all 500-600 missiles predialled and all can be launched in seconds then it makes sense as it will launch them before being destroyed.
>he doesn't know about hypersonic missiles
ngmi
Nuclear submarines. If you're going to have a surface vessel nowadays, you may as well have it small but enough presence to pose a threat and defend itself. Then you get enough of them together and you have a fleet. This is really basic stuff.
>USS All Eggs in One Basket
Could not be further from the truth, arsenal ships are a supplemental vessel part of a coordinated fleet of surface, submerged and air assets
The current doctrine is spam as many missiles as possible. More vls cells allow for more spam.
Completely wrong way to go though. No one will be able to afford mass production of missiles during wartime.
> No one will be able to afford mass production of missiles during wartime
based on what?
Based on the US only buys ~10 SM-3 IIA missiles per year and it's their cheapest ICBM interceptor that has worked in testing.
We barely buy more than ~150-250 ESSMs a year, less than 200 SM-2/6, etc, etc.
If you fired every missile deployed in active USN VLS cells right now it would probably take 10 years to replace them.
lol didnt know this wtf. youd think US would have these things stacked up like firewood
We've got a bunch of tomahawks I think that we keep running through upgrades and life extensions, but we don't really keep a ton of anything else in stock. Things get used in testing/training, and otherwise, they get upgraded or eventually replaced with something new.
We're working on replacing the older ESSMs with the new Block 2 ESSMs at the moment, as well as working on getting SM-3 IIA deployed to the pacific (where we expect to need them).
Japan has ordered a pair of 20,000 ton, 210 meter, 200 VLS tube missile spammers
Apparently japan is scaling that back down to 128 VLS cells, but increasing all-around capability of the ships, so instead of ONLY doing BMD, they'll have more or less most of the other capabilities of japanese guided missile destroyers (ASW/ASuW/etc)
Lower VLS cell count, but can be directly used as destroyer replacements while still focusing on the Aegis BMD role the japanese want. Realistically in any scenario where 2x128 VLS cell BMD ships won't suffice, 2x200 VLS cell BMD ships likely wouldn't suffice either.
Its japanese will end up with 96 VLS cells and operational sometime in the 2040s, good news is that they will be able to fit 10000 sailors onto this destroyer as japs are half-sized humans, ceiling height will be able 5'6" to avoid any foreigners from wanting to enter
Yea that totally tracks with the recent Maya-class DDGs, two of them with 96 VLS cells each, Aegis BMD, laid down in 2017 and 2018, launched in 2018 and 2019, then commissioned in 2020 and 2021 respectively.
But sure pretend all you want Japan is some backwater 3rd world, your asiaticshilling will never cease to amaze.
Why so insecure? Japan is a third rate navy and your shilling is nauseating, this isn't the 1940s, the gap between modern naval tech and the 1940s is larger than the gap between the 1940s and viking longboats. If you were really interested in naval developments you would be posting about ships from Italy or Spain before anything from Japan, as both are probably more advanced than Japan, Italy definitely, Spain probably. Naval technology top dogs are the US then ROK then UK, France, Germany with Italy close behind.
Because you're delusional and started shitting on japan for no reason?
You said japan would downsize and MAYBE have them in service in 20 years when japan has demonstrated the ability to put out 2 96-cell DDGs with Aegis BMD in under 5 years WITHIN the last 5 years.
Why would you lie? What do YOU have to gain from saying japan would take 15-20 years to do something they can obviously do within the next 5 years?
The kongo class began construction in 1988, design program was many years before that, this was modified to become the atago class based on the original 1988 vintage kongo, then the maya class which shares the same design structure as the kongo/atago, was commissioned in 2020 based on the original 1988 kongo
I got nothing against the japanese but also know they are not in the big leagues in anything military related, the reality is that ccp china is probably ahead of japan by now let alone some of the real military tech powers
Holy fricking cope batman, now you're just straight making shit up.
What the frick is wrong with you? Seriously, get a better hobby.
You're tiring enough in NGAD/KF-21/GCAP threads, why the frick do you need to shit up naval threads too?
You can't source ANYTHING you say and you insist it's true because you've got sekrit club access to the entire world's MIC.
> literally the worst poster on anon with absolutely no substance or any interesting sources on new development and yet is on 24/7/365 getting into pissing contests with anons that don't gaf and are literally laughing at you
Lmfao
Better than shilling for korea 24/7/365
At least all i have to do is respond to your bullshit lies with proof you're full of shit, which isn't hard since you just make shit up without even trying to make it seem legit most of the time.
I come to /k a few times a week, half the posters on /k are probably this "korea shill", you are alone lmfao
Okay, then why don't you engage with the ACTUAL point you stupid frick? Why not prove to everyone you're NOT the shill by fricking sourcing your bullshit?
Lmfao never fails moron post a single fact with source because you are on 24/7/365 and have yet to post either all you do is shit up every thread you enter
How am I shitting up a thread by pointing out the fact you're lying?
The Maya-class is NOT the "original 1988" Kongo. The Kongo-class made in the 1990s is the "original 1988" Kongo. It was then upgraded and updated with the Atago-class and again with the Maya-class. Just like with Burkes, you wouldn't call a Flight III Burke an "original 1980's burke".
I'd consider your posts to be "shitting up" the thread since you're the one introducing the bullshit and lies with no source or proof, and when you look things up nothing you've said seems to be true at all, which is why you didn't source it in the first place, because you made it up.
>the US then ROK
asiaticshill you need to stop deluding yourself.
Name a single country that is close to this level in naval tech, naval tech is progressing exponentially convention thought in the space is that the last 10 years progressed more than the prior 50 years and the last year progressed more than the last 10 years
There's only two nations that have cutting edge naval r&d, US and ROK, UK/France/Germany and even Italy are strong in certain areas of naval tech but none approach it from a fleet scale perspective, its become so painfully obvious that even fricking CNN covered it a few days ago claiming ROK naval tech is actually ahead of the US in many areas
>identical file format
It genuinely is one mentally ill moron spamming /k/ every day holy shit
what are those funny looking hexagons on the superstructure, they look expensive, who makes them?
>no carriers
>no nuclear subs
>virtually every "new" project is built from western components
>"Name a single country that is close to this level in naval tech"
have a nice day twice
No you don't understand, he said he isn't the asiaticshill
so what you're saying can't be true.
The asiatic navy is Indonesian tier. If Indonesia's plan to buy FREMMs and Mogamis goes through then they will actually be ahead of asiatics.
> post pic from the 1980s
ROK navy would sink the entire japanese navy inside a few days, we are talking an advanced cutting edge navy compared to borderline thirdies that give up after a few small nukes
Around 500 year agos 13 korean armored ships without a single casualty actually sank 10,000+ japanese ships, it was essentially the spanish versus the aztecs on sea
Yeah, could you imagine now that ROK has more and technologies decades ahead
>60 seconds
You could at least TRY not to look like an insufferable samegay.
very interesting
>Why so insecure?
>in the same post claims SK is second only to the US
The lack of self awareness is fricking breath-taking. How VANKgays can vomit such shit on a regular basis without ever realising how moronic they sound astonishes me.
It's a racial trait similar to Germans and overengineering. asiatics project constantly.
You get bored of jerking off in kpop PrepHole threads and decided to shitpost here?
Eh? /kpg/ doesn't hate Japs. After all the cutest Japanese girls come to Korea to become famous instead. They know that wota back home aren't worth it seeing how it's not uncommon for them to stalk and maim Jpop idols.
Finally!
needs more VLS cells
I told them we didn't need the deck, the crew, the helicopter, the modules, the engines or the radars, but they wouldn't listen and the lobbyist added their craps.
moar missiles
No one actually is doing so. S Korea has used the term for a concept ship but it's not a real arsenal ship. There's a difference between "a ship that can carry lots of missiles" and an arsenal ship. The core idea of the Arsenal ship is that it's a cheap floating magazine that can carry extra missiles to be used by the actual warships. Many of the concepts were also intended to only be built to civilian shipbuilding standards. The second you start sticking radars on it, giving it a capable combat system, and building it to military standards you have ceased building an Arsenal Ship and have instead built a cruiser.
Destroyers are too small for BIG new missiles
all the admirals played 2 games of Nebulous FC and got shmoked by VLS spammers
Perhaps the meta is shifting that way because ship building isn't nearly as quick as it was in ye olden days, and one ship even a frick-off huge ship is easier than a bunch of smaller ships. In real terms the ship is unlikely to ever be actually targeted by an actually capable threat either way, yet it still in theory gives a ton of capability on a single asset.
Obviously there's major risks associated with the concept. You're taking a big gamble in a real war that you can at least effectively protect it at least long enough for it discharge it's arsenal before it's sunk, or ideally keep it from being sunk at all.
Missiles are the only things that works in modern warfare. Just look at Ukraine.
Ukraine is showing the problem with near peer warfare. Any weapon system can be destroyed for 1% of its manufacturing cost. The future of war is disposable unmanned weapons.
When you want to invade a country, you have to send hundreds of cruise missiles the first night. That’s where the arsenal ship helps for this delivery in burst within a few hours, alongide the other plateforms (Subs, frigates and planes).
Think opening of the gulf war 2.
Isn't an aircraft carrier really just a fancy arsenal ship?
>An arsenal ship is a concept for a floating missile platform intended to have as many as five hundred vertical launch bays for mid-sized missiles, most likely cruise missiles
One launches tons of missiles
The other launches tons of planes that...launch missiles
Recently I did some quick digging through archives to try and find the earliest occurrence of the phrase "Arsenal Ship" and during my search I found a summary of a 1994 conference where the topic was discussed. According to the summary the idea of the Arsenal Ship was "met with little support" and at some point during the discussion someone made your exact point.
(For what it's worth the earliest occurrence of the term "Arsenal Ship " I found was a mention of a "Semi Submersible Arsenal Ship" being included in January 1994 war game however the concept dates back much earlier. I've read studies from the late 80s which discuss the idea of using cheap hulls with frick-off numbers of VLS as magazines for AEGIS ships)
Pretty sure I've seen Arsenal Ships as a concept existing much longer then that, with this coming from a 1988 edition of popular mechanics.
The concept is older, but I was specifically trying to find the earliest usage of the specific term "Arsenal Ship" to describe the concept. There wasn't anything I found in the archive I was searching that used the term prior to the war game, although I'm sure it was coined prior to that. The 1994 conference is definitely when it caught on though as usage/discussion explodes after that. As for the Pop Mechanics Battlecruiser 2000, while it usually gets floated around in discussions of the Arsenal Ship, it's a pretty big divergence from the majority of the actual US Navy Arsenal Ship Concepts. Stuff like modular payloads, sonar and radars are all stuff most of them lacked. Most were little more than VLS, Communications Equipment and maybe Sea Sparrow for Self Defense. Beyond that the hulls would have minimal sensors, skeleton crews and often be built to commercial rather than military standards. The Arsenal Ship wasn't defined by having frickoff VLS, it was defined by having essentially nothing else besides the frickoff VLS.
missiles can be mass produced a whole lot cheaply and faster than ships or planes can, and spammed at far lower costs. simple as.
Type-055's caused a panic it seems
Wouldn't the best way of getting an "Arsenal ship" be using a SSBN loaded with cruise missiles?
You make it harder to detect and so there's less risk of a hit followed by catastrophic magazine explosion
Because "missiles, frick yeah!" Seriously. If you got the bread and your job is fighting war, why wouldn't you want a massive, floatable, missile battery to back up whatever you and they boys were trying to take over?
I reckon building up the industrial capability of shitting out millions of missiles should be a prerequisite before making these turds.
>Why are arsenal ships happening?
Where? In vidya?
Most of a ship’s volume has nothing to do with weapons. Propulsion, fuel, crew spaces, hangers, sensors, etc. You’re not, realistically, going to achieve a super-efficient ratio of missiles to not-missiles. So, an arsenal ship is really just an extra-large cruiser. There’s a reason why the Navy never pursued the concept.
Precisely. Look at this shit
Where the frick is its radar-suite? Especially in today's tech which is all about long range guidance. It doesn't even have CIWS.
>Where the frick is its radar-suite
There are literal marks pointing to radar arrays. Nav radars are above the bridge, the radars on the sides are for aircraft.
>There’s a reason why the Navy never pursued the concept
You're right. Instead they pursued the righteous course of building coastal ships made to operate within the enemies radar range as close to high resolution as possible while having hulls made out of flammable aluminum. Genius!
>You’re not, realistically, going to achieve a super-efficient ratio of missiles to not-missile
>Where the frick is its radar-suite?
On the escorting Burkes, data linked to the arsenal ship. It's 2023, you can distribute your sensors.
What if we too the design of the U.S.S. Iowa. removed the first 16-inch turret and replaced it missile tubes.
than create a combo rail gun/ powder based projectile to create super-duper fast F you ammunition for the 16 inch guns, than we slap 8 phalanx CIWS (2 facing port 2 facing starboard 2 facing aft and 2 facing stern) on it and 4 SeaRAM launchers on it. (same directions as the CIWS)
and also kept all the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles and 5 inch guns?
ROK announced earlier today the 70k ton carriers will be 110k tons each and they plan to build 3 before 2035, all will be fitted with KF21Ns, the plan is for 2 to patrol the Pacific and 1 patrol Indian Ocean
Your info must be out of date. They actually announced they will build 7 carriers at 220k tons, all with hypersonic quantum versions of the KF-21N and they will be in service in two weeks. The plan is 1 for each ocean of the world.
Why won't they build some type of crossover between reinforced silo, VLS cells and ground based Aegis?
Having a dozen of football field sized VLS bases would not only be cheaper but also ridiculous hard to destroy if you space the launchers even a little bit.
I'd argue that the fixed location I'd even advantageous - it will draw most of Norks firepower that would normally fall on Seul, giving your civilians time to evacuate and by the end day, most VLS cells would probably still be operational.
>Why would Korea...
The answer is typically "Japan announced a more practical version of it a year or two ago and Korea wants to build some plastic model to act like they are better"
Nope. Japan is not even on the radar with weapons technologies.
ROK is on the cutting edge on par, and ahead in many areas, of the US, both are decades ahead of the rest of world
UK/France/Germany/Israel/Italy are decent niche players in certain areas but none of these approach it from a combined arms full scale war perspective as does US and ROK
This is why when the Japanese needed to evacuate their people from Sudan they had to get the ROK udt/seal soldiers to extract them from Khartoum across hundreds of kilometers of rebel infested decrepit roads to the ports where both ROK and Japanese destroyers/transports were waiting, kishida even issued a formal message of gratutude as yoon told him it would be easy peezy for ROK and effectively impossible for japs. but japan already knew this
ROKA... I... I fricking kneel...
The entire global MIC and analysts are laughing at rent free asiatics, a fricking ex-colony knockoff trying in vain to compete against real Japan™ on everything out of massive inferiority complex.
What an emotional, desperate, seething article from some angloweeb.
Global MIC can't compete with Korean production and NATO countries are now kneeling and ordering superior Korean tech. And you're not an analyst. You're a crook on an imageboard.
What an emotional, desperate, seething article from some asiaticshill
This assumes the asiatics aren't trying to get a seat at the big boy table and thus get in on the spanking of China should it try to grab Taiwan. I suspect we'll see old Ticos and Burkes getting snapped up by allies in the region with others cannibalized for parts rather than being wrecked.
> Trying
Anybody that has been paying attention understands that rok is the epicenter of MIC activity the same way NYC/London are for finance, LA is for hollywood/porn, France/Italy for expensive apparel, India is for outsourced call centers and China is for cheap plastic garbage
ROK is the epicenter of coping.
Shinshin? Dead.
Boramae? Soaring.
Maya? Dabbed on by Sejong.
Jpop? Dabbed on by Kpop.
Owari Da
*spaced out
*is
I should definitely go to bed instead of writing.
>What's changed recently, in doctrine or technology, that has made major navies suddenly decide "I want a frickin' near-aircraft carrier sized monster that's literally just all missile tubes"?
Missiles have already been a standard component of naval warfare for several decades now.
The specific thing that enables arsenal ships is increasing standardization of missile form factors, packaging, and most importantly sensor networking, which increasingly allows the mounting of missiles without the need for a specialized hull design, while something else provides the targeting data.
They played Harpoon.
The copeler is here
Nothing changed. Only the ROK and Japan are looking into them. Distribution of firepower is better than having everything on one platform. The only exception is the Ohio SSGNs are a really good idea. Being able to completely saturate a country in TLAMs from 1000km away and float away is pretty incredible from a strategic standpoint.
>asiatics are still coping ITT
Embarrassing.
All warfare is very quickly progressing to who can spam the most missles, everything is becoming irrelevant other then missle targeting systems, missle launch systems and missle defense systems. HIMARS, arsenal ships, BVR air combat, it's all becoming missles.
>thread silent for an hour
>sudden influx of pro-Korea posts replying to each other in quick succession
Zero subtlety lmao
Korean MIC is objectively impressive and their advancement and prominence in western acquisitions is only going to increase their relevancy for this board. Take your meds and get used to it.
>increase their relevancy for this board
Which is why you have to samegay and lie incessantly, then when this is called out go radio silent until the thread's about to die before doing the same thing again? You've been doing this routine too long and too often asiaticshill anybody with an IQ over 90 recognises your shit immediately.
Not even the same anon. Like I said, take your meds. Or else you'll rope yourself in the near future.
>Take your meds
Take your own advice
Yeah, it's honestly pretty sad how moronic he is.