Why don’t giant nuclear powered arsenal ships exist?
because they make mighty good targets for ASMs and submarines.
>>56167287G*d forbid such monstrosities.
>>56167287What exactly is an arsenal ship? If it is anything like a cruiser, the vatniks have a few nuclear kirov guided missile cruisers.
>>56167307It's basically a battleship sized platform covered in vertical missile launchers, the US floated then abandoned the idea.
>>56167287but they do
>>56167787Why don't we have more? Even ignoring that, why aren't all naval combat vessels submarines?
>>56167287As has been posted, they do. Submarines solve most of the problems that make them a bad idea on the surface.
>>56167287Because it's not worth it.
>>56167287Because fat slow targets are force loss multipliers you retarded tourist.
>>56167817More to the point, why aren't they spaceships crewed by ponies?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine#SSBN/SSGN_conversionsThey exist already
>>56167817because submarines can't fulfill every role that naval force projection requires.
>>56167307It's like a submarine, but it can't hide and is much bigger.
>>56167307>arsenal ship"what if, hear me out, we have a ship that does nothing but launch missiles. like, LITERALLY nothing. minimal sensors, minimal radar - other ships will find the enemy. no guns. if a Somali pirate pulls up alongside? welp he's the captain now. but we pack, like, every single missile the whole fleet can afford on it. one basket, all the eggs. it's a brilliant idea!"
>>56167287The US had the Virginia class nuclear cruiser.
>>56169186Virginias were not arsenal ships, but a regular anti-aircraft guided missile cruiser.
>>56169219Yeah, but the US didn’t even keep the Virginia class around. Its failure should tell you why US Navy did want an “arsenal ship”. Basically it’s a gay and stupid idea.
>>56167287too expensive combustion jet engines are more practical for most ships than U235 engines
>>56169241>Its failureVirginias weren't failures, they were just overspecced for the post-Cold War battlefield.>US Navy did want an “arsenal ship”so you say, yet they don't have one to this day.Ticonderogas are not "arsenal ships" either, FYI.
>>56169006It actually is, because aircraft and spacecraft are the primary detectors anyways. Just throw two 35 mm Wotan's on the side and it's ready.
>>56169278No, the concept is far too overspecialised and puts too many eggs in one basket. Multi-purpose warships are way more useful.That actually seems to be the problem with the OMFGs here >>56168927, which is why the USN isn't going to replace them with new-build SSGNs.>aircraft and spacecraft are the primary detectors anywayscan't rely on that all the time. especially when gearing up to fight an enemy capable of cutting your datalinks.
>>56167287the whole beauty of anti ship missiles is you can carry more firepower than any single battleship ever dreamed of possessing on a fucking speedboat as long as it's long enough for a launch tube. It's a force multiplier for ships that still serve other purposes, a weapon (currently?) so potent that it makes any other surface to surface armament look fucking stupid. Naval warfare is no longer about having a boat that can kill other boats because EVERY boat is carrying a one size fits all solution to floating metal boxes full of people. Other people will have already told you that putting all your eggs into one basket, making a ship that's too expensive, centralizing your force when the advantages of missile combat are all in decentralization, etc, so the only thing that I can really add is that such an arsenal ship is entirely superfluous. Every other ship does the one thing you've built it to do, so it effectively does nothing.
>>56169405torpedo boats have been a threat to battleships for over a century already
>>56168956this. force projection requires everyone to know where your force is at 99% of the time. its about messaging.
>>56171224that's not what force projection means, dumbass; force projection is about the ability to project combat power further away from one's borders. nothing to do with whether the enemy knows you're there or not.for example, although both are submarines, SSNs are said to be superior to SSKs for force projection; because SSKs have very limited independent sailing time
>>56169006>aircraft carrier but rocketsthis is the sort of braindead shit Russia eould actually build
>>56169405i only see a renewal of a battleship-like role if huge scalable directed-energy weapons become a standard thing. maybe energy shields and electric armor too lul
>>56172122>aircraft carrier but rocketswell, actually, that is precisely the idea behind the Kirov and Slava class cruisers. since the USSR suface fleet at the time - the most underfunded branch of the armed forces - did not have a proper carrier (yet), they were equipped with dozens of supersonic long-range antiship missiles as the main offensive weapon of the USSR surface fleet. if a Nimitz CBG met a Kirov battlegroup, it would be a duel of F-14s and A-7s going one way, and SS-N-19 missiles going the other.
>>56170041Gun carrying battleships and the torpedo boat existed together because the gun still carried out missions that the torpedo cannot. The missile carries out every mission, faster, more accurately, and with better payload. While the torpedo boat threatened battleships and necessitated pickets and countermeasures (kind of like ASMS do), they did not represent a complete redefinition of the destructive capabilities of every ship afloat.>>56172124You must be 18 years old to post here but you might want to take a longer incubation than most because that's the stupidest shit I've read in a while. Yeah dude, I see battleships making a comeback if space magic turns out to be real, too. PXRXJ