Shipbucket

I've been designing a navy built around two carrier battlegroups, but then realized those will require expensive, high end escorts. I'm planning on using LCFs, but compared to a Burke, they have limited VLS capacity, which got me thinking--why not build something like a miniature arsenal ship, maybe something on a DDG sized hulll or so, with between 4-6 64 cell VLS blocs, and minimal sensors and electronics. It would be fast enough to accompany the CBG, and the escorts could simply use their own sensors and remotely fire missiles from what I'm going to call a Vertical Launch Support Ship. It also would allow for plenty other weapons, like long range ASMs, and Cruise missiles to be carried in abundance without having to take up valuable real estate in the escort's cells. This seems like such a good idea, that there is bound to be some sort of major problem with it, which explains why it hasn't been done. I'm sure someone like Ace or Eric can explain what I'm missing here.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

I actually doubt you could bring that much VLS on board of an DDG hull. the propulsion, crew, fuel and stores also need a place on board, as well as power generation and management systems for the VLS. you can not eliminate an sizeable crew unless you want no maintenance and damage control. going fleet speed requires an DDG shaped and powered hull as well, so there is not much to win there. the only way to get lots of VLS on board is lower requirements, which means speed, damage control and/or (the relatively small) size. now, if you enlarge it somewhat we could get about 3 64 cell blocks on board, I suppose. for striking purposes this ship will be somewhat useful in my opinion, being linked to the entire battlegroup fire control system, both air and seaborne. however, I very much doubt it would be easier to have these ships then to operate larger ships then the LCF's. an 64 cell VLS is not that that much a stretch (I have some AU designs lying around that are not larger but have somewhat lower sensor power and different crew requirements, for example) any larger might require an all new hull. however........

while having not as many VLS as an USN destroyer, the LCF gets close to the T45 destroyers of the RN, which have only 48 missiles on board (an LCF should have even more on board, as we can quadpack ESSM) while the T45 are carrier escorts. at this point, you should look at the requirements of your carrier battle groups, and mostly at the resistance against saturation attacks the AEGIS system was build to counter.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Three blocks is quite a bit, still. I was thinking of stretching the LCF to accommodate a 64 block, but even a single VLSS could triple the amount of missiles available. My thought was that two of these per carrier could well make up for the need for a larger number of escorts. I'd like 4 LCF per carrier, but cost will likely mean settling for 3. What got me thinking about the LCF was reading an article about a drill, where the LCF took control of another escort's weapon systems and launched a missile, something I'd previously only associated with Aegis. This made me think, well, if it has that capability, why couldn't it do the same from a specialized missile platform? I'm less worried about a single, massive saturation attack and more worried about having to potentially run a gauntlet of sustained hit and run attacks that will deplete the magazine capacity of the escorts.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

keep in mind, those 3 blocks require something over spruance in size, so far bigger then an LCF. a ship this size, with this many missiles, might well be as costly (or costlier) then the LCF itself. unlike the LCF, the VLSS is an single purpose ship, so you get a lot more money into something most likely not often used, making her value for money low.

what I would suggest is giving more ships (including especially littoral and ASW ships) a 64 cell battery for cruise missiles and the like. (spruance style, 24 ASROC and the rest filled with tomahawks) depending on the fleet layout you could ship some SM missiles as well, equipped with autopilot (which is what the LCF and AEGIS IIRC both use to control other ships missiles, even an hawkeye or units like that could do the trick)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It's not obvious to me why you would not just put the LCF electronics along with the VLS cells on the larger hull. Carrier escorts need to be fast and long-legged, and splitting things into two smaller, individually low-capability ships is bad on both counts (since bigger hulls are naturally more efficient at high speed).

The sweet spot for the arsenal ship concept appears to be land attack, where you can putter along a relative slow ('phib speed, 20 knots or so) cheap and cheerful hull and salvo Tomahawk out of it.

That's not to say this concept could not work, or that such a VLSS would not be a capable asset to a CBG, but I think you'd ultimately pay more for the same capability. The only real exception I see would be systems where the weapon and the sensor actually can't be on the same platform, like a very high-capability ABM.

What I take away from the discussion so far is the negative impact of splitting weapons and sensors between small platforms while maintaining escort requirements such as mobility and survivability.
In the end, what's preventing you from re-scaling your VLS farm upwards to true arsenal ship class and making it part of your core battle group?
Pare down speed and combat ability to LPD level or similar and let the missiles do the legwork out to where they can be assigned to targets by the escorts.

_________________
Soviet Century/Cold War 2020 Alternate Universe: Soviet and other Cold War designs 1990-2020.
My Worklist

Somewhere there is a AU Canadian LCF-based frigate, however I do not remember how large VLS she had (48 cell or 64 cell).