What is the point of an arsenal ship, I don't understand. Wouldn't it just be a bigger more vulnerable ballistic missile submarine
South Korean Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter IDonT
- Start date
China has done plenty of what American failed but succeeding this time.
I will give Korean benefit of doubt. This time they specifically said ballistic missile not anti-ship or anti air. What are they cooking this time?
I mean, is it that different from what USN is planning to do with Zumwalt? Once the guns are removed and replaced with giant VLS?
That said, if you have a large number of air defense destroyers like Arleigh Burke or 052D maybe you would want to play with such specialized ships. But if you don't maybe the resources are better spent building those.
That said, if you have a large number of air defense destroyers like Arleigh Burke or 052D maybe you would want to play with such specialized ships. But if you don't maybe the resources are better spent building those.
A different level entirely. I am talking about things like OICW, Top-attack tank shells, etc.
It is. Missile Zumwalt isn't arsenal, it's just an oversized FFG with oversized, overspeed theater missiles.
It isn't exactly a new concept, one ship fitting this description was sunk exactly a year ago.
But any modern large grid destroyer(for example, 055, Burke, or even older Tico) is closer to that arsenal was supposed to be.
What happened with top attack tank shells? Also didnt China make OICW work?
US developed it till early 1990s - then they got scrubbed. ~Decade later Koreans picked them up.
Now they're some sort of unique K2 feature(to be fair, i don't know if they're fielded).
Well, OICW itself sorta worked. But you don't see those in mass-adopted rifles, everyone went in a completely different direction.
OICW seems like a solution looking for a problem anyhow, individual infantry is already over loaded as is, there are very few situations outside of urban combat where the added capabilities of a smart grenade launcher with rifle would be useful and desirable on every soldier rather than just having delicated fire support teams.
So in other words top attack tank shell is a success for them.
First they want ballistic missile submarines, then they want aircraft carriers. Now they want arsenal ships?
For a small country with a population that is slightly larger than that of Shanghai and Beijing combined, South Koreans sure have massive dreams, lmao.
Either way, I find it challenging to see the actual need for arsenal ship like this. Same goes for Japan's planned two 20000-ton ballistic missile defense warship.
I know it sounds really good to re-experience the times where battleships with big guns rule the seas (and swap the "big guns" with "VLS cells"), but is it really necessary and viable, especially with how wars would be fought today and the multitude of threat spectrums expected to face today?
Last edited:
With VLS counts it's also rapidly diminishing returns, since missile costs quickly begin to make up a significant chunk of the cost of the entire ship. I don't see how this all eggs in one basket approach is better than having more smaller ships, since you won't lose a massive chunk of your naval strength if a North Korean midget submarine get a lucky break and sink one of them.