Arsenal Ship, USN

I recall seeing a lot of promotions about this new concept ship, an 'Arsenal Ship', that would be loaded with a variety of vertical launched missiles capable of attacking other ships, land targets, and even missiles being launched from an enemy's land sites.
Arsenal ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The idea went thru a number of changes as it progressed thru various design and funding considerations.
SC-21 (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zumwalt-class destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

etc.
Until finally it has come down to just 3 ships being built, now designated the DD 1000
DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer - Naval Technology

Technology
....electric propulsion, reverse wave piercing bow, small crew

What brought this to my mind to look up the status of these 'arsenal ship projects', was the recent anouncement by Vice President Biden to put more of those anti-missiles up in Alaska....those anti-missilies that have not even proven themselves to work.

I really thought it was a GREAT idea to station a missile launching ship somewhat nearby the coast of a rogue nation and catch any missiles launched from the nation against another, catch those missles on their way up,....much easier than trying to catch them head on.

More specifically in the case of N Korea, wouldn't it be much more effective deployment tactically (proven), and much more cost effective method to station one, two, or three such ships on a rotating deployment in the Sea of Japan to simply fire a few missiles right up the tail pipies of anything N Korea could launch??

Just look at many of the air-to-air missle technologies,....they don't attempt any 'trajectory determination' or trajectory anticipation. They go for the heat signal from the tailpipe....much easier.

Smaller. lighter, hi-speed interceptors are the basis for air-to-air technology. Yes you can catch them, actually easier.


Technical Aspects of Ballistic Missile Defense
In the early seconds of boost, an ICBM is vulnerable to a command-detonated mine adjacent to the site or to a rocket-propelled grenade. Even short-burning Scuds could be destroyed by small homing interceptors launched by radio from as much as 50 km distance from the launch site. Normal ICBMs would be vulnerable in boost phase to ground-based interceptors (GBI) (or sea-based interceptors) from anywhere within a region of about 1000 km of the launch site. Such an interceptor would be launched by command on the basis of DSP data, without there ever having been a radar detection of the ICBM. Fitted with a sensor capable of detecting the missile flame, it could direct its limited field of view in the direction commanded according to the data from DSP, and accelerate toward a predicted intercept point. The prediction would need continued refinement, by observation from the interceptor of the current position of the ICBM booster.

Because of the ocean area east and north of North Korea, North Korean ICBMs aimed at the United States are an ideal target for ground- or sea-based boost-phase intercept. Specifically, it should be possible to use an interceptor of the same gross launch weight as the GBI of the NMD program (about 14 tons, with 12.5 tons of solid fuel) to boost the kill vehicle (of perhaps 60 kg mass and containing some 15 kg of liquid fuel) to a speed similar to that of the ICBM-- 7 km/s, but with larger engines relative to the mass, so it will reach its final speed more rapidly. A simple calculation shows that the sea-based interceptor could be deployed as much as 2100 km downrange from the launch site and still be able to catch the ICBM while it is still burning.

Name one,...and that one had to be 'staged'.

Rim Drive Electric Propulsion

Have a look at this SeaJet Demonstration Project

http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/75536-post41.html

...certainly looks like some of these Zumwalt projects, reverse bows, electric propulsion, rim drive props

Likely true, they won't be too happy with any of our deployments in Asia. But that truly is international waters.
The Sea of Japan

The situation in the South China Sea is a bit different. China has maintained for 100's of years that all of the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea are theirs,...even though many of them are no-were near the Chinese mainland.
File:Schina sea 88.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I truly fear any big energy discovery in the South China Sea as it will invariably result in a BIG conflict of interest between a number of countries that claim some portion of the Spratleys, and with the USA as their protector.

I think you are probably correct, and I certainly hope so.

Interesting presentation there but not very convincing at all. For that land based missiles to hit a small spot on the ocean would be a problem in both accuracy and time. And I'm sure we have BIG capabilities against such an attack from the sky. (I've been away from this technology way too long to know current capabilities).

None of those videos is very convincing. And this wording from the third reference likely rings true:
And there’s also the difference in missions between the SS-20 and the DF-21D. While the SS-20 was designed to attack NATO forces with nuclear weapons, the DF-21D’s mission is to attack moving ocean going surface vessels. If the SS-20’s warhead was off target, the blast of its nuclear payload would still cause tremendous damage. The DF-21D would need to overcome presumed U.S. or allied missile defense systems and strike its target with accuracy. A miss of just a few feet could cause a large wave in the Pacific, but not much else.

Personally on board the carrier I'd be more concerned with an Exocet type weapon, maybe a more modern version:
USS Stark (FFG-31) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile


I did notice that in the second video they spoke to the need of additional 'sensory satellites needed to be launched to help their missile find its 'small spot' target. This would provide an early warning that a possible attack was coming, unlike the case with the Exocet type weapon that provides VERY little warning.

Natuna Islands Gas

Interestingly in that same video they talk about if or when a large energy source is found. There already has been a large energy find b, possibly the world's largest natural gas find off the Spratly Islands of Natuna

The Thinker: Caution Over Natuna | The Jakarta Globe
“The Indonesians noticed to their surprise that the Chinese claim line was marked between the Natuna Islands of Indonesia and a gas-bearing area located 250 kilometers to the northeast of it, which lies within the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of 320 kilometers claimed by Indonesia, thereby raising the suspicion that China probably looked upon this gas-bearing area also as historically belonging to it even though it had never claimed it in the past before the discovery of gas.”

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3701
"The Natuna's natural gas reserves are among the largest in the world, estimated at 210 trillion cubic feet"

The major problem with this huge find is that the gas comes out about 75 CO2. You can't just flare this off to our atmosphere as you would likely create 'nuclear winter' around the world. So you would likely have to construct GIANT platforms offshore with BIG compressions to pump the CO2 back into the ground. VERY expensive project. I was working over in Singapore when they tried to put together a consortium of big majors to tackle this project....just didn't happen. And likely the reason the Chinese have yet to 'enforce' their demands yet. But I worry about the future.