Dismissed Discussion on Arsenal Weapon Systems

[STRATCOM]

Technology Submission
Technology Report Name of Origin Country: Vestor Licit People's Mandate & Licit Chiri Mandate Name of Technology/Object: Arsenal Weapon Systems Supporting Real Life References: [1] - Osborn, K., Sokolski, H., Whalen, C., & Bilal Y. Saab. (n.d.). Arsenal Plane: The Many Lives of America's Mighty Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Retrieved from http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buz...b-52-18783 [2] - Pike, J. (n.d.). Arsenal Ship. Retrieved from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/...l_ship.htm  [3] - Breaking the Anti-Access Wall (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin...ccess-wall [4] - Drew, J. (1970, February 26). USAF flaunts 'arsenal plane' concept at Air Warfare Symposium. Retrieved from https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl...re-422472/
Report Description: Arsenal ships, planes, submarines, and other vehicles are all part of comprehensive arsenal weapon systems, weapons platforms designed to provide fire support at standoff range in support of combatants in direct contact with the enemy. AWSes do not engage in combat directly with a target, but receive support requests and use large onboard stocks of shells, bombs, missiles, drones, railgun sabots, and/or laser apertures to defeat a target without exposing themselves to enemy fire. AWSes benefit from a cross-service tactical data link protocol which allows infantry, armor, installation, sea, air, and space assets to all transmit target information in the same way. AWSes often carry only a few types of weapons to maximize the amount onboard - arsenal submarines primarily carry cruise missiles and drones, arsenal planes primarily carry bombs and missiles, and arsenal ships primarily carry missiles and occasionally large rail or conventional guns.  In this way arsenal weapon systems can take the place of many equivalent tanks, artillery pieces, ships, or planes when not exposed directly to enemy counterattack. AWS and AEW&C systems are increasingly being incorporated into the same vehicle for more granular battlefield control - while the loss of a single airframe or ship would ordinarily mean the loss of fire control and early warning for a battlespace, the halved cost means that two AWS/AEW&C vehicles can provide redundant capability over a battlespace where only one could before. The main weakness of AWSes is clear: enemies maneuvering close-in can engage and destroy them with relative ease due to their limited ability to defend themselves. For this reason, AWSes are either stationed out-of-theatre to limit enemy ability to counterattack, or kept extremely close to friendly units who can respond to local threats. In the Mandate International, the rollout of 1.6.0 of the Interservice Tactical Datalink Protocol (ITDP 1.6) allowed arsenal weapons system to take a pivotal, cost-effective role in Mandate member states for the first time. While large amounts of independent armor, artillery, and air formations still defend Mandate borders, AWSes can provide unheard-of fire support for attacking formations as small as a penal battalion for the cost of an airframe or two. Show ContentImages: N/A Show ContentSpecifications: Varied