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

[DeSchaine]

Arsenal ships are already a thing here. Taeunas maintains several of this ship design. These are based off the fact that the USN reconfigured four Ohio class boomers into missile boats with the capacity of 174 VLS launched Tomahawks. A second recent idea was a redesign of an LPD to carry nearly 300 VLS launched Tomahawks.

Arsenal aircraft are a different matter. Theoretically possible but as yet not attempted beyond computer projection by any KNOWN (read: unclassified) project of any nation.

[STRATCOM]

Technologist Deschaine, thank you for your input.

[Ayzek]

Yeah, arsenal ships aren't much of a deal. The key issue is the arsenal plane, as DeS has implied.

Arsenal planes are essentially bombers that may or may not be unmanned and serve primary as a romote magazine, yes? Doesn't seem that different from a regular bomber, to be frank. I'm fairly certain modern (rl) states can already fire ze missile and have it guided to it's target by another element.

I question why go to the trouble of a super specialized craft, though? A bomber loaded up with missiles can achieve the same thing, can't it?

Regarding their use to grant stealth aircraft more firepower...most missiles don't have a very significant range, aside from missiles designed to (crazy, right?). However, this does mean that the arsenal plane may not be able to engage targets in support of the stealth aircraft for the simple reason that it's outside its engagement range, as it doesn't have the same penetrating capabilities. Of course, it could still engage with long-range munitions, but, again, you don't need a special aircraft for something a bomber can currently do.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

[DeSchaine]

Well, when you dig down just a small bit you realize that it's hugely impractical and really cost prohibitive for the kind of thing being proposed here. Aircraft are never going to be able to carry the amounts to rival a ship. You also realize that modern heavy bombers already kind of fit the bill, it just depends on how you define "arsenal". Consider:

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber: 50,000 lb internal capacity. Enough for 80x 500 lb bombs or 16x long range air to surface missiles, depending on rack configuration.

B-1 Lancer: 75,000 lb internal capacity. 144x small diameter bombs or 24x long range air to surface missiles.
Tu-160:  88,000 lb internal capacity (supposedly). Carries only 12x cruise missiles or 12x nuke capable missiles

Tu-95: 33,000 lb external capacity.
B-52 Stratofortress: 70,000 lb internal/external capacity. Mixed ordinance.

[CONCENTRAL]

Esteemed technologist DeSchaine, the Mandate International once again thanks you for your improvements. Although existing Mandate aircraft are wholly capable, a specialised platform had not yet been conceived, and a research center dedicated to such advancements will no doubt be set up in your honor.

[CONCENTRAL]

Esteemed technologist DeSchaine, after careful consideration and debate within various Mandate science teams, you have hereby been awarded a foreign technologist uptiering to 'Esteemed Technologist Tier 7: Omniscient Oculus' for your ceaseless contributions to the technology of the Mandate.