Norman Friedman이 2004년에 낸 US Destroyers 개정판에 나오는 것인데 1990년대의 Arsenal Ship이 나오게 된 전쟁 시나리오는 1990년 이라크의 쿠웨이트 침공같은 일이 다시 벌어지는 것이었고, B-2 폭격기가 가서 침공군 차량(전차, 장갑차, 트럭 등등)의 20%를 부수면 침공을 멈추게 할 수 있다고 RAND가 결론을 내렸다고 합니다.
하지만 B-2가 며칠 걸려서 할 일을 토마호크같은 미사일들을 잔뜩 실은 배가 가서 할 수 있다는 주장이 있었고, 이것이 Arsenal Ship으로 이어집니다.
그런데 가만히 생각해 보면 차량들을 맞춰 부수는데 500 파운드 이상의 탄두면 충분하겠지만 문제는 이것들이 움직이고 있다는 것이고, 토마호크로 "지상의" 이동 표적을 공격하는 것은 아직도 어려울 것입니다. 게다가 토마호크로 T-72 1대 잡는 것은 가성비가 영 아닐 것 같고요.
The Arsenal Ship seems to have arisen as an afterthought, since it was not initially listed among the COEA concepts. This is a minimal version (COEA concept 3A6) with eight 64-cell vertical launchers (512 missiles) visible on deck. The only survivability feature would have been blast-hardened bulkheads. The sketch showed no self-defense weapons whatsoever. However, the ship would have been fitted for CEC, so presumably some of the cells could have been devoted to defensive weapons fired according to CEC information. The ship would also have had the usual missile decoy launchers (SRBOC, Nulka, Torch) and a towed torpedo decoy (Nixie). Dimensions would have been 540 (waterline) x 70 ft; displacement would have been 9,715 tons light and 13,412 tons fully loaded. The powerplant would have been that of a new sealift ship, four PC4.2V10 Pielstick diesels, backed by four 2,500 kW Fairbanks-Morse diesel generators. Unlike the main COEA designs, this one did not feature integrated electric drive. She would have been thoroughly conventional. Estimated complement was 12 officers, 3 CPO, and 35 enlisted, with accommodation for twice that. NAVSEA designers also developed a sketch of a "goal ship" (Option 3B5), which was apparently an arsenal ship with much more protection (box girder structure to defeat under-the-keel attack and missile side protection), a low-observable hull, and low-observable armored covers for the missile cells. Dimensions would have been 228 (waterline) x 28.8 m (747.8 x 94.5 ft); displacement would have been 24,980 tons light and 29,894 tons fully loaded. With the same powerplant as the minimum ship, this version would have made 26 knots maximum (25 sustained), because her longer hull would have been more efficient hydrodynamically. She would have had six rather than four diesel generators. Accommodation would have matched that of the minimum ship. Both arsenal ship versions were credited with an endurance of 10,000 NM. at 20 knots.
https://cafe.daum.net/NTDS/515G/2109
https://cafe.daum.net/NTDS/5q4/985
첫댓글 당시에는 166개의 자탄을 뿌리는 분산탄두의 TLAM-D가 가용했겠지만, 그래도 전차 부대에 골고루 잘 뿌려줄 수 있을지가 의문이긴 하네요.
탱크들 위에 자탄을 골고루 뿌려주려면 토마호크에 레이다든 카메라든 뭔가 센서가 있어야만 하고, 그것으로 보고 토마호크가 알아서 판단하거나 아니면 데이터링크로 보내 사람이 보고 판단해만 할 것 같습니다.
공군이 잘 할 수 있는 일이 생기자 해군도 질 수 없다고 나선 조직논리의 결과란 느낌이..
Arsenal Ship이나 합동화력함은 옛날 전함, 순양함, 포함들이 함포로 지상군을 지원하던 거리가 미사일을 써서 확 늘어난 것이고, 바다에 떠 있는 군함들이 쏘는 포탄이 기갑부대의 공격을 막은 사례가 2차대전 때 안지오와 노르망디에서 있었던 것 같은데 몇 %나 기여했는지는 알 수가 없네요.
아래는 1944년 6월 29일 영국군의 Epsom 작전 때 영국군의 공세 돌출부를 자르려고 반격하다가 두들겨 맞고 실패한 9, 10 SS 기갑사단을 지휘한 군단장이 전쟁이 끝나고 포로로 잡혔을 때 말한 내용입니다. " The murderous fire from naval guns in the Channel"이라고 함포 사격 얘기를 했습니다.
After the war, SS-Obergruppenführer Hausser, commander II Panzerkorps, told his Intelligence Corps debriefer about the main features of the fighting on 29 June:
‘It was scheduled to begin at seven o’clock in the morning, but hardly had the tanks assembled when they were attacked by fighterbombers. This disrupted the troops so much that the attack did not start again until two-thirty in the afternoon. But even then it could not get going. The murderous fire from naval guns in the Channel and the terrible British artillery destroyed the bulk of our attacking force in its assembly area. The few tanks that did manage to go forward were easily stopped by the British anti-tank gunners. In my opinion, the attack was prepared too quickly.
I wanted to wait another two days but Hitler insisted that it be launched on 29 June.’