Key Points and Summary – The Arsenal Ship was a 1990s plan for a joint-force “missile barge” packing up to 1,000 vertical-launch weapons to shield carriers, support Marines, and fire deep land-attack strikes for all services.
-Designed to be cheap, lightly manned, and networked to Army and Air Force commanders, it promised battleship-level firepower without a carrier’s price tag.
16-Inch Guns of USS Iowa. Image Credit: National Security Journal.
-But post–Cold War budget cuts, survivability worries, and overlap with Burke destroyers and submarines killed the concept in 1998.
-As China’s navy surges and long-range “kinetic missile fights” loom, the article asks whether the Pentagon walked away from exactly the ship it now needs.
The Arsenal Ship: The U.S. Navy’s Joint Force Missile Barge
The U.S. Navy once had an ambitious plan to build a missile barge—or, as DARPA referred to it in 1995, an “Arsenal Ship.”
The ship was supposed to be a revolution in warship design.
The proposed vessel never came to fruition—the Zumwalt-class destroyer was built instead—but its development shows the Department of Defense and the Navy were searching for a dominant new sea platform.
Zumwalt-Class U.S. Navy. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
The Arsenal Ship had ample firepower and improved defense measures for better survivability.
Peace Dividend Hampered Its Development
The idea did not come at a great time. The Cold War was long over. President Bill Clinton figured it was time to trim the defense budget.
The Navy had fewer enemy ships to target, absent the Soviet menace. Nevertheless, the Arsenal Ship was an appealing innovation.
The First Mission Was Theater Missile Defense
The ship would have vertical launch tubes for SM-3 missiles that would be used to provide a protective umbrella over a carrier strike group. The ship could loiter for long periods with a smaller crew, leaving more sailors available for other vessels.
Fully Stocked With Air Defense Interceptors
The Arsenal Ship’s designers had a back-to-the-basics approach.
The hull was nothing earth-shattering; radar was rudimentary; the other destroyers and frigates would remain responsible for the Aegis Combat System.
DARPA took the idea of the “missile barge” concept literally. DARPA wanted the Arsenal Ship to carry an incredible 1,000 SM-3 interceptors onboard, with 500 vertical launch bays; Arleigh Burke-class destroyers carry only 100 missiles.
Could the Navy Afford the Arsenal Ship?
The Arsenal Ship was going to cost $300–$500 million, not including the cost of all those missiles. SM-3s ran about $10 million each in those days.
The Navy considered the Arsenal Ship as part of a complete transformation of the service.
The Navy wanted to focus on generating massive firepower to overwhelm any enemy. Rear Admiral Daniel Murphy was enthusiastic about the proposed vessel.
“The Arsenal Ship is best defined as providing multifunctional support to the land battle in its role as the battleship of the 21st century,” he said.
Multi-Mission Role Would Keep the Enemy Guessing
The Arsenal Ship was going to be fully automated and able to operate close to shore in littoral environments, or in the deep sea with carrier strike groups. It could support amphibious attacks and provide close air support for the U.S. Marine Corps, or hang back to provide missile defense.
The Arsenal Ship would not be just for the Navy though.
It was considered a “purple” ship, denoting its Joint Force potential.
It would be interoperable with the Army and Air Force, which could call on it for fire missions.
Allow the Arsenal Ship to Go On Offense Too
By 1996, the Navy had a concept of operations for the missile barge. The ship’s many proposed armaments included a 155-mm gun, a strong supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, the Hawk surface-to-air missile, and a land-attack variant of the Navy’s Standard Missile.
That’s not all.
The Arsenal Ship would carry the Army’s ATACMS and the Navy’s Evolved Sea Sparrow for self-defense.
Now, keep in mind, those weapon systems would not all be deployed on an Arsenal Ship at the same time. “The stockpile of missiles deployed aboard the Navy’s future Arsenal Ship could be controlled by Army or Air Force officers depending on the mission,” according to a thesis written about the missile barge.
The Navy envisioned a crew of only 50 sailors. The service thought the Arsenal Ship was a bargain compared to the $4.5 billion cost of a Nimitz-class carrier and the $800 million price tag for an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.
ARABIAN SEA (Dec. 14, 2018) The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis transits the Arabian sea with the Essex Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU). The John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, Essex ARG, and 13th MEU are conducting integrated operations in the Arabian Sea to ensure stability in the Central Region, connecting the Mediterranean and the Pacific through the western Indian Ocean and three strategic choke points. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tyler Diffie)
DARPA and the Navy figured the missile barge could stay out to sea longer, with a rotating crew that could be swapped out from other ships in the carrier strike group. However, survivability was a concern. The Arsenal Ship, despite ample defense systems, lacked robust armor, which could leave it as something of a sitting duck.
By 1998, the Arsenal Ship’s proponents lost out to its critics. It was just not seen as a needed platform when existing guided-missile frigates and destroyers could do the same job. Submarines were seen as more survivable and able to launch just as many Tomahawk cruise missiles.
Congress was suspicious of the joint nature of the missile barge, and it was hard to determine which service would ultimately be responsible for it in combat. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill decided not to fund it.
The Bottom Line
The Arsenal Ship was an intriguing concept, though. Its firepower was immense. The small crew and the ship’s interoperability with other military services would be valuable.
The Navy’s newest and most technologically advanced warship, USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000), is moored to the pier during a commissioning ceremony at North Locust Point in Baltimore. (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Nathan Laird/Released)
It showed that DARPA and the Navy were thinking deeply about the future of what I call the “Kinetic Missile Fight” that could happen any day now against the Chinese.
Perhaps the Department of Defense should grant the Arsenal Ship concept another review—perhaps incorporating some of its features onto other ships.
About the Author: Brent M. Eastwood
Author of now over 3,000 articles on defense issues, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for US Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former US Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
