Arsenal ship need to be large. That's the whole point of it. Small doesn't cut it. Even if you replace Kalibr with Zircon.
But hang on, if aircraft carriers are so damn vulnerable then a big huge container ship used as an arsenal ship would be rather more vulnerable without aircraft to protect it...
The purpose of an arsenal ship is to carry weapons needed and used in large numbers... it does not need to be huge and it does not need to be all on a single ship for obvious vulnerability reasons.
Smaller ones allow targets to be hit but armed ships like destroyers and cruisers and heavy frigates will still have their full compliment of weapons if they need them.
In many ways an arsenal ship is like a rocket artillery battery... it drives up... launches an attack from max range and then moves away and then quietly reloads and does it again from somewhere else.
It no more needs to be one ship as rocket artillery needs to be on one vehicle.
Having multiple ships would allow a mix of weapon types and more flexibility... having one really big ship means you have to use what is on top and work your way down through them.
You would also have little choice but to dump used containers to allow the ones below to be used... which is probably more expensive than having a single layer on a smaller ship that can be taken back and swapped for full containers.
It this case the containers could be Smerch rockets and Grad rockets for pounding the hell out of the beach and surrounds... it could then sail back to its support ship and swap those containers for IFVs with troops on board to land and once it has released those over the side close to shore it can head back and get a couple of Coalition vehicles and maybe a TOR system to sit on the deck and provide local air defence and long range artillery using guided shells...
But you have to "impress" your enemies with their "my button is bigger" attitude - so size does matter
Size matters with armed ships like Cruisers and Destroyers and Frigates and even Corvettes, but for support vessels like this not so much... it is sort of like using Hinds and Hips to land small groups of troops instead of Halos with hundreds at a time getting on or off.
With the Hind or Hip you land and people get on board and you fly away... the Hip carries more but has a huge rear door as well as side doors so getting in and getting out happens faster which makes it better... it can carry more troops which means you don't need as many which also makes it better... but while the Halo is bigger and has multiple entry/exit options like the Hip it is too big and takes too long to load and unload to be used under fire and it is a huge target of course.
It seems that west can´t do anything wrong.
Yeah, I know... the 9mm Makarov pistol cartridge is 9x18mm while the western Parabellum round is 9x19mm and you would think the Makarov round is a cap gun and the western round is a magnum, but in other rounds like the 7.62 x 54mm rifle round vs 7.62 x 51mm the 3mm and larger case size is meaningless it seems, and the same for heavy machine guns where the 12.7 x 99mm browning HMG round is equal to the Soviet 12.7 x 108mm round despite almost a centimetre difference in case length... of course there is no ambiguity with the 14.5 x 114mm HMG rounds...
The third time, it was a Costal Guard admiral
It is nice to hear rational voices occasionally on that side.... General Michael Jackson springs to mind in Kosovo, telling his American boss that he had no intention of starting WWIII...