The latest german adaptacion of their 155SPG.
They must be in quite the rush! Not even enough time to swap out the camo paint scheme!
The latest german adaptacion of their 155SPG.
No it will be GPS aimed, guidance applies only to those munitions that can actually correct their course. And even that wouldn't have done much good at Omaha since most of the radios were lost.In the future artillery will be GPS guided.
I would like to see if it is possible for monitors to be used for this as they are far cheaper and simpler to build and operate than Battleships
I would say a Zumwalt or arsenal ship is the closest thing to a monitor, but that doesnt exactly seem like what your asking for.
I remain unconvinced, because basically you've just tripled the cost of the round, and thus removed any concept of it being a price advantage. You might as well fit a motor to the things and launch them from aircraft, or alternatively from a converted landing craft (and a tank landing craft could also be equipped with up to 6-inch guns).
One of the ideas I came up with when I was not quite in my right mind was to use one of those amphibious recovery ships that sink underneath another ship and then rise up, to transport the thing to the target zoneHow are you going to get them to where they need to be? "Monitors," as such, are generally of low freeboard and limited steaming range, due to their purpose as coastal and riverine defense platforms. Seaworthiness compared to other classes of vessels is limited, at best. If naval gun firepower is so important, a plain old cruiser, destroyer or BB would be a superior platform.
How are you going to get them to where they need to be? "Monitors," as such, are generally of low freeboard and limited steaming range, due to their purpose as coastal and riverine defense platforms.
In China's defense, any monitors they have would probably be within range of land based aviation.Except that Monitors require you having air superiority, which means you need carriers, which means you can already hit the enemy pretty effectively, more effectively than you can with a big gun anyway. Really, a monitor of the type you're imagining is just a slow, lightly armoured battleship, with all the attendant issues that brings.
One of the ideas I came up with when I was not quite in my right mind was to use one of those amphibious recovery ships that sink underneath another ship and then rise up, to transport the thing to the target zone
Did not care about superiority only cost, that is what would matter to congress
That certainly is the definition of most of the Great War and Second World War monitors.
Well I originally wanted 16" and waterborne, for situations where Congress won't let you have boots on the ground and you want to hit the other side on the cheap, with 16" accuracy matters less than usualWhy not just go with self-propelled artillery? I bet for under 10 million USD a unit, you could build a 10" or 12" self-propelled artillery. It can be quickly shipped to the theater on transport ships, and landed with an LST or like vehicle. The crew for the gun is probably under 25, or maybe even under 10 with automation.
I would wager than any "cheap" monitor would cost over 250 million.
Well I originally wanted 16" and waterborne, for situations where Congress won't let you have boots on the ground and you want to hit the other side on the cheap, with 16" accuracy matters less than usual
And its still cheaper than an LCS
I remain unconvinced, because basically you've just tripled the cost of the round, and thus removed any concept of it being a price advantage. You might as well fit a motor to the things and launch them from aircraft, or alternatively from a converted landing craft (and a tank landing craft could also be equipped with up to 6-inch guns).
It is; and if the class is imagined with sufficiently improved capabilities to overcome those limits, then it really ceases to be a monitor at all.
Now count the cost of getting a gun to within 30 miles of an enemy city, and probably an inland one at that. Check it up against the price of some of the M270's rockets and get back to me.A Tomahawk Missile cost $1.5 million per shot as opposed to $50,000 for Excalibur.
Actually, the definition of a 'monitor' according to wikipedia is:Really the definition of a monitor is pretty flexible and there is a wide variety of warships and gunboats that will fall within its scope. A monitor itself is a type of coastal defence ship, tho the larger monitors being built by the Union at the end of the ACW were clearly seagoing warships.
Now count the cost of getting a gun to within 30 miles of an enemy city, and probably an inland one at that. Check it up against the price of some of the M270's rockets and get back to me.
MattII said:Actually, the definition of a 'monitor' according to wikipedia is:
"A monitor was a class of relatively small warship which was neither fast nor strongly armoured but carried disproportionately large guns."
Strict definition, but no comment on the size of the vessel in question.
Which means squat if you can't also find a price for the M-109.Can't find info on the rockets but the launcher costs $2.3 million.
An interesting article, but ultimately worthless, firstly, the ships have been scrapped, secondly, with the number of proposed modifications that are being proposed there it would probably be cheaper to design a battle-carrier based on a Nimitz/Ford hull. The fact that a battleship is heavily armoured doesn't mean it's invulnerable, a nuclear torpedo or bunker-buster bomb is probably still going to sink it.Yeah monitors in the traditional sense don't make much sense but BB-21 would be awesome.
Which means squat if you can't also find a price for the M-109.
the unit price of the M109L52 is only 15% to 30% of the PzH 2000
MattII said:An interesting article, but ultimately worthless, firstly, the ships have been scrapped, secondly, with the number of proposed modifications that are being proposed there it would probably be cheaper to design a battle-carrier based on a Nimitz/Ford hull. The fact that a battleship is heavily armoured doesn't mean it's invulnerable, a nuclear torpedo or bunker-buster bomb is probably still going to sink it.