AHC Modern Monitor

In the future artillery will be GPS guided.
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.
 
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

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. 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.

Added to which, missiles and aircraft would outclass monitors in range, accuracy and payload, and you only need one pilot for most aircraft these days. Even a big ole B52 has a crew of only 5, I think.
 
Several of the proposed LFS (amphibious fire support ship) studies conducted by the USN in the 1960s and 70s would fill the category of 8" armed monitor quite nicely.
 
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).
 
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. 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.
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
 
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.

That certainly is the definition of most of the Great War and Second World War monitors.
 
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.
In China's defense, any monitors they have would probably be within range of land based aviation.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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

Why 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.
 
Why 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
 
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

The best bet IMO is to have the ship built as a school platform. When I was an instructer, we had a hard time conducting live fire shoots from the school thanks to civilian housing being built up around the base, so a lot of the trainees didn't get their first taste of what it sounds and feels like having the guns going off until they went on their first shipboard deployment. Plus really big guns need more area for shoots which most shorebased schools can no longer accomadate. So a short ranged mobile platform would be an excellant way to continue live fire training without the hassles of operating close to civilian areas. Doesn't have to be super seaworthy as it wouldn't normally operate far from the school area.

However should the Marines or other need the guns for operations elsewhere, it could be redeployed aboard a heavy lift vessel like those used to move oilrigs.
 
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).

A Tomahawk Missile cost $1.5 million per shot as opposed to $50,000 for Excalibur.
 
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.

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.

I could see the US, at least, building an amphibious support ship, as mentioned earlier, with its primary weapon being the quick-firing 8in gun or two. It would serve to be an 'area control' ship providing helicopter support and extensive AA defenses for the landing forces. It would serve closer to shore than usual cruisers and destroyers, probably as a command ship until forces breakout of their beach heads. Its speed would be comparable to most ships in the fleet.
 
A Tomahawk Missile cost $1.5 million per shot as opposed to $50,000 for Excalibur.
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.

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.
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.
 
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.

Can't find info on the rockets but the launcher costs $2.3 million.

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.

Yeah monitors in the traditional sense don't make much sense but BB-21 would be awesome.
 
Can't find info on the rockets but the launcher costs $2.3 million.
Which means squat if you can't also find a price for the M-109.

Yeah monitors in the traditional sense don't make much sense but BB-21 would be awesome.
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.
 
Which means squat if you can't also find a price for the M-109.

Couldn't find the exact price but did find this

the unit price of the M109L52 is only 15% to 30% of the PzH 2000

From the wiki article

Wiki gives the PzH 2000 a unit price of $4.5 million. Which puts the M109 between $665,000-$1.35 million

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.

Well the Iowa's haven't been scrapped, but yes a new design would be necessary. Probably wouldn't need a nuke just a conventional torpedo would do I doubt an aircraft large enough to carry a bunker buster could make it close enough to a USN capital ship.
 
Top