Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
You don't want sabot shells on your battleship. I mean, you can use HE sabot shells for artillery support, but it just isn't going to have the same kind of impact as a 16" shell. At which point again, you might as well be using a cruiser or destroyer with smaller guns anyway.
Also, according to my sources, the Mk 148 sabot shell was 13", not 11".

Incorrect, because that 8 inch cruiser gun is not going to go as far. One of the things about a sabot round is that it increases muzzle velocity. A 300kg 11" HE shell typically didn't get beyond 35km (based on the German 28 cm/52 (11") SK C/28). As a sabot round from a 16" gun it seems to approach twice that.


The picture above is not the MK 148 but rather the round developed by Indian Head in the 1960's that was tested with HARPs 16" guns at Barbados and Yuma. The MK 148 also used a different type of sabot.

No, it is not going to go as far. But both aren't going very far in the first place. So if you are already putting yourself within range of enemy aircraft and missiles, you may as well do it with a platform that you can actually afford to lose.

At a billion dollars a pop for an Arleigh Burke, I don't think America can really afford to lose any...

At any rate, with muzzle brakes you can probably mount good heavy naval artillery to support amphibious landings on quite a bit smaller ship than the old WWII battleships. And having one or two of those in the inventory (especially if they get rid of the USELESS Littoral "Combat" Ships we pay far too much for) we'll have plenty of missile boats for long-range bombardment to back them up.

It's called a monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The Silkworms fired at Mo ran into issues with Chaff too.

Which is a comforting thought if you ever have to go up against 1960s anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately it's 2018 now, and countries still dependent on such obsolete weapons are little more than bombing ranges to train our pilots on.

Cold - but true.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's called a monitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(warship)

The issues with what you and Vulcan are suggesting are... many, but the biggest is that Monitors have traditionally run into serious issues with speed, seakeeping,etc. Someone once compared monitors to a fully armored knight riding a donkey. It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship. The US Missisippi class is a good example of how making smaller battleships can be bad. It's performance was SO poor that it became the only entire CLASS of battleships to be put on the auction block,virtually brand new.

Where monitors have historically performed well is riverine operations. Even ones that went poorly like operations around Archangel fighting alongside the White Russians they still had a positive impact.

I would expect we've learned a thing or two since the Mississippi class....

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.

Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.

Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.

Vulcan wrote:I would expect we've learned a thing or two since the Mississippi class....

Yes, one would expect that.... but the US tossed out everything they learned about shipbuilding since 1905 and are trying to create ships that dissolve in sea water, use tumblehome hulls, and all sorts of other highly obvious mistakes.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.

Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.

The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.

And? What exactly is this speed necessary for on an (effectively) stationary bombardment platform? How does being limited to 12kts limits its ability to fill the shore bombardment role?

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The most modern monitor produced was the Roberts class (IIRC), which managed a whopping 12 knts. The First modern battleship, HMS Dreadnought, managed 21 knts, in 1906.

Let me put it this way: she'd be outrun by the US Navy of the 1840's as well as the USN of the 1940's.

And? What exactly is this speed necessary for on an (effectively) stationary bombardment platform? How does being limited to 12kts limits its ability to fill the shore bombardment role?

You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.

Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.

Agiel wrote:
A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.

Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.

Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

What kind of enemy would you expect to need such artillery support for? The kind of enemy that hides in coastal bunkers and doesn't have anti-ship missiles? This isn't WW2 anymore. Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It just can't keep up, even with a similarly armed battleship.

Why does it need to? The sole purpose of this thing would be sitting off the coast firing cheap artillery at ground targets until the invasion force can bring ground-based artillery ashore and get it operational. It just has to move enough that counter-battery fire doesn't automatically hit and sink it.

And speed isn't really a factor in modern surface combat anymore, at least not tactically. There's a reason out modern DDGs are slower then a lot of WWII DDs. Hell even the OHPs get just over 30Kn. Our old Fletchers went 36 Kn. And the IJN got the Shimakze at ~41 Kn, and the French had some in excess of 35 Kn back in the 30s.
00s.

Speed is still important. Speed translates to a massive strategic advantage, which in turn translates to tactical advantages. Modern ships aren't that much slower all around than ships back in WW2, while have gotten a lot heavier (that OHP for example weighs twice as much as an old Fletcher, despite the OHP being merely a frigate while the Fletcher was a destroyer). Their top speeds may be less, indeed because with the introduction of guided missiles, those few extra knots won't make any difference on a tactical level, but the cruising speed is still the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You want it to get there before the war ends, right? Because it does not just appear on site, you have to get it there.

That was ACTUALLY AN ISSUE with the HMS Abercombie, a Roberts class monitor,.

Let me try this: 12 knts is about 13 miles an hour. I'm literally faster on my bicycle than these things are.

Please outline a realistic scenario for a war where gun-armed ships are useful at all and a ship moving at half the speed of the rest of the fleet can't get there in time. Please remember that shore bombardment assets are not relevant in a defensive war, and the invasion troops that are required to make shore bombardment relevant in an offensive war will take a lot of time to organize and deliver.

It's a basic question of fleet cohesion. Your fleet can only move as fast the slowest ship in it. If your gun platform only moves at a handful of knots, you're reduced to three choices.

(i) Your gun platform has to function in a solo capacity. With the advent of airpower and quieter submersibles, this isn't really an option for any ship of any real value or worth.
(ii) You don't have a gun platform and leave port without it.
(iii) Your entire fleet now has to crawl along excessively slowly. This makes it easier to predict location, strike it with missiles and torpedoes, cripples movements when under attack, lengthens deployment time excessively, and so on.

It would be better not to have a gun platform than attempt to place a monitor in a modern fleet. Monitors are for port defence, striking at other ports within short range of the home one, going up rivers where larger ships with equivalent armament can't go, or finally, shore bombardment in a scenario where control of the local sea and sky is already a foregone conclusion (enabling it to operate independently).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.

And yet for some reason, he thinks that battleships will automatically lose due to range differences with missiles. Yet the things the Shilka will win despite range differences with missiles.

Please pick one.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.

On the first point: actually a lot of places have heavy beach defenses that would need taken out WHILE the aircraft are busy securing and ensuring that air superiority and disrupting C&C. You only have SO many aircraft and there are many, many targets.

Depends what you mean by 'further inland'. A country with a lot of objectives along the coast, and a battleship is going to be hitting your home runs, and be able to provide almost continuous fire support. If doesn't have to loiter over the battlefield, and no amount of chaff, flares, or EWAR is going to divert that projectile from it's course. As a warship in the South China sea conducting FONOPs it's ideal, for support, or even just harassment, off North Korea, again, ideal.

And, why not, they train, equip, and pay men, and infantry has been out of date as a concept since the time of the pharaohs. Just because an idea is old, does not mean it's inferior. Just ask Ma Duce.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.

And yet for some reason, he thinks that battleships will automatically lose due to range differences with missiles. Yet the things the Shilka will win despite range differences with missiles.

Please pick one.

Are you seriously implying naval and aerial combat are the same thing? I had expected better. The crucial differences are of course in the low amount of missiles carried by an aircraft vs the many missiles carried by larger warships, the difficulty of detecting an AA gun on land vs the ease of detecting a large ship at sea, and of course the fact that a light aircraft is hell of a lot more vulnerable than a large warship. In ideal circumstances, an aircraft with anti-radiation missiles will win a confrontation with an AA gun all the time due to the difference in range. But if that aircraft is on a CAS mission and unexpectedly runs into a previously undetected AA gun (or even a heavy machine gun, light aircraft are vulnerable) it is going to be in big trouble. That is why dedicated CAS aircraft have heavy armour. To survive unexpected encounters like that (who are going to happen, even with great intelligence) and still come out on top. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Aircraft can handle any targets ahead of an invasion, and if they are in a situation where they can't than you are fighting either the US, Russia or China and those are not the kind of places you should be thinking about invading at all.
Artillery shells may be cheaper than missiles or bombs, but a ship-based platform can't hit targets further inland so you are going to be deploying those aircraft anyway, and since you are already deploying them anyway it is cheaper to let them handle coastal targets as well rather than design, build, crew, arm, supply, maintain, deploy and protect a special platform for that niche task only.

On the first point: actually a lot of places have heavy beach defenses that would need taken out WHILE the aircraft are busy securing and ensuring that air superiority and disrupting C&C. You only have SO many aircraft and there are many, many targets.

Depends what you mean by 'further inland'. A country with a lot of objectives along the coast, and a battleship is going to be hitting your home runs, and be able to provide almost continuous fire support. If doesn't have to loiter over the battlefield, and no amount of chaff, flares, or EWAR is going to divert that projectile from it's course. As a warship in the South China sea conducting FONOPs it's ideal, for support, or even just harassment, off North Korea, again, ideal.

And, why not, they train, equip, and pay men, and infantry has been out of date as a concept since the time of the pharaohs. Just because an idea is old, does not mean it's inferior. Just ask Ma Duce.

It is way too expensive for that. You don't need a freaking battleship to run one of those silly FONOPs or to harass North Korea. The Navy and Airforce have dedicated aircraft to fulfill the air superiority role, leaving other aircraft free to engage ground targets. Also, you secure aerial superiority before an invasion, not during, so you have all the time you need to hit your targets. The invasion should only go ahead when all enemy threats to the landing troops have been eliminated. We don't live in 1944 anymore where we expect infantry to carry out a suicide charge on a heavily fortified beach (against which, I may recall, naval artillery bombardments by battleships accomplished little, leaving even that last purported utility of a battleship in modern combat in question). Well, to be fair they did not expect that back in 1944 either, they tried very hard to eliminate threats to the landing troops beforehand, but they failed in many areas because of how ineffective artillery is in suppressing dug-in positions, and because of how inaccurate mid-20th century bomber aircraft were. Missiles and guided bombs have solved both of those problems.
And no, no place has beach defenses. At least not the kind you'd take out with an artillery bombardment. Those kind of static defenses became outdated with the advent of missile warfare, just like most static defenses. What is the use in spending a ton of money on a fortification that can be destroyed simply with a missile? Modern coastal defense systems are generally mobile (see the Japanese Type-88 or the Russian K-300 systems for example). Static defenses (like Utyos near Sevastopol) are few and far between and only located near ports. You don't need to construct a massively expensive battleship to deal with that.
Also, infantry is the backbone of any army, in our time just as much as in the time of the pharaohs. Infantry is anything but outdated. You simply can't hold ground without infantry.

Ah... the U.S. Navy got rid of it's last dedicated interceptor (the F-14) a few years back, and now makes do with multirole F/A-18s. For that matter, all the dedicated ground attack aircraft are gone too. It's just F/A-18s and, in the near future, the F-35s which are not dedicated air-superiority aircraft either. The F/A-18s are quite good dogfighters, the F-35s less so but they have stealth (until they load up a decent amount of munitions, anyway).

The problem being, every one of those you need to dedicate to air superiority is one less attack aircraft. If you need to repel a big air raid, there goes all air support until you get the aircraft back onboard and reloaded.

In contrast, a battleship is there to provide fire support 24/7 even if all the F/A-18s and F-35s are busy dealing with enemy air strikes.

While North Korea might have static shore defenses, that's certainly the only country crazy enough to do so. However, the wonderful thing about naval bombardment is that you aren't restricted to shooting at stationary targets any more than your traditional land-based artillery is. What naval bombardment does is - as has been stated already - provide artillery support for the infantry so they can secure the ground for their own artillery.

Thinking about it, you probably don't need a full-bore battleship with 16" guns anymore. The ground troops make do with modern 150mm and 200mm guns (6-8") that have nearly as long a range as the old 16"ers. A ship in the heavy cruiser range would do just as well. Quite a bit cheaper, certainly won't be any slower than the fleet speed. The Pentagon may be a pack of idiots at times, but they already know how to build a heavy cruiser...

In the meantime, the other ships of the fleet can do what they were designed for, and indeed newer missile ships can dispense with the less-effective 5" and 3" guns in favor of a larger missile load. Specialization works wonders, after all...

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That is why dedicated CAS aircraft have heavy armour. To survive unexpected encounters like that (who are going to happen, even with great intelligence) and still come out on top. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.

Aye, kind of like Count von Rosen and his "Biafra babies", volunteers flying small trainer aircraft with some rocket launchers bolted on against the Nigerians. Biafra had nothing else, and Nigeria (while having to hire merc pilots) at least had some Mig-17s until they were blown up on the ground by those trainers with rockets. Biafra predictably lost the war but none of their five little aircraft. ;-)

That was back in 1969, against an opponent that had little AA capacity beyond infantry filling the air with lead from their rifles. One imagines it wouldn't work as well today.

 Vulcan wrote:
Ah... the U.S. Navy got rid of it's last dedicated interceptor (the F-14) a few years back, and now makes do with multirole F/A-18s. For that matter, all the dedicated ground attack aircraft are gone too. It's just F/A-18s and, in the near future, the F-35s which are not dedicated air-superiority aircraft either. The F/A-18s are quite good dogfighters, the F-35s less so but they have stealth (until they load up a decent amount of munitions, anyway).

The problem being, every one of those you need to dedicate to air superiority is one less attack aircraft. If you need to repel a big air raid, there goes all air support until you get the aircraft back onboard and reloaded.

In contrast, a battleship is there to provide fire support 24/7 even if all the F/A-18s and F-35s are busy dealing with enemy air strikes.

While North Korea might have static shore defenses, that's certainly the only country crazy enough to do so. However, the wonderful thing about naval bombardment is that you aren't restricted to shooting at stationary targets any more than your traditional land-based artillery is. What naval bombardment does is - as has been stated already - provide artillery support for the infantry so they can secure the ground for their own artillery.

Thinking about it, you probably don't need a full-bore battleship with 16" guns anymore. The ground troops make do with modern 150mm and 200mm guns (6-8") that have nearly as long a range as the old 16"ers. A ship in the heavy cruiser range would do just as well. Quite a bit cheaper, certainly won't be any slower than the fleet speed. The Pentagon may be a pack of idiots at times, but they already know how to build a heavy cruiser...

In the meantime, the other ships of the fleet can do what they were designed for, and indeed newer missile ships can dispense with the less-effective 5" and 3" guns in favor of a larger missile load. Specialization works wonders, after all...

Interceptors are not air superiority fighters. Interceptors have a different role entirely, which is that of defending against incoming hostile aircraft, especially bombers. To this end, they are light aircraft with short range but very high speed. Air superiority fighters meanwhile are designed to enter hostile airspace and wrest away control over it. They are heavy aircraft, sacrificing speed for range, maneuverability and lots of weapons. Dedicating aircraft to air superiority duty is not such a big drain, since pure air superiority fighters aren't as good at attacking ground targets anyway, because they lack the armour and defensive countermeasures that ground attack aircraft have (they may also not be able to mount the needed weapons). Now many, if not most modern aircraft are multirole, and the distinction between interceptor, fighter and bomber has blurred, but that still does not lead to problems in availability since these different missions usually take place at different times during an operation. You have to secure air superiority first before you can effectively attack other ground targets (or you risk losing most of your air force). Meaning that by the time you start attacking secondary targets such as anti-ship missiles and artillery batteries, most of the aircraft that were on air superiority duty have finished their missions and are available again. These threats need to be taken out before you can send in a battleship (or else it will be sunk by a hail of anti-ship missiles and artillery shells), meaning that by the time the battleship gets into the fray, there is actually little left for it to shoot at. And because of that, you indeed do not need a battleship, but can make do with cruisers and destroyers to provide further support for the landing troops.
Also, you really want to have aircraft to deal with highly mobile threats such as self-propelled artillery batteries and mobile missile launchers. Using artillery is relatively ineffective since these targets will relocate when detected, meaning that by the time the shells hit the ground, the target is likely to be already gone. And if it is a really expensive battleship with a massive crew that you are risking because maybe those anti-ship missiles got away, you really don't want that kind of uncertainty. That is why aircraft are so commonly used to suppress mobile enemy defences (well, there is more reasons, but this one of them).

North Korea probably has static shore defenses, but that is a unique case since their entire country is basically stuck forever in the 1950's.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Agiel wrote:
A useful video to help inform the CAS debate:

Light propeller aircraft? Shilkas across the world are going to have a field day if those ever return to military service outside of training purposes.

The whole point is to operate in areas with little to no anti air threat (the places where we use out A-10s these days). You don't need that much defense against a few guys with AKs.

Speed is still important. Speed translates to a massive strategic advantage, which in turn translates to tactical advantages. Modern ships aren't that much slower all around than ships back in WW2, while have gotten a lot heavier (that OHP for example weighs twice as much as an old Fletcher, despite the OHP being merely a frigate while the Fletcher was a destroyer). Their top speeds may be less, indeed because with the introduction of guided missiles, those few extra knots won't make any difference on a tactical level, but the cruising speed is still the same.

Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
. It is also why sending a really light aircraft on a CAS mission is a really stupid idea that is generally only done in cases where a military doesn't have any better planes available.

Really? Because it's been fairly effective for at least 15 years now. The Super Tucano has, as an example, been in service since 2003 in some airforces. I'm sure you'll arrogantly dismiss them as idiots and amateurs, but it does actually work. In fact, several mercenary groups, including Blackwater, have made a point to acquire them. The USAF has been playing with the idea of buying some since 2008. They've been increasing in popularity in warzones where cost is an issue ever since they melted the faces of some Shilka's that Russia has NO IDEA how they fell in to the hands of FARC terrorists in Colombia. Clearly the armor just washed up on the beach one day along with the rest of their gear.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
.
The Navy and Airforce have dedicated aircraft to fulfill the air superiority role, leaving other aircraft free to engage ground targets.

Actually almost everything they have has been converted to multi-role if it was not that to begin with. Particularly in the Navy. Please point me to something that is still currently an air superiority fighter besides a rapidly diminishing number of unconverted F-15's, since F-22s are in such small numbers they're nearly irrelevant.

And when done properly air superiority is seized an hour or two before the invasion, since you want as little time for them to prepare as possible. Usually your runways and SAM sites exploding is a big tip off that something is up. If you also have ot knock out 50k artillery sites, then you're stretching your supply of aircraft rather thin.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Sure, that's the whole point, all they really need to do is stay at cruising speed, they don't need that extra speed to maneuver.

The problem is again that a monitor's cruising speed makes horse and buggy look swift. Think the bad old days before clipper ships. (or sails, for that matter, a trireme could run these down... and now for some reason the image of Kim Jung Un beating a drum as slaves man the oars is stuck in my head) Six months from San Diego to Tokyo. Are you getting the idea yet? and that's for the monitors that were built for WW2, not the ancient coal plants of yore like HMAS Cerberus..

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Six months from San Diego to Tokyo.

Who cares? Getting any kind of invasion force together is going to take a lot of time, giving the monitors a head start, and wars don't usually happen out of nowhere. If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action. Nobody is deciding "hey, let's have a war with North Korea this week" out of nowhere.

If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.

The argument is that a ship with a heavy gun armament could be useful for supporting a beach assault type of operation.

Modern ships tend to have one, or maybe two, four- to six-inch calibre guns. They are rapid firing but the shells are relatively light.

It seems fairly obvious that a few "micro battle ships" with four 8-inch guns each, would be useful for attacking dug-in defenders in that kind of situation.

The trick would be not to make them hyper-expensive, which seems to be a problem for the US armed forces.

To go off on a tangent, the UK's Queen Elizabeth carrier is off to the US to collect its first batch of F-35 aircraft.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nobody is deciding "hey, let's have a war with North Korea this week" out of nowhere.

Well, you say that....

 Peregrine wrote:
If things are getting to a point where war looks likely the warships (along with other assets) are going to be deployed to the region to minimize delays in getting into action.

Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them? WW1? Spanish American war? Let's say that War looks likely and they do that. The war would have broken out, and possibly be over, before the monitor ever gets there. You really seem to not understand how slow these things are.

Pick up your sofa and walk across the living room, and you'll probably outrun a monitor traveling the same distance at cruising speed. It takes them YEARS to get places. Even newer ones.

And you'll have spent vastly more money getting it there than a battleship would ever use, since it would take a tag team of oilers to keep it moving forward.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you wanted to build a modern monitor ship, you could build it with fast engines.

Kill, I'm not even sure where to start.

Monitors, in the modern sense, sacrifice fuel storage, speed, room for supplies, and sea worthiness, to carry the weapons, munitions and armor required. For the monitor to be small, the engines must be small. Once you start talking 30+knts you're talking a battleship, because the engines to push the monitor's mass are over four stories high themselves, on their own. Effectively, for a monitor to keep up, you've converted it from a good monitor to a bad battleship.

Hmmm... looks like the Vietnam era brown water monitors were retrofit from landing craft- and the Marines Wasp vessels can carry 3 LCACs, which are 87 feet long, as opposed to the Vietnam monitor which had a 40 mm gun.

How big of a gun could someone cram onto an 80 foot long parasite monitor, intended to be deployed from a Wasp carrier to support a landing? Looks like they squeezed an 8inch 55 caliber onto the DD Hull, at 400 feet, but it had a host of secondary weapons. If one only wanted a mobile vessel with a long ranged primary- could it be done?

Carry 3 of those into range of the combat zone, plaster the landing area, if not needed, leave them home and bring more landing craft.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Hmmm... looks like the Vietnam era brown water monitors were retrofit from landing craft- and the Marines Wasp vessels can carry 3 LCACs, which are 87 feet long, as opposed to the Vietnam monitor which had a 40 mm gun.

Riverine monitors are effectively unarmored and the biggest weapon IIRC they carried was a 105mm howitzer, which is way too small.

Peregine, when was the last time that the US spent more than a month planning and prepping for a war before it was already on them?

For a much more recent example the planning and preparation for Operation Desert Storm certainly took longer than that, the US led coalition took around 6 months getting troops into the region. I'd also be amazed if there weren't some pretty advanced preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom that hadn't been made years before the 2003 invasion.

Ah, gotcha. thanks for the clarification!