If the navy wants to be able to do shore bombardment why dont they just build moniter ships?>inb4 zumwaltsDont count, bullshit guns with bullshit nonexistent ammoCould small ships with conventual large caliber guns purely built for shore bombardment ever make a return?Or does the fact that even the highest caliber ship guns had ranges less that 30 miles kill this idea in the modern day?
>>65434621what would you shoot with the guns and how would this help win the conflict? does anyone even do conventional coastal defenses like the old days for monitors to be relevant?from what i gather the hormuz thing is done by light mobile drone launchers, sea drones, mines, and AShMs. not fixed defensive emplacements that can be worn down by pounding them with 16" shellfire.sorry to say bud, but the zumies are probably the closest you are going to get to the concept being executed today because they have standard missiles and helicopters and other shit that can actually prosecute targets if they are found and have loads of survivability features baked in that a traditional big-gun monitor would not.
>>65434763>from what i gather the hormuz thing is done by light mobile drone launchers, sea drones, mines, and AShMs. not fixed defensive emplacements that can be worn down by pounding them with 16" shellfire.the problem is that iran spent like 4 decades building tunnels inside mountain ranges and then filling them with fanatics who don't care if anyone outside the tunnel dies in an air campaign, and then giving them missiles.
>>65434770let's be real here, it isn't very difficult to fuck up a commercial ship and some brave martyrs on jetskis with RPG-7s could easily close the strait. it doesn't matter if the jetski was stored a mile away in an elaborate tunnel complex or 100 miles away in a tin shed. they can be rapidly deployed from either location. the closure is happening because no shipping company wants to risk their multimillion dollar vessel and it's cargo in an active warzone where it can get fucked up. it is too risky.building navy vessels that can wade into that shit and clear a beachhead or whatever doesn't fix the problem. the ask is to remove all credible threats to big slow vulnerable supertankers in enclosed waters. ergo, big gun monitors don't work here either.
>>65434621why don't they just make like a bunch of USVs with artillery guns and send them in?>no crew so no casualties if they get sunk>dont need armor since who cares if they get sunk>dirt cheap since you can make them out of cardboard or something>AI or something fucking I dont knowPete, call me and give me millions
>>65434621If anything a small ship with a shit load of machine guns, auto cannons and Anti air missiles would be a better modern interpretation of monitor ships since its easier to knock the drones and suicide boats out than chase individual launchers across the desert.I believe AA spam is the name of the game until you can take out the launchers for as cheap as they make them.
>>65434621Nah what we want is a return of the Atlanta class. Just stick a shitload of 5 inch guns on a ship and throw 5 inch VT fuses at everything in a 12ish mile radius
>>65434763>what would you shoot with the guns and how would this help win the conflict?I was talking more generally in future and not about the current iran conflict.Say if you where conducting a land invasion with a near peer and using your navy for support, basically chinas plan for taiwan.Having some form of ship based heavy artillery to shell defending land forces cant hurt the situation>but the zumiesThe problem with the zumies is they gave them fancy guns and then never made any ammo for them because it was too expensive. But what if they just put a 16 inch gun on it instead?A modern moniter would probably just be somewhat standard destroyer but with a small battleship turret jammed into it
>>65434939Range is far too short. Why not just pretend they exist then use AI so you can see your dream do what you program in any game setting you prefer?Fetish objects no longer need to exist in meatspace where the only pleasure got from them is audio-visual.
>>65434951>if you where conducting a land invasion with a near peer and using your navy for supportthat's what the LHD/LHA/LPHs are for, hoss.>Having some form of ship based heavy artillery to shell defending land forces cant hurt the situationor we can just use our air superiority (which is a requirement anyways) to hit them with bombs as we have for 80-odd years.
>>65434822the closure is happening because the Navy has no armored cruisers/coastal defense ships to physically station themselves between the shipping channel & hostile shoresIt's not RPG's that are crippling the commercial ships...
>>65435024>or we can just use our air superiority (which is a requirement anyways) to hit them with bombs as we have for 80-odd years.You know what else they where doing for most of that time? Draging the Iowas around to shell shit.
>>65435055nope. you got it backwards. the fast battleships escorted the carriers. the IA/SD/NCs spent the pacific war as glorified AA mounts for the most part and rarely were used in the shore bombardment role.that was mainly done by the old standards because, well, that was pretty much the only thing they could do. but even then a significant portion of that was handled by the jeep carriers because they could hit beyond the range of naval gunfire.if you want to talk iowas being used for shore bombardment that was a korea/vietnam/desertstorm thing, not really a WW2 thing, and they weren't used to bombard enemy beaches during opposed landings. not even for the battle of inchon.
THUNDER CHILD
>>65435090If you look up what kind of ship Thunder Child was its refered to as a torpedo ram which is an even more obscure type of ship.
>>65435086They were used for shore bombardment in Europe. Texas and Nevada were at D-Day as was Warspite and I'm sure many less well known ships too.
>>65434770Muh tunnels cope again. What is it with the US military and blaming enemy tunnels for their own incompetence? I've seen these James-Bond villian esque tunnels excuse since the first Gulf War. There's the infamous Osama under the mountain hideout infographics too. Iran knew they will never match American military conventionally one to one. So they dispersed their assets and military factories. There's no secret high tech Thunderbirds underground lair.
>>65434621Wasn't that kind of what the Independence-class LCS would had been able to do had the module actually been made? Use stealth to get up close, shoot, and scoot.
>>65435116>torpedo ramit was a different time
>>65434953Your response is unintelligent.
>>65435125no, they fucking were not. read what i actually wrote you retarded ESL nigger.>the fast battleships escorted the carriers.>[shore bombardment] was mainly done by the old standardsplease point to me on a map where the US Navy used their fast battleships (namely the iowas since you brought it up) to bombard europe or concede the goddamn point.
any austro-hungarian monitors?
>>65435032And what exactly are those armored cruisers/coastal defense ships going to do when Iran just randomly lobs a ballistic missile or Shasneed over them? The condition demanded is "no munitions being lobbed in a general direction that has even the slightest chance of hitting a ship". The only way you're ever goiog to achieve that is to glass the entirety of Iran.
It's the Abercrombie for methe earlier monitors are too bargey for my taste
>>65439192>And what exactly are those armored cruisers/coastal defense ships going to do when Iran just randomly lobs a ballistic missile or Shasneed over them?Shoot them down?
Sms Bodrog, the ship that fired the first shots of ww1, at beograd.now restored and moorded, at beograd.
>>65434621Because to outrange 80s missiles like Styxes and not turn the projectile into a shitty, expensive missile, you need a Gerard Bull meme gun.If you mount a meme gun, it's still outranged by modern missiles, and it turns your ship into a billion dollar unitasker that still gets raped by a mine.
>>65435128It's not their own incompetence. It's just that air forces worldwide are masters of sales and exaggerating their own effectiveness.
>>65439632Clearly not, since you don't need to be in between the launch site and the target to toss a few standards at a hostile missile. No, then solution here apparently hinged in physically placing the navy ship in front of the merchant vessel, so there must be something else to it. Most likely something monumentally stupid.
>>65434621>If the navy wants to be able to do shore bombardmentDo they? How does this help in the straight of Hormuz? They're at high risk against longer ranged drones and missiles. The shores they would bombard are small docks and ramps with trailerable boats that can be hidden and launched everywhere.Russia or Ukraine? They get sunk by drones, missiles or USV/UUVs. Against China? By China against who?They're not competitive in any theater.
>>65439658It's thinly-veiled thirdie cope, that's what it is. It's just a variation of the "it's not a blockade if your ships aren't actually in the strait" BS peddled by the IRGC a couple of months back.
>>65434621>>65439837I think the best way to do modern shore denial is with missile-distributed landmines.
Didn't the USMC abandon their tanks under the assumption they'd be getting direct fire support from naval vessels instead? I can't imagine a destroyer closing in to fire its guns unless it's already lost all of its missiles to attrition.
>>65435032Shore bombardments dont work, you still need men on the shore to actually secure it. and now the "shore" can effectively be hundreds of miles deep.
>>65441690when?
>>65441703It's not about shore bombardment, its about reaction time, detection, and point defense>>65439658Over the horizon interceptors are orders of magnitude more expensive than the drones they are being shot at... hence you lose the fight by defaulthence why hormuz is still closed despite the endless copium to the contrary
