old WW2 idea revisited all the pocket battleships were 11 inch but upgradeable to 15..... they had triple 11 inch turrets that "coincidentally" had the same barbette as the double 15 inch turrets on bismark and tirpitz.....
It doesn't mention that the MONARC project was a failure - the Pz2000 turret was totally unsuited to naval use and suffered many problems (serious damage from salt spray being one of them).
Not often that the Germans come up with a completely stupid idea, but this was definitely one of them.
@beastatlay perhaps they though that modular production instead of individual r&d would compensate for the shortcomings? after all, money makes the world go round. This system would maybe good enough to quick fit on semi civillian vessels in case of defense, or convoy protection. German frigates need no artillery anymore, theyre equipped with missiles.
As I said, it's wasn't successful due to damage from corrosion and damp, and is far too big an installation for civilian vessels. As for not needing a gun armament, that's what the Royal Navy thought in the 70s before the Falklands War reminded them of the need for shore bombardment (where the Leanders, Type 12s and old County class excelled, incidentally) and something for taking out auxiliaries, hence the reappearance of the 4.5" gun on the Type 22 Batch III frigates.
@beastatlay - i said "german frigates dont need..." you keep talking about royal navy. The difference to england is, the german army /navy/airmen - are by constitutional law bound to be used as defense. In the "defense" of germany is no need to shore bombardements. So that reason for turrets falls away.
Anyways there are still some destroyers with traditional cannons, and smaller boats with cannons, chainguns and the like. shooting before bow is difficult with rockets :)
who says you need direct fire all the time?isnt it better to engage enemy outside of his effective range? this reminds me of the MK71 8inch programme the USN had.they were going to refit the 5inch 54cal turrets in selected ships,like the SPURANCE class.and also iff long range guns are no good, then why did IVAN put twin 130mm guns on their SOVREMENNY class DESTROYERS? those things are good for 27km or so.
missiles are expensive, and even the most capacious ship does'nt carry many. the one main gun per ship plan, speaks to budget concerns as much as the greater accuracy of modern naval artillery.your opinion, aka 'doctrine', reminds me of the ENGLISH bigwigs from the 1950's,who claimed that the supremacy of early SAM systems, made combat aircraft obsolete. i would vote for two main gun's on any surface combat vessel bigger than a FRIGATE, every time.
Sure... Just tell me which system with gun is managing to hit the moving target 10 km away!? Do you see any of new ships with caliber gun more than 100 mm. Majority have 57 mm or 76 mm guns.
i went and did an old fashioned thing photosshop, i went and opened a book.within last 3 years and before 2013,there are 13 differant classes of FRIGATE and DESTROYER that have or will have one or two main guns 5inch(127mm) or BIGGER! and another 5 which will have 3.9inch(100mm) main guns.''HOBART' class,1x5inch 54cal,'ANZAC' class,1x5inch 54cal,'BARROSO' class,1x4.5inch,'LUZHOU' (type 051C)class,1x100mm,''JIANGWEI 2(type053H3)class, 1x100mm twin gun,'BADEN-WURTTEMBERG(type 125)class 1x5in 64cal
also, 'ANDREA DORIA' class 1x5inch 64ER gun,'ATAGO' class 1x5in54cal,TYPE 19DD 1x5inch62cal,'TAKANAMI' class 1x5inch54cal,'DE ZEVERN PROVINCIEN' class 1x5in54cal,'ADMIRAL GORSHKOV'(project 22350) 1x130mm A-192 gun,'ALARO DE BAZAN' class 1x5inch54cal,'DARING' class 1x4.5in(with provision for 155mm UPGRADE),'ZUMWALT'(DDG 1000)class 2x155mmADVANCED GUN SYSTEMS. YES, many navies are putting 57mm & 76mm guns on their ships. but not everyone! so BIG GUN NAVAL ARTILLERY will continue to have a place.
that is so cool, the german tradition of cutting edge innovation continues. can we forget about nazi shit?no but know this the german navy never bowed to hitler they didn't give him the " hitler salute" but instead the traditional imperial navy salute.Grand Admiral Karl Donitz knew he was crazy .German Navy ships were very elegant , such beautiful lines, too bad you were betrayed by nazi's.Graf Spee , Scheer , Deutchsland ,Gniesgenau , Tirpitz , Hipper Bismarck ,Lutzow , Emden.Prinz Eugen.rip
I believe the problem was the recoil forces are higher than the frigate can take. Interestingly, the 4.5 inch mount the Brits use can take a 6.1 inch howitzer and its recoil, firing rate is halved with the autoloader having to act twice to load the shell then the powder casing.
The recoil was not the problem but it seems that the corrosive nature of the sea was. Making the turret sea proof would had taken more money and reconfiguration than initially assumed.
At least the firing range test was a success.
The prototype Monarc gun fired a rocket propelled 155mm shell over a distance of 58 kilometers.
Thats about 18 km farer than even the giant 406 mm guns of the u.s Iowa class battleship can fire.
Maybe Monarc will at least become the basic layout for a completely new naval gun in the future. One that is designed as a naval gun right from the beginning. ;)
yea i actually have to agree with you, many weapons and equipment that the U.S. army uses are made by H&K of Germany. The 416 rifle was of their design.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stupid idea. Tank guns and naval guns work in completely different environments with completely different operational requirements. The idea that this plan can save money in the long run is absurd.
It's not a tank, it's a self propelled howitzer. Surly the difference between a naval gun and a howitzer is a matter of software, and even if they still require separate rounds, surly many new rounds such as the ERGM can be made common.
And yet, it still didn't work. The rampant boosterism reminds me of the Luft 46 crowd. If they could have just changed the laws of physics and aerodynamics, Kurt Tank's doodles would have won the war!! Uh huh. Sure. That said, this was a really good idea that didn't pan out. It's hard not to be a little smug when everyone was bashing US naval artillery and pointing to this, and well, we all see how it turned out. Be nice if they could get it to work though.
"It's hard not to be a little smug when everyone was bashing US naval artillery and pointing to this, and well, we all see how it turned out. Be nice if they could get it to work though."
Let´s be fair: It is hard to imagine anyone else committing such a veritable clusterfuck as the Zumwalt. That program is such a waste of dollars, no other navy could afford it.
I'm not sure how they're even vaguely analagous. One is supposed to be a low-end, low-cost replacement to solve the offshore gunnery scenario, the other is a bleeding edge ship where every component represents a revolution as opposed to an evolution in design. It's like comparing grapefruits and gasoline. And again, it would be nice if they could get it (the Zumwalt) to work.
The problem is that they will never get it to work. The entire design of the ship is so inherently fucked up, it won´t get completely seaworthy without pretty much building a new one based on a sane hull design.
You really think the tumblehome design is that flawed? I thought they tested a 1/5th scale model at various sea states already? But...it probably won't matter as we're going to buy like 3. Maybe. Back to the gun system though, the main issue was the turret ring iirc, not being designed to handle the stresses of the bigger gun. How about a newer hull? Or just as a test case, get an old hull and replace the turret ring to accomodate it for testing? Just to validate the concept.
I'm not so sure about that. They wanted it all through testing, right up until they realized that cramming that much bleeding edge tech on one platform meant it would cost a bloody fortune. Then Gene Taylor of Miss. offered them an out and a way to keep him happy with continued Burke production, and they tepidly accepted that. I've read the congressional reports, and they don't seem excited about anything. The real problem seems to be a lack of leadership.
Nah. Seriously, every naval expert can tell you the story. Some idiot decided to let the DDG-1000 be designed by experts in stealth technology and not by expert shipbuilders. The outcome was very stealthy. And would topple over and sink like a stone in any kind of rough weather. And that´s just the tip of the iceberg.
Seriously, as a practical naval platform, the Zumwalt is quite simply a POS. THe only thing it´s good for is as a testbed for new technology.
I actually had this whole design figured out so that it could be used with any working gun (fitted with a universal turret adapter) and connected to the ship's surface targeting radars. Two years ago. lol they got there a little faster than I did.
The project wasn´t cancelled !the ship (a frigate class 124, in this case called sachsen) it wasn´t build to carry a gun from haubitze 2000, the structure managed the weight but the ammunitionchambers are too small. that´s the problem
The F-125 will be equipped with a OTO Melara 127mm naval gun instead of the PZH turret. I doubt that it will be installed on the F-124 either so its as good as dead.
It's a destroyer called a frigate for PC reasons that mounts a cruiser-sized main gun. OK, that should about cover it. It's an awesome idea. If a tracked vehicle can make use of it, I'm sure several thousands tons of warship can!
This system will form the land attack capabilities of the new F125 frigates (together with an MLRS and RBS15 Mk. 3): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125
ughh it look suck
30sectodeath 2 months ago
old WW2 idea revisited all the pocket battleships were 11 inch but upgradeable to 15..... they had triple 11 inch turrets that "coincidentally" had the same barbette as the double 15 inch turrets on bismark and tirpitz.....
same shit different era but still good.
scumbucket218 1 year ago
sick a tankgun on a ship but why not
Watterpolo 1 year ago
like anythign else they just need to make adjustments to make it perfect
MrBritdog2 2 years ago
Dude - this was posted over three years ago. I also didn't mention three years ago that Senator Obama would be elected POTUS. I guess I am an idiot.
CDRSalamander 2 years ago
It was known for us more inteligent that this were from begining a total failure! The new stuff DONAR it is much better.
photosshop 2 years ago
It doesn't mention that the MONARC project was a failure - the Pz2000 turret was totally unsuited to naval use and suffered many problems (serious damage from salt spray being one of them).
Not often that the Germans come up with a completely stupid idea, but this was definitely one of them.
beastatlay 2 years ago
@beastatlay perhaps they though that modular production instead of individual r&d would compensate for the shortcomings? after all, money makes the world go round. This system would maybe good enough to quick fit on semi civillian vessels in case of defense, or convoy protection. German frigates need no artillery anymore, theyre equipped with missiles.
zoolkhan 1 year ago
@zoolkhan
As I said, it's wasn't successful due to damage from corrosion and damp, and is far too big an installation for civilian vessels. As for not needing a gun armament, that's what the Royal Navy thought in the 70s before the Falklands War reminded them of the need for shore bombardment (where the Leanders, Type 12s and old County class excelled, incidentally) and something for taking out auxiliaries, hence the reappearance of the 4.5" gun on the Type 22 Batch III frigates.
beastatlay 1 year ago
@beastatlay - i said "german frigates dont need..." you keep talking about royal navy. The difference to england is, the german army /navy/airmen - are by constitutional law bound to be used as defense. In the "defense" of germany is no need to shore bombardements. So that reason for turrets falls away.
Anyways there are still some destroyers with traditional cannons, and smaller boats with cannons, chainguns and the like. shooting before bow is difficult with rockets :)
zoolkhan 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It would be nicer if they do it with the 120 mm gun from Leopard 2A6. Stupid krauts!
photosshop 2 years ago
4km vs 37km? I'd rather preffer the PZH2000's gun.
Helge129 2 years ago
4 km in direct fire! And direct fire is what you needed in navy combat! What do you need 155 mm gun for? To engage the land targets?
photosshop 2 years ago
exactely you nerd
95predator 2 years ago 2
who says you need direct fire all the time?isnt it better to engage enemy outside of his effective range? this reminds me of the MK71 8inch programme the USN had.they were going to refit the 5inch 54cal turrets in selected ships,like the SPURANCE class.and also iff long range guns are no good, then why did IVAN put twin 130mm guns on their SOVREMENNY class DESTROYERS? those things are good for 27km or so.
goatboyful 2 years ago
Your doctrine is from 1941! Who the fuck engage ships with guns you have missiles for that? Just point me to a modern ship with more that one gun!
photosshop 2 years ago
missiles are expensive, and even the most capacious ship does'nt carry many. the one main gun per ship plan, speaks to budget concerns as much as the greater accuracy of modern naval artillery.your opinion, aka 'doctrine', reminds me of the ENGLISH bigwigs from the 1950's,who claimed that the supremacy of early SAM systems, made combat aircraft obsolete. i would vote for two main gun's on any surface combat vessel bigger than a FRIGATE, every time.
goatboyful 2 years ago
Sure... Just tell me which system with gun is managing to hit the moving target 10 km away!? Do you see any of new ships with caliber gun more than 100 mm. Majority have 57 mm or 76 mm guns.
photosshop 2 years ago
i went and did an old fashioned thing photosshop, i went and opened a book.within last 3 years and before 2013,there are 13 differant classes of FRIGATE and DESTROYER that have or will have one or two main guns 5inch(127mm) or BIGGER! and another 5 which will have 3.9inch(100mm) main guns.''HOBART' class,1x5inch 54cal,'ANZAC' class,1x5inch 54cal,'BARROSO' class,1x4.5inch,'LUZHOU' (type 051C)class,1x100mm,''JIANGWEI 2(type053H3)class, 1x100mm twin gun,'BADEN-WURTTEMBERG(type 125)class 1x5in 64cal
goatboyful 2 years ago
also, 'ANDREA DORIA' class 1x5inch 64ER gun,'ATAGO' class 1x5in54cal,TYPE 19DD 1x5inch62cal,'TAKANAMI' class 1x5inch54cal,'DE ZEVERN PROVINCIEN' class 1x5in54cal,'ADMIRAL GORSHKOV'(project 22350) 1x130mm A-192 gun,'ALARO DE BAZAN' class 1x5inch54cal,'DARING' class 1x4.5in(with provision for 155mm UPGRADE),'ZUMWALT'(DDG 1000)class 2x155mmADVANCED GUN SYSTEMS. YES, many navies are putting 57mm & 76mm guns on their ships. but not everyone! so BIG GUN NAVAL ARTILLERY will continue to have a place.
goatboyful 2 years ago
that is so cool, the german tradition of cutting edge innovation continues. can we forget about nazi shit?no but know this the german navy never bowed to hitler they didn't give him the " hitler salute" but instead the traditional imperial navy salute.Grand Admiral Karl Donitz knew he was crazy .German Navy ships were very elegant , such beautiful lines, too bad you were betrayed by nazi's.Graf Spee , Scheer , Deutchsland ,Gniesgenau , Tirpitz , Hipper Bismarck ,Lutzow , Emden.Prinz Eugen.rip
gibsondrummer 3 years ago
nice, but what has all to do with this video?
i dont see any link.
randomfool0816 2 years ago
LONG LIVE KRIEGSMARINE !!!
trastian 3 years ago
I believe the problem was the recoil forces are higher than the frigate can take. Interestingly, the 4.5 inch mount the Brits use can take a 6.1 inch howitzer and its recoil, firing rate is halved with the autoloader having to act twice to load the shell then the powder casing.
EnigmaNZ1 4 years ago
The recoil was not the problem but it seems that the corrosive nature of the sea was. Making the turret sea proof would had taken more money and reconfiguration than initially assumed.
At least the firing range test was a success.
The prototype Monarc gun fired a rocket propelled 155mm shell over a distance of 58 kilometers.
Thats about 18 km farer than even the giant 406 mm guns of the u.s Iowa class battleship can fire.
Celeon999A 3 years ago
Maybe Monarc will at least become the basic layout for a completely new naval gun in the future. One that is designed as a naval gun right from the beginning. ;)
Celeon999A 3 years ago 2
yea i actually have to agree with you, many weapons and equipment that the U.S. army uses are made by H&K of Germany. The 416 rifle was of their design.
RisingRonin 4 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stupid idea. Tank guns and naval guns work in completely different environments with completely different operational requirements. The idea that this plan can save money in the long run is absurd.
tigerbaiter 4 years ago
It's not a tank, it's a self propelled howitzer. Surly the difference between a naval gun and a howitzer is a matter of software, and even if they still require separate rounds, surly many new rounds such as the ERGM can be made common.
luemas666 4 years ago
And it´s one of the bes, if not the best howitzer, today produced .. worldwide !
phygos2003 4 years ago 2
And yet, it still didn't work. The rampant boosterism reminds me of the Luft 46 crowd. If they could have just changed the laws of physics and aerodynamics, Kurt Tank's doodles would have won the war!! Uh huh. Sure. That said, this was a really good idea that didn't pan out. It's hard not to be a little smug when everyone was bashing US naval artillery and pointing to this, and well, we all see how it turned out. Be nice if they could get it to work though.
proditor 4 years ago
"It's hard not to be a little smug when everyone was bashing US naval artillery and pointing to this, and well, we all see how it turned out. Be nice if they could get it to work though."
Let´s be fair: It is hard to imagine anyone else committing such a veritable clusterfuck as the Zumwalt. That program is such a waste of dollars, no other navy could afford it.
Magni56 3 years ago
I'm not sure how they're even vaguely analagous. One is supposed to be a low-end, low-cost replacement to solve the offshore gunnery scenario, the other is a bleeding edge ship where every component represents a revolution as opposed to an evolution in design. It's like comparing grapefruits and gasoline. And again, it would be nice if they could get it (the Zumwalt) to work.
proditor 3 years ago
The problem is that they will never get it to work. The entire design of the ship is so inherently fucked up, it won´t get completely seaworthy without pretty much building a new one based on a sane hull design.
Magni56 3 years ago
You really think the tumblehome design is that flawed? I thought they tested a 1/5th scale model at various sea states already? But...it probably won't matter as we're going to buy like 3. Maybe. Back to the gun system though, the main issue was the turret ring iirc, not being designed to handle the stresses of the bigger gun. How about a newer hull? Or just as a test case, get an old hull and replace the turret ring to accomodate it for testing? Just to validate the concept.
proditor 3 years ago
"You really think the tumblehome design is that flawed?"
The Navy itself thinks so. Even they want the DDG-1000 to be canned, just Congress doesn´t allow it.
Magni56 3 years ago 2
I'm not so sure about that. They wanted it all through testing, right up until they realized that cramming that much bleeding edge tech on one platform meant it would cost a bloody fortune. Then Gene Taylor of Miss. offered them an out and a way to keep him happy with continued Burke production, and they tepidly accepted that. I've read the congressional reports, and they don't seem excited about anything. The real problem seems to be a lack of leadership.
proditor 3 years ago
Nah. Seriously, every naval expert can tell you the story. Some idiot decided to let the DDG-1000 be designed by experts in stealth technology and not by expert shipbuilders. The outcome was very stealthy. And would topple over and sink like a stone in any kind of rough weather. And that´s just the tip of the iceberg.
Seriously, as a practical naval platform, the Zumwalt is quite simply a POS. THe only thing it´s good for is as a testbed for new technology.
Magni56 3 years ago 2
MONARC has been freezed and the first batch of F125´s will instead get Otobreda 127mm Volcano main guns.
Magni56 4 years ago
I actually had this whole design figured out so that it could be used with any working gun (fitted with a universal turret adapter) and connected to the ship's surface targeting radars. Two years ago. lol they got there a little faster than I did.
ykarpov 4 years ago
Des is a super Idee!
danthegerman1 4 years ago
to slow!
bogdan9 4 years ago
The project wasn´t cancelled !the ship (a frigate class 124, in this case called sachsen) it wasn´t build to carry a gun from haubitze 2000, the structure managed the weight but the ammunitionchambers are too small. that´s the problem
BKMenegar 4 years ago
It is cancelled. ;) Check citations on wikipedia or check the german navy website. It has also been erased from the list of weapons for the F-125.
Celeon999A 4 years ago
The F-125 will be equipped with a OTO Melara 127mm naval gun instead of the PZH turret. I doubt that it will be installed on the F-124 either so its as good as dead.
Celeon999A 4 years ago
Monarc on F125 is cancelled. But not the Monarc System. ;-)
MeckieMesser 4 years ago
that was a smart idea.
ferociousmadman 4 years ago 2
It wasn't intended for use on a moving platform so I wonder how they compensate for that? Direct fire only perhaps?
auto9898 4 years ago
Simple answer to that. They didnt managed it at all ;)
The Monarc project was cancelled. The solution to that problem was too expensive
Celeon999A 4 years ago
It's not a fregate. It's destroyer. Political correctness makes it to a fregate
MeckieMesser 5 years ago
It's a destroyer called a frigate for PC reasons that mounts a cruiser-sized main gun. OK, that should about cover it. It's an awesome idea. If a tracked vehicle can make use of it, I'm sure several thousands tons of warship can!
KlubMarcus 5 years ago
so... tank cannon goes on smallish boat?
WHOA :P
dazzawul 5 years ago
A howitzer cannon^^ And why not. With german SMART amunition, its a powerful weapon. 40 km fire range.
MeckieMesser 5 years ago
Isn't this supposed to have a range of about 80km with rocket assisted projectiles? typical eficent german approach to a problem.
svaran 5 years ago
D,
You can call it a frog if you want. But with a ~6" gun - a Frigate it ain't.
CDRSalamander 5 years ago
It is a Frigate, believ me!
Dautzen2k6 5 years ago
..then it ain't a Frigate in my book, but a Light Cruiser.
CDRSalamander 5 years ago
"..then it ain't a Frigate in my book, but a Light Cruiser."
Given the size and weight of a F125, it´s pretty much a destroyer.
Calling it a frigate is just PC crap by the government.
Magni56 3 years ago
This system will form the land attack capabilities of the new F125 frigates (together with an MLRS and RBS15 Mk. 3): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125
ssulistyo 5 years ago