The reason there are so few major naval engagements is that the number of Major navies is so small.
There have been frigate level action in the Middle East and in SW Asia but nothing larger simply because no one HAS anything larger. Crewing and maintaining even a gun cruiser (which is vulnerable to SSM fired from much smaller vessels) is extremely costly and has no reasonable ROI. The major South American players kept up a small fleet into the 21st Century, but the cost of replacement is so high that they are in general kept as a force in being.
Unlike ground forces or aircraft, naval vessels require LOTS of time and treasure, all of which is tied up in a single vulnerable package. To use a recent example:
Venezuela under Chavez bought 24 Su-30 fighter-bombers for around $600-$750 million dollars and another $500 million for parts and weapons. That would buy 2 Sovremennyy DDG and a couple load outs of weapons. A full squadron of Flankers is a serious threat to all of Chavez's neighbors in that it presents a threat to their ground naval and air forces and could provide Chavez's military a significant long lasting deep threat for years. Two destroyers could dominate the waters off of Venezuela for about 20 minutes against any sort of significant air threat. Loss of even 7-8 Flankers would be politically survivable. Loss of a $400 million DESTROYER would very possibly not be. The warship is exceptionally expensive, has far less utility than a jet fighter bomber, and represents a massive opportunity for political disaster.
From a tactical perspective warships must be operated in groups to be effective, this is an addtional huge cost. Old warships, especially since 1967 when an Egyptian Oso potted an Israeli DD, have been regulated to fishery enforcement operations for their own protection. Any vessel without SAM capacity is a enemy decoration waiting to happen.
Lastly, and this is probably the most important point, unlike aircraft or ground troops, a second level country can not hope to compete with the Big Boys on the high seas. Iraq was, prior to Desert Storm, looked upon as a serious threat thanks to a large, decently equipped, army and a fairly modern air force. There were many prognisticators who though the Coalition was going to suffer 10,000+ casualties retaking Kuwait, even with the advantages that the American and NATO countries brought to the table. The same is said today regarding Iran (with, IMO, better reason).
All the effort and treasure that Saddam put into his ground and air forces to get them rated as a top 10 (battle hardened
) military would (assuming he could actually find someone to provide the ships) have paid for a single CBG made up of 1970 quality ships. Such a force would be too small to really project force and would, moreover, last about 45 minutes against the USN, probably 3-4 hours against the French Navy (bigger decks = bigger Alpha strikes), and less than a day against the RN (full decks are better than jump decks), assuming any of the NATO countries didn't get an SSN inside. The Falklands demonstrated exactly how much chance a second level navy has against a top line SSN.
In summart5 the reason you do not see more naval battles is that they would be too damned expensive.
There have been frigate level action in the Middle East and in SW Asia but nothing larger simply because no one HAS anything larger. Crewing and maintaining even a gun cruiser (which is vulnerable to SSM fired from much smaller vessels) is extremely costly and has no reasonable ROI. The major South American players kept up a small fleet into the 21st Century, but the cost of replacement is so high that they are in general kept as a force in being.
Unlike ground forces or aircraft, naval vessels require LOTS of time and treasure, all of which is tied up in a single vulnerable package. To use a recent example:
Venezuela under Chavez bought 24 Su-30 fighter-bombers for around $600-$750 million dollars and another $500 million for parts and weapons. That would buy 2 Sovremennyy DDG and a couple load outs of weapons. A full squadron of Flankers is a serious threat to all of Chavez's neighbors in that it presents a threat to their ground naval and air forces and could provide Chavez's military a significant long lasting deep threat for years. Two destroyers could dominate the waters off of Venezuela for about 20 minutes against any sort of significant air threat. Loss of even 7-8 Flankers would be politically survivable. Loss of a $400 million DESTROYER would very possibly not be. The warship is exceptionally expensive, has far less utility than a jet fighter bomber, and represents a massive opportunity for political disaster.
From a tactical perspective warships must be operated in groups to be effective, this is an addtional huge cost. Old warships, especially since 1967 when an Egyptian Oso potted an Israeli DD, have been regulated to fishery enforcement operations for their own protection. Any vessel without SAM capacity is a enemy decoration waiting to happen.
Lastly, and this is probably the most important point, unlike aircraft or ground troops, a second level country can not hope to compete with the Big Boys on the high seas. Iraq was, prior to Desert Storm, looked upon as a serious threat thanks to a large, decently equipped, army and a fairly modern air force. There were many prognisticators who though the Coalition was going to suffer 10,000+ casualties retaking Kuwait, even with the advantages that the American and NATO countries brought to the table. The same is said today regarding Iran (with, IMO, better reason).
All the effort and treasure that Saddam put into his ground and air forces to get them rated as a top 10 (battle hardened
In summart5 the reason you do not see more naval battles is that they would be too damned expensive.