The Belgrano and her destroyers getting blown out of the water by Howe or Vanguard would be a sight to see.
Is a battleship that much more expensive to run than a fleet carrier? I agree that a CV can fill a much wider capability 'hole' than a battleship. However, a fleet carrier has not only the cost of the crew but the aircrew, aircraft maintenance, catapults, etc. A BB is comparitively simple. An armoured box with some big shooty things on top. Crewing a BB can't take more than a CV with a full airwing, can it?
Given the only practical use a battleship would have in the modern era would've been to provide gunfire support - any other roles could be more economically achieved by other means - <snip>
I'd suggest that even this role could be more economically achieved by other means. The number of situations that absolutely require guns of no less than 14" is vanishingly few these days, and in many cases smaller calibres (6" or 8") can do the same job at a significantly lower cost.
As far as carriers go, keeping the WWII carriers around would be foolish - if Britain really has the money, finishing the Malta class would fix the problem until the 1970s.
Truthfully, its better for money to keep cruisers around, but no surviving RN cruisers other than the Colony class ships lived through WWII (Both York class ships were KIA) and most of these were pretty work by the end of WWII.
Jesus wept, whilst they did come up with a number of successes post-war the amount of own goals and missed opportunities by the British armed forces is sometimes just depressing.
So the County Class Cruisers, Town class Cruisers, Dido class cruisers and Minotaur class Cruisers did not survive WW2? Ok......
I thought that the Admiralty considered them either used up from heavy service or with short lifespans due to rushed wartime construction?
On many wartime ships built, the steel and worksmanship was consider second rate, and the vessels were expected to have a short life span. From memory, a lifespan of about 10 years. In many ways, the UK would be much better off building new ships in the late 1940's and early 1950's than keeping these second quality ships in service.
Whilst I do find the Buccaneer to be an attractive aircraft and have a soft spot for it that does sound truly hideous. Having just ordered Vickers VC10 from Chris I am morbidly tempted to add The Admiralty and AEW to my list of books as well.Very intersting book on RN AEW is 'The Admiralty and AEW; Royal Navy Airbore early Warning Projects' by Chris Gibson (he of VC-10's and Pofflers)
There is a drawing in it of possibly the most ugly aircraft ever conceived - a Buccaneer with fore and aft radomes (Nimrod AEW style)- the so called Dumb-bell Buccaneer...I have a theory that it could protect the fleet by deflecting enemy missiles by shear ugliness.
On many wartime ships built, the steel and worksmanship was consider second rate, and the vessels were expected to have a short life span. From memory, a lifespan of about 10 years. In many ways, the UK would be much better off building new ships in the late 1940's and early 1950's than keeping these second quality ships in service.