Such systems are available off the shelf from Russia.
Other Battleships in the 1980s?
- Thread starter Robinsml
- Start date
Yeah a bunch of companies and countries are offering or proposing containerized anti ship cruise and ballistic missiles these days.
If you know with absolute certainty that you're going to have to land troops on a hostile beach somewhere in the next few years? Sure. I don't think there's a military commander alive that wouldn't want that kind of firepower on call. But if you're building it as a "just in case" weapon? Then no, it's too specialized for the roll to be useful in any other mission.
In a post WW2 environment, missiles are to battleships what planes were to them in the 1940s: threaths they cannot single-handely defeat. Much like during the Second World War, where air cover was required when operating in range of enemy air power, battleships of the 50s need escorts and cover to protect them from missiles. I don't think that makes them completely obsolete, one could argue that aircraft carriers requires the same kind of protection to survive in hostile waters. As long as the battleships are able to accomplish their mission (be it a ground-pounding operation or dealing a bloody nose to the Sverdlov swarm attacking their carrier group) they are still relevant in the grand scheme of war. Of course as long as they can be afforded. However when we reach the end of the 60s and the 70s, things are changing rapidly. Like some have pointed out, while small anti-ship missiles couldn't sink a modern battleships, saturating attacks or the use of the truly massive Soviets supersonic weapons are by now a threath so great, the battleship might very well be in danger of being unable to accomplish its task. This is where I think true obsolescence begins, when a weapon system is compromised to a point where it cannot be safely relied upon even when surrounded by the good amount of support. Now I wouldn't be able to tell exactly when it became the case but I think its safe to say that in OTL in the 80s, no one outside the US Navy could afford to operate battleships. By then they had such a niche role on the modern battlefield that taxpayers money could probably be funeled into other projects and nobody would be arguing about it.
IMHO, short of some massive POD, the most plausible way to see more battleship operated in the 1980s (and prior to that) is to have the Soviets build some. I'm not saying it would be particulary brillant from the Soviet Navy, far from it in fact. But let's say they keep Giulio Cesare in service (without catastrophic explosions), learning in the process how to operate a battleship. Stalin then push its big gun babies a little harder down the throath of the Soviet admiralty. Now its the early/mid-1950s and the Russians have 4-5 battleships/battlecruisers in service, they might as well put them to use (i.e let's hope they simply don't scrap them as soon Stalin dies) aren't they? With this threath floating around, I could certainly see Vanguard kept in service, maybe alongside a pair of the last two KGVs so that at least one BB is ready to put to sea at any time. I don't think the US would find it useful to keep in service more than the Iowas, but probably they would keep more in service at the same time and have some South Dakotas in reserve for longer.
So more battleships in the 1980? You won't get a dozen more but with the good incentive and the money, that's not impossible.
And honestly, who wouldn't love the sight of HMS Vanguard steaming alongside the carriers on their way to the Falklands in 1982?
IMHO, short of some massive POD, the most plausible way to see more battleship operated in the 1980s (and prior to that) is to have the Soviets build some. I'm not saying it would be particulary brillant from the Soviet Navy, far from it in fact. But let's say they keep Giulio Cesare in service (without catastrophic explosions), learning in the process how to operate a battleship. Stalin then push its big gun babies a little harder down the throath of the Soviet admiralty. Now its the early/mid-1950s and the Russians have 4-5 battleships/battlecruisers in service, they might as well put them to use (i.e let's hope they simply don't scrap them as soon Stalin dies) aren't they? With this threath floating around, I could certainly see Vanguard kept in service, maybe alongside a pair of the last two KGVs so that at least one BB is ready to put to sea at any time. I don't think the US would find it useful to keep in service more than the Iowas, but probably they would keep more in service at the same time and have some South Dakotas in reserve for longer.
So more battleships in the 1980? You won't get a dozen more but with the good incentive and the money, that's not impossible.
And honestly, who wouldn't love the sight of HMS Vanguard steaming alongside the carriers on their way to the Falklands in 1982?
I think actually that, more than their vulnerability, their inability to accomplisch tasks that were "worth it" is was made Battleships obsolete in the 50s and quite possibly well before that. Keeping massivly expensive ships in service solely to train some big guns on a beach, or worse on a ship, just wasn't "still relevant in the grand scheme of war", when you could accomplisch the same (or near enough) results much cheaper and more reliably too with other platforms.
Bringing a niche capability with rapidly diminishing utility to the table while sporting a horrendous price tag is what really would kill those overly gigantic tubs, that they were also hardly any less vulnerable to modern weapons than smaller ships just adds insult to injury.
If I can play devils advocate for a bit let me propose this, the AshM which really made the battleship obsolete was not particularly widespread use on the destroyers and frigates until the mid 1980s amongst the second tier navies of the world.
E.g India Egypt turkey Japan Iran China etc had FAC with AshM but very few of their DD/DDG/FF/FFG or cruisers had anti ship missiles. As most of them either had SAMs or ASW weapons with only guns and torpedoes for ASUW.Even the soviets had a lot of DD/DDG with just guns uptil 1980 so these battleships can be very useful in dealing with these ships.
They can be added with a lot of CIWS and point defence SAMs for protection and can be accompanied by a couple of AAW destroyers for help .
Even if we talk about Vanguard steaming to Falklands we can have it sinking the Belgrano in the last classic sea battle off Falklands , as long Argentinian destroyers are kept busy elsewhere
E.g India Egypt turkey Japan Iran China etc had FAC with AshM but very few of their DD/DDG/FF/FFG or cruisers had anti ship missiles. As most of them either had SAMs or ASW weapons with only guns and torpedoes for ASUW.Even the soviets had a lot of DD/DDG with just guns uptil 1980 so these battleships can be very useful in dealing with these ships.
They can be added with a lot of CIWS and point defence SAMs for protection and can be accompanied by a couple of AAW destroyers for help .
Even if we talk about Vanguard steaming to Falklands we can have it sinking the Belgrano in the last classic sea battle off Falklands , as long Argentinian destroyers are kept busy elsewhere
But if that is the main surface ship of the enemy then there is not much else to fight
Well other than showing the flag with a major unit since they're both more visable than carriers and cheaper to operate
Those ships operated almost entirely in the Littorals under friendly air cover. Meaning your battleship is a sitting duck trying to engage them and likely within range of shore based ASMs. To neutralize that that, you need carrier aircraft. And if you need the carrier anyway, you may as well just task the carrier with sinking those ships and cut out the middleman
Where are to getting those numbers from? An Iowa class only needed 1800 men. Even an Essex class carrier needed double that to operate efficiently. And the Navy spent $425 million per ship to reactivate them, not $500 million.
Considering that almost all Soviet ASMs could be armed with a nuclear warhead, I'd say yes. And why should the Navy risk a very expensive ship and almost 2,000 men when they can send in a airstrike instead and risk maybe 10 guys?