WI WWII had been a brief War and CV never proved themself in Combat .

The Sandman

Banned
Iowa's had nuclear shells..

Well, then that answers that.

Of course, this also means that fleet combat might be expected to consist of the following, assuming that there hasn't been a war to demonstrate the higher effectiveness of CVs:

Battleship A fires a nuclear artillery shell at Fleet B.

Battleship B fires a nuclear artillery shell at Fleet A.

Assuming that neither side has any way of shooting down artillery shells in flight, both fleets receive a dose of Instant Sunrise and are put out of action indefinitely.

Whoever has a navy left at the end of this is the winner.
 
Well, then that answers that.

Of course, this also means that fleet combat might be expected to consist of the following, assuming that there hasn't been a war to demonstrate the higher effectiveness of CVs:

Battleship A fires a nuclear artillery shell at Fleet B.

Battleship B fires a nuclear artillery shell at Fleet A.

Assuming that neither side has any way of shooting down artillery shells in flight, both fleets receive a dose of Instant Sunrise and are put out of action indefinitely.

Whoever has a navy left at the end of this is the winner.

:) On grand scale you're about right, but the BB's (even historic) were hardened against weapon effects and the yield of nuclear shells was quite low (15-20kT's) so one has to hit fairly close. BB's of this nuclear madness TL would also most likely have CIWS's and AA-missiles capable of intercepting enemy shell already during late 1950's (technically feasible, IMHO).

That's why missiles, with their changing trajectory etc. would be more feasible as anti-surface warfare weapons.

But actually, OTL post-war equivalent to early 20th century BB madness is CV madness from 1960's onwards. Missiles have been available to perform most of the missions for carrier aircraft for decades but as USN has no one to challenge, they continue to build the CV's. I personally wonder if RN allows itself to be destoryed by committing itself to CV(F) but that's of course a different issue...
 

The Sandman

Banned
But actually, OTL post-war equivalent to early 20th century BB madness is CV madness from 1960's onwards. Missiles have been available to perform most of the missions for carrier aircraft for decades but as USN has no one to challenge, they continue to build the CV's. I personally wonder if RN allows itself to be destoryed by committing itself to CV(F) but that's of course a different issue...

Think of carriers and their aircraft this way: a missile delivery platform that vastly extends both the range at which the missiles can be delivered and the number of different launchers the enemy has to contend with if they want to stop being hit by missiles.

Perhaps it makes more sense now? :)
 
Think of carriers and their aircraft this way: a missile delivery platform that vastly extends both the range at which the missiles can be delivered and the number of different launchers the enemy has to contend with if they want to stop being hit by missiles.

Perhaps it makes more sense now? :)

Sure :), but the thing is that SAM's are nowadays so well developed they have taken over the air defence role (witness the demise of F-14 and Phoenix without replacement as SM-2ER and SM-6 are taking that role) and as for deep strike, there's already cruise missiles and long range bombers. The role of carrier aircraft is diminishing and will diminish greatly more as the Chinese will have their ASBM's into service. "Commando carriers" on the other hand, will remain very useful.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The W-23 was a version of the 280MM Atomic Canon built for the BBs. 50 produced but none were ever deployed since by the time they were ready to go the BBs had been mothballed.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Sure :), but the thing is that SAM's are nowadays so well developed they have taken over the air defence role (witness the demise of F-14 and Phoenix without replacement as SM-2ER and SM-6 are taking that role) and as for deep strike, there's already cruise missiles and long range bombers. The role of carrier aircraft is diminishing and will diminish greatly more as the Chinese will have their ASBM's into service. "Commando carriers" on the other hand, will remain very useful.

It seems to me, however, that cruise missiles can't completely replace aircraft-delivered missiles without a major loss of functionality.

First, of course, cruise missiles are more expensive, larger, and somewhat more limited in your choice of launch facilities.

Second, you have to put a lot more ships into action to launch a cruise missile salvo large enough to match what carrier aircraft could provide.

Third, carrying the missiles aboard the aircraft lets you devote far more space on the missile to increasing its lethality and far less on propellant expended on its way to the target.

Fourth, the time-on-target situation is much better; an aircraft-launched missile can, depending on range, hit its target less than a minute after launch, whereas cruise missiles are likely to take at minimum several minutes to reach their target and can be more easily tracked along the way.

Fifth, it's much easier to carry reloads for an aircraft's missile complement than it is to carry reloads for cruise missile tubes. And you can carry more of them in the same amount of space. And it's much easier to make use of those reloads while at sea.
 
First, of course, cruise missiles are more expensive, larger, and somewhat more limited in your choice of launch facilities.

The current favorite, BGM-109, (which is, in no way, technologically innovative as SLCM development has been on back burner for three decades) can be launched from a VLS cell in a submarine or surface ship which can also house a SAM or a quadruple of them. There's also no significant technological problem for launching a lot of them from any large strategic bomber or even a cargo plane. Historically the same missiles were also launched from a back of a truck. (GLCM) Compare that to a carrier strike plane which has to be launched from a single carrier with a limited sortie rate, or from a dedicated air base.

As for price, against serious opponents the carrier planes have to use stand-off weapons by themselves and there's no clear price difference between air launched stand-off weapon and a surface launched one. Fuel compartment and engine, after all, are quite minor cost issues when designing a cruise missile. (SLAM-ER costs some 720 k USD versus 570 k USD of BGM-109)

Second, you have to put a lot more ships into action to launch a cruise missile salvo large enough to match what carrier aircraft could provide.

Theoretically yes. A CV(F) is scheduled to launch 110 sorties a day, a Nimitz class a 140 sorties a day, realistically some 125 a day. However, largest part of those sorties are launched to defend the carrier group itself. And as for strikes, largest part of the sorties launched are made to protect and support the strike aircraft themselves (tankers, escort fighters, jammers, SEAD, CSAR etc.).

After three days of strike bonanza the carrier has to rearm and resupply itself and the carrier. In a comparison, a single DDG-51 houses 90 VLS
cells.

Of course, cruise missiles cannot yet handle all the missions carriers strike fighters can but then again UAV's are coming into picture. But for deep strike, carrier is not an optimal tool at all. Technological capabilities for unmanned vehicles are increasing, not decreasing.

Third, carrying the missiles aboard the aircraft lets you devote far more space on the missile to increasing its lethality and far less on propellant expended on its way to the target.

Then again the ordnance carrier strike fighters can carry are rather limited in weight, while, if wanted, a cruise missile can well be size of a fighter (like those Soviet monsters).

Fourth, the time-on-target situation is much better; an aircraft-launched missile can, depending on range, hit its target less than a minute after launch, whereas cruise missiles are likely to take at minimum several minutes to reach their target and can be more easily tracked along the way.

On the contrary. Let's compare two Ticonderoga-class cruisers, each with 50 Tomahawks, and a CVBG. To make 100 strike sorties the Ticos can launch the VLS cells empty within space of minutes. To launch 100 strike sorties a CVBG takes a whole day.

Fifth, it's much easier to carry reloads for an aircraft's missile complement than it is to carry reloads for cruise missile tubes. And you can carry more of them in the same amount of space. And it's much easier to make use of those reloads while at sea.

Yes, but that's a technological problem which could be solved quickly if there was any interest in the issue. AFAIK, most cruise missiles like most missiles nowadays are delivered in their launch cradles ready to be used. Besides, with more cruise missile carries some could be well on the way to replenishment base / area and back more flexibly than in case of a few CVBG's.

All in all, CVBG's are a luxury USN can well afford but I think their usefulness for a medium power is very questionable.
 
Top