The following is my answer to a Quora
question: “Will
battleships ever become relevant again in naval warfare?”
If you are referring to battleships in the
sense of the pinnacle of their evolution during World War II, and not a
linguistic shift, where the term is used to refer to another war ship, then it
is highly unlikely. There are two
reasons.
The first is not that battleships are
tactically obsolete. This is a myth. Battleships outlived the torpedo bombers and
dive bombers, which were specifically used to kill battleships. A battleship, modernised with a modern
anti-air system and with its complement of missiles, but anti-surface and
anti-submarine, is a formidable opponent.
Battleships are a cost-effective way to bombard targets more than 20
nautical miles away, out of the range of most effective land-based artillery
systems. It is a mobile artillery
platform that can strike with impunity.
The armour of battleships, even when
compared to modern surface combatants, gives it a tremendous advantage in any
surface engagement. There are no guns on
modern vessels that can penetrate that armour. Anti-ship missiles are needed for the job. A battleship is likely to survive the first
salvo from any modern surface craft. Within
range of its guns, no modern vessel is likely to survive a first salvo from a
battleship. If the guns are in range, so
are all its missiles and torpedoes.
The problem here is that battleships
require a huge complement of crew to run. Due to their size and complexity of their systems,
battleships are manpower intensive. This
is a logistics issue in an age where modern militaries are trying to be less
manpower intensive. This large crew
complement also requires a large logistics train to ensure that they are fed
and clothed, which makes deployments very expensive.
Secondly, due to the amount of hardened
steel used in their construction, a battleship is very expensive to build, and
difficult to maintain. The same hardness
of the steel that makes the armour resilient also makes it difficult to
maintain and fix. These are not modular
armour builds. You cannot simply cut off
a portion, when it is resistant to cutting once set. This means the cost of building enough
battleships to create a viable surface deterrent is prohibitively expensive. In contrast, aircraft carriers, while
expensive, are not so heavily armoured and armed, because they are meant to be standoff platforms to launch aircraft. They
are not meant to be used in a proverbial knife fight at sea. The chances of losing an aircraft carrier is
considerably less than that of losing a battleship.
Because of the tremendous manpower
considerations and cost of deployment, losing a battleship is expensive, both
militarily, economically, and politically. Imagine an American administration losing a
battleship in an engagement, perhaps by shore-based anti-ship batteries while
in littoral waters, due to transit. Imagine
a catastrophic explosion with massive loss of life. Which administration could survive the
backlash of losing a billion-dollar system with the loss of two thousand lives? Perhaps there would be advancements in
materials design, developments in naval warfare, or an implementation of an
advanced ship AI that makes it all viable again. That is all unlikely in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for taking the time to share our thoughts. Once approved, your comments will be poster.