Replies

A menu of Soviet Air-Surface missiles. This does not include AS missiles designed/produced in China, Europe or anywhere else at all. Note the nuclear anti-ship missiles. Too invest $B's in 2 huge battleships that could be sunk within hours is silly.

The Russians deploy superior ASMs to be sure but if you are trying to convince us that we should not reactivate the battleships because they are too vulnerable to being sunk, then you are using the wrong argument. The Iowa class battleships if reactiveated would be the most difficult ships to sink in the fleet and the only ones capable of surviving near-misses by naval tacnukes of the variety you say might be used against their battlegroups. The whole point to reactivating the battleships is that it would be cost-effective. When they were reactivated in 1981-83, the Iowas cost $365 million each to restore, which at the time was the cost of a guided missile destroyer, which weighed one-sixth as much and had less than one-sixth the firepower and far less armor protection. Today, the cost to restore them to service today would probably be much less because we do not have to install Tomahawk, Harpoons and air defense missile complexes as we did when they were reactivated back in the 1980s. The USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still on the Navy roster and would not take too long to refit. USS Missouri and USS New Jersey now floating museums might take longer. Today, the Iowas with their 16 inch guns and hundreds of cruise missiles deploy as much firepower as about five Arleigh Burke destroyers (which cost $1 billion each) with more steel on target and longer range. They could be protected from air/missile threats by Aegis cruisers and destroyers just as well as any aircraft carrier or other non-Aegis ship. Re-activating them would be an exercise in cost-effective firepower pure and simple.

The Russians deploy superior ASMs to be sure but if you are trying to convince us that we should not reactivate the battleships because they are too vulnerable to being sunk, then you are using the wrong argument.

Actually, it's the correct argument. A CVBG uses its dominance of the airspace around the ship to prevent the enemy's scouting forces from targeting it precisely. A BB neatly solves this problem for the enemy by driving up within sight of the coastline to do its business.

The Iowa class battleships if reactiveated would be the most difficult ships to sink in the fleet and the only ones capable of surviving near-misses by naval tacnukes of the variety you say might be used against their battlegroups.

The only defense against a nuke is to be nowhere near where it detonates. A carrier is far less likely to be in that position (the enemy will, at best, barrage fire missiles in the general direction of the CVBG and hope they're not shooting at deceptive transmitters) than a battleship (which would be within sight of the enemy-held coast).