100 years ago, yes.
Now....nope.
Battle Cruisers don’t have a great combat record. British Battle Cruisers suffered a real setback at the hands of the German Fleet at Jutland. The problem was more ammunition and powder handling than it was the ships themselves, but the faults were kept secret. The German “Pocket Battleships” impressed the public and made good subjects for movies, but their performance underwhelming.
Capital ships are vulnerable to aircraft, anti-ship missiles, and submarines, a Battle Cruiser would just be a target.
While you're at it, bring back the dynamite cruiser.
At least the HMS Dreadnought rammed a u-boat in WWI.
BTB, with the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, the Japanese got really good at torpedo warfare to give the edge in ship to ship combat...which also led to them designing really good torpedoes for both subs and aircraft...
We had some fast battleships that were mechanically young that could be brought back into service for a fraction of the cost of a new ship. They would be much tougher and as gun platforms far more lethal to boot (guns are still dirt cheap for delivering serious hurt). They had more than ample space to take whatever we needed to put in them for a support ship (our surface navy is inherently carrier based and that wasn’t going to change).
I doubt claims the cost of replacing 80s era electronics is the issue with them seeing more service. The issue seems to be their guns. If used to the point of wear we do not really have the capability to replace the barrels anymore, or so I’ve heard. Replacing one or two big turrets with something else WOULD be pricey because the space is so well suited to what presently occupies it.
In short, our fast battleships are a bit like the A10, only the cost to replace them in the service they could perform is over the top by comparison.
Humorously: the air force has no real issues relying on bombers older than most any serving general ... an attitude I’m tempted to think our admirals don’t share.
Who needs a battle cruiser when a Burke class DDG is 10,000 tons and carries 96 VLS missiles with a 1,000 mile range?
And hits with a 20 foot CEP.
What kind of ship would they want to call a battle cruiser? Surely no one is thinking of a ship sporting 18 inch guns.
In my opinion it’s just a matter of time before they teach large drones to land on very small carriers. Once that happens every ship in the current navy will be obsolete. We are fast approaching a Dreadnought moment.
Weapons are rapidly evolving. Weapons are getting smaller and more numerous and, potentially, cheaper. Huge investments in big ships lock in whatever the technology of the day is. Even though they can be updated, the problem is that the entire concept of a large ship is probably obsolete. Further, you are stuck with whatever you designed for thirty to fifty years. Look how quickly and unexpectedly the battleship became obsolete.
We won’t know how badly we failed, or how spectacularly we succeeded in a design until actual combat. Frankly, I’d prefer more numerous small ships spread over a larger area.
During WW2 began the era of the aircraft carrier. It did in fact replace the battleship. Now aircraft carriers are big expensive targets. Useful in brushfire fights.… but when the ship really hits the fan, it will become a target. Submarines. The current champions.
Because history proved that the concept of battle cruisers was a really bad idea.
Ping.
Carriers Lexington and Saratoga were under construction as the USN’s first battlecruisers, they were converted to carriers after the Washington Naval Treaty
Ping.
In a war they would end up as artificial reefs.
Capital ships are no longer the method of projecting power.
Battleships do make sense for support of amphibious operations. When one considers that the Pentagon can spend 2 billion on each B2 and Lord knows how much on a ridiculous strike fighter the idea that pulling out a Battleship and upgrading it is impossible is itself ridiculous. I’m not saying that we should. But we could. One BB could support Marine amphibious operations at a fraction of the cost of a Carrier. Heck during Ww2 they have 50ft accuracy at 25 miles range.
Plus they are simply cool ships.
bookmark
Bump
Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson decided on a defense strategy that basically eliminated the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps
Whoa!
Both the Lexington and Saratoga took damage (and survived) that would have sunk other carriers that did NOT have armored hulls.