Replies

So, as I said, I don't think it's cut and dried. It's worthy of additional study.

I disagree. North wants to preserve battleships for amphbious assaults of a hostile beach, a scenario that has not been seen for over 50 years. It makes no sense to sink billions of dollars into an asset with limited flexibility and limited use. Carriers can strike targets hundreds of miles from the shore, something a battleship cannot. Carriers can strike multiple targets hundreds of miles apart, something that a battleship cannot. Carrier aircraft, contrary to what North says, can operate in virtually all weather conditions. Battleships would have been worthless in the most recent combat in Iraq and Afganistan, while carriers carriers much of the load. Carriers provide a flexibility that battleships do not, and represent a much better investment in ever-scarcer defense dollars.

As a former carrier sailor, I agree with you vis-a-vis carier air poower versus gunfire. However, you have to realize that both ships have different missions.

Sure, we have seen the last of the BB on BB battles, simply because no one is capable of building those kinds of ships anymore, and especially at those prices. However, the BB still has life left in it doing those thngs carriers cannot.

- Carriers cannot defend themselves adequately against surface threats. They require escorts with AAA abilities, and a battleship can hold as much AAA capacity as several DDG-51's.

- Carriers cannot defend themselves adequately against submarines, again requiring escorts. A BB can screen a carrier from modern torpedoes, taking several hits which would severely hamper a carrier's ability to operate (not necessarily sink it -- it's not easy to sink carriers with torpedoes nowadays).

- Carriers can engage in gunfire duels with much better effect than today's escorts armed with 5" or 76mm guns.

- Battleships have almost the same range as a carrier air wing thanks to Tomahawk missiles.

The ships still complement each other rather nicely, I think, although whether the Iowas will ever be reactivated again is an open question.

Marines tend to have assaulting hostile beaches on their minds because they're the ones who have to do it. I deeply sympathize with them and would not be so quick to dismiss their concerns. That we haven't had to do it in 50 years doesn't mean they'll never have to do it again.

I'm not saying carriers don't have their uses, or that there are things they can do that battleships can't. It's obvious that carriers are lethal. But there are still certain functions that a heavily gunned, heavily armored ship can do that a carrier can't. And the cruisers, DDs and FFs are, as has been pointed out, somewhat thin-skinned and have to operate even closer to the shore.

Carrier aircraft may operate in all weather conditions, but can they take off and land in them?

I don't agree that the BBs would have been worthless in Iraq. The most direct comparison would be the work they did in the first war with Iraq, both as attack vehicles and decoys.