The naval battle that never happened

[uk 75]

From the 1960s onwards major navies equipped their surface warships with missiles capable of being fired at other vessels.
The Soviet Navy had the first dedicated weapons while Western navies initially relied on using Surface to Air missiles in a surface role.
By the 80s most navies had some ships equipped with dedicated SSM.
However, these vessels so far have rarely met in combat.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, USSR needed some assymetric solutions to counter massive numerical & experience advantage of NATO navies in 1950s... and anti-ship missiles, launched from jet bombers, submarines and surface ships, were the solution.

P.S. Interesting to note, that US military finally started to appreciate the efficiency of long-range bombers, equipped with standoff anti-ship missiles, in naval war) While naval missile-carrying aviation of USSR wasn't as versatile as American carrier aviation, it have a terrifyingly powerful punch and in terms of striking power was much more cost-efficient.

 

[kaiserd]

Well, USSR needed some assymetric solutions to counter massive numerical & experience advantage of NATO navies in 1950s... and anti-ship missiles, launched from jet bombers, submarines and surface ships, were the solution.

P.S. Interesting to note, that US military finally started to appreciate the efficiency of long-range bombers, equipped with standoff anti-ship missiles, in naval war) While naval missile-carrying aviation of USSR wasn't as versatile as American carrier aviation, it have a terrifyingly powerful punch and in terms of striking power was much more cost-efficient.

The cost efficient part is debatable.
The USSR recognized it couldn’t quickly or readily replicate US carriers aviation experience and know-how, plus the time and cost of actually building equivalent carriers and carrier-aircraft.
Hence the missile-armed land-based bomber (and anti-ship missile armed nuclear subs, a type of sub very specific to the Soviet Navy) being the USSRs primary counters to the US carrier fleets.
However that approach did produce forces that were inherently less flexible (these Soviet forces very single-role focused) and given the lack of an actual general conflict involving them it is arguable that their intended adversaries the US carrier fleets actually gave far more productive and useful service and paid back at least an element of their cost rather than just being another Cold War era shameful waste of resources.

 

[Dilandu]

The cost efficient part is debatable.

Well, jet bombers are costly by themselves, but their turnaround time is much better than of surface warships/submarines.

However that approach did produce forces that were inherently less flexible (these Soviet forces very single-role focused) and given the lack of an actual general conflict involving them it is arguable that their intended adversaries the US carrier fleets actually gave far more productive and useful service and paid back at least an element of their cost rather than just being another Cold War era shameful waste of resources

Yes, but as I poined out, in terms of single-purpose functions - hitting enemy surface groups - they were much better than carrier aviation. And another point is, that currently USA is seeking ways to engage Chinese fleets near Chinese coastlines, without the need to move ships into envelope of Chinese coastal missiles and aviation. Jet bombers with standoff missiles - covered and supported by carrier-bases aviation - seems to be the optimal solution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let's see...

For a plane to launch and successfully use an air-to-surface ASM it would have to fly to a point where it could locate the target. At the time, there was never a case where one aircraft could successfully hand off a target ship to another for missile attack. So, the Soviet bomber would have to reach a point somewhere around 50 miles or less from the ship to get targeting data and launch. That put it within SAM and fighter range of the defenses.

As for US ships... In the 60's and 70's they didn't have a dedicated antiship missile. They really didn't need it. Talos, Terrier, and Tartar all had an antiship mode and anyone of the three would almost certainly cripple any typical surface combatant they hit in one shot, two at the most.

Talos proved capable of shoot downs out to 70+ miles in Vietnam. Terrier at the time could reach out to at least 40.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's what happens to a WW 2 DE hit by a single Talos missile without a warhead... A missile weighing about half again more than a 16" shell from an Iowa class battleship travelling at Mach 2.5 (about twice the speed of the shell) and dropping on the target at near vertical.