When the US re-activated their 4 mothballed battleships in the
1980's, armour against modern missiles (such as Exocet, with up to
160kg warhead), proponents claimed, was not an issue for
battleships. That's because the battleships, with at least 16 inch
(nearly 45 cm) of hardened steel armour is almost impervious to
modern, relatively lighweight missiles (unless they hit at the
right place).
Remember the biggest battleships, Yamato and Mushashi, had to be
sunk by over twenty 500 pound bombs + torpedo hits. Of course
credit goes to the crew for excellent use of waterproof
compartments to keep these warships afloat so long. For a bigger
missile like the Brahmos, I think you'll still have to have
multiple hits to cause significant damage.
Although these BB have been retired, certain advantages they offer
have been missed by the US Navy and Marine Corp - including their
16 inch guns for shore bombardment (range >20 miles) as a
prelude to amphibious landing. True, the WWII era 16 inch guns are
less accurate than missiles and these ships require a crew of
nearly 2000. But shells are cheaper to deliver than using aircraft
(not to mention the loss of aircraft if shot down, political cost
of a pilot captured as POW etc). Besides, many (including those on
the receiving end) say the psychological impact of having a 16 inch
shell (2700 pound shell, enough to clear a helicopter landing zone
in the Vietnamese jungle) fired at you is nearly as bad as enduring
a B-52 bombing raid. Anyway, the Littoral combat ship (LCS) is
supposed to address some of these loss in capabilities (shore
bombardment using two 155mm howitzers) plus its own stealth
features, ability to operate in shallow waters, small crew (under
100), multi-mission capability etc.
I doubt if the BB will ever be revived, but sort of re-incarnated
in another smaller, more survivable, more versatile form.
