[Seruzawa]

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.

[Psalm 73]

"Plus they are simply cool ships."

And yet another reason to love Ronaldus Maximus Reagan.

[philman_36]

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.

Marines have their own air support, no aircraft carrier needed.

[philman_36]

Heck during Ww2 they have 50ft accuracy at 25 miles range.

Speaking of precision...
Precision semi-active laser-guided rockets fit on a Marine Corps jet. U.S. Navy photo
The APKWS is a 2.75-inch rocket with semi-active laser guidance for precision strikes in built up areas. It has been used by helicopters.

No BB needed either.

[OldMissileer]

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.

Even with massive, modern, upgrades the design of older ships of almost any kind requires a much larger number of sailors to operate than newer ships. The Navy does not have the manpower to bring back and refurbish/modernize old BBs or other types.