[panamagringo]

I know that the guns provide a terror effect. So can close air support, precision guided bombs and B-52 carpet bombing.

We have multiple ways of striking terror into the minds of our enemies. We can all sleep a little better knowing that.

The same could be said for shell fire that is re-aimed during flight and guided by those same UAVs. 200 shells arriving with precision and accuracy would have a mind-numbing effect as well.

I am not saying the BBs are not impressive weapons. The problem for the BBs is that there are many new weapons that can terrorize an enemy just as easily and for a lower cost.

One can state that a BB's shell is $10k. However, the cost to deliver that shell as a package is significantly more. Each BB costs a lot to operate given they are part of a group.

Take that total cost and divide per shell fired and things look a lot different. A fleet of cheap UAVs (the price will come down over time) armed with the latest munitions provides a unique capability. To a Marine on the ground, anything that can deplete an opponent's will to fight or kill them altogether is welcome.

[DarthVader]

I've done an (Analysis of Alternatives) AoA on littoral systems and the BB is still the most cost effective platform that can sustain bombardment in a theatre of operations. Best bang for the buck in coastal operations.

[DarthVader]

"A fleet of cheap UAVs (the price will come down over time) armed with the latest munitions provides a unique capability."

I have been working on FCS for three years as one of my projects and a lot has to do with UAVs and UGVs. The size of the UAV needed to deliver munitions of the destructive power of a 16" inch shell will never be cheap. I believe UAV's will be highly effective in the situational awareness and in munitions delivery roles but it is not the end-all.