To counter what enemy? We currently have the most powerful navy in the world. Do the terrorists have any ships other than small speedboats? Pure foolishness - the money it would take to update 300 ships can be MUCH better spent elsewhere.
Besides, those old ships take personnel to man them. Which, again, would be better deployed elsewhere.
SW
China is going to have a great deal of shopping money in about 15-20 years,thank to the US consumer.
I would tend to agree. It's not the number of ships anymore so much as it is what those ships can do. The stuff we're doing nowadays with amphibs, and with missle cruisers... not to mention carriers and subs... is just orders of magnitude beyond what we could do a few decades ago.
My only regret is the loss of the big battleships. I'm fully aware of the bad budget voodoo that is required to keep them running, and that they don't make sense. I'm completely willing to admit that it is a completely emotional argument that I make. But dammit... there is just nothing on the water that is or may ever be as cool as the profile of an Iowa-class BB on the horizon. Then all the 16-inchers cut loose... ooooohhhh... :-)
I count myself lucky enough to have been in a live-fire exercise along with the USS New Jersey a few years ago in one of the annual assaults on San Clemente Island. My little CG cutter was in between NJ and the shore and they were firing the 16's over our heads. In the name of all that is Holy-- it was inspiring. :-)
I would support the idea of keeping at least one Iowa-class running, nomatter the cost. Just because we can. :-)