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. :-)
I agree, but I would put two battleships on the seas. Their armor is impossible to match today. They can launch any number of missiles, as Reagan and Lehman proved. And those 16 inch rifles are so cool.
They are limited and noisy, but they also represent pride and technological accomplishment.
Oh...*sigh* Okay. But just one. [grin]
Snidely "Things That Make You Go BOOM!" Whiplash