Replies

There's one other big consideration which nobody is talking about. Someday believe it or not, we might have to take some island again and the idea of that Aegis destroyer with that 5" yuppie gun on its bow taking the place of all the battleships and LSRs which used to cover island invasions has to be one of the world's biggest jokes.

That yuppie 5" gun has put more steel on target than any other naval cannon. New rounds are actual smart enough to distinguish our tanks from enemy armor and when they find them they put an exotic metal 9" molten rod through the top. Secondary explosions from the tank's own rounds will kill it.

Besides the biggest cannon on land is only 155mm with a lower muzzle velocity (350fps). The only reason the next generation is going to 155mm vice 5" (127mm at 2500fps) is to share rounds with the Army and USMC (everything is Joint OPS now).

I loved the battleships and briefly served on them -- but their day has passed and over-the-horizon attacks rule the day. WWII Marines didn't have Whiskey Cobras and Harriers right over their shoulders. I wish we had more guns but Bush 41's plan to decommission destroyers as new ones were built was accelerated by Clinton without replacing the gun mounts lost. We lost 286 gun mounts in 91-93 (including the 16") and have only replaced about a dozen.

The biggest advantage of the battleships was they scared the hell out of anyone thinking about messing with them. Their retirement was the loss of a big psychological advantage -- but the Tomahawk missile is damn near as scary.

The battleships carried only 16 Tomahawks, Tycos carry 122 (about the number of 16" rounds/magazine), Burkes 90, and the remaining Sprains pack 61. The converted "Virginia-class" SSGNs will carry 154 Tactical Tomahawks.

I would like to see a big-gun ship again but they cost about $2 billion/year to operate in 1991. What would be the cost now? Plus you would have to start up a plant just to build the rounds and manufacture the powder. Just not very feasible.