They are sixty-five years old.
I am certain that we need fast BBs for the Straits of Hormuz and other close-in combat situations.
The question is not why don't we keep the Iowa class. The question is, why don't we build the Montana class?
Yeah, why not keep a couple?
I'm no expert but I remember reading somewhere that they're incredibly expensive to maintain at sea.
That said, mothballing them might turn out to be penny wise and pound foolish.
For one there is likely no one In the service trained to operate them.
When Ronaldus Magnus brought them out of mouthballs they had to dig up WWII and Korean War Vets to train the Seaman to operate them.
The powder bags and shells they used were left over from WWII.
That stuff has to be past its use by date.
I think the old battle wagons are great. I wish we could use them to shell the Iranians Nuke Sites, but unless they make new munisions for those big guns I think they should be retired.
Remember the men that lost their lives when the turent blew up while firing those 16 inch shells.
Cost of course. Mostly the cost of the crew. Not just the cost of a couple thousand sailors, but also the cost of training people to run them. It's not like there are a whole lot of people left in the Navy who ever served on a BB. With only so much money to go around, choices have to be made.
They are sixty-five years old.
I am certain that we need fast BBs for the Straits of Hormuz and other close-in combat situations.
The question is not why don't we keep the Iowa class. The question is, why don't we build the Montana class?
My way of thinking also.