Not to be outdone by the boys in green, the US Navy has its own future combat system, complete with cost overruns, ballooning weight, and dubious performance in early tests. It’s called the DD(X), noted previously here at Defense Tech.
The House of Representatives recently cut large chunks out of the DD(X) budget, and a GAO report noted that the design is currently over the allotted weight for this stage of development. Meanwhile, critics wonder why we should build multi-billion dollar destroyers when we could reactivate battleships for less money.
Since the House slashed the money for the program, the Navy has responded according to DefenseNews:
U.S. Navy leaders are shooting back, touting the ships improved war-fighting abilities in coastal regions and technological benefits and claiming the $3.3 billion warship gives taxpayers more bang for their buck.
DD(X) has a significant advantage over the DDG destroyer in the littorals, said Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak, the Navys head of warfare requirements and programs.
New radar, underwater sensors and computers will make the new destroyer a superior near-shore hunter of ships and subs than the Arleigh Burke-class warships that have been coming out of the shipyards since 1989, Sestak said.
For example, Navy analysis indicates that the DD(X) will be significantly better against Boghammers, swarming small boats armed with missiles that are operated by Iran, he said.
Sestak said the analysis indicated that losses due to enemy attacks can be reduced by up to 31 percent if a DD(X), rather than several DDGs, is present.
I would not take the DDG into the littorals as I would a DD(X), he said.
The DD(X) certainly appears to have some fantastic potential, including a stealthy design and advanced automation that would keep crew size very small. But, like all new ideas, there are some problems:
Designers have substituted an Advanced Induction Motor (AIM) for the planned Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) in the ships power system after the PMM failed in tests earlier this year. Although the AIM incorporates proven technology, it is heavier, larger, noisier and less power-dense than the PMM, requiring several changes in the ships design.
The volume search portion of the dual-band radar still is encountering technical problems, although the multifunction radar has successfully completed its tests to date.
Fire and shock testing for the composite-construction superstructure have been delayed due to questions about the materials to be used.
The peripheral missile launch system needed to be redesigned after an immense explosion caused damage during tests a year ago.
While these issue are probably all surmountable, the question becomes “should the effort be made if it’s going to cost so much?”. The ships are going to cost between $2 billion and $5 billion per copy, though the House’s recent budget capped that at $1.7 billion.
For that many clams, most folks would like to see more than a couple of 155mm guns supporting the troops on shore, a primary mission of the DD(X). In fact, the two remaining battleships are supposed to stay in reserve until their fire-support capability can be matched by a new system. Despite this requirement, the Navy is moving to permanently deactivate the battlewagons.
While battleships couldn’t contribute much to the current battles in Iraq or Afghanistan, two other potential hot spots (namely China and North Korea) present many opportunities for heavy bombardment by either the current low-tech 16″ shells or the proposed guided and/or extended-range versions. At an estimated $1.5 billion per ship to reactivate and upgrade, they look like a steal compared to the DD(X).
Whether or not reactivating battleships makes sense for the Navy, the DD(X) program is in serious trouble, and with it the future of new big ships in the fleet.
THERE’S MORE: Navy Newsstand:
The DD(X) National Team and the Navy conducted the third consecutive successful guided-flight test of the 155mm Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) June 16.
Preliminary results indicate the munition successfully conducted preplanned maneuvers along a 60 nautical mile flight path during the 280-second flight.
This important test highlights another successful milestone to develop and field long-range, GPS-precise gun munitions for our fleet, said Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, the program executive officer for ships. The success of LRLAP is vital to our efforts to deliver DD(X) to the fleet as planned. Each one of these shots brings us closer to that goal.
The DD(X) development team, both in the Navy and industry, continues to make major strides to demonstrate critical new capabilities such as LRLAP for DD(X), according to Capt. Charles Goddard, the DD(X) program manager. Our rigorous development and test program is focused using prototype systems to fully evaluate and mature these technologies for DD(X) and other future ships.
NOTE: This will be my final post at Defense Tech. Noah will return tomorrow and, after a couple of days to clean up the mess we left and restock the fridge, Defense Tech will be back to normal. It’s been a blast posting here, and I hope to see some of you at Murdoc Online from time to time. I thank Noah for the great opportunity.
–posted by Murdoc
A battleship requires thousands of crew, and requires the ship to operate in the company of numerous other ships to protect it.
It makes no sense to reactivate them.
There is –one– purpose for the battleships.
9 16″ rifles.
That’s it.
Every on the battleships (save for 9 big guns) can be done better and cheaper by other ships. Crew costs are astronomical on battleships. I shudder to think what the training/retention costs are for 1100 sailors and officers that’s been out of service since the early 90s and has equipment that mostly dates from the 1940s.
They’re worn out — and can be mission killed by a single missile. Sure, the guns will still fire and the crew will still be alive, but all the electronics will be knocked out, leaving the ship deaf, dumb, and blind.
Besides, on D-Day, what was the most effective fire support done by? Destroyes with 5″ guns getting close, not these battleships far off shore.
And they did a pretty damn poor job in 1991 shelling desert, also, and a fleet of minesweepers to get them into range.
It’s really too bad the DDG-51s are too small to effectively mount the AGS planned for DD(X), because I share your pessimism about that program (and well, every single major defense program that involves doing something beyond stuff new electroncs into off-the-shelf platforms).
I can see the Navy’s need for the DD(X) but not the cost. The Navy when the current administration had 302 ships, last year the number was 289 and by the end of FY 07 the number is expected to be at 260 or below. Like it or not from a global perspective the Navy is the most critical of the military services and I don’t. They protect our coasts, keep the worlds sea lanes open for trade and enforce our endless embargos.
Right now people knowledageable about the Navy say we need to build and send to the fleet 10 surface ships (submarines are a whole other issue) a year for the next 25 years just to maintain our current posture. The Bush administration in FY 05/06 budgeted for 4 new ships and ordered 2. It’s not hard to see how the Navy found they had 20,000 to many sailors, no ships.
The critical factor here is that at sea the balance of power can change quite quickly. The Chinese, Russian’s, Sewd’s, Japan etc. are building new vissiles and expanding their fleets, now. Much of the new techonlogy that the U.S. is talking about putting in the next generation os warships is in fact being built into foreign warships ships being launched today.
The debate over which gun is better is no starter. Shore boombardment is very ineffective as a tactical choice for killing the enemy. With cheap accurate self propelled projectials and munitations the old guns are museum pieces. Take a trip to Pearl Harbor, buy a ticket, take the tour and enjoy.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
Alex’s comments are inaccurate, if not preposterous on their face. The IOWAs are far from “worn out.” And in fact were among the most reliable capital ships in the Navy for the period of their reactivation. The GAO (no friend of the battleships) confirms that. Crew costs are not insignificant, but are hardly “astronomical.” Their shooting was magnificent in the Persian Gulf, and that’s supported by the record.
The point is value.
You get a lot of bang for the buck with battleships. And while their main battery is 16″ guns, one of their great advantages is their adaptability to varied and numerous weapons systems, e.g. Tomohawk, Harpoon, CIWS, and more. Moreover, far from being “one shot kills,” (the most refutable of Alex’s statements) the battleships remain, indisputably, the toughest to sink ships in the world. I can’t imagine anyone with a mere smattering of knowledge of the laws of physics disputing that.
It’s a simple exercise. Put the capabilities and costs of the DDX and modestly modernized IOWAs on a spreadsheet; Let the chips fall where they may. My money’s on the heavy metal…
Raymond, while I am not a fan of where the DDX project has headed I feel your BB argument is somewhat overstated. I do not think Alex or anyone else doubts the survivability of the Battleship hull. The “one shot kill” that was mentioned was a “mission kill”. In a mission kill, most of the ship and even a majority of the crew is still ok but the damage inflicted has taken out some key aspect that degrades the ability of the ship to fight (the example given was the communications suite). For the Battleship to be useful today it needs to be able to communicate off-hull (other ships, aircraft or troops on the ground) because the weapons ranges all deal with over the horizon targeting (this is same isssue faced by all of our warships).
As for weapons other than the main battery:
(1) Tomahawks — yes, they have placed 8 ABLs on the BBs allowing them to hold 32 Tomahawks, but that is still less than a DDG can hold (at a smaller per ship construction cost and almost 1/4 of the crew).
(2) Harpoon — this missile is great in theory, but short of unrestricted naval warfare it is very hard in the congested waterways of the world to ensure that it will not take out say a civilian supertanker instead. But even without that, again you do not need a BB to carry Harpoons.
(3) CIWS — looks real cool when it fires but a LAST RESORT defensive system. The BBs would need other anti-air assets (aka as CGs and/or DDGs). I would not want to be topside when it goes into action. Even if CIWS hits an incoming missile, the reulting shrapnel will still likely reach the ship.
So the only thing the BBs are adding to the plate is the main battery. I agree, they look sexy and powerful but are they truly woth the reactivation (vice building another ~1.4 DDGs) and manning cost?
1) Fit VLS to an Iowa? Cut through the armor belt and install a non-armored box full of explosive missiles? Are you crazy? I thought we wanted survivable! Not to mention that one thing we’ve got in the fleet right now is an abundance of VLS tubes and not enough missile to fit them, and well, you can’t just “refit in” a VLS system. Those things are huge and heavy.
2) Sure, they can keep fighting in 1945 style, but that doesn’t help! Without datalinks and radar, your battleship is uesless!
3) Why could 16″ guided rounds that don’t exist be cheaper to create than 5″ guided rounds that dont’ exist?
4) ??? How can a SAG provide a fraction of the sea coverage of a CVBG? You replace the carrier with an Iowa and get a ship that can… err… bombard things while the carrier provides ocean control for hundreds of nm in every direction.
5) … which could have been performed cheaper by a single aircraft with PGMs…
They were lined up. The battleships lost. Calling for revotes won’t make the BBs become cost-effective, and won’t make Gore or Kerry the President.
Some of the information pertaining to the Iowa’s survibability is being underrated. The Iowa’s were built to take hits from 16-inch to 18.1-inch naval guns. There is nothing in any nation’s armory, short of a nuke, capable of doing severe damage to these ships.
Missiles strikes can damage electronics, but the ship will sail away for repairs, while a Burke, or DD(x)-class destroyer will go to the bottom.
With that said, I am not in favor or recommissioning the old BBs. Maintenance is just too expensive and the over the horizon bombardment mission can be better handled by aircraft and missiles. Direct shore bombardment is probably not needed. The Marines will probably never make another forced landing, a al Betio, where direct fire is needed.
Hell, if you really want ships for shore bombardment dig up some Mahan or Fletcher class destroyers from a the naval museums scattered about the country. Refurbish them. If you could find a Cleveland-class light cruiser, even better.
USNFS?
Nah, they don’t have an agenda… I knew you were getting your data from them before you mentioned it though — the arguments are familiar.
Go to sci.military.naval if you want to argue about BBs — or go to Google Group and read the umpteen zillion arguments shot down in favor of them.
Anyway, fun arguing with you, but I suspect we’re not going to convince many people that have bothered to read this far.
memory of gulf I
video footage from a drone
Iraqis jumping out of the trench trying to surrender.
The drone was spotting for 16″ guns.
Not sure reactivation would be feasible.
Day dream is to gut, refit with A4Ws (nimitz reactors), change to 16″ gauss guns.
(“jerk” (dx/dt^3) could be lowered)
Develop rocket secondary and tertiary stages for sub-orbital boost and terminal acceleration.
Laser guided.
A big stick iss a nice thing to have.
This gun sounds great against an enemy who does not have the capability to detect and shoot back. But future threats such as China or Iran will develop or acquire technology to detect and engage a projectile thats probably flying at or above the speed of sound. 280 seconds time of flight at a FL greater than 100 feet is more than enough time to calculate an engagement solution. So let’s think who we’re gonna fight before we field antiquated equipment.
DDX was and is still, a ridiculous idea run amock. It’s sole purpose is to make billions of $$$$$ for the contractors. It needs to be defunded immediately.
The only problem with the DDG 51 class is that like all USN ships today, they’re too dependant on missiles alone.
This continues because having a ship class with more guns than missiles is not as ‘fashionable’ in a Navy that thinks it is really Starfleet Command instead of a Navy.
As for NGFS, you don’t have to put a 16in shell within a micro-meter of the target to ruin the enemy’s day. And, no matter what the contractor and/or PhDs all say, there is much to be said for the psychological effect on an enemy by 16in bombardment. All a DDX might hope to do is make the enemy die laughing, while they shoot their little precision guided 155mm shells into the prepositioned decoy targets that the enemy has prepared for them.
3 Billion dollars for something that can be taken out with a simple naval mine? The Navy has to be kidding, right?
If the need is more low-tech shore bombardment vessels, then three medium-caliber guns on a multi-billion dollar platform aren’t going to cut it. For what a squadron of DD(X)‘s are going to end up costing, you could have another carrier battle group, with the full complement of aircraft to go with it. That’s bombardment.
If what is really needed is high technology stealth to go nose-to-nose with China in the Taiwan Straights.…that’s a mission for sub-surface vessels if I ever heard one.
Anyone seriously want to crew a surface combatant in those waters, under the sights of mainland aircraft — guns — launchers? RAM and a low EM signature won’t help much if they can see you with a pair of binoculars.
DD(X) sounds like the dream ship for naval surface commanders who wished they could fly an F-22…or an Aurora.
I would be interested in learning how a ship fabricated from composites is going to be better able to take a hit than a battleship capable of receiving multiple 16″ armor piercing rounds, several cruise-missile equivalents (kamikazes), torpedeos, and a vast amount of minor caliber(5 inch and under) shells and staying in the fight.
Whatever the DD(X) is going to be built out of, I’d like an inch or two of it to put on my Abrams to help keep me safe. Must be great stuff.
As a destroyerman who served in the 50s Iam constantly amazed at the advances in technology that I am seeing. Having taken the opportunity to visit our ships when they come to call at Philadelphia,the operations that are so automated compared to when I served.I was a radarman,and I no longer recognize the interior of the CIC. It is truly a tribute to the greatness of our USA!!!!
We will allways need a Navy we cannot miss them.They have proving their work before their precicion work lately, and will allways be needed in the future.Allot of militia don’t know their importance in peace time as well as wartime task but they are very important in our service. A modernation of tasks would be nice,the navy needs to be upgraded just like every other service!Modernation is what the Navy needs!
Alex,
Why don’t you back up some of your claims. Our brief debunks most of the Urban Legends of Battleships being to expensive, man power intensive, falling apart and any other ridiculous statements you have made.
http://www.usnfsa.org
I find the arguments of both Alex and Raymond, and the others to have very good points for consideration of the issue of the Navy using Iowa-class battleships with updated electronics and some refitted weapons systems for the Navy to think about in contrast to the theory of what a DD(X) would bring to the theatre of operations with its stealth/low observance design, advanced precision targeting weapons systems and its forward-looking CIC for a battle group.
Forward-designed smaller ship vs a huge battleship with a heavily armored waterline able to, (to borrow a phrase), “take a licking, and keep on ticking,” with 16″ guns and missiles able to take out nearly anything else floating anywhere in the world? Big Question: What might China, North Korea, or some middle-eastern country be able to put out to sea in the next 10–30 years that we will be able to counter better with, DD(X)[or some derivative design] or Battleship? Cost effectiveness short-term is very necessary, but is the saving of two billion dollars now worth the lives of the thousands of sailors onboard a battlegroup conflict in perhaps 10–20 years? Just my two cents.
There is a reason the USAF has not moth-balled the A-10 and B-52…nothing else can replace them. The advent of precision munitions only multiplied their lethality, as they can and do for battleships. The tech-crazy Navy could take a lesson. You want to draw down US ground forces in Korea, put a BB in 7th fleet…you wanna save mone on personnel, make it combined crew that includes ROK officers and sailors, at 1/3 the cost per of a US crew…
BB Facts from http://www.usnfsa.org for those unwilling to find for themselves:
Two BBs could neutralize or kill 2,400 hardened targets with GPS-guided precision in about two hours before they have to stand off to reload their magazineseighteen 16-inch guns with projectiles (all accurized with GPS or Guidance Integrated Fuzes) from 2700 lb AP deep penetrators, that can take out most hardened targets, down to already well tested 530 lb 115 mile range guided 11-inch sabot rounds, plus 24 five-inch guns firing extended range BETM rounds impacting at 69 lbs.
Each 16 Gun fires 2x1900lbs HE Rounds a min
A Battleship Carries 1,220 16 Rounds (any mix of conventional and long range) weighing up to 2,700lbs each and 8,000+ 5 Rounds for the Battleships Secondary Armament
All BB Rounds Can be Fitted with Precision GPS Error Correction — One Shot– One Kill Capability for ~ $4K/Round
Heavy Weight BB Projectiles with Extended Range Tested and/or under Development:
1900 lb. Super Charge (24 NM)
2240 lb. DX-149 (30.42 NM);
1,300/16 (33.82 NM);
1,350/13.65 EX-148 (44.97 NM)
Testing in Nov 1968 / Feb 1969 to ranges over 45 nautical miles.
A 750 lbs. 16/11-inch sabot which was basis for proposed 1991 DARPA 100 mile (100NM) range sabot.
They can make 33 knots
Fires capabilities are hardened, NBC immune, and all-weather
The Iowas were an answer to the Soviets Kirov Missile Cruisers and heavy anti-ship missiles they are far harder ships than any in existence or operation today
Sailors inside the armored citadel are far more protected from the effects of radiation than in any other ship. This was proven during the Bikini Atoll tests in the late 1940s
The inside hull is slightly over-pressured and as such has limited chemical and biological protection
The boilers of the BB produce enough hot water to provide a very complete scalding decontamination capability for the exterior of the ship.
BBs are far more capable of absorbing damage than any modern surface combatant due to layered armor systems
Results of a Ship Vulnerability Assessment for the USS Missouri in January 1987 showed IOWA class ships very well protected against modern missiles and underwater impacts
Shaped charges on modern missiles would not defeat side or deck armor.
Outer splinter armor would detonate warhead
Main deck armor would defeat warhead inner splitter armor would further protect vital components inside armored citadel
Side impacts would have to penetrate not only armor but voids and fuel filled compartments which are integral parts of protective system
Shaped charges on modern missiles could defeat 7-inch or less single layer external armor.
Reactive armor or cages would be appropriate defense for turrets similar to what Army uses on Bradley’s and Strykers in Iraq — Any hit of this type would not mission kill the battleship.
Torpedo hits are far less damaging to an IOWA than any other US ship
In 1942 the USS North Carolina was truck by Japanese long lance torpedo (2k warhead) at the most vulnerable part of her armored citadel and was mission capable after the hit. Impact similar to attack on USS Cole which was non-mission capable after hit.
the battleship is the most effective naval fire support platform in the history of naval warfare.” General Paul X. Kelley, USMC (Ret), 28th Commandant of the Marine Corps, 22 June 2005
with vast storage and fuel (2.5 million gallons), and extensive work shops and medical facilities, it would also make a ideal secure sea base in high threat situations
Battleship is not limited to just Land Attack: They are a floating city similar to the carrier. They have the ability to refuel & repair other ships. Refuel Helos. Hospital on board. Ideal platform for Special Forces to operate from.
Sec. 1011 (Current US Law) states: The [Navy] Secretary shall retain the existing logistical support necessary for support of at least two operational Iowa class battleships in active service, including technical manuals, repair and replacement parts, and ordnance.
We need these now folks…send Senators’ Mc Cain and Clinton a letter. I have.
VR,
Dan
If math is included with all of this, just activating BB’s will save money for now. But in the long run we will be spending more due to the manning needed for those ships. Where as with the DDX we will have very few shipmates on those ships which also god forbid something happenes means less deaths if somehow the ship gets attacked. Being a silor myself I know that with the cut of personal on the ship it leaves room for improvement in the welfare department ie possible bigger bunks, more room to move and such. But let’s not get as carried away as the british ship that has a bar, IPOD hookup ports, and such. It is still the military.
I can’t agree on the Battlewagons– too much $ for a “prestige” ship — what puzzles me is why is a ship like the Puget Sound AD-38 sitting in the yard in Philly when her services are so sorely needed. Tending and maintaining the fleet in a forward position is vital to power projection! I served on the AD-38 for almost 5 years and I do not understand how a foreign shipyard could possibly compare with a Tender! The poor rotation and excessive sea time coupled with the new high year tenure will effectively reduce our beloved Navy to a bunch of short timers and career officers — which to a career enlisted man gives me the shivers.
A $3 billion destroyer is just plain stupid.…. THe BB’s & CA 134 can do the job and take a hit. The lack of Naval fire support is going to haunt us soon.
Fire long. Fire short. Drop 200.
Military people are good at doing push-ups.
They’re stupid at wars.
This is why we keep losing them.
*****
Except or Spec-Forces, Marines & Infantry & some of our genius fliers & submarine men.
I’ll say what a lot of people are to polite to say.
You assholes couldn’t defend the toilet.
BECAUSE YOU’D GET HIT BY AN EXTENDED RANGE BBG SABOT WHILE YOU WERE SITTING ON IT!
“Quantity has a quality all its own. I am an x-tincan sailor and was appalled to see alll the Spruance class retired before even tirty years had elapsed. Mine, dd-973 the John Young, was sunk off Hawaii ion an Adcap-48 shot by one of our own ssn’s. the photo_s on the net were heartbreaking to me. I believe the DDX is a mistake. WE should build lots of smaller ffg’s and LCS’s. Look at the latest Euro designs. Small, stealthy and lots of fangs. his is what we need when we go up against the Indian-Sino alliance I see on the horizon.
“Quantity has a quality all its own. I am an x-tincan sailor and was appalled to see alll the Spruance class retired before even tirty years had elapsed. Mine, dd-973 the John Young, was sunk off Hawaii ion an Adcap-48 shot by one of our own ssn’s. the photo_s on the net were heartbreaking to me. I believe the DDX is a mistake. WE should build lots of smaller ffg’s and LCS’s. Look at the latest Euro designs. Small, stealthy and lots of fangs. his is what we need when we go up against the Indian-Sino alliance I see on the horizon.
As former tincaner and defense observer I say that Quantity has a quaity all its own. Nes DDX tofight Boghammers. Come on. One Euro style ffg with a Bofors 57 mm EO mount and no one is getting w3ithin 3 miles of the ffg. WE need lots of smaller vessels, not 112 multibillion dollar DD’s, CG’s and CGNX’s for a fight with either irregular forces or a Sino-Indian-Burmese-Iranian alliance which I find ikely in 15 years.
the main thing is that this technology will be available to us in future years as star wars is doing for us right now.
That must have been me a page or two ago. Never post when you’re drunk, even when you’re right.
Look, we’re not going to be fighting China or Russia. China’s leadership, whatever you want to say about it is sane. So is Russia’s. Mostly. And they can’t afford to maintain a standing tugboat fleet. They do good engineering. They can’t afford maintenance. Korea, Iran, maybe. Thing is, littoral combat requires stand-off capability. Which means you have to loiter. Which means you need armor and weapons that you can not only deploy effectively but in a cost effective manner. The electronics are the cheap part. They can even by hardened. I wouldn’t even bother with the Tomahawks. I’d add more SAM & ASW capability in the fashion of the Kuznetsov class.
Now, as for all the Navy engineering pukes and Lockheed-Martin greedheads who never spent a moment considering what their dollars actually buy and what it’s good for, I’m seriously thinking of finding three or four of my largest USM friends to hold y’all down while so I can shove your Playstation up your rectum ’cause that’s what your thinking with and from.
Oh, and incidentally, $1.5 billion per for two updated BBs is pretty light considering that CVN costs $6 billion to build & $2 billion to maintain each year & as for manpower, well, 1,200 to 1,500 looks pretty good compared to 6,000 for a Floating Tomb class carrier. I mean Nimitz class carrier. Clausewitzian slip.
Ever listen to a business school lecture, children. They usually start with something like, “What business are we in?“
If your business is getting your ships sunk and your people killed then you composite hull stealth twits are the future Bill Gate’s of your field.
Radar & even IR stealth, kids, is approaching obsolescence. There are so many other wavelengths to see in & through. And no armor and close proximity to shore-based fire makes you a one-hit kill.
The closer you get to shore the more punishment you have to take because you gotta hang out in range of enemy air and ASM. And mines. And coastal subs. And if you want to deliver punishment you have to be able to load enough to loiter and keep it cheap enough to keep your magazines loaded so you can keep firing without going bankrupt.
Here endeth the lesson.
As usual, our Navy’s leadership has its proverbial head up its ass. They have squandered 350 million on EGRM, placed demands on DD(X) so that its price tag has run out of site, and has nothing to show. Modernization of the battleships is still an obvious answer, but they’re more concerned that about creating command-at-sea billets, and are afraid that congress will reduce the size of the fleet if the BB’s fill the NGFS Role.
For those that feel the battleship is obsolete, then why do we still armor our carriers (yes we do)? We don’t armor other ships because it drives up costs, not because its ineffective. Moreover, the armor on our battleships will still defeat all but the largest cruise missiles.
There is also plenty of old data on extended range 11″ shells for the 16″ gun, and I bet the Marines wouldn’t mind having these ships around. We can still bring them out of retirement, but so long as the Navy is more concerned about maintaining an institution rather than fighting a war, nothing will be done.
To deactivate these ships that no other country in the world can match in the mere terms of firepower and armor is totally ludicrous. I am impressed with the DDX program but it’s gun system can only give a mere fraction and strength of firepower that these battleships can give. To me a a tax payer and Naval enthusiast to have two battleships and two DDX ships to form a surface action fleet capable of countering any air, sea and land threats at the same time providing the MUCH needed fire support for our Marines would be greatly appreciated. Countries like Russia and China or even our allies do not have the mere firepower and deterrent presence that these ships can give. BRING BACK THE BATTLESHIPS and use there mere presence and strengths to our advantage.