They can steam at 33 knots, which is twice the speed of current flagships, so they can accompany modern surface ships and react faster to world events. Removing the 5-inch guns would provide extra berthing spaces for Joint Task Force personnel, and the option of adding more Tomahawk cruise missile launchers to increase firepower.

One battleship could serve as the 7th Fleet's flagship in Japan, and another as the 6th Fleet's flagship in Italy. Fleet flagships do not make lengthy deployments, so fuel costs would be low. Since battleships carry anti-air, Harpoon, and 32 Tomahawk missiles, plus nine 16-inch guns, they do not require escorts when reacting to most world events, and can provide the sea control capability of a cruiser if necessary. Finally, history has shown that no ship can "show the flag" better than a battleship.

Another role battleships can provide is defense against Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBM)s. An April 1996 Naval "Proceedings" article by ballistics expert LtCmdr Rick Denny describes the battleship's 16-inch guns as "the quintessential anti-TBM system". Firing nine 2000 lbs air-burst shells at a missile will guarantee a kill; like skeet shooting on a massive scale.

Two battleships could also fill the void left by the cancellation of the "arsenal ship" project. Opponents of the arsenal ship noted that counter battery radar can easily determine the precise origin of missiles and naval gunfire offshore. A single missile hit, torpedo, or a volley of rocket fire could instantly destroy an arsenal ship loaded from bow to stern with missiles and no protective armor.

In stark contrast, a heavily armored battleship cannot be seriously damaged by modern anti-ship missiles, so its the only ship which can safely approach a shoreline and engage hidden coastal defense forces. The firepower of the battleships www.battleships.org nine 16-inch guns is already well known, and new sabot shells allow ranges in excess of 100 miles. Naval guns have proven especially effective during past wars because they fire shells like bullets, e.g. faster than the speed of sound www.usnfsa.com/articles/fsao/fsao7.htm. While radar and the noise of aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and mortars provide time to take cover, a Battleship can explode nine 2000 lbs shells on a target with no warning. When battleships opened up in Korea, a lot of the Chinese began to surrender because they they thought we were using nuclear weapons. People also think that a 16-in (406mm) round is just twice the size of an 8-inch round. But you have to do it cubed, times length of the round. Therefore, a 16-inch is around 200O lbs, while an 8-inch is 200lbs, besides the 16" shells, the Navy only has tiny 5-inch 90lbs rounds left.

If you read accounts of World War II, troops feared the battleships most of all. A naval gun shoots a "bullet" faster than the speed of sound, there is no warning. Radar can detect aircraft, and you can see them dropping their load before you take cover. You can hear mortars and howitzers fire in the distance, and even the incoming round provides noise to allow a few seconds to hit the deck.

A battleship can fire nine 2000 lbs at a target and the victims have no warning at all. They can be in the chow line, or filling sandbags, or taking a dump, and then BOOM! In addition, troops can fire back at aircraft and ground pieces, but they can only hide and wait for the battleships to go away.

One Iowa was hit directly by an armored 5-inch round, it caused small dent. An older type, battleship the USS Washington fought in almost every battle in the Pacific, sinking a Japanes battleship in an epic duel AND DID NOT LOSE A SINGLE MAN during the entire war! Since 1941, when air cover and staying mobile (not in port) was appreciated, no U.S. battleships have been sunk, let alone severely damaged. In Korea and Vietnam, shore gunners couldn't resist shooting at the big ships, they quickly learned they made a fatal mistake, as they were oblitterated by massed gunfire. Another Iowa was hit by a 152mm shell off Korea, it broke open one of their hatches, but that was all.

The planned construction of two flagships will cost ten times more than reactivating two Iowa class battleships, which were refitted just 10 years ago. A battleship with 1200 crewmen can combine the capabilities of a flagship (800 crewmen), a cruiser (350 crewmen), an arsenal ship (50 crewmen), and an anti-TBM system into one unsinkable warship. Many Congressmen are anxious for our military to field effective missile defenses, and the Pentagon has requested $821 million just for THAAD testing next year. Perhaps anti-TBM funds could be used to reactivate two Iowa class battleships, a cost the Navy estimates at just $200 million.

The Navy claims that battleships are expensive to operate and manpower intensive, ignoring the fact that an aircraft carrier with air wing costs five times more to operate and requires four times more Sailors. Defense contractors have pushed the idea that $1 million Tomahawk missiles can provide wide-area and economical precision firepower, ignoring the fact that only 288 Tomahawks were fired during the entire Persian Gulf war because of a lack of suitable point targets.

The Navy also claims that tiny high-tech "gadgetized" naval gunfire can replace 16-inch (406mm) guns. One dismal program will allow 5-inch guns to fire $35,000 19 lb ERGM projectiles 63 miles, but delivering this tiny projectile requires GPS guidance, which is easily jammed. There is also "talk" about a VGAS which could fire 155mm mortars rounds 100 miles. These rounds will deliver an expensive payload of less than 50 lbs, and may be GPS guided, although some theorists believe that a laser could guide the shell on a perfectly clear day. Not very threatening to any enemy regardless.

The Navy’s only rational excuse may be that ongoing manpower cuts make reactivating two battleships an impossibility. This is where the Marines, who are big battleship supporters can save the day. (see the January 1998 issue of the "Marine Corps Gazette") A Marine Corps with 168,000 active duty Marines and two Iowa class battleships will be far more effective than the current force of 172,000 Marines and no battleships.

If the Marine Corps truly wants the firepower of 18 16-inch guns, it should agree to transfer funding for 4000 personnel to the Navy. This will provide 3000 sailors for the battleships, and 1000 for shore-based training and logistics support. Decommissioning two old LCC Blue Ridge Class flagships will cover operating costs, and free another 1000 sailors. As a result, our Navy could add two ships which can serve as flagships, cruisers, anti-TBM systems, or shore bombardment ships http://www.usnfsa.com, using funds now devoted to Marine Corps manpower. This is far cheaper than building new ships, and any battleship onboard system deemed outdated can be replaced. Modularity and upgrades as we do now on all naval ships. The 21st Century battleships are possible, and represent a chance to reverse our nation’s decline in military power.

RETURN TO 21st CENTURY WEAPONS