rickusn

I know you do.

But I dont believe you agree with his assessment?

That the BB's were not reactivated with NSFS as the primary reasoning.

But I think we can all agree that NSFS has been lacking since about the mid-1970's with the demise of the all-gun and converted AAW cruisers that still retained some guns.

This was mitigated somewhat by the BB reactivations in the 1980's but was quite short-lived. Wisconsin only served for three years 1988-1991!! Missouri/Iowa for six and NJ for nine. Commission dates NJ 1982, IA 1984, MO 1986, WI 1988.

The last two BB's were essentially put out of service on their return from GWI.

The Missouri lasted about six months longer than planned so she could participate in the 50th anniversary of the attack on PH. But with only a skeleton crew and most essentail warfighting equipment removed and many compartments sealed up.

The other two, even more ignominously, were decommissioned one during the build-up in October 1990 and the other during the ground-fighting(16 JAN-28FEB) in February 1991.

Ive been reading your posts on the utility of the USMC heres acoupla thoughts.

One reason the USMC will stick around is that they are relatively cheap.

$18b budget vice more than $110b for the Army. Approx 180,000 troops USMC vice 490,000 Army.

It is true the USN provides some services/equipment to the USMC but most of those costs are incremental and therefore relatively insignificant.

Or those services/equipment would have to be provided for in any any event and therefore its unlikely any savings would be accrued. In fact the opposite would likely occur.

My point the Army like the USN and USAF are extraordibnarily expensive.