rickusn

I didnt considered SW 55 a critic. Just asking questions which I thought you answered well enough.

I posted what I remembered on the armor issue. There were no "experts" either way at "Warships1" as far as I was concerned. LOL There were some relatively informed, serious and concerned and some not. But mostly just a bunch of people who wanted to be right at all costs on both sides. LOL

As for Lebanon the New Jersey wasnt as effective as would have been liked if I remember correctly
.
There were some accuracy issues. I cant remember the reason but I dont believe it was inherent or unsolvable. I also remember something about ineffectiveness for destroying targets on reverse slopes.

Am on my way now to track down the skinny on this issue.

Either way its not a deal breaker.

And I still stand by this:

"My conclusion is that if thats all the disinformation youve come across we are quite lucky. "


"As none of that would pass the scrutiny of anyone serious about the reactivation issue especially as regards anyone with the power and influence to make it happen."

The real issues of which none are actually deal breakers either as I have refuted or mitigated them all in the past:

Dont meet ALL of the USMC NSFS requirements(which I discussed above)

Dont fit the USMC's OMFTS concept

Single-mission

Require extra escorts(thus adding to reactivation costs)

Labor intensive

Modernization/Reactivation costs prohibitive

Dont fit the new Transformation paradigm

BUT THE REAL REASON IS THAT THE USN & DoD(In General) DOESNT WANT THEM AND CONGRESS DOESNT WANT TO SHELL OUT THE MONEY TO MAKE THE USN REACTIVATE THEM.

Thats the bottom line. Period. Nothing else matters unless you can change the above.

Look at the SSGN Conversion program and compare/contrast it to my list of issues and you should be able see how the USN, DoD & Congress went for that!!!!!!

Notice I didnt say AGREE with it which is different from understanding it.