Big Battleship Doctrine

[Defcon 6]

Now, it's laughable to try and explain Iowa ractivation as "too expensive" compared to the 100 billion for a fleet of DD(X)'s. I have an idea, get rid of one of those DD(X)'s and use the money to reactivate two Iowa's. And of course you wouldn't want an Iowa to go into a littoral enviroment, but my point was and still is, that it could. Now the main guns might be less effective, but then again they have the same range as a non AGS 155mm.

[B.Smitty]

[QUOTE=Defcon 6]That RCS doesn't count for that much in naval warfare.
[/qoute]

Gosh I guess we should tell the Navy to stop spending money on RCS reduction! Thanks for clueing us in.

And Iowa's arent actually that noisy unless they are kicking some @ss. They use boilers and steam turbines which by the way doesn't make that much noise.

Provide me some links to back that up. My guess is even a crappy Romeo would hear an Iowa from dozens of miles out.

A DD(X) will either use a gas turbine or diesel power. Diesels are indeed noisy! By the way, the DD(X) is nowhere near as quiet as a submarine.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../ship/dd-x.htm

"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."

It's a capital warship, they don't need it. he DD(X) is a destroyer, not a capital ship. So hopefully you see the difference.

Yeah "capital" as in it costs a lot to operate.

Actually they aren't. Thats what most jet-jockey ametures think. Carriers are not flexible in anyway. It just so happens that what they do happen to do, is very effective.

Ok can you explain how they aren't "flexible in anyway"? Really, I'm all ears. I want to learn.

Signature doesn't matter.

"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."

Seems the USN disagrees with you.

lol! so you advocate a much more expensive DD(X)! Your trying to argue the issue from both sides.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm advocating it. I'm saying I'd rather see money spent on DD(X)s and/or LCSs or other platforms than on reactivating Iowas.

Too bad the DD(X) won't fix any of that. lol.

For once I agree with you.

Actually no. You still do not understand that the Iowa's would cost a hell of a lot less.

And do a hell of a lot less.

VLS, AEGIS. They already have sonar. What we think is irrelevant. The modernization has already been finalized. So if the usn did decide to bring them back, they already know what they would implement. And yes, AEGIS and VLS is on that list. And it still costs peanuts at 500 million a ship!

You still haven't posted a link detailing modernization costs.

Because there isn't one. Duh.

So how do you know the "modernization has already been finalized" if there isn't any public documentation about it? How do you know AEGIS and VLS is on the list? How do you know what the modernization costs will be if there isn't any public documentation?

From your GAO report again,

"Navy has not developed plans or cost estimates to reactivate or modernize battleships"

So whether they would have AEGIS and VLS is completely up in the air.

Crew doesn't mean much. Everyone knows that.

*sigh* once again your GAO report,

"The cost of a ship’s crew is generally the single largest expense incurred over a ship’s lifecycle.8"

You seem to think the DD(X) is a jack of all trades.

Yes, when it comes to surface combatants, it is.

[B.Smitty]

And you got that notion why?

Because there were no opposed amphib landings in Vietnam and even D-day "only" had some 2500 allied KIAs out of 400k for all of WWII.

If you got a point make it.

My point is you were wrong. We had air supremacy for Overlord.

Even Vietnam was just a war of interest.

Define "war of interest".

Oh...and your palletized MLRS exist only in your dreams. (check your last response).

Yep.

[B.Smitty]

No but between a few bruised ribs and trying to get work caught up, havn't been posting as much.

And B.Smitty has been doing a good job.

Thanks but I'm afraid I can't keep up with it.

"Cost is irrelevant"

"Carriers are not flexible"

"Signature doesn't matter"

"Crew (manning level) doesn't mean much. Everyone knows that."

"Even Vietnam was just a war of interest."

How can you respond to this?

[Defcon 6]

Gosh I guess we should tell the Navy to stop spending money on RCS reduction! Thanks for clueing us in.

lol. well, too bad your forgetting the carrier.

it's a good thing a DD(X) has its low RCS, because otherwise we wouldn't be getting anything out of this deal. But then again, even the Burkes IIA had reduced RCS to a degree.

Provide me some links to back that up. My guess is even a crappy Romeo would hear an Iowa from dozens of miles out.

Even a crappy Romeo would probably also be heard a few miles out. Besides, if the Iowa was traveling with a carrier then it wouldn't matter.

"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."

Oh boy. But then again...it's a destroyer.

Yeah "capital" as in it costs a lot to operate.

100 billion for a relatively small fleet of DD(X)'s. ahh, smell the green backs just...drifting away.

"It expands the battlespace by over 400%; has the radar cross section of a fishing boat; and is as quiet as a LOS ANGELES Class submarine."

double post.

Well, I wouldn't say I'm advocating it. I'm saying I'd rather see money spent on DD(X)s and/or LCSs or other platforms than on reactivating Iowas.

Right...in the grand scheme of the USN budget 2 battleships for the price of 1 DD(X) sounds better to me.

For once I agree with you.

don't even know what that refers to.

So how do you know the "modernization has already been finalized" if there isn't any public documentation about it? How do you know AEGIS and VLS is on the list? How do you know what the modernization costs will be if there isn't any public documentation?

Because the GAO report specifies modern equipment. Because it already has outdated BGM-109 launchers, they will obviously replace those. common logic. They didn't specify AEGIS, however they did point out a digital system that would interloop with the rest of the fleet. indicating it would have a completely modern combat system installed.

So whether they would have AEGIS and VLS is completely up in the air.

Because the GAO report specifies modern equipment. Because it already has outdated BGM-109 launchers, they will obviously replace those. common logic. They didn't specify AEGIS, however they did point out a digital system that would interloop with the rest of the fleet. indicating it would have a completely modern combat system installed.

From my GAO report-

Costs to reactivate the battleships to their original warfighting capabilities with some
enhancements for habitability and interoperability would include costs to bring the
battleships up to current ship standards. For example, the Navy would have to
replace the analog communications system with digital systems so that they will be
interoperable with other ships; improve the propulsion system, and update chemical
and biological protection capabilities, and improve personnel habitability with
additions such as sit-up berthing and accommodations for women at sea. Moreover,
Navy officials estimate they would need about 1,500 military personnel to operate a
reactivated battleship. The fire control system would need to be improved and the
propellant powder bags for the 16-inch guns, stored off the ships, would need to be
replaced due to age and deterioration. In addition, the damaged number two gun
turret on the Iowa would need to be repaired.
Cost factors that would need to be considered to modernize and reactivate the
battleships beyond their original warfighting capabilities could include replacing the
propulsion system with a gas turbine system and developing guided munitions that
could be launched from the battleships. Ultimately, the costs and time to modernize
and reactivate the battleships would depend upon the specific missions and
capabilities desired. However, in addition to the cost of more modern munitions,
numerous enhancements to upgrade communications, the ship’s deck, mechanics,
chemical biological protection

*sigh* once again your GAO report,

"The cost of a ship’s crew is generally the single largest expense incurred over a ship’s lifecycle.8"

once again we have that term...lifecycle. Which you don't seem to grasp in this case. We don't even know what the DD(X)'s lifecycle cost will look like. Because it uses automation, it will most likely be pretty high. The only advantage is that we don't have to risk sailors.

[Defcon 6]

Because there were no opposed amphib landings in Vietnam and even D-day "only" had some 2500 allied KIAs out of 400k for all of WWII.

Thats because you missread what I wrote. I was speaking of ALL american military casualties from WW2.
someone elses words put what I wish to say perfectly-

B-52s are pretty useless in the CAS role when there's any IADS or air threat.
When there's not even Cessna's can be effictive support platforms.

My point is you were wrong. We had air supremacy for Overlord.

My point is...who cares. You were wrong when you stated air supremacy would be the almighty factor in such a scenario. In fact, regardless of that, surface to air missiles changes everything. What do you plan to do with that air supremacy? You use this very general terminology and then expect me to be detailed and accurate?

Define "war of interest".

Our interest was...keeping communism out of south korea and later south vietnam.

Yep.

right back at ya.

[Defcon 6]

Thanks but I'm afraid I can't keep up with it.

yes, its hard to keep track of your arguements since they seem to spring from one subject to another.

"Cost is irrelevant"

It is. or else we wouldn't be going through with the DD(X) program.

"Carriers are not flexible"

Depends how you look at it. ASW, ASuW...? Iowa's have helo decks, and anti-ship weaponry, and TLAM. Sums it up pretty well.

"Signature doesn't matter"

If your with a carrier group it doesn't. In fact, I remember dreadnought saying something about this:

Name any naval surface vessel almost 900 feet long that does?
The BB's were never meant to "hide" their presence it was to be known.

True but I dont know many people that would stake their life or a billion dollar boat on not getting hit in the first place yes we would like to think that but this isint utopia where things are perfect. The BB's have escorts to help protect them from subs including USN subs.

"Crew (manning level) doesn't mean much. Everyone knows that."

Carriers have 5,000 crew members

"Even Vietnam was just a war of interest."

which it was. last time I checked the comme soldiers from vietnam hadn't come up and attacked pearl harbor or some other american asset.

[B.Smitty]

lol. well, too bad your forgetting the carrier.

No. A carrier can sit back 700 nm or more, where it's a lot safer, and let its aircraft do the work. Even your uber 16" BB(X) guns need to get in a lot closer than that.

100 billion for a relatively small fleet of DD(X)'s. ahh, smell the green backs just...drifting away.

Yes, they are expensive. I'm not sold on their value either. I've said as much.

double post.

No, just reinforcing the fact that signature does matter.

Right...in the grand scheme of the USN budget 2 battleships for the price of 1 DD(X) sounds better to me.

Lifecycle costs do matter. Crew costs dominate the cost equation, not purchase price.

Because the GAO report specifies modern equipment. Because it already has outdated BGM-109 launchers, they will obviously replace those. common logic. They didn't specify AEGIS, however they did point out a digital system that would interloop with the rest of the fleet. indicating it would have a completely modern combat system installed.

There is no plan for VLS or AEGIS on Iowas. There is no USN plan to modernize them period. Your "common logic" is just pie in the sky fantasy.

once again we have that term...lifecycle. Which you don't seem to grasp in this case. We don't even know what the DD(X)'s lifecycle cost will look like. Because it uses automation, it will most likely be pretty high. The only advantage is that we don't have to risk sailors.

Huh? The whole point of automation is to reduce manning levels - the largest slice of lifecycle costs.

What you don't seem to understand is that buying a weapon system is only part of the overall cost. And in the case of a warship, we'll spend more operating it over its life than we did buying it - the largest percentage of which goes to crew costs.

So given equal service lives, even though we don't have to buy the two Iowas (we do have to modernize them), they'll cost more than buying and operating two DD(X)s!

And it's highly debatable that an ancient Iowa can match the service life of a new DD(X), so to be fare in a cost analysis, we'd also have to factor in building an Iowa replacement to cover the period after their useful service life.

[B.Smitty]

Thats because you missread what I wrote. I was speaking of ALL american military casualties from WW2.
someone elses words put what I wish to say perfectly-

B-52s are pretty useless in the CAS role when there's any IADS or air threat.
When there's not even Cessna's can be effictive support platforms.

But that is not the case with B-2s, F-22As, F-117s, or even F-teens with proper SEAD/DEAD/OCA.

In any event, as I stated below, we won't be doing opposed amphib landings without air supremacy, which by definition means no opposing air threat.

And it's silly to think that an enemy with a capable IADS would not also have significant anti-access/area denial capabilities (e.g. mines, diesel subs, AShMs). And given that, you won't get an amphib task force close, let alone a BB without first overcoming them.

My point is...who cares. You were wrong when you stated air supremacy would be the almighty factor in such a scenario.

So again I ask you for one historical case where the US performed an opposed amphibious landing without air supremacy. We had it during Overlord.

In fact, regardless of that, surface to air missiles changes everything. What do you plan to do with that air supremacy?

SEAD/DEAD, stealth, standoff munitions. Same as we've done for years.

You use this very general terminology and then expect me to be detailed and accurate?

Definitions,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy

"Air supremacy is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority

"Air superiority is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.""

[Defcon 6]

[QUOTE=B.Smitty]No. A carrier can sit back 700 nm or more, where it's a lot safer, and let its aircraft do the work. Even your uber 16" BB(X) guns need to get in a lot closer than that.


most fighters only have a combat radius of 900-1000 nm. So no, they won't be sitting back 700 nm.

Yes, they are expensive. I'm not sold on their value either. I've said as much.

I'm perfectly fine with the DD(X) because the technology developed from it can be applied to virtually any naval surface ship. But, as I said the BB's cost peanuts compared to the DD(X) project. Even if reactivated their service life couldn't be more than 20 yrs from now before they are put out of commission for good. So crew costs over the entire lifecycle wouldn't be high enough to cause serious concern. And if you remember the GAO article it only pointed out that crew costs would be the largest percentage of operational costs, but not that it's anywhere near unaffordable.

No, just reinforcing the fact that signature does matter.

Not with a capital ship.

Lifecycle costs do matter. Crew costs dominate the cost equation, not purchase price.

Look at what I said about it above. Purchase price? Purchase price is only one part of project costs. R&D costs for the DD(X) will far surpass even crewing costs for a Iowa over a span of 10 years! Thats why I keep pointing out that in the case of the two Iowa's, the costs while being the majority of the life cycle costs of reactivation isn't all that high.

There is no plan for VLS or AEGIS on Iowas. There is no USN plan to modernize them period. Your "common logic" is just pie in the sky fantasy.

Read the GAO report-

Costs to reactivate the battleships to their original warfighting capabilities with some
enhancements for habitability and interoperability would include costs to bring the
battleships up to current ship standards. For example, the Navy would have to
replace the analog communications system with digital systems so that they will be
interoperable with other ships; improve the propulsion system, and update chemical
and biological protection capabilities, and improve personnel habitability with
additions such as sit-up berthing and accommodations for women at sea. Moreover,
Navy officials estimate they would need about 1,500 military personnel to operate a
reactivated battleship. The fire control system would need to be improved and the
propellant powder bags for the 16-inch guns, stored off the ships, would need to be
replaced due to age and deterioration. In addition, the damaged number two gun
turret on the Iowa would need to be repaired.
Cost factors that would need to be considered to modernize and reactivate the
battleships beyond their original warfighting capabilities could include replacing the
propulsion system with a gas turbine system and developing guided munitions that
could be launched from the battleships. Ultimately, the costs and time to modernize
and reactivate the battleships would depend upon the specific missions and
capabilities desired. However, in addition to the cost of more modern munitions,
numerous enhancements to upgrade communications, the ship’s deck, mechanics,
chemical biological protection capabilities, living quarters, and other systems would
also be required.

Huh? The whole point of automation is to reduce manning levels - the largest slice of lifecycle costs.

Yes, however complex machinery also cost money to maintain. We don't know that it will significantly reduce costs yet. So far the only reason its on there is so that the ship does not need as many crew members!

What you don't seem to understand is that buying a weapon system is only part of the overall cost. And in the case of a warship, we'll spend more operating it over its life than we did buying it - the largest percentage of which goes to crew costs.

Thats is incorrect concerning the Iowa's. Read above.

So given equal service lives, even though we don't have to buy the two Iowas (we do have to modernize them), they'll cost more than buying and operating two DD(X)s!

Yes however that is a direct comparison. Over 20 years those two Iowa's won't come close to matching the costs those two DD(X)'s will cost. At this point your just making assumptions by guessing (the 1300 extra crew members will cost more money than what...a 3 billion dollar ship????)

And it's highly debatable that an ancient Iowa can match the service life of a new DD(X), so to be fare in a cost analysis, we'd also have to factor in building an Iowa replacement to cover the period after their useful service life.

Read what I said above. The CG(X) might be its ultimate replacement. Also, now you understand the reason for my BB(X) concept. You're right, if the USN wants to stay with the BB idea, they will need to replace it.

[Defcon 6]

But that is not the case with B-2s, F-22As, F-117s, or even F-teens with proper SEAD/DEAD/OCA.

Take that up with M21 sniper.

In any event, as I stated below, we won't be doing opposed amphib landings without air supremacy, which by definition means no opposing air threat.

The issue of battleship reactivation doesn't actually have anything to do with this. Thats why I keep trying to steer youa way from this issue. Because it just doesn't matter. Regardless of whether we do opposed naval landings, we still need NSFS for a variety of other things.

And it's silly to think that an enemy with a capable IADS would not also have significant anti-access/area denial capabilities (e.g. mines, diesel subs, AShMs). And given that, you won't get an amphib task force close, let alone a BB without first overcoming them.

BB could fire from beyond that range. And if they can keep our ships away, then we are have a whole host of other problems to deal with other than not being able to sail a ship near the coast. A BB camping 100 nm away doesn't need to worry about any of that. And with guided rounds we could indeed reach beyond the range of the DD(X)'s AGS 155mm's.

So again I ask you for one historical case where the US performed an opposed amphibious landing without air supremacy. We had it during Overlord.

Remember...it doesn't matter. The USN isn't considering the reactivation issue as having anything to do with naval landings. I just threw the idea out there because it added clout. And still does since CAS IS NOT capable of heavy suppression. Neither are TAC TOM's.

SEAD/DEAD, stealth, standoff munitions. Same as we've done for years.

No suppression capability. CAS and strategic bombing won't solve your problems in such a scenario.

[Defcon 6]

Lets review system requirements of the DD(X) and the Iowa
Also, refering to the GAO report-
A= DDG with 5" gun firing current munitions
B=BB with 16" gun firing standard round
C= DDG with 5" gun firing ERM
D= DD(X) with AGS firing LRLAP

DNM= does not mitigate
PM= partially mitigates

A B C D
Joint Enviroment DNM DNM DNM DNM
Weather Restrictions PM PM PM PM
Collateral Damage DNM DNM PM PM
Fires Volume PM PM PM PM

As you can see the battleship (B) partially mitigates some of the NSFS gaps. With standard rounds. So clearly with guided 16" rounds it would easily rival the AGS on the DD(X).

[Gun Grape]

DefCon

Take a few moments/days to get your Pro BB thoughts to one post. I've been trying to follow your argument and not making much out of it.

A few things I would like you to address is

What BBs bring to the fight that isn't already there.

How useful that capability would be.

Why we would need them. If you argue that we need them for opposed beach landings or that we need NSFS for other reasons.

Where would they come into play in today and tomorrows Navy.

Trying to sort through all the assorted post and responding would create a scattergun effect. Post would get misinterpeted.


You are wrong about the CVs and "Combat radius". Theres that little thing called AtoA refueling. Thats how Navy/MC planes were conducting missions in Afghanistan during the early days.

most fighters only have a combat radius of 900-1000 nm. So no, they won't be sitting back 700 nm.

[Defcon 6]

What BBs bring to the fight that isn't already there.

currently there is nothing there. Thats why the DD(X) is being developed.

How useful that capability would be.

The problem is that there are only two Iowa's. So to that question I would answer, that it is practical because there are only two, it's more feasible to man their outrageous crew requirements. I also ran some numbers, for 20 years of non-stop service, the total cost of an Iowa's crew would be 1.2 billion dollars. In which I figured that every crew member would make 40,000 a year, not counting miscellaenous expesnses (training) and benefits. I chose 40k because most don't make that much, so for every enlisted making 30-35k it makes up for officers making 55k+. It's a good middle of the road number. So around a billion dollars to modernize an Iowa, plus that 1.2 for entire life cycle crew expenses. And you get a number close enough to the actual cost.

Why we would need them. If you argue that we need them for opposed beach landings or that we need NSFS for other reasons.

No, I stated above that opposed naval landings isn't an issue here since it's too undefinable in terms of modern warfare.

Right now we need them for NSFS. Tommorows navy will find other uses in my "jack of all trades" BB(X) idea. Of course as Smitty pointed out, the BB(X) is in my imagination. But for the sake of arguement we have to assume that there would be a replacement of the same nature as the Iowa class battleships.

Where would they come into play in today and tomorrows Navy.

It's my belief that the Iowa wouldn't be able to serve more than 20 years. So for todays navy it fills the current requirement gaps which are in my last post. Tommorows navy will need a BB(X) so to speak.

You are wrong about the CVs and "Combat radius". Theres that little thing called AtoA refueling. Thats how Navy/MC planes were conducting missions in Afghanistan during the early days.

They can use air to air refueling, but I do know that they don't use it for every sortie. It would be inpractical. My guess is that I'm right about 700 nm being an inaccurate figure. Most sorties carried out in afghanistan were carried out by bombers, correct?

[Defcon 6]

The following is an article by Oliver North-


"There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship." -- Retired Gen. P.X. Kelly, USMC

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Those words of the former Marine commandant resonate with me. In 1969, gunfire from the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) saved my rifle platoon in Vietnam. During her six months in-theater, the USS New Jersey's 16-inch guns were credited with saving more than 1,000 Marines' lives. The North Vietnamese so feared the ship that they cited her as a roadblock to the Paris peace talks. Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home. Now, 36 years later, Washington is poised to make another battleship blunder.

After the USS Iowa (BB-61) and USS Wisconsin, (BB-64) were taken out of active service in 1992, Congress passed Public Law 104-106, a 1996 measure requiring that our last two battleships be kept ready for reactivation. But today's Navy brass wants Congress to repeal the law, strike the ships from Naval Vessel Register -- the official list of available ships -- and donate them to museums.

The Navy, focusing on a new "strategic vision" called "sea basing," claims that the battleships' proven firepower is no longer necessary for Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) -- the kind of mission that saved my Marines three decades ago. Adm. Vernon Clark, the chief of naval operations, says that "Marines will be supported by combat air." That's great -- except when bad weather keeps the planes on deck instead of overhead. It also ignores the full range of support that is economically available from well-protected, highly mobile, gun and missile-firing battleships. This is not your grandfather's battlewagon.

In 1983, the USS New Jersey was the best support available to the Marines after their barracks were bombed in Beirut. During the "tanker war," in the mid-1980s, every time the USS Iowa steamed into the Persian Gulf, the Iranians ceased hostile action.

During Desert Storm, cruise missiles launched from both the USS Missouri (BB-63) and the USS Wisconsin attacked scores of targets deep inside Iraq; and an entire Iraqi Naval Infantry unit surrendered to one of the USS Wisconsin's unmanned aerial vehicles. Unlike any other naval vessel, battleships combine survivability, speed and immediate, heavy firepower.

The Navy claims that the "firepower problem" -- Marines call it "steel on target" -- will be solved by new, 5-inch Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM). Under development at great cost since 1996, the Government Accountability Office said in 2004 that the ERGM program is rife with cost overruns and that "its problems have led to test failures and delays."

In truth, the ERGM should have been scrubbed in March 2000, when the Marines told Congress that neither ERGM nor any other 5-inch round would meet Marines' lethality requirements. Worse still, a May 2001 internal Navy report admitted that ERGM won't meet Marines' volume of fire requirements, either. Both needs can easily be met by existing 16-inch guns on the battleships.

Navy planners insist that a new DD(X)-class of ships -- also still in development -- will surpass battleships' NSFS capabilities. But on April 1, 2003, Marine Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee testified that our nation's expeditionary forces "will remain at considerable risk" for want of NSFS until the DD(X) joins the fleet "in significant numbers." Since then, the Navy has reduced the DD(X) buy from 24 ships to five. This leaves Marines high and dry unless Iowa and Wisconsin are available for rapid reactivation.

Even if the Navy ordered more of the DD(X) class -- at $2 billion to $3.5 billion each -- these small, thin-skinned vessels are highly vulnerable to "sea skimmer" missiles. And a terrorist action, like the 2000 attack on the USS Cole -- which crippled the destroyer and killed 17 -- would do similar damage to a DD(X).

Naval officers admit that heavily armored battleships are practically impervious to such strikes, but claim that what the DD(X) lacks in armor it will make up in stealth and speed. To embattled Marines that just means their nearest naval gunfire support will be far out at sea and traveling at high speed -- neither of which contribute to accurate "steel on target" for troops fighting ashore.

Our Navy currently has no capability for providing the lethal, high-volume firepower that would be required if -- God forbid -- we should have to land Marines on the coasts of Iran or North Korea, or in defense of Taiwan. When the Marines assaulted Um Qasr at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, they had to rely on naval gunfire from an Australian frigate. The Navy's answer is to wait six years for the costly, unproven ERGM system and a half-dozen or fewer, yet-to-be-built DD(X) ships. But America's enemies may not wait that long. And America's taxpayers may not want to pay the price -- in blood or treasure. The DD(X)-ERGM experiments are estimated to cost between $12 billion and $16 billion.

It would take less than two years to reactivate the Iowa and Wisconsin. The battleships are 10 percent faster than the still-conceptual DD(X). They each bring to bear 12 5-inch and nine 16-inch guns -- capable, with new munitions, of firing accurately to nearly 100 miles. The two battleships can also carry nearly twice as many cruise missiles as all the DD(X) hulls combined. All that firepower is available for $2 billion -- the cost of one DD(X).

Sometimes, as I tell my grandchildren, older is better. In the case of the two battlewagons, older is not only superior, it's also a lot less expensive.