And here's what some other "experts of note" have to say so you don't think this is just something I dreamed up in my Navy Surface Warfare Officer brain:
Former USMC Commandant General P. X. Kelley: "There is no weapon system in the world that comes even close to the visible symbol of enormous power represented by the battleship"
Former CENTCOM Commanding General Tommy Franks in a letter to USNFSA Executive Director Dr. William Stearman: " ... naval surface fire support will remain key to the success of future littoral operations ... I found your discussion of the need to bring back two battleships to 'bridge the gap' between the absence of naval gunfire and organic fire-support intriguing. Battleships have served the American military well in previous conflicts. The importance of having sufficient naval artillery support to complement the long reach of our cruise missiles cannot be overstated"
Congressional Research Service's Ronald O'Rourke in Nov. 2004: " ... reflects a need to replace the high volume, all weather naval surface fire support capability for supporting Marines and other friendly forces ashore that the Navy lost in 1990-1992 when it removed the four reactivated Iowa-class battleships from service"
Former SECNAV John Lehman in a January 2000 article of Naval Institute Proceedings: "The law requires that the Navy maintain two battleships on the register until it can certify that it has surface fire-support capability that equals or surpasses that of the battleships"
General Walt Boomer, USMC [Ret.] who commanded the I MEF during Operation DESERT STORM: "[Battleships] with their long-range guns, massive firepower, and ability to respond in any weather filled a niche that nothing else could"
Captain Larry Seaquist, U. S. Navy [Ret.], Former Skipper of U. S. S. IOWA, writing in the American Legion Magazine: "What the Navy does these days is try to influence events ashore and that's just what a battleship does ... When we would sail the IOWA down the Straits of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq War, all of southern Iran would go quiet"
Senator John McCain wrote in 1997: "The very substantial attributes of these platforms [battleships] remain more relevant today than during the height of the Cold War. The Navy's emphasis on littoral operations since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and subsequent atrophy of it's fleet has increased the value of battleships immeasurably ... I can think of no compelling reason for mothballing the last of the battleships ... and every reason for retaining them in the fleet"
USMC Commandant General James Jones in a June 2000 interview with Armed Forces Journal International: "I regret we took them [battleships] out of service before we had actually fixed the naval surface fire support problem"
Former House Armed Services Committee Chairman [now deceased] Cong. Bob Stump [R-AZ]: "Measured against their capabilities, they [battleships] are the most cost effective and least manpower intensive warships we have ... It is imperative that two battleships be returned to active service as soon as possible to close the dangerous NSFS gap"
USMC Commandant Michael Hagee, on April 1, 2003: "Our nation's expeditionary forces will remain at considerable risk for want of suitable sea-based fire support"
Senator Ted Kennedy [D-MA] on April 9, 2002 at Senate Sea Power Subcommittee: "[there appears to be] little hope that the Navy would be able to meet the Marine Corps fire support requirements in the foreseeable [future]"
USMC Deputy Commandant, LTGEN Robert Mangus on 12 March 2005 [just 2 days ago as this is being written] in Pacific Stars and Stripes: "Quality is important, and we get the quality that we want" he told members of the House Armed Services Committee. "But the quantity itself is a problem. It's a problem with having peacetime forward presence. It's a problem for being able to rapidly surge the right number of ships. It's a problem for major combat operations" And "Slipping or cutting the replacements is what concerns me. The trend over time goes down. When you need that capability in the future, it does concern me"
Trust me, I've done a lot of research on all this. And while I'm sure the Navy is under pressure to make choices and set priorities as to what they do with currently available scarce dollars, in my view they get too little in savings by scrapping the battleships for what they lose in capability to save the lives of troops ashore and to make it clear to belligerent nations that "America means business" when we park one of these giants in view of any nation's civilian populace.
I've found a great source that says all this much better than I do in their Frequently Asked Questions page -- The Navy Surface Fire Support Association. Go to their FAQ section at http://www.usnfsa.org/FAQ/FAQ where you will find chapter and verse all the rationale for what I argue above.
And if you don't want to believe me or the folks at USNFSA, surely the combined opinions of Former CENTCOM Commanding General Tommy Franks and Former SECNAV John Lehman and General Walt Boomer and Captain Larry Seaquist and Senator John McCain and Former Commandant of the Marine Corps General P. X. Kelley and Congressional Research's Ronald O'Rourke and Former USMC Commandant James Jones and Former House Armed Services Committee Chairman Congressman Bob Stump and current USMC Commandant General Michael Hagee and Senate Sea Power Subcommittee Member Senator Ted Kennedy and current USMC Deputy Commandant LTGEN Robert Mangus can't all be wrong.
I say bring back the battleships and keep them on duty till we have their replacements in the fleet.
Anything else available for use today does not keep faith with our troops in combat ashore and our ability to project our intentions with belligerent nations around the world.
