U.S Naval Institute attn:
Comments and Discussion "Forum"
2062 Generals Highway
Annapolis,MD 21401
While I agree wholeheartedly with C.E.Myers (June '95 Commentary, "Not So Fast")
"that battleships will be relevant for several more decades", the Phase II plan for the removal of Turret III
to makeroom for a small flightdeck seems like an awkward & expensive way tocreate a hybrid. Besides
adding systems with inherent fragility (aircraft, open hangar bays and an unarmored flight deck) to a hull
known forits strengths you would be removing 1/3 of that which make battleshipsboth unique and
"relevant". Please consider the following options instead:
> Remove the (4) amidships armored box launcher's (ABL's) and replace them with (6) multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) complete with a
deckhouse for reloads.
> Remove the (4) aft ABL's and replace with two 32 cell vertical launch systems
(VLS).
> Install two 8-cell Harpoon/SLAM cannisters aft of the VLS cells to each side of the aft 16"
navalized "FireFinder",(32 total missiles).
> Remove and replace Fore & Aft 16" Fire Control directors
with Naval "FireFinder" counter-battery planar arrays.
> Remove and replace the six 5"/38 gun
mounts with 5"/62 Mk 45 naval gun systems.
> Remove and replace the four 20-mm Phalanx CIWS
with four 30-mm Goalkeeper CIWS mounts (a newer and far more powerful Close-In Weapon System).
> Remove and replace Mechanical/Analog Fire Control w/Digital systems.
> Automate Main machinery spaces as necessary to allow for a major reduction in Engineering personnel.
If configured in the preceding manner, these magnificent ships would receive enhanced point defense capability
as well as asignificant increase in conventional force projection against foreign shore or sea borne
targets. Designed to survive engagements with enemybattleships and possessing the most survivable
hull in any nation's Navy, they are uniquely suited for a shore bombardment role which demand
close-in gunfire/rocket support missions. A battleship properly fitted as "counter-battery" platform off a
hostile foreign shore would be an unsolvable tactical problem for a shore based defending
commander. It would be capable of destroying all artillery positions and surface to surface missile sites
it engages within minutes, providing aprotective umbrella for US forces, saving many American lives
in the process.
It has been said that technology had finally caught up with the capabilities of 16"
Naval artillery, we're squandering a vital defense resource by keeping them in mothballs. To quote,
"The return once more to sleep of these great ships is both unjust and unfair to her and to her country,"
it also doesn't make sense.
Sincerely,
Timothy Robert Parker
ex-EM2(SW),3rd Recommissioning
Crew USS New Jersey (BB-62) 1/82-4/85