It is alarming that proven weapon systems are being scraped or replaced with highly expensive weaker forms of firepower. In Oliver North's recent columnFreedom Alliance - The Price of Libery is Eternal Vigilance. He makes great pounds on why we should not scrape the Battleship. This argument was also used about the battle tank. Right before Desert Storm the argument was that tanks were obsolete and not viable to the new modern battle plan. Hmmm, Briton , France and fortunately the U.S. all fielded new versions of a batletank that caused havoc and terror among the Iraq's. For the ground pounder ( an infatry man ) there is no better sense of security then knowing there is a delivery system that will put lots of high powered rounds on range and target just incase things get a little hairy in their field of operation.
The Navy's plan of dry docking the remaining two battleships..The "Mighty MO" USS Missouri, and the New jersey at first seems like a nice plan. Dry dock and turn into museums for the public. However what will replace them. A new system with smaller guns, and unreal cost overruns is not the way to go. Nothing can replace the 16 inch cannons of these two history makers or bring a sense of fear to the enemy knowing they are off shore. In fact the other two battle ships, USS Iowa , and the USS Wisconsin need to be refitted and sent out to see . Placed off shore by a couple of these countries and let them clear their throats a little.
In case you are not aware of what a 16 inch gun can do, try these facts on. A 16 inch shell travels 21 miles , hits with the force that takes out an area of 500 by 300 yards per hit. It literally is a Volkswagen beetle being launched at a target. Now if that doesn't make a Marines Sgt. Maj stand and salute I was never a Marine (enlisted in 1985 , honorable discharge in 1993, combat vet ).
The new DDX ships planned on replacing the battleships are smaller , much thinner skinned (that's a hull), meaning it is very susceptible to misle fire and other ship to ship fire. The reduction of a purchase of 24 down to 5 ships will hardly replace even one battleship.
economical all you need to do is run the numbers and it is more cost effective to refit and upgrade the battleship and put it out to sea for service then the replacement of these newer weaker ships.
Oliver North makes yet another great point
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. Admiral 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.

Despite all the new advances in technology bad weather puts a damper on air support. Any pilot will tell you that they can't fly in bad weather, so where is this support going to come from when it hits the fan?
Dry dock these power houses...NO, make them into the fighting machines we need.