“Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.”
a study was done in the 1970s when they all got mothballed again. replacing the barbets with missile launch systems with extended magazines. it was not considered viable as the ships were such great targets. down sizing the gunnery departments would not reduce the operating and maintenance expenses enough to justify the costs. the tech level wasn't there either. it could be done today, but how to defend the asset when it's at sea. threats are much more likely to destroy the capitol ships today than it was fifty years ago. I could see a nuclear power plant and a belly full missiles. and much sensors. what to do with the available fuel bunker spaces. again, what with very accurate targeting systems available today, arty on big ships is some what past. there are much less expensive ways to go. and DD1000 class series in not it.
Fun fact, the U.S. Navy used improper propellant and alot of the shells missed their targets and struck civilian areas.http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=43550&page=2
Did read once, only once, that we found out when the Syrian High Command was holding an all-hands meeting in the Bekaa Valley after the barracks attack. We knew they were largely behind it. I guess the Syrians thought they were pretty far out of range of anything we had. The New Jersey zipped in to just off the coast and put two big rounds right on the meeting tent just as everyone was gathering. No more Syrian High Command. Cannot verify, but I read it in the Baltimore Sun.
I was there in the Bekaa Valley calling in naval gunfire support in 1984.
And can you confirm that the Syrian command took a few Volkswagon sized rounds right in the tent pole?
Sister of The Big Badger Boat!