I agree lumpy, not every ship does have to be the best, but it better be damned good and well supported.
BigRed, you right the only problem with the modern surface combatants is that theyre so fragile:
We went from 5 inch belt armor in world war 2 (still at ~33 kts) to just enough to hold the sea water out. I don't trust in fragile electronics as much a I do in pure steel, you can turn off an electronic device, you cant turn off armor.
And even though lasers and railguns are operation yet, one can only imagine who much better a surface combatant would be with them. And I wont pretend to have any real knowledge on the torpedo problem besides the hope that our own sub force is strong enough to remove most of the problem.
"If you're talking a modern BB, one that can detect/track/engage aircraft, missiles, subs, and ballistic missiles, why, in terms of capabilities, that sounds a LOT like the modernized Ticonderoga class cruiser.
Going back to the "mission kill" point, even if you were to uparmor and stretch out a CG to a modern day battleship, there's not much you can do about the fragile radars that do all the detection and targeting. Without guidance systems, all the high tech precision weaponry onboard is useless."
I'm not talking about a Ticon., I'm talking about a bigger/hardier/stronger version of it. And yes, radar is fragile, but maybe that is another design feature to look at?
Will.
You don't get it, so I'll try to break it down to basics.
A modern battleship, built with existing technology TODAY, would have essentially the same combat capabilities as a Ticonderoga. You can put more missiles on it, bigger guns, more radars, make it faster/nuclear powered, and put 3 ft of armor around the whole damn thing, but ultimately, in terms of the systems it would bring to bear against today's modern naval threats, it would offer nothing new without revolutionary technologies. There is a finite number to the threats AEGIS (or any combat suite) can handle, which means you need to count on getting hit.
Those combat systems, by design, rely on sensors and targeting computers to feed them targeting data. When those sensors (radar arrays) get fragged by a burst of something as small as a 50 cal round, all those expensive systems become very expensive ballast.
Pre-WW2, BB's made sense. You NEEDED a ship that big to mount the longest range naval weapon of the day (large caliber naval guns). Large caliber guns were game changers, hence you needed battleships.
As everyone here knows by now, aircraft, followed by anti ship missiles were the next game changers.
Some facts to spoil fantasies that WW2 armor will defeat modern weaponry:
The Mk5 armor piercing shell fired out of the Iowa's Mk7 gun was expected to reliably penetrate BB armor: 2700lbs shell weight
Wonder what a 2000lb LGB would do? And without air defense, you could drop it safely from high altitude out of range of AAA fire. And battleship armor belts were designed to defeat side impacting rounds, not 2000lb bombs dropping right on the turret. Or a bunker buster.
Missiles?
C-802: 1500lbs
How about a Klub (carried by PRC SSKs): 900 lb WARHEAD alone, missile is supersonic at terminal stage.
WW2 Long Lance torpedo which was capable of sinking WW2 capital ships: 490kg warhead
Russian Type 65 torpedo: 450kg warhead, AND the wake homing variant will detonate right next to your screws. Easy mobility kill.
And that is why battleships are obsolete.