We have even better than that: Nuclear Submarines capable of doing exactly the same thing, only they’re undetectable [mostly].
Space Battleship Yamato kekw
We could do that now but won’t because we don’t care about actually winning wars any.ore. Simply recertify and deploy TLAM-N on all VLS capable platforms.
I went to read all of the fine article, but cannot find anything beyond
"In the early 1980s, four Iowa-class fast battleships originally built during World War II—Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin—were taken out of mothballs and returned to active duty."
Well with the armor on those battleships most anti-ship missiles would be ineffective. Even the Bridge armor was 5” thick. The Armor belt around the engineering spaces was 12” thick. They had torpedo blisters under the waterline. There are good arguments for using a ship armored like that.
Battle ships these days are good for one thing and one thing only. Shore bombardment, they are excellent at supporting troops on the ground within 20 or so miles of deep water. The same can be done with air power but naval guns cost a lot less to operate then F-35’s.
Just myself, but I’d love to see the Navy with four nuclear powered battleships, armored to the max, and armed to the teeth. I’d love to see the big guns come back simply because there’s nothing in the world that can stop an incoming 18” shell.
Add a variety of sea-to-air and sea-to-whatever missiles, in depth CIWS that can depress to obliterate small surface targets, an anti-sub capability, and a bow that can handle ice breaking and ramming enemy ships.
Maybe there would never be much use for them but four of these buggers would intimidate the crap out of everyone. Plus they’d be a point of pride for the swabbies.
Ping
Submarines aren’t much good for naval bombardments. Or boarding captured vessels. And when they’re “undetectable [mostly],” they also have limited radio comms, which means limited capacity to respond to changes in orders.