All of the above and more!
Really? I'd give the Aegis a decided advantage in air defense, but in armament and conventional firepower (including cruise missiles) advantage Iowa Class. imho.
Apples and oranges argument using the F117 to B52 and F35 to A10. Totally different missions and roles. The F117 garners political respect quite quickly when it's deployed and the B52 strikes fear into the hearts of the troops deployed on the line. The F117 is a strategic weapon, designed to attack high priority, highly defended targets, with little to no air cover or support. While the B52 is a front line smashing weapon with air supremacy already established.
I don't know enough about ALL of the F35's capabilities but I'm pretty damn sure it will still be getting the respect of the troops on the ground when it comes screaming over dropping hundreds of pounds of high explosives and steel on the bad guy's heads.
I don't disagree that a BB showing up off your enemy's coast gets their immediate attention. However, the technology used to construct the BB was based on the known threats of the time. How well it would survive now could probably only be based upon calculations of "known" threats.
An Exocet or Silkworm doesn't have to hit the hull to be effective, it could hit the superstructure near or on the bridge and be just as effective, both politically and militarily.
SZ
I kinda like very big floating gun platforms for gunfire support. They can hang around a heck of a lot longer than the fast flyers.