[okie01]

Even if the USN wanted to bring her back into commission it would probably take a year to 18 months to get her back at sea under her own power, then a year after that (if not more) to train a crew to a decent level of proficiency on the outdated systems.

Does this not speak for the creation of a class of nuclear powered gunships, armed with heavy guns and advanced missile capability?

Such a vessel would have meaningful value in the kind of conflicts we are now finding ourselves involved in. A "portable" artillery base...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The era of big BBs is over.
Submarines can do everything a battleship can do except pummeling with 16 inch guns with fewer people and more security. Cruise missiles have trumped every surface ship and the Navy knows it.

[tanknetter]

Does this not speak for the creation of a class of nuclear powered gunships, armed with heavy guns and advanced missile capability?

Possibly. Nuke plants are going to be WAY too expensive, and automating naval rifles above 8" is going to be pretty problematic (the Des Moines got automatic 8" right in WWII, the MCLWG of the 70's was a fiasco) which would mean adding a heck of a lot of crew to a ship that already has to be big and heavy enough to mount them.

The current solution to the "problem" isn't naval gunfire support, but strategic bombers (and particularly B-1Bs) outfitted with JDAMS that are constantly on-orbit over the battlefield. Given that there are limitations to the range of ship-mounted guns (even hypothesized ones employing rail-gun technology), the long-duration bomber loaded with cheap but accurate and effective precision bombs is probably more cost-effective overall.