Kinda, to a degree.The point is that the shock-propagation damage to electronics is solvable by actually building for it. Even if it's literally just sticking the equipment in spring-isolated blocks or some other similarly tonnage-bleeding brute-force approach.
But then how do you cover the antennas and armor the bridge and make fires not wreck shit?
Smaller, but very heavy for their size, Iowas in cold war mod have higher draft than a Nimitz or Ford.Do you seriously think that a smaller ship with less engineering constraints on hull shaping is certain to be slower than the supercarriers?
Again, range problem.They pour R&D money into a wide variety of hardware that this is true of. Because you can carry hundreds of times the ammo for the cargo space and cost of a typical cruise missile loadout with various forms of non-missile artillery.
Yeah, of course a 16in shell is smaller than a fucking Tomahawk, but it has something like 3% of its range.
Meanwhile, compared to a Harpoon, which has "only" 4x the range, the projectile alone is heavier than the Harpoon.
Again, you can't cover the antennas. Also even if you somehow succeed, that just means the other side will stock some more Onyx/Granit sized missiles.I'm not comparing the Iowas to the Nimitz or Gerald R Ford classes. I am saying that defensive design can in fact deal with cruise missiles, because the Iowas' issues almost all come from problems we've hammered at to try to avoid the same in the supercarriers. Getting electronics and crew to survive the shock propagation is an every-ship problem, not just a battleship problem, but a battleship gets devote much more tonnage to the answers.