Not sure you are getting my post, I agreed the Battleship article was click bait- that barring a really odd and drastic set of circumstances they would never be commissioned again. What I suggested would be better for Naval Gunfire Support would be a light cruiser-sized vessel using off the self (or like the Crusader, researched but cancelled), current inventory systems and munitions to meet the requirement. Give it some ASW or AA capability (I am in favor of AA) and it serves a dual purpose in Amphib TFs.
A single MLRS battery of the time, 9 launchers, wrecked a brigade in a grid square+ as I understand Desert Storm firing standard munitions- DPICM- which is a rocket & shell munitions that is like Rockeyes. Charlie 6's experience IIRC is with towed? I was referencing the canceled Crusader program which was said to put 8 rounds on the same target ToT b/c of the ballistics computer & stabilization- I totally grant you its not doing it from 15 miles.
MLRS is not cruise missiles, its a LOT cheaper- Multiple Launch Rocket System. They can fire a single missile instead of a 6 pack of rockets which is why I gave a rough range for it, but we also joked about them being million dollar mistakes if you got anything wrong in the set up.
NGFS is not about suppressing defense installations once, its about providing on call fire support for Marines (or the Army) while they do not have their own batteries ashore. Your cruise missiles and airstrikes suppress the anti-ship sites and then the gun cruiser moves into range while you send forces ashore. Cruise missile strikes are not suited to on call fire- because like I said its a expensive round- both because of time of response and accuracy for danger close. They are also not reloaded quickly into many of the best first strike platforms. Air strikes are fine, but they are not going to be on station around the clock and the carrier itself will have its combat capabilities degraded or may be called away.
Just a couple of quick numbers . . . the cost per round of the latest unguided 155mm shell is 1k, the GPS guided 155mm shell is 30k but supposed to be accurate out to 40k but I cannot find if that is with rocket assist or base bleed. The 227mm Rockets have a couple of different options for the payload- like HE or DPICM- but the unguided cost I could not find but obviously less than guided and the latest guided out to 40 miles for a cost of 90k a pod (15k per), and the ATACMS as I said were supposed to be a mil a bang.
By comparison, each Tomahawk costs $832k . . . a Mk 82 half ton bomb costs 2k but it costs per DoD 30k an hour to fly the F-35A (probably close for the C) and 11k an hour to fly a Super Hornet. A cruiser or destroyer will be cheaper to operate than a carrier but the submarine operating as a Tomahawk platform might be cheaper to operate than a surface combatant.
As far as anti-ship missiles . . . yeah, it can happen but just like WWII destroyers and cruisers moved in for NGFS, you develop a doctrine to minimize those risks (like firing DPICM at launch sites at 40 miles to suppress).
Btw that rail gun? On a ship its still going to have to get within 5 miles (more like 3.1 at sea level) to fire on a shore based target . . . and IIRC its going to be a vastly different danger close situation.