On Balance, the battleship should be reinstated as the flagship of navies and fleets.

Apologies for being late. Thank you to my opponent for accepting the debate, and have fun! REBUTTALS.I wrote a wall of text, then this got deleted. To keep this simple.-My opponent says that "literally every" navy adbandoned the battleship. This is not true; America has the Iowa class (7) battleship, while Russia is working to completely bring back the big guns of the fleet. (1)- My Opponent said that the battleship is to expensive, however, I belive it is actually cheaper by a long shot. Compared to the ten billion dollars needed for the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, the Iowa only cist the US 100 million. (7) (6) In fact, some destroyers are more expensive than the IOWA. (8)- Because we are debating that the battleship should be a FLAGSHIP of fleets, it is likely it will be at the center. Thus, the battleship would be at the center of fleets. Unfortunately for submarines, this means it would be rather hard to get close when there are dedicated anti-submarine destroyers that will handle such a threat. There are also MAD systems and sonar , not to mention battleships themselves have anti-submarine missiles. (3), (4) Lastly, battleships including the Kirov can host helicopters, to which submarines cannot fight. - Battleships not only can fit MORE missiles, they can fit bigger, better missiles with better range than the small ship. This means that the small ship would likely be killed before it gets in range. Thus, bigger is better for offense.Likewise, the battleship can fit for more SAMs and countermeasures than the small ship can. Lastly, the countermeasures are not advanced enough yet to deal with huge amounts of missiles coming at once - which only battleships can do. Bigger is better for defense.***** COUNTERATTACKPART ONEThe battleship can hash out huge amounts of missiles that carriers, the current flagships, cannot. The FA-18 is more expensive (10) than the Tomahwak, (9) but the missile has superb range than the aircraft. To quote a think tank (11)“Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult — if not impossible — to defend against.” As I said, bigger is indeed better for offense due to the capabiltiy to fit not only more, but longer and bigger missiles. Battleships can easily have A2/AD capabilities as well since as I also said, bigger is better for defense.PART TWOFurthermore, the battleship can provide better defense to the WHOLE of the fleet. The aircraft carrier cannot simoutaniously defend and attack; it has too bad of defense systems and not enough aircraft to do so. This makes them a terrible idea as a flagship. Lastly, the aircraft can't intercept missiles, which would be fired far before the F-18 could even get in range.On the other hand, the SAMs can have the range to protect the entire fleet from such air attack. Consider this one statistic - the S-400 can engage up to 80 targets at once. Since the Gearld Ford carries 160 aircraft, it would take outright second to annailiate a full load of aircraft. Lastly, the battleship can carry two S-500s and aircraft. In a second, battleships can literally wipe out the entire naval air wing of enemy fleets.PART THREEBrownwater navies should also consider the battleship due to how cost effective the ships are compared to carriers. My opponent said that battleships have superb artillery, which is good if a nation seeks to defend it's own land. Longer range would mean that the battleship with more missiles can simoutaniously engage other small ships of the enemy, especially when facing local conflicts with other reigonal powers. Argentina or Thailand are two examples of countries that can afford the battleship, and use it better.1 http://www.news.com.au...2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...5 http://rusnavy.com...6 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...7 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...9 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(missile)10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 11 http://www.thedailysheeple.com...12 https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(missile)131415