Are we reading the same open-source reports? Both Russia and China are buying lots of new missiles and/or introducing new weapons like the anti-ship ballistic missile
Not mass buying like Cold War. And they're not really investing in airborne delivery platforms either – no massed Tu-22M Backfire regiments and nothing on Chinese side.
And many naval experts doubt that the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile works. Even a super carrier is a very small target in an ocean.
How do the Chinese acquire the target in the first place? They have virtually no maritime patrol aircraft fleet and limited radar technology. They would have to rely on unreliable satelites (ureliable for tracking moving targets).
And how accurate are they? No missile is 100% accurate – there's a thing called circular error probability and even advanced US missiles are liable to miss things at times.
Not really. 5"/54 is limited in range, the 5"/62 is better but still below the Congressional mandate minimum.
Ideally 16 inch would be best!
I was alluding to the lack of small-caliber weapons on the Zumwalt. So basically any shot fired would have enough oomph to completely destroy the boat and the pirates.
Unless the pirates open fire, the international forces aren't allowed to fire on them.
The SEAL detachment I had in mind fits in a MH60.
You can fit 11 guys and an MH-60 on an Arleigh Burke. You did say platoon – MH-47 or CV-22.
The same Burkes that are being used for Aegis BMD, and so only have a couple Tomahawks loaded? That have more VL-ASROCs loaded than Tomahawks? That aren't going to be in the right place to shoot Terrorists because they aren't survivable enough in a threatened littoral?
Sorry but it sounds like you strung up some buzz words without any meaning.
1. Terrorists don't have ballistic missile capability requiring AEGIS level Ballistic Missile Defence.
2. Terrorists seldom have targets that require mass saturation cruise missiles.
3. Terrorists seldom have capability to threaten a warship.
4. You don't need to be the littoral to launch Tomahawks as they're "long range" – I don't think 1,300 – 2,500 kilometres is considered littoral.
And I will remind you that the Arleigh Burkes entered service in 1990. That's NOT a new design by any stretch of the imagination, and is rapidly running out of space for new upgrades. They don't have the electrical plant to power a laser, let alone a railgun
Funny thing is I still don't see the purpose of railguns or lasers on warships.
Look at main missions for surface fleet even in a major war:
1. Carrier escort.
2. Antisubmarine
3. Launching cruise missiles
4. Naval Gunfire Support (railguns might have some usage here but no where near as good as carrier aviation).
5. Maintaining a presence.
And then look at naval capabilities being deployed by our enemies:
1. Submarines – the new black. Russia and China are pumping money into these. A lot of smaller players are too.
2. Surface combatants – not so much. The Chinese have been investing in destroyers but don't plan larger warships than current in service vessels.
Chinese surface combatants are generally very conventional. They still don't have anything even close to an AEGIS and only ship based AESA radars are purely experimental.
Russian investments in surface combatants have been problematic due to funding and development issues.
They have those cruisers which were regarded as suicide ships in the Cold War thanks to American carrier aviation. Most of the frigates and destroyers are 20-30 years old without many new replacements actually coming into service.
Current procurement plans see only a few new surface combatants coming into service over next 20 years.
3. Aircraft carriers – Russians don't have active plans for additional carriers and certainly no funding has been set aside.
The Chinese carrier program is meant to deliver two new carriers in 2020s.
4. Naval logistics and naval basing – 
all. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have the bases or ship based logistics to sustain long range force projection.
They talk about the Chinese "string of pearls" bases but given they can't get past the Malacca Straits they're a moot point.
Other than subs, both Russian and Chinese navies are effectively blockaded in any major war.
And then there's the question of how would naval warfare take place:
Large surface combatants essentially became obsolete as primary war fighting means when powered flight was invented in 1903.
There has been no proof of a shift from airpower as primary means of projecting airpower.
Indeed the carrier was the mainstay in WWII and also dominated in operations against Libya and Iran (about the closest the USN has got to a battle in the last several decades).
Carrier airpower was key in 1971 India-Pakistan War.
The other critical weapon is the submarine be it WWII, India Pakistan 1965/1971 or Falklands.
Conventional warfare between ships was rare:
1. One or two WWII style gun engagements between Allied and Egyptian warships in 1956. Resulted in one Egyptian ship sunk and another captured.
2. Since 1956 naval engagements have been based on small fast attack craft armed with Anti Ship missiles between opponents who had small navies or lacked heavy carrier presence.
This has included loss of 3 old fashioned gun destroyers (1 Israeli, 2 Pakistani) to missiles. The Pakistani ships were caught in a pre-emptive Indian strike.
Small fast attack craft proved ineffective against US air power in Libya, Iran and Iraq.
Anyhow all the proof continues to support the dominance of air power and submarines in future naval warfare and especially power projection
Countering submarines means more assets, not a few large ones.
worries about not losing his rules stuff.
