Battleships were designed with protection to resist shellfire from the anticipated opponents. Today a BB would have to deal with a variety of threats from SSM and various PGM’s. The payloads would be heavier. Would an armor scene optimized for gunfire resistance be that effective against the new threats.
Also, the new weapons of today require more than just deck space to install a launcher. You need more power, more electronics and more command & control resources.
In terms of a ship loaded with missiles – didn’t they propose something like that called the Arsenal Ship. It was a floating missile farm. Aside from all the other problems, it put a lot of valuable offensive and defensive armament in one hull.

This has been a topic of discussion on a number of sights.
It was a tremendous thrill to see a BB at sea and firing her main battery!
As much as I would like to see a BB in service again, they are past their prime.
It is true there are no equals to the 16″ main battery, but with the advent of various cruise missiles and other Precision Guided Munitions they are seen as less valuable.
The BB’s were designed to serve in another era. They would be resource intensive ships to operate. They lack the labor saving machinery common to naval vessels today. (For example, with Gas Turbine propulsion DDG’s & CG’s with the “Smart Ship” upgrades can run all the engineer plant from a single console) They do not have the most up to date electronics and command & control equipment.
Trying to bring them into the 21st Century would be a costly task. There would be so much to redo. Even though they have not seen that much active service their hulls are old.
There are many proposals for fire support ships to help with amphibious landings. Given the financial situation of the US, the cost of the BB’s alone would disqualify them from service.

Unless you have global commitments, nuclear SS’s aren’t really that much of an asset given the high cost. With non-nuclear powered submarines becoming more and more capable and their value in littorial waters, it would be a waste of resources to commit to such an expensive choice.
Not only is the basic SSN expensive, but there is substantial infrastructure and training involved and would also be extremely expensive.

Actually in the right environment they can be extremely effective. In a situation where you have a coastline with many islands and lots of offshore traffic it is easy to ‘hide’ in the clutter.
Plus there is a certain quality in quantity. In coastal waters a handful of PB’s can be a force multiplier. Even though the platform is cheap, it still takes hi-tech weaponry to defeat the weapons they fire. And in the right situation they will not even have to have any sensor active, relying instead on data from other installations or ships.
With a SSM that outranges most shipboard gunnery systems they could threaten before being threatened and because of their small size many commanders would not want to ‘waste’ a high value SSM on them.

so you can’t see the blood spilled in the revolution………

It would seem today that the boundaries between ship classes are becoming vague if non-existent. Classification seems more to be the result of function or of politicial necessity. Also, more and more ships are becoming multi-purpose so the mission distinction is not as clear either.
I guess if you want a ship to be a corvette then it is a corvette, if you want it to be a frigate then so it is.

One part of the equation is the support from land and air units. Naval war is really fought in 3 dimensions. Just because a FAC doesn’t have it’s own helo doesn’t necessarily mean that it is without air support. Land based air assets can complement the FAC and make life exceeding difficult for other FAC’s or corvettes. Also preplanned minefields or other defensive works can be part of the FAC support structure. From a defensive point of view knowing the ‘territory’ can enable a small craft commander to exploit the environment to his advantage.
Coast defense weapons can’t be ignored either. Many/most anti-ship missiles can be fired from ground based installations. Coast defence artillery is still a threat – look at the 130mm system marketed by the Russians.
If the situation was 1 FAC vs. 1 corvette the corvette would have the edge, but it is never that simple.