The BBG concept can be debated but it's clear the fleet needs a class of battle cruiser that can stay at sea as long as a carrier can.

I disagree. It's a "nice to have". But in terms of bang vs expenditure, we don't get nearly enough bang for the buck with the BBG(N). The pros are lots of power, lots of future proofing, lots of speed, lots of duration. Cons are a cost more than a carrier, or several DDG(X) ships, and weapons systems that are not deployable (and may not be for a long time). That same money spent on DDG(X) would yield a lot more bang, and a -hopefully- worthy replacement of the Areleighs.

The Arleigh Burkes are fantastic tributes to Admiral "31 knot" Burke but they've run out their design string.

On that we agree. They were a fantastic design with outstanding performance. But they need a bigger powerplant, and updated electronics that will utilize it. Which was the whole point of DDG(X).

What's happened to America's shipyards in the decades since WWII has been nothing short of a tragedy.

Agreed, again. We need a few more, and they need to get busy cranking out DDG(X), and frigates. We are good at producing nuclear carriers and nuclear subs**. In fact, arguably the best in the world.

**Note that the addition of the nuclear BBGN means that it will have to displace construction of other things since only a very few yards are able to handle installing a nuclear power plant. As it is, the Nimitz class is long in the tooth (being replaced by the Ford), as is the Ohio class and Los Angeles class (Columbia and Virginia, respectively).