Modern warships benefit more from selective armor than an armored belt

Could armor make a modern cruiser resistant enough to justify a new armored class?

A traditional armored belt offers little value, while selective armor around vital spaces can still improve survivability.

Attackers can adapt warheads to penetrate a broad armored belt, while modern defense relies on interception, electronic warfare, and compartmentation. Local protection still makes sense around engines, combat-information spaces, magazines, and vulnerable exhaust paths. Reactive armor is a poor naval answer because saltwater exposure would degrade it where the ship most needs protection.