I’m not.
Historically, the only aircraft weapons which have been able to pose a threat to heavily armoured warships have been bombs and torpedoes, and both rely at least partially on gravity. Short of the development of primitive cruise missiles and aircraft capable of carrying them (which I assume to be outside the technological scope of the setting), nothing an aircraft can carry is going to be able to penetrate a battleship’s armour belt if launched from below.
As for ground fire, we have the same problems: the sort of huge artillery pieces needed to punch through a dreadnought’s armour are not only extremely difficult to move over land (“as in move-in-parts along rail lines and then assemble atop poured concrete bases” difficult) but they’re also extremely difficult to build and extremely difficult to aim, especially when taking the parabolic effect of the shells into effect, and creating firing solutions which take into account three, not two dimensions: you’d need one hell of an F/C setup to manage that with any degree of accuracy, especially when there might only be maybe a dozen or so of the necessary gun tubes in the entire country.
@Shoelip
The problem is, an airship that requires a special facility to power down is relegated to their operational range around that base, and is limited in the amount of time it can remain “on patrol”. A vessel with a ship hull also wouldn’t necessarily be limited to operations over water: they could easily traverse airspace over land, they just wouldn’t be able to do so indefinitely (since they’d need to land in water to refuel and rearm).
An added problem is the fact that land-based facilities can be disabled, and if a state requires a gigantic, expensive facility to keep its blue-sky fleet operational, then that would be the absolute first target any naval planner would go for.