The ultimate answer to "my yacht is bigger than your yacht."
My thoughts are along the lines of can the US/Navy afford to lose a carrier of this size?
You hear about it every time one pulls up next to someone whose attention we want to get. I'd say it does.
not the point though was it
Not to you it seems. We seem to disagree.
Has technology rendered them obsolete? Good question. If it has, we'll no doubt continue to pour billions into them anyway in order to keep freedom safe, or keep America safe, or at least line the pockets of whoever it is that makes them.
To some extent I was thinking along the lines of the types of wars that these machines were designed for, principally, in the first and second world wars where opposing fleets were going toe to toe with each other and where long range surveillance was only possible with aircraft. The last time a carrier was used to any (meaningful) extent was during Vietnam and that was questionable; although it gave the Navy a foot in a land war it wasn't really needed. Today's conflicts are essentially low tech insurgencies and given the range and make-up of the force packages on board I would imagine that they are of marginal use nowadays. To be honest I think these things are legacy items which bring kudos to the service but little else.
The technology on board these machines is pretty amazing but what do you need DEWS for if you are facing an afghani on a moped with an IED?
May not want to confuse police actions with maintaining peace in the world. If you need to deliver shock and awe, aircraft carriers are most helpful.
Here's another thought I have...
The trouble with that hypothesis is that at the moment the US is undecided and in some cases pulling out of international treaties and internation trading pacts. If the US wants to project power then what role does the negotiating table take. Do you move from threat straight to response without the diplomatic resolve first? Its' one thing to have the stick but if all you have is the stick then one limits ones options?
