It would be foolish to waste Enterprise on submarine patrol instead of deploying her throughout the Pacific war. In other words the platform should fit the mission.
Rather than assume that we are going to be fight Vietnam or the Gulf wars let us consider the future of asymmetrical warfare. If we are fighting China we are in serious trouble and undoubtedly the war will be waged on China's terms and on China's timetable. They are unlikely to take on 13 Nimitz class carriers with today's weapons systems. But they are developing missiles, satellites and computer warfare to a point that will eventually render 100 aircraft irrelevant.
If we are fighting a near Stone Age culture such as Afghanistan we can get away with a jeep carrier. My relative who survived the war on Enterprise was fond of the story, really a parable, which he applied to the the Korean War but which could be applied to virtually every American war since then. He asked rhetorically who would you say won the following exchange? A multibillion dollar aircraft carrier launches a multimillion dollar aircraft flown by a million-dollar trained pilot to fire a highly expensive missile at an oxcart carrying ammunition to the enemy. The driver of the oxcart hides in a ditch and emerges to eat his blown up ox over a fire made out of the wrecked oxcart.
Who won?
The point is that expense always has to be considered because modern warfare is not just a clash of weapons but the clash of economies and cultures and propaganda and computers. If all your money goes into aircraft carriers (and please do not dispute that with $18 trillion national debt we are short of money) we will lose the war in space or wherever it happens to be fought 50 years from now.
Incidentally, the nuclear powered Enterprise was just returned after 50 years of service. What will be the future of warfare when USS Ronald Reagan is retired?
