The article excerpt does not make mention of Trump's intention to increase the US Navy to 350 ships. That alone will help stabilize the world due to America having a bigger stick.
Many do not realize that, even as the US Navy ship count has gone down, the improvements in targeting technology in missiles, bombs and guided munitions (artillery shells) has made America's armed forces far more deadly than in the 1980s.
With the new rail gun Ltechnology starting to be applied to US Navy destroyers and even in field artillery
Pentagon expands Rail Gun tests to Army Howitzer . These supersonic munitions can reach Mach 6 and travel over 125 miles (201 Km) rendering all coastal population centers in range of US Navy destroyers. This may result in a reduced need for carriers/carrier groups which means that even more smaller deadly ships and less chance of catastrophic carrier losses.
It is even probable that some attack submarines may be equipped with rail guns instead of missiles. They could pop up, fire 20 rounds at $40 K each and then go deep.
If the kinks in the VTOL F-35 variant get worked out, and they will, America can shift to more numerous and smaller carriers which will increase the US Navy's flexibility and reduce the chance for catastrophic carrier loss.
Furthermore carriers will increasing use drones which are smaller and can loiter much longer over the battle space providing targeting info for rail gun smart munitions that have integrated guidance systems.
It is a brave new world and the Chinese should reconsider their recent bellicosity.
Pax Americana isn't going anywhere, it will just be applied with different methods and ideology.
“The article excerpt does not make mention of Trump’s intention to increase the US Navy to 350 ships.”
Nor that Reagan increased the Navy to 600 ships.
I was active duty then, and sailed with the first three-carrier battle group since War II.
Heady days.
“These supersonic munitions can reach Mach 6 and travel over 125 miles (201 Km) rendering all coastal population centers in range of US Navy destroyers. This may result in a reduced need for carriers/carrier groups which means that even more smaller deadly ships and less chance of catastrophic carrier losses.”
Same argument the Air Force used in trying to convince us that infantry was no longer needed.
There’s just no way that destroyers substitute for all the different combat and supply missions a carrier performs.