[Rockingham]

Perhaps. Yet consider that even if restricted to sea control duties in a permissive environment or to use against secondary powers, carriers still have tremendous value.

For example, in a clash with China, we would do well to sweep the seas and seize or force the internment of all commercial vessels and require neutrals to respect a US embargo and blockade of commerce with China and seizure or shut down of all Chinese commercial properties overseas. Carriers would be ideal for such duty and to apply leverage because several carrier task forces could control the oceans around both Africa and South America.

Personally, in the event of a war over Taiwan or China's island building in the South China Sea, I think that seizing everything China has overseas and cutting off all commerce and then offering a return to the status quo would be a better approach than all out combat in China's backyard.

[PapaBear3625]

For example, in a clash with China, we would do well to sweep the seas and seize or force the internment of all commercial vessels and require neutrals to respect a US embargo and blockade of commerce with China and seizure or shut down of all Chinese commercial properties overseas. Carriers would be ideal for such duty and to apply leverage because several carrier task forces could control the oceans around both Africa and South America.

The OMFG class of submarines (USS Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia) have been modified to each carry 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in their former Trident missile tubes. We used to have an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk. Perhaps it's time to resurrect it.