[TalonDJ]

Well stated.

People like to say carriers have to get in missile range to use their striking power. Well stop and think a minute of all the times carriers had to get in range of proven anti ship capability... Pearl Harbor? Their carriers were within range of our anti ship capability.
Heck look at darn near every pacific war battle with carriers. If our carrier planes were attacking another carrier, or anything on land, then our carriers were at risk of destruction. And sometimes that risk was realized. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable. Over half the carriers lost in WW2 were killed by subs. One even got jumped by some cruisers. There is a reason Taffy 3 was so badass, because those guys were in deep ****. Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable, but that does not make them USELESS. It never has and maybe it never will. Carriers HAVE been in missile range of the enemy during shooting wars.

[BroJoeK]

TalonDJ: "And sometimes that risk was realized.
Carriers have ALWAYS been vulnerable."

By 1945, Kamikazes were the greatest threat to US carriers, which were then defended by a ring of much less expensive destroyer picket ships.
The result was, though sometimes damaged, none of the big Essex class carriers were sunk.

That concept remains today in the Carrier Strike Group:

WWII era destroyer picket ship:

Today's carrier strike groups, in review:

And let us not forget the US Marines' capabilities of dealing with Pacific islands, real or artificial:

[Tallguy]

Just to keep things “apples for apples” the cost of a ww2 CV and it’s air group are a fraction of what they cost today. Lose 1 CVN and that’s a very significant loss, and 1 that won’t be made good for many years.

What we need to do is disperse our aviation assets on multiple, lower cost platforms mounting unmanned aircraft.