no, you obviously didn’t read the article. you’ve missed the point completely. they aren’t saying carriers are bad. they are saying building additional and maintaining the existing carriers at the expense of a support fleet is bad. what makes carriers “invincible” is the fleet you surround them with. the navy is cutting production of other ships so they can continue the carrier force at its existing size. dropping the number of support ships makes the carriers vulnerable and ultimately useless because you cant afford to risk them in combat due to their value.
I just read anti carrier jive talk.
” they are saying building additional and maintaining the existing carriers at the expense of ...” the welfare state can’t be done.
We could easily afford to do it with a 10% welfare load. With a 50% and growing welfare load we can’t.
And that means we cannot afford missions we previously could. The money to pay for them, our wealth, is going to welfare.
The other two sections of the essay blatantly lead to the conclusion that underwater drones are the prime offensive/defensive weapon for the Navy.
Notice the self-defeating “attack a fort” quote?
LOL!
Air power, as delivered by carriers, infamously made stationary forts indefensible.
Or the navy has figured that once they get the expensive carriers built they can talk congress into paying for the support fleet down the road.