[castlegreyskull]

I am a submarine officer, and the value and the power projection that carriers bring cannot be understated. Submarines can control the seas almost entirely alone, but a carrier battle group as we have seen can take the war deep into enemy territory like we have in Afghanistan, when the ENTERPRISE launched the aircraft responsible for punishing the AQ and the Taliban.

[Ronin]

Carriers are the ultimate big stick, but the very fact that they are so big and impressive means that we can only make so many of them and they have their own limitations. The biggest of which is that they can only be in one place at a time.

I really wish we would spend more time looking at smaller and less expensive alternatives to the Nimitz and follow on carriers.

The Russian STOBAR concept is a great idea, IMO. Naturally they didn’t do as good as a job with it as we could, but that’s the Russians.

I expect we could build three of those things for the price of one supercarrier and give ourselves a lot more flexibility — but the carrier mafia running the Navy would never buy it.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I am a submarine officer, and the value and the power projection that carriers bring cannot be understated. Submarines can control the seas almost entirely alone, but a carrier battle group as we have seen can take the war deep into enemy territory like we have in Afghanistan, when the ENTERPRISE launched the aircraft responsible for punishing the AQ and the Taliban."

Precisely my point. I don't see small carriers being able to fit the mission above.

[magslinger]

Very interesting comment, particularly from a dolphin wearing officer. Thank you for posting. I believe the same, but then that is only natural.

If you are currently a serving officer, I hope nobody in the sub community knows your FReepname. That has got to be considered either treason or heresy, probably both.