I’m not going to praise this, but raise this observation: an aircraft carrier is a big target at sea.
Maybe in this age of satellites and cruise missiles, we should be revamping our naval order of battle.
We need to conceptualize what the next world war will look like. Do we need aircraft carriers? Perhaps we need more nuclear submarines with quieter propulsion systems? Perhaps a revolutionary vessel which can travel both on the surface and submerged?
I’m only throwing ideas out there; not necessarily agreeing with scrapping a carrier which could have another 25 good years of useful life ahead in our navy.
Note: I’m a Navy vet.
I think you’re quite right.
Aircraft carriers have always been vulnerable to the right kinds of assault, and any suggestions otherwise are just wishful thinking.
So are they any more vulnerable today than they ever were?
I doubt that, but for anyone who wants to guess what our guys think needs beefing up, then just compare the design of the new Ford class to the old Nimitz-es.
We might note especially the increase in electrical power generating capacity.
But I think you miss the point whenever you talk about fighting World War Three.
Sure, we have no more idea today what a Third World War might look like than people did in, say, 1938 about the Second World War.
US "super carriers" may or may not prove as vulnerable as battleships in the Second World War.
But the point of our carriers is precisely to prevent such a war, by keeping all the little Hitlers around the world little.
Don't let them grow powerful and arrogant, and we won't need to fight another World War.
And that's the job the US Navy, including aircraft carriers, have done for now 65+ years.
I'd call that a good investment -- far better than trillions of dollars thrown away on "economic stimulus".