I admit, I do wonder if Aircraft Carriers have not become like Battleships in WWII - hugely expensive prestige items which would have limited effectiveness in a war against a major power due to their vulnerability. I freely concede I’m no expert but with all major powers now having satellites - thus stripping Aircraft Carriers of their ability to suddenly show up and surprise an enemy like they could generations ago - and with the development of ever more sophisticated long range high speed anti-ship missiles which cost a tiny fraction of a modern aircraft carrier, I wonder if we would not be better served investing more of our resources in other platforms.
I think like you do.
Carriers are very capable platforms at power projection in a conventional setting against a weaker foe with no air power or navy. Carriers are a very vulnerable platform against a foe with better capabilities such as China or Russia.
The future is drones, stealth aircraft, and AI. Seed the ocean floor with robotic torpedoes and drone submarines and it only takes one to break the back of a carrier. Hypersonic missiles from aircraft or land platforms present a huge threat. Submarines still present a significant threat to carriers. The immediate future of warfare is drones and AI with a larger presence in space (hat tip to Trump for recognizing the importance of space) and all of these things make a carrier very vulnerable.
The advantages of stealth are dominant now, but given that they are only “invisible” to most current radar systems and may not be invisible to newer satellites above we may be back to the same problems against more capable foes with that technology. This is why space is so important in future warfare and it is very difficult to predict. Ground based lasers can target platforms in space just as space based platforms will likely be able to target ground targets. Put most of your eggs in one basket like a carrier and a single technology (likely at little comparative cost) can erase the largest military investment in the blink of an eye.
The future of power projection will be far different than what we currently imagine. We can be certain of this and the traditional carrier as we imagine it now is the main target all of our foes are focused on because we are so dependent upon them.
In a major shooting war against Russia or China yeah they are vulnerable, they always have been. However, in the type of wars the US has fought since WWII they have been invaluable from air support to a huge base of operations. HST needs to be refueled and continued to be used as before. The price to refuel is worth it in comparison to the strain it places on the remaining fleet.
All that being said the USN needs to find a way to extend the range of their aircraft. The F-18 and the F-35 simply do not have the range the old F-14 and Intruders had. Further the USN needs to invest in improved missile defense technology for the carriers and escorts. I understand they have installed on most of the existing carriers a torpedo defense system that has been excellent in test.
If they decide after the purchase of Enterprise they need to change the direction of naval aviation then do so, do you need a smaller carrier and less planes, do you need a smaller nuclear carrier or fuel oil fired? Can the American class operating F35’s handle the needs the Nimitz and Ford class does?