[robowombat]

This is not meant as snark of wise mouthing but a legitimate inquiry to Freepers who have real experience in surface ops or who have seriously studied potential naval conflict scenarios. One constantly encounters remarks as to the lack of viability of the large deck aircraft carrier pitted against emerging precision strike and submarine technologies. The reasoning is , on the surface, convincing. The battleship reached the peak of its evolution in WW2 just as it was being relegated to a supporting role in surface operations by carrier and land based aviation So the aircraft carrier , it is argued, is becoming obsolete even as its capabilities reach unprecedented levels of lethality. What then do those who know far more than I say about the future role of the carrier and why if it is a waning weapon system are the Chinese expending a lot of resources to build an ever more capable and larger carrier air arm?

[righttackle44]

W-H- A-A- A-T -T?

[The Duke]

...and why if it is a waning weapon system are the Chinese expending a lot of resources to build an ever more capable and larger carrier air arm?

Probably to project their power towards 3rd world nations from which they have been buying up natural resources with all the US dollars they are sitting on. ... Basically to police their international assets.

[CurlyDave]

...why if it is a waning weapon system are the Chinese expending a lot of resources to build an ever more capable and larger carrier air arm?

It is probably a waning system when stacked against first-world countries with modern navies.

It will do quite nicely against third-world countries.