[verity]

Unlike Air Force aircraft and Army ground forces, carriers and their air wings need no land bases in places such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Dwyer said. In fact, he noted, a carrier can substitute for an Army installation. In the early days of the Afghanistan campaign, the navy stripped the Kitty Hawk of its air wing and made it a base for special operations troops.

Rapid reaction doctrine is alive and well.

[TalBlack]

IMHO the chinese are working on a relitivly cheap weapon that will pretty much obviate the carrier in the same way that the carrier bumped the battleship in WWII. I think the latest attempt was the 200mph "gas torpedo". If this attempt suceeds they OWN their own hemisphere.

[Sonny M]

Rapid reaction doctrine is alive and well.

Actually, carriers in general conflict with major parts of the "new armed forces" that Rumfeld is planning on, and directly conflicts with Andrew Marshalls vision (which is the inspiration for the PNAC paper that Rumfeld is using as the blue print). Carriers are considered large, slow, moving targets. In Rumfelds and Marshalls vision, you would use alot of smaller, faster coast to coast types ships, akin to U-boats, and for air support or attack jets, move with next generation air craft, that can be farther away, but go directly and respond quicker without needing to there, it also doesn't hurt that, the theory relies alot on air bases being avalable in "hot spots". Personally, I've always been a fan of the carrier, but I do like the idea of them being upgraded, and re-done for the 21st centuary. A major feeling among the defence policy board is that carriers are part of the way wars used to be fought, not the way they will be fought.