http://archive.defensenews.com/arti...USN-Aircraft-Carriers-May-Too-Vulnerable-Keep
If the fleet were being designed today from scratch, with the technologies now available and the threats now emerging, it likely would look very different, he postulates
Definitely interesting. I was a bit skeptical before I read the article, but afterwards it makes sense.
Against a lower-tech nation like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, or pirate waters, an American carrier group represents a vast ordinance of firepower that we can bring to bear against nearly any target we choose. And most of its firepower "effect" requires no shot to be fired at all. We move a carrier group into a region and nations chill out. The United States Navy spends a lot of time just keeping the peace against low-tech enemies.
Against a high-tech nation like China or Russia, the American carrier group is, of course, a lot more vulnerable. But that's why I also mentioned that the only nation we have to fear militarily in the world right now is China, because they're the only nation that can rival us economically. If it took $10 billion worth of anti-ship missiles (or even $5 billion) to take out a Nimitz carrier, then that's something to fear. The real danger is the fact that China is able to afford that, whereas other nations can't.
It's kinda like how the British commented about their Challenger II, which is notorious for its immensely heavy armor, that with a big enough bomb you can blow up anything; even the Challenger II's aren't invincible. And neither are carrier groups.
Right now, the United States still has a vast edge over China militarily. In 20-30 years, that playing field will be much more evened out. But that could change in an instant, too. Unfortunately our warmongering ways also make us really, really good at fighting wars and designing the weapons to do it with. The Chinese just don't have that experience like we do.
Ack, all this war talk. I hate war. I hope it never breaks out. It'd be a sad, sad day for all of us if that happened.