Could come later. There were 10 Nimitz class carriers, and Ford class is supposed to replace them. Other than the Ford, the JFK is under construction and the one after that is to be the Enterprise. Lots more to come; the construction run on the Nimitz class was more than 35 years between the Nimitz and the GHW Bush.
I'd like @HalloweenRun to give a substantive comment. There no doubt we're putting a lot of new technology in our weapons systems. It does involve risk but like a shark if an army, navy or Air Force don't keep developing new technology and systems it will lose the next war. That said if it can't make those systems work it will lose it as well. Like Britain in the early 20th century we can develop these devices because we're so far ahead. When Winston Churchill lead the development of the Dreadnaught and oil fired ships he made every other navy obsolete. This helped the English maintain naval supremacy till after WWI Similarly the Japanese superiority in torpedos and naval aircraft and German development of submarines made them more successful than they should have been based on the disparity in industrial base We have the luxury to try new technology, theory and develop new systems. At one time I was sure the F-35 was a boondoggle and it would have been if it were only filling a traditional role as a fighter. However with its greatly superior technology it's beating our best previous generation planes (F-22, F-15 & F-15) at odds of 15:1 because we've developed an entirely new concept of air battle that seems to work. Likewise the rail guns, lasers, electromagnetic catapult, the totally electric ships, hypersonic missles and other 'star wars' type weapons are slow to mature but can turn the tide of history. Our technological lead is so massive that we will be able to outclass and overwhelm any enemy in the foreseeable future BECAUSE we dared try. Trump is wrong in detail and in concept. Our existing carrier fleet is an order of magnitude ahead and gives us the luxury of developing these new weapons that will increase our lead by even greater margins.
When was the last time aircraft carriers were the decisive force in a war? Would we not be better off upgrading our current fleet to meet a limited threat from an adversary's aircraft carrier fleet?
That too simple an argument. There have been countless times just parking the damn thing off the coast of some shit hole, where it change the outcome.
They have been a critical component in every war since WWII. They project power in critical areas and can be in place with more air power than the Air Force Like British fleets in the 19th century they control the seas and insure international commerce is safe in contested passages. Upgrading them wouldn't be a reasonable path. There are too many critical components to make it economically reasonable. The current carriers were designed 30 years ago when current power and weapons technology was no more than a gleam in he Navy's eye. First the new catapults, radar, lasers etc need vast amounts of electrical power. We developed new reactors and larger engineering spaces to accommodate them. The advantages these new electrical systems provide is tremendous. As weapons lasers are proving to be flexible in shooting down everything from small boats to missles to drone & manned aircraft. They don't use bulletts or shell so ammunition supply isn't a problem. That means the carrier is protected better. Lasers are in the upgrade plans. Like a shark weapons development must keep moving forward. The nation that stops dies.
Can you link an article to this, I would swear that the f22 is the air superiority dog fighter in the US arsenal and almost can't lose to the f35 in a dog fight.
the carrier has just about become too expense to introduce into a theater of war, so why build them to waste the money?
F-15 boys. One of the most decorated planes we ever built!! While I was in the Airforce, the F-22 completely destroyed the 15. However it depends on the fight. Dog fighting is different. I doubt, with today's radar, the 35 needs to be close range.
