In today's world, with today's threats, do we really need 10 new aircraft carriers? Particularly 10 that cost 13 BILLION dollars each.
You're right several years ago the -35 lost to just about every 3rd & 4th generation plane in the US arsenal. However I've read a recent article in Business Insider that was taken from a professional publication. A F-35 took on 15 -22s, -15s & -16s and smoked them. There have been serveral articles talking about how the -35 has revolutionized air combat. In fact from a simple performance measure, speed, turning ability, wing loading etc it isn't much better or even poorer than the -22 & -16. However using stealth and it's suite of battlefield controls it's been killing our best before they know they're in a fight.
First off they're the best way to project power there is. They're protected by the best defensive systems on the planet. They're the best way to prevent war or from a regional issue from spreading.
Where do you get the time to spell check me when you are so busy looking for a Trump conspiracy? Anyway hard to spell it when I dont speak K-l-i-n-g-o-n. Here you go; "Duck season"
Aircraft Carriers. As long as the US sees its role as "World Policeman" and Nation Builder, the aircraft carrier will be an integral part of the arsenal. It represents US presence, and enables the US to project power, without permission or concession, to most of the worlds countries, and to the vast majority of the worlds population. It provides not only a tactical but also a strategic platform. The aircraft carrier, IMHO, is MUCH LESS of an asset in a big war. While the US Navy has tremendous defense in depth, an adversary such as Russia, China, or probably even North Korea can flood the area of operations with relatively inexpensive cruise missiles and other weapons that would or at least could overwhelm the carrier task force's defenses. The US Cruise missile is clearly the weapon on choice for offensive strikes not the piloted attach craft in a high threat environment. Back in the day, the Rooskies planned on flying multiple squadrons of Backfire bombers out of the SW USSR over Turkey, and into the Med to attack any and all US Carriers operating there with long range cruise missiles. Additionally, surface launched missiles, and to much greater extent, submarine launched missiles would have targeted the Carrier and its battle group. Again, defense in depth has to be 100% perfect to protect the carrier, and I just don't see 100% of anything, anywhere. In a big war, I expect the aircraft carriers would be very carefully utilized with more emphasis paid on protecting them, than on using them to strike. At least tactically. If we get into Nucs, then its basically over, anyway, and I expect strategic strikes, stemming from surviving carriers would occur. In regard to technology, it is a double edged sword. While the benefits are great, the requirement to always move forward is absolute. As far as those catapults go, the guys that design ships and the engineers that construct them know a lot more than Mr Trump on marine design. If the new catapults are pulled, there would be enormous weight and moment affects, even on a CV (N) not to mention a nightmare of running piping where none exists in the design. The fact that the newest technology is having growing pains, is immaterial. You have the leading edge of technology and then the bleeding edge. The Russians took a decade or so "off" in their navy due to economics, and they are scrambling, and failing, to catch up.
I read somewhere years ago that a carrier could sustain 6 convential cruse missile impacts at the water line and remain afloat. If true, it is hard to imagine nk could send enough accurately fired missIles to sink one of our carriers. Russia and China could for certain but I doubt nk could.
Remaining afloat is not a big deal. Damage the flight deck and to a lessor extent the electronics on the island, and all you have is a big, gray cruise ship.
