I agree. The United States Naval Institute bought an article of mine 20 years ago arguing that position in the light of network-centric warfare, but never published it.
Mind you, the "may" in the RUSI study may reflect the difference between the continued usefulness of carriers as a power projection platform versus their rapidly growing obsolescence as a sea control platform.
Say, isn't this a cool weapon we are developing?
Both the US and Australia have confirmed that they recently completed a series of mysterious hypersonic missile tests. ...
A hypersonic missile would fulfill the US military's goal of building a conventional weapon that can strike anywhere within an hour, and it would be virtually impossible to stop using existing missile defenses.
Is it still cool if our enemies get these missiles that can't be stopped? Is it cool that we have the biggest targets to shoot at?
Mass effects, not platforms, I say. The big carrier is the queen of platform-centric warfare that is rapidly fading.
China is welcome to build big carriers; and I'm sorry Russia won't even try because of the cost.
