Accurate But Fake

The arguments in this article defending the value of the super carrier are true enough but they represent what I've been complaining about for a long time. Carrier proponents choose the arguments that favor the carrier, addressing the one role that makes their arguments valid; while ignoring the role that undermines their arguments.

The long-service life argument especially gets me. Well sure, the ship will last a long time--if nobody sinks it!

That's the basic issue, no?

The value of carriers is high when facing off against non-naval powers in a power projection role. But that isn't the sole measure of a carrier's value.

The value of carriers is low when facing off against aero-naval powers in a sea control role; and network-centric warfare (now "cooperative engagement capability," I believe) makes the platform-centric super carrier irrelevant to generating offensive firepower at a reasonable cost.

But so far the two sides argue apples and oranges about the merits of those two very distinct missions.