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.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
