I grew up on the history of America's aircraft carriers in the Pacific during World War II. I honor that history. I want to believe that 80 years later these ships are still our key weapon to destroy our naval enemies. But I think that this belief is more akin to having faith in steam ironclads in 1942.
I fear that we will answer the question of whether super carriers are apex predators or expensive prey by watching them burn and sink--yes, if it floats it can sink--and then have the survivors spend their time evading attack.
To add to the issue, mission kills are as good as sinking a carrier for all but the longest war. And in this era could we protect the ports where they'd in theory be repaired and returned to the fight?
I've long believed carriers have a shrinking role narrowed to power projection after being dethroned from the primary weapon for sea control. Like cavalry of old, during a battle for control of the seas the super carriers have limited use given the risk. And it is only in the pursuit phase that the carriers can be unleashed to sink the fleeing enemy ships, finish off the damaged ships, and hammer the shore bases that sustain the enemy fleet (which would be the start of power projection missions).
But hey, I guess the carrier air wings can operate from shore bases.
I want a seapower debate rather than a carrier debate to answer the question of carrier survivability and utility prior to putting the ships, crews, and planes in harm's way for the ultimate test.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
