@Blitzo is right but context is necessary to explain the real cost and benefits of carriers because without that information it seems like it's a mistake to not build them.
Carriers are not a political symbol. USN carriers are a political symbol because that's how the US government decided to project its power and influence after 1991. But the reason for it is more complex.
During the cold war USN carriers were just a capital ship and their perception was countered by Soviet naval presence, particularly nuclear submarines. USN carrier deployment in the Gulf War was perceived in the same manner as during the cold war. I'm old enough to remember both well. Conversely when Kirovs entered service USN restored Iowas and they were presented as equivalent even though these two classes are nothing alike.
When funding cuts in the 1990s forced the reduction of the fleet it caused retirement of many nuclear-powered ships. All CGNs were retired. Thresher and Sturgeon SSNs were retired after only ~25 years of service. That threatened an entire cost-intensive industry so in order to protect it lobbying was intensified for CVN use as political tools. At the time USN had only 7 CVNs and (1993) only 12 carriers total (14 in late 80s and 15 in 1991). Truman - under construction at the time - initially was named "United States" so that it wouldn't be defunded! In the 2000s law was passed that mandated at minimum 11 carriers in service (as well as 31 amphibious ships).
CVNs were iconic and safe (no threat of Vietnam syndrome) so they were used as marketing props to sell interventionism to the public. And it stuck in public consciousness largely because there was no counter to it. People imagine that a carrier is an invincible superweapon when it is just a floating airfield that requires tremendous naval support to not become a target. Every CVN operates as part of a Carrier Strike Group composed of several escort ships all of which are Ticonderoga CGs or Arleigh Burke DDGs as well as 1-2 SSNs. So whenever you think of a "carrier" it really means a fleet that is larger and more powerful than the entire fleet of most countries as well as an air wing that is equal or larger than the air force of most countries. That's why a "carrier" really works.
But that was the 90s and early 00s when US had the stocks from the cold war and most of the world was underdeveloped. Right now CSG is not as potent in full spectrum warfare against most potential opponents. The technology gap has closed significantly. But the myth persists because people don't know better.
Carriers are offensive weapons. They project power beyond the reach of own shore. US needs it because it's separated geographically from the rest of the world by thousands of km. Even coasts of Colombia and Venezuela are ~2000km away from Florida.
The Soviet Union never developed carriers not because it couldn't do it but because from their geographical position it was easier to develop a land base in the region of interest and so committing resources to carrier development was inefficient. That's what the US did after 2014 with its strategy to counter Russia - they didn't move carriers to Europe but developed a series of bases for USAF in allied countries.
In 2017 in Syria an airbase of questionable quality was struck by ~50 cruise missiles. It was back in operation after two weeks of questionable quality engineering work. If you struck a carrier with just 10 cruise missiles it would be out of commission permanently. If you destroy an airbase it's still there to be restored. If you destroy a carrier it sinks and years of work are wasted. The logic of tradeoffs is different.
So many misconceptions.
The reason why US could unilaterally influence politics had nothing to do with their military power and everything to do with their economic power. Countries didn't want to go to war against the US because it meant being cut off from the only source of economic growth in real terms. The military power of the US is grossly exaggerated while the economic influence is grossly underappreciated. And it's not about economic warfare that most focus on. Most economic warfare by the US doesn't work. What works is the "why fight when you can trade" incentive. All business is carrot and stick but stick only works because of the carrot. All stick and no carrot is what ended the Soviet Union. As soon as US runs out of carrots its stick will be useless. The thing that most anti-US people don't see is that the in most cases US is still offering plenty of carrots in secret for each public display of the stick.
Naval expansion always followed economic expansion and naval expansion is always followed by economic decline. Empires were built by high profit margins and were felled by unaffordable overheads. Spain built its fleet after it gained access to Americas with minimal effort and then stagnated into ruin. Britain took over Dutch colonial empire after it went bankrupt in European wars and expanded its fleet in 19th century as it grew then ran into Germany. USN only matched RN after WW1 when economic power moved across the Atlantic, and then it expanded again in WW2 on credit that was paid by Bretton Woods. Without those economic expansions USN has no sustainment and will shrink which is what's happening now after three decades of ~1% GDP funding. If funding collapses so does the navy - see RN. Fleet and power projection must be economically sustainable or it becomes a strategic trap like what happened to USN.
When the USSR was building its sphere of influence instead of building expeditionary fleets it expedited military technology and ideology. Instead of carriers it carried AK-47s, T-55s and MiG-21s to whoever was willing to pay lip service to Marxism-Leninism. They could build carriers but that would be less efficient. Loans for Chinese aircraft and airbase construction are more efficient than Chinese carriers in spreading influence.
To project power Americans need to cross the oceans so once they do they continue. China doesn't need to do the same.
That's late stage imperialism.
It's what the US has been doing in its decline phase. When US was in its ascent phase it rarely intervened directly.
Korea and Vietnam were about China in the unstable era under Mao. As soon as China stabilizes and relations normalize the US withdraws.
US intervenes in Middle East only after Bretton Woods collapse because they needed petrodollar recycling. Gulf War was about the dollar swings in the 80s due to Reagonomics and to constrain Japan. GWoT was about China.
WW2 happened because of WW1 and the economic disaster in the 30s. And WW1 was an accident, a mistake that nobody is willing to make again - except Russia. Cold War was cold even when US had the advantage in nukes and bombers and everyone thought nuclear weapons have no environmental effects. It was cold when Vietnam gutted US military in Europe and Soviets had complete overmatch.
Get your history straight and the logic of Chinese military strategy will become clear, CMC will say "no carriers now" and you will respond "excellent idea comrade".
Not really OT but
EOT.
--------
Context of CVN strategy from older posts:
This is much less of a problem than it was a decade and a half ago. While the US was hiperventilating over North Korea getting nukes, China put the DF-31/A/AG, and DF-41 into service. These systems, unlike the old ones, can hit the entire Northern Hemisphere, and are way more survivable than the...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
A question for the thread. If the next step forward is constructing the first CVN instead of another CATOBAR CV like the one probably launching this year, couldn't that mean that PLAN anticipates a tamer geopolitical climate for the mid term? Given the buildup of the last five years, I was...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
East Asia - i.e. coastal China, Japan, Korea, SCS and soon likely Indonesia - are regions where carriers are not a priority for tactical reasons. India and Siberia are just across the border with core regions away from coast. The Gulf is not much further away.
Parting note:
In the immediate future if Chinese carriers run into American carriers in open sea they will lose. US has more of them and it has
better skills. That's a fact. Carrier and submarine ops are the two areas where US has skill advantage that can't be neutralised by building more things. That gap needs to close first before it's practical to build more. Otherwise it's just sending people to die unnecessarily.
