My hackles were rising again reading that thread (and that isn't a pretty sight I can tell you!), so much ignorance gathered together in one place! The original thrust seemed to center around the absurd notion that a few Cessnas loaded with HE divebombing a CVN could sink it, excuse me while I die laughing! Back from the dead now... in ww2, Japanese Kamikaze aircraft (similar in size but a lot faster than the cessnas) dived onto the flight decks of, amongst others, the British Pacific Fleet's Illustrious class and Implacable class armoured fleet carriers (the nearest historical example I could think of on the spur of the moment. An American journalist aboard one of the RN ships noted the difference between American wooden flight decks and British Armoured Steel ones said "If a Yank carrier gets hit its three months repair in Pearl, if a Limey carrier gets hit it's 'sweepers man your brooms!", as beyond any damage to aircraft and personnel on deck, Kamikazes did little more than scratch the paint work. And as you know, sailors spend a lot of time painting the ship when its quiet, so even that damage couldn't be described as long lasting. After the war, the USN wasn't slow or too proud to admit where they went wrong design wise (I'll declare an interest here, I was trained as a design engineer and thats the perspective I approach these matters from) and subsequently adopted the Armoured flight deck in all CV designs from Midway onwards.
As for the 'small boats packed with explosives' argument, that was tried against the USS Cole, an Arleigh Burke class DDG which was at anchor, not expecting an attack (in this day and age, eternal vigilance should be the norm), and not only did she not sink, she could probably still have put up a fight if required. Modern warships are a lot tougher than the uninformed masses give them credit for, and I agree with your point about sailors and damage control. My brother served in the RN aboard SSNs and never stopped going on about how much time they spent on DC drills! Practice makes perfect...
Anyway, to anwer the underlying question here, if carriers are such a bad idea, why is everyone who is serious about being a world naval power buying or building them (even if as I pointed out earlier they are 'changing the labels' to avoid the ignoramii from realising this)? If Aircraft Carriers are obsolete then so are Aircraft (their primary weapon system), so why don't we disband the world's Air Forces while we are at it. After all, when was the last time anyone saw an airfield that could manouvre to avoid an incoming attack? How many Carriers have been lost since 1945?
None. How many airfields have been lost (and put to use by their former owners' enemies)?
A hell of a lot. An airfield only needs to be located once every 50 years or so (if that) while a Carrier can lose itself anywhere within an area of 100,000 sq miles in six hours. Finding your target comes before attacking it and airfields don't put up much of a fight on that score. This brings us neatly back to the subject of the Harrier, whose whole 'Raison d' etre' (pardon my french) was to provide air forces and navies with a survivable strike asset, one that could operate away from vulnerable airfields and could fly from small and uncomplicated ships.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Without Organic airpower at sea you don't have a navy, you have a coastguard.
You mean downgraded of course. . We will just have to wait and see the real differences between the US variant and the export. The US is never going to give it's technology away.
