Are aircraft carriers the new battleships? they keep getting

>>28070368
They keep getting bigger because size is directly correlated to ability with carriers. It's literally the entire point.

>>28070368
when was the last fixed wing carrier taken down in combat?

>>28070421
in CoD by the Chinese

>>28070368
The larger the carrier, the more power projection.

Assuming you actually use your carrier as a carrier and not as some royal yacht or something of the like.

>>28070421
Well.. That was a great point when was the last major world war? I don't really think we've had a war were the entire world has been fighting each other for a long time..

>>28070471
they'ed never put a carrier near any enemy that has the capability of sinking one
the cost is too much

>>28070421

Well, John McCain almost sank the USS Forrestal.

>>28070471

Carriers aren't really meant for "major wars" because they aren't nuclear assets, at least not anymore. (they're nuclear powered but they don't carry nuclear bombs anymore) If "The Big One" ever came, nuclear torpedoes would kill most of the carriers pretty fast, but until then, they are an effective tool for force project against non-nuclear nations.

>>28070421

CV2 USS Lexington, CV5 Yorktown, CV7 Wasp, CV8 Hornet, CV23 Princeton

All in WW2

The argentine navy came within probably a day of getting their carrier btfo by the RAN.

That would have been quite the shit show.

>>28070368
>new
nigger carriers have been the new battleships for a hundred years