The major hole in my theory, which I'm surprised no one pointed out, is the one Zero made against the Midway, "This tub gets hauled then what? Confed put all it's eggs into one little basket!"
This is precisely why I'm concerned about having another ship type that is as feared as a carrier. What happens if we lose a carrier or two straight away at the beginning of an engagement? We really haven't been faced with that prospect since Midway.
It is likely going to be harder and harder to protect our carriers from the myriad of threats an adversary navy will be able to array against us (emp, next generation supercavitating torpedos, etc.) Assymetrical warfare can, as it always does, come into play here - but many of our potential opponents are smart and stack their decks with anything that will help them bag a carrier. They reason that perhaps we won't stomach a fight after that big of a loss - it would be humilitating for us.
Perhaps that's true - I'm not sure how we would react.
The point is, I'd feel more comfortable knowing we had other options for getting the job done - or at least for taking some of the heat off the carriers. In some of these locations, the air force might not be there to play as large a role as it has in recent conflicts. We'll need something to provide a stopgap for the possible loss of local air superiority that will still allow the fleet to continue the mission.
I mean, maybe the Tikes are up to the task - but I just don't see them drawing that kind of fire or being placed that high on an enemy's priority list. There would be very little that would convince an enemy to give a carrier a second look. Er, not a second look - you guys know what I mean.
As an aside, this new torpedo technology is really scary. It will be very hard to counter in my opinion. We'll probably end up creating an underwater version of the rolling airframe missiles, or something like that. I don't think decoys would work well enough - these things travel too fast. Thoughts?
