One of the things that intrigued me to this issue is the words of mitt Romney about the US fleet not having enough ships and Obama's answer that you don't count the individual numbers but the projection of power of the whole force ("not counting bayonets and horses") The question is if our modern navy idea of big carriers isn't becoming obsolete? Considering that navies have a tendency to be very conservative, a long time all naval powers where so conservative that they kept believing battleships where the ships that win wars. The grand admiral Yamamoto (before WWII) said that a battleship in modern warfare is as usefull in modern warfare as a samurai sword, that it is considered the battleships as elaborite religious scrolls which old people hang up in their homes, they are purely a matter of fate and not reality" This is a very interesting documentary about the evolution of navies during wars and how battleships became obsolete. Also 1 interesting event is discussed where there was an naval armsrace between the US and Great Britain, possibly leading to a conflict between the US and GB. If Hitler wouldn't have existed, WWII might have been between different powers. (And those who say it was "just an armsrace", then consider that the cold war was also "just an armsrace") [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otvrS-AYq80]The Battleships - The Darkness Of The Future - YouTube[/ame] I wonder if we still make the mistake to be overconservative? Carriers have been the centerpiece of modern navies, the question is if they are still as usefull as we claim them to be or have they become our modern "battleship mistake". Since there haven't been any modern naval wars, we might not know The biggest similar weakeness I see of a carrier is that 1 cheap and small ship like a submarine can sink it, it makes you think when a ship only a very very small fraction of the cost and crew can sink a 6.3 billion dollar ship or doesn't it? So are Carriers the new Battleships and are we potentially making the same mistake again?