[adamzion]

You'll rarely hear this problem mentioned, because it goes against the whole "Home Improvement" mindset which Tom mentioned, but aircraft carriers have the very real potential to be, in combat, very large, very slow targets. Imagine how much chance there would be for an aircraft carrier to avoid being sunk by a determined attack with cruise missle-type missiles, or even more stanard surface-to-surface missiles. The answer to that is <b>very</b> little chance- unless the carrier is armed with very accurate, very fast anti-missile guns of some sort, it has virtually no way to defend itself against missile attacks.

In effect, the carriers could well wind up as nothing more than large, expensive targets, unless they're placed so far behind the "lines" of combat that they lose virtually all of the advantages of bringing an airstrip close to combat.

Of course, the only other option is to fly in aircraft from the closest land bases, and that might not be practical either. Does this make the carrier a better option? I suppose, but only better in the way that Shawn Bradley was a better center than Manute Bol.

Or the other way 'round,
Z