[magicsmoke]

The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.

[ericmay]

Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.

[jabl]

Well yes, but then again no surface navy comes even close to the USN in terms of power projection capability, so it wouldn't upset the status quo in any way.

But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"

[ericmay]

Yes, but that's my point. You get rid of the carriers and then the U.S. is still the only country projecting power due to air bases and a sophisticated global logistics system.

But either way, even if you know where the CSG is, it can defend itself and the land-based weapons have limited range. So if you're China, the U.S. Navy can go harass your shipping lanes, and protect their own supply lines going to strategic locations.