With the caveat that I have absolutely zero qualifications as an expert on naval warfare, consider the following thoughts. What I do know is the history of warfare and technology.
Coming out of World War One, aka the Great War, the dreadnaught or battleship was the queen of the seas, the naval super weapon. During the next two decades many of these armored behemoths were built by at least the U.K., the U.S., Germany, Japan, Italy, France, and perhaps by others.
Technology, in the form of naval aviation it turned out, had made them obsolete. In the Second World War the Brits lost two off the shores of Southeast Asia, the U.S. lost several at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. sank several Japanese maxi-ships including the world’s largest off the Philippines, and the Brits sank the Bismarck. In short, relatively cheap aircraft sank them left and right and literally nobody builds battleships today.
The dominant naval weapon of World War Two was the aircraft carrier. These floating airfields carried their dive and torpedo bombers into battle and were decisive. In the asymmetrical conflicts that have characterized warfare in the decades since 1945, the carrier has continued to be a major force, as in their roles off the coasts of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
Technology continues to evolve; we learn of hypersonic cruise missiles, satellite-targeted ballistic missiles and super-silent submarines. We have to ask, is the aircraft carrier - a heck of a huge, high-value target - about to go the way of the battleship? In the next great power conflict, will they prove overly vulnerable and of marginal utility?
Themes recur. As a quote attributed to Mark Twain would have it, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Perhaps we should view the iconic “Top Gun” as a filmic elegy.
