Paul, the argument for more but smaller carriers was pretty decisively debunked
by the Faukland war. The British thought the same way (not that they had much
choice, they couldn't afford supercarriers), but soon learned that since the
smaller carriers CANNOT launch modern high-performance planes this makes them
nearly useless in combat. That theory was Les Aspin's pet one while he was in
Congress (that's how he got his rep as a Democratic defense guru, BTW), and it
was silly then too. There is NO WAY that a sufficient number of smaller
carriers would ever be funded, especially since more carriers = more battle
fleets = much more expensive. Why we should spend MORE money for a huge
DECREASE in capability has always mystified me.
-Karl