Comment Re:China and Russia continue to modernize.... (Score 1) 214
While World War II-style ship-ship naval warfare is irrelevant, the Navy remains an excellent way to project power into remote regions without the need for land-based facilities.
It's a lot easier to fly sorties off a carrier deck than it is to fly planes halfway around the world, not to mention providing a platform for command/control, logistics, troops and helicopters. It's fun to read about B-2s flying out of Kansas to bomb Afghanistan, but you won't be flying A-10 missions from Kansas unless you're attacking Missouri.
The downsides are the vulnerabilities of ships generally, but there's a lot of risk mitigation. The principal risk are anti-ship missiles but the Navy puts a lot of effort into anti-missile systems, but few players have the sophisticated anti-ship missile technology needed to even be a threat and fewer still are willing to risk retaliation. Sea-borne and airborne risks are pretty low to near zero.
Is a carrier group expensive? Sure, but so are building, maintaining, staffing and equipping land facilities, and these have a diplomatic cost or may be unobtainable.