In a fabulous story by Breakdefense.com's Paul McLeary, the future of America's carrier force structure is brought into focus, or at least the planning for that future force structure. I highly suggest you read the piece in full , but it is worth breaking down some of the main points here as they will have a substantial impact on many of the topics we have been covering or will be covering going forward.

Of course, our readers are familiar with the arguments in favor of smaller carriers and the benefits they could bring to the U.S. Navy, although it remains a bizarrely heated topic. While even stepping away from 100,000-ton displacement supercarriers to smaller, but still large, 65,000-ton designs is seen by many as sacrilege, pivoting from nuclear back to conventional fuel is even more controversial.

Regardless, it seems that the powers that be within the Pentagon are finally coming to terms with the opportunity cost imposed by chasing an all supercarrier procurement strategy and how unsustainable it has become. Even disposing of nuclear-powered supercarriers once their service lives have ended is becoming a hugely costly endeavor. This is in addition to the concerns surrounding investing so much into so few hulls in light of the shifting geopolitical winds and America's potential enemies' growing anti-access, area-denial capabilities.