Editing Carrier battle group (section)

==Debate on future viability==
There is debate in naval warfare circles as to the viability of carrier battle groups in 21st century naval warfare. Proponents of the CVBG argue that it provides unmatched firepower and force projection capabilities. Opponents argue that CVBGs are increasingly vulnerable to [[arsenal ship]]s and [[cruise missile]]s, especially those with [[supersonic]] or even hypersonic flight<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sploid.gizmodo.com/are-the-us-navy-supercarriers-useless-1484497670|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131218031140/http://sploid.gizmodo.com/are-the-us-navy-supercarriers-useless-1484497670|url-status=dead|archive-date=18 December 2013|title=The future of naval warfare: Are US supercarriers useless?|first=Jesus|last=Diaz|date=17 December 2013|access-date=27 August 2017}}</ref> and the ability to perform radical trajectory changes to avoid anti-missile systems. It is also noted that CVBGs were designed for Cold War scenarios, and are less useful in establishing control of areas close to shore. It is argued however that such missiles and arsenal ships pose no serious threat as they would be eliminated due to increasing improvement in ship defenses such as [[Cooperative Engagement Capability]] (CEC), DEW technology and missile technology.

Additionally, carrier battle groups proved to be vulnerable to [[diesel-electric submarine]]s owned by many smaller [[naval force]]s. Examples are the German ''U24'' of the conventional [[Type 206 submarine|206 class]] which in 2001 "sank" [[USS Enterprise (CVN-65)|USS ''Enterprise'']] during the exercise JTFEX 01-2 in the [[Caribbean Sea]] by firing [[flare]]s and taking a photograph through its [[periscope]]<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/militaer-special/id_61572852/militaer-deutsches-u-boot-fordert-us-marine-heraus-.html | publisher=t-online | title=Deutsches U-Boot fordert US-Marine heraus | date=6 January 2013 | access-date=18 December 2020 | language=de}}</ref> or the Swedish ''[[HSwMS Gotland (Gtd)|Gotland]]'' which managed the same feat in 2006 during JTFEX 06-2 by penetrating the defensive measures of [[Carrier Strike Group 7]] undetected and snap several pictures of {{USS|Ronald Reagan}}.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/detail.html | publisher=KNBC | title=Pentagon: New Class Of Silent Submarines Poses Threat | date=19 October 2006 | access-date=21 July 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071116120858/http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/detail.html |archive-date=16 November 2007}}</ref>

However, carriers have been called upon to be first responders even when conventional land-based aircraft were employed. During Desert Shield, the U.S. Navy sortied additional carriers to augment the on-station assets, eventually maintaining six carriers for [[Desert Storm]]. Although the U.S. Air Force sent fighters such as the [[F-16]] to theater in Desert Shield, they had to carry bombs with them as no stores were in place for sustained operations, whereas the carriers arrived on scene with full magazines and had support ships to allow them to conduct strikes indefinitely.

The [[War on Terrorism|Global War on Terror]] has shown the flexibility and responsiveness of the carrier on multiple occasions when land-based air was not feasible or able to respond in a timely fashion. After the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|11 September terrorist attacks]] on the U.S., carriers immediately headed to the Arabian Sea to support [[Operation Enduring Freedom]] and took up station, building to a force of three carriers. Their steaming location was closer to the targets in Afghanistan than any land-based assets and thereby more responsive. The {{USS|Kitty Hawk|CV-63|6}} was adapted to be a support base for [[special operations]] helicopters. Carriers were used again in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]] and even provided aircraft to be based ashore on occasion and have done so periodically when special capabilities are needed. This precedent was established during [[World War II]] in the [[Battle of Guadalcanal]].

Regardless of the debate over viability, the United States has made a major investment in the development of a new carrier class—the {{sclass|Gerald R. Ford|aircraft carrier|}}s (formerly designated CVN-X, or the X Carrier)—to replace the existing {{sclass|Nimitz|aircraft carrier}}s. The new ''Ford''-class carriers are designed to be modular and are easily adaptable as technology and equipment needed on board changes.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm CVX Next Generation Aircraft Carrier], globalsecurity.org</ref>