system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I feel that US Naval Dominance at Sea is threatened by a rival it may not be able to beat. Im not entirely convinced that the US Military's investment in New Ford class Carriers and the Carrier Battle group is a good investment for continued Naval Domination.
gpt
Rock, Paper, Scissors.

You can't criticize the cost-effectiveness of Rock solely by looking at the advances that Paper has been making. You have to stop and ask why we have Rock in the first place - to defeat Scissors.

Carrier groups are useful for far more than blue water dominance over technologically advanced navies. They're the most powerful way for the Navy to project force over land, especially in the early stages of a conflict against an adversary who doesn't have a serious navy. They're great for providing support for ground forces in areas of the world where we don't have access to large ground bases.

And while anti-piracy, humanitarian, and counterinsurgency missions aren't "sexy," those are really important missions that we *know* the Navy will be involved in continuously over the next few decades. An actual war with Russia or China (the only non-allies who might credibly have the tech and the training and the tactics/strategy to take out a carrier anytime in the next few decades) is unlikely. Worth preparing for, sure, but still unlikely.

So I'd say it's more of an acknowledged weakness, that carriers are less cost-effective against anti-ship missiles and submarines, but that they're just so good for a lot of other things that the U.S. Navy is likely to face that it's not enough to just give up on them.