Or dinosaurs?
Except that things don’t actually work that way. Carriers have designated air wings that are assigned to them. You could, in a tactical situation, swap out some of the planes (e.g. have an extra squadron of F-18s fly out to join the deployed carrier), but since every plane has different maintenance needs, doing very much of this very long is iffy.
If you’re talking about doing this from port, it’s absurd. The whole point of a carrier is to project air power when and where needed. Custom-equipping a carrier for a mission and then sending it out from Norfolk/Pearl Harbor would mean it arrives on scene in something like 5-15 days. That’s not going to cut it.
In any event, I wouldn’t care to test out the F/A-18 against 4.5+ generation fighters.
I feel the same way about Texas.
This is bound to sound snarky, but I’m serious:
If Chinese missile technology makes aircraft carriers obsolete, why are the Chinese themselves investing so much in their own aircraft carriers?
They actually have been used that way. In the 1994 intervention in Haiti that in the end resulted in the peaceful restoration of Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power the carriers USS Eisenhower and USS America each embarked 2 battalions of infantry and a large number of US Army helicopters and disembarked all fixed-wing aircraft. Pdf file here on Operation Uphold Democracy; Observations on Joint Assault Forces Operated From a CV. Personally I can’t figure out why it was done other than to conduct a joint operation for the sake of conducting a joint operation, but they did it.
Well, they’re not going to shoot missiles at their own carriers. 
More realistically, for the same reason stealth technology hasn’t made conventional fighter aircraft obsolete: because nobody is planning to fight a war with the US, so nobody bases military procurement strategy around combating next-generation threats.
Still, the point is a good one. China’s regional rivals (India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) already have missiles much more capable than the ones the Chinese are developing.
Whoa! Hold on there, just a second!
Texas = “nothing of value was lost.”?! :dubious:
I’m pretty sure y’all would be singing a completely different tune, when the gasoline, diesel and natural gas pipelines went dry, all of a sudden. :eek:
Put another way, I think Texas could get along a whole lot easier without California, than California could, without Texas. Just sayin’… 
'cause the people they’re thinking of using these aircraft carriers on don’t have access to Chinese missile technology ? Remember: when fleeing from a tiger, it’s not necessary to be able to outrun the tiger. You only have to outrun the slowest member of the group
[QUOTE=bump]
I figure this missile probably uses some sort of radar or IR guidance system; it seems like it would be simple enough to put some sort of IR or radar reflectors on other ships in the battle group to fool the missile into not knowing which one of the returns is the carrier.
[/QUOTE]
You’d be quite the popular guy aboard the USS Other Ship for proposing this, wouldn’t you ?
Missed the edit window:
Besides, wouldn’t make a difference. See:* Red Storm Rising, *only replacing the magic Phalanx and Ticonderoga antimissile missiles (which don’t work all that well IRL) with you magic deflector/jammer. So you’ve got one missile targetting USS Other Ship instead of USS Kitty Hawk. Wunderbar. If only there wasn’t the matter of those 119 *other *missiles…
If recent wars against low-tech opponents have taught (or perhaps reminded) the US military one thing, it’s that quantity has a quality all its own. Fire enough spaghetti at the wall, some of it’s bound to stick. And anti-ship missiles cost a hell of a lot less than aircraft carriers.
“Red alert! Raise sheilds”