Aircraft based from inland bases will almost always be less vulnerable than ones based on a carrier - and have better support facilities and easier logistics as well. Carriers are used to provide air cover for operations outside your own territory. And I can't think of any legitimate reason that Europe would want to employ combat aircraft outside our own territory (or at least within range of friendly air bases).
The only thing I can think of that could seriously warrant deployment of aircraft carriers would be large-scale commerce raiding in the Atlantic. The only power with the capability to engage in that at the moment is the US Navy. And do we really want to build up the kind of navy that can beat the USN in a blue-water battle? If we do, then we need to fire up our shipyards, because there is a long way to go...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Beyond that pretty old fashioned threat, aircraft carriers are used for power projection.
If you are interested in being a great power you will need the ability to project power, which usually means carriers. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
No, if the US Navy tries to blockade the Atlantic. I think you have the wrong idea about who the EU is likely to be competing with for supplies.
Why does the EU need to "project power"? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
You don't have to invade or bomb other countries, but no one will care about what you say if you do not have any ability to act, to back your talk. Talk is after all cheap. Carriers are not.
Witness carriers lazily loitering offshore problematic countries when negotioations are going on... Just showing the flag. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Europe has a number of imaginative and very painful ways to make our displeasure known that fall short of armed force. Of course, none of them are quite as profitable for the fatcats as war would be.
A weapon is an intimidating tool, but it is not a tool of intimidation. I don't think it's wise to make threats of armed force if one is not, ultimately, able and willing to enforce them. And we all know how well that worked out for the Americans...
If you want negative control, stopping the enemy from using the SLOC's, you use attack submarines and naval strike aircraft. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
We'd lose a lot of subs getting close to their carriers, sure, but a sub is what? one percent of a carrier in terms of manpower and industrial production? We can afford to lose fifty subs for every flat-top we sink and still come out ahead in terms of attrition. And we have a bigger population and industrial base to begin with.
As an aside, if the USN blockades the Atlantic, it might be more prudent to simply write off the Atlantic trade and go through the Med to SE Asia. There we can sail in our territorial waters and/or neutral waters all the way to our destination. It would hurt, sure, but I think it would hurt a lot less than arguing with a power that has 27 thousand megaton and is known to react negatively to people shooting at its soldiers...
