Re: EMALS
" STOVL aircraft are much easier to land and take off, and you can do most of the training (and maintaining the qualifications) on land rather than tying up a ship. "
I've been to at least one airfield fitted with CATOBAR facilities for training. Doubtless the USA has many more. The training argument doesn't hold water because the most critical part (putting it all into practice) need a ship no matter what technology is used and you don't want to be doing that with your active-deployment boat.
WRT the cost of carriers, you're comparing applies with orange juice - nuclear powered ships have a lot more space aboard for facilities, fuel and accomodation, plus they don't need to refuel in potentially hostile areas or that space can be used to carry supplies for your support group.
Neither of those matter though: Carriers are obselete. Long-range Anti-shipping ballistic missiles are in the field and that makes them as vulnerable to attack as battleships turned out to be when aircraft carriers came along. No matter how many missiles an Aegis-class support boat can fire off against incoming, it loses its usefulness when it runs out of missiles and the land-based enemy pops off a few more waves.
The military has a bad habit of preparing to fight the next war with the last war's technology and tactics without bothering to pay attention to technology in play today. As with 1941, in all liklihood it will take a few sinkings before they admit it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
