Re: Slightly disapointing
Not so.
1. Buy and learn.
2. Build new based upon above incorporating learnings.
3. Repeat option 2.
Most of the time this is how all warships (of any type) have evolved - the exception being the "game changer" design (ie Dreadnought) which is a gamble for anything other than a country having an extremely large lead in power supremacy/projection.
Look at the carrier evolution since the early 20's - it took 20 years for most countries to realise that they were the "new" battleship - the tool of power projection. And it took a very pain lesson (ie WWII) to introduce the rapid changes necessary that enabled the current US nuclear carriers (we wont mention the current British fiasco).
Torpedo boats (the fore-runner of the modern small missile boats) and which we seem to think were a creation of WWII in the UK got their education from such events as the Agar's sinking of the Oleg in 1919.... but yet again the technical innovation over the next 20 years wasnt exactly staggering.
Thankfully China has not engaged in conflicts that will allow those sort of capability leaps - but also perhaps we are forgetting where China's interests lie - the countries which China is most likely intending to "impress" with its carriers have no possibility of getting their own - now or in the near future - which will of course ensure that China stays technologically ahead of them.
Personally I think most carriers are a waste of space & money - but its the reality in that they "look impressive" rather than what they can really deliver (I'm still not going to comment about the QE class) - in any real battle situation I would go for swarm tactics with low-level drones against targets and you dont need so many badgers to launch them from.....
Biting the hand that feeds IT
