When does the cost of sinking an aircraft carrier become too high?

Was talking with a reader and this question came up.

How much did the Chinese lose in my mythical war?

Easy...

*A couple of regiments of SU-27 type fighters....
*Around 30 J-10's...
*A regiment of TU-22M Backfire bombers...
*A squadron of Fast Attack Missile boats....
*A squadron of Diesel Subs....

They sunk a carrier though and I say that it is well worth the price.  I couldn't bear to give you all the war with anti-ship ballistic missiles included.

Another statement was made that "hey, its ok, even if they sunk our carrier we still win"...they have to rebuild all those planes and ships and retrain aircrew lost.

Uh....we lost a carrier.  We lost aviation mechanics, air crew, nuclear propulsion experts, and sailors that know there stuff....in addition to a small nations worth of aircraft.

And that's the real point.  We can't afford to lose a carrier.  Yeah we have more but that isn't the point.  Every aircraft carrier represents a tremendous amount of national treasure....in people and equipment that just can't be reformed in less than a couple of years at best.

While we're focusing on littoral combat, every other navy in the world is concentrating on two things.  Power Projection in the form of amphibious assault ships and multi-mission frigates.  The reason is simple.  The amphib can perform many of the missions of the carrier without the danger of "placing all our eggs in one high tech basket" and the multi-mission frigate can perform many of the rest without the tremendous cost of a carrier.

As the carrier is currently equipped it is incapable of properly influencing a battle at sea.  While the Navy is seeking a UAV to attack targets on land, it relies on a short ranged missile (Harpoon) to attack other ships at sea.

Put another way.  If the Marine Corps could be accused of becoming a second land army then the Navy could be accused of becoming an air force.

This isn't a slam at the carrier navy.  Its just an observation that we have inflated the value of carriers to such an extent that the costs to destroy one pale in comparison to the need to keep one afloat.  Additionally the mission set of the carrier has become so focused on influencing the land battle that naval warfare has become a secondary consideration. 

Required reading.  Buy Fords not Ferraris.

Its time to bite the bullet and consider downsizing carriers.  A fleet of 20-25 fifty/forty thousand ton carriers might be more useful than what we have right now.