Why changing U.S. carrier size does not solve force structure

Would the United States be wiser to build more midsize carriers instead of Ford-class carriers?

Not necessarily: carrier air-group requirements remain, while destroyer replacement is the more immediate structural problem.

A smaller carrier is not automatically cheaper at the force level, because it still needs a viable air group and trained crew. A modern counterpart to the Midway or Kitty Hawk class would remain a large ship with substantial aviation and personnel demands. Abandoning the Ford programme as later hulls begin to benefit from lessons learned would also sacrifice the falling unit costs expected from a mature production run. In this assessment, the age and number of U.S. destroyer hulls form the more urgent structural problem. The suggested faster replacement path combines the Zumwalt class's hull and power-generation experience with mature Arleigh Burke combat systems and a large missile battery. Dissatisfaction with an expensive carrier class is separate from the fleet-wide question of which shortage most needs immediate attention.