Great for these times when there isn’t open conflict between major powers, though. You can easily park it next to some middle east country and bomb the crap out of them.
War doesn't just "break out". If tensions mount, the US can place its carriers 1000 miles or more away from any Russian or Chinese battery. At that distance, the carriers are not "huge and slow", they are tiny dots on a map and quite evasive too. In the time a hypersonic missile covers 1000 miles, a carrier can move a few miles.
Such a mobile base of operations and air power is worth it to her, per the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_w...
In a symmetrical conflict against an enemy with submarines they will be completely useless.
I would expect this to be more difficult if the carrier group is on a wartime footing, though.
In 2015 a 30 y/o French submarine "attacked" a US carrier as part of a military exercise where all participants should be on the highest alert. In 2004 a Swedish submarine did the same.
I can't see any metric by which this is the case
The Australian ships, for example, are "landing helicopter dock" ships. The Japanese ones are "helicopter destroyers" due (due to a prohibition in the Japanese constitution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons... some are still being converted to carry the F-35). A number of the American carriers on the list - the USS Wasp, for example - are actually things like "amphibious assault ships".
> no country has more than two of them at the moment
Having even one puts you on a pretty small list.