I liked the article/interview, and I agree with you that the key factor of two media (sea/air) is missing in space.
It would then seem to depend on the tactics of short- vs. long-range engagements. e.g. are small "fighters" more effective weapons platforms than "capital" ships. At this point, the whole discussion falls into the rabbit hole of fictional technology (offensive, defensive, and propulsion).
CW does a good job of sidestepping this to avoid meaningless comparisons by focusing on the wet-navy analogies used as storytelling platforms more than on coherent self-consistent logistical structure. When readers have at least some familiarity with a military structure, referencing that background saves all the writing effort of describing a different one.
Bottom line: if a carrier (or carrier group) is about mobile force-projection from sea through air, how well does that analogy hold up from space through space?
About the only example I can think of here would be deploying atmospheric attack units from orbit, which could be considered a two-medium scenario.
Thoughts?
|