Oh, I agree that they could act without a carrier as part of Surface Action Groups; I'm just saying that you could do the same thing with 3-4 DDG-51s or CG-47s in a moderate-threat environment today. That right there is more surface-warfare firepower than most first-world nations can deploy at one time across their whole fleet. I don't see these proposed vessels being "capital ships;" they will be multimission replacements for the current stock of cruisers and destroyers, filling the same roles, likely being of similar or slightly larger dimensions, and probably being procured in similar numbers if the design is in production for 30+ years like the DDG-51 hulls. That brings me back to the GFFA; I've always argued that really the Star Destroyer designation works for the largest common size class of warships, as in 21st century navies destroyers have expanded in size and capability as to render the cruiser obsolete and take on the battleship's shore bombardment role. In the GFFA, Star Destroyers also serve as carriers and even assault ships - essentially a "do-everything" vessel, like a modern destroyer taken up to 11.