More for prestige than real combat purposes, I strongly believe in future wars legacy weapons like carriers will be sitting ducks waiting to be slaughtered.
Prestige is one thing - I do however sincerely hope that China is not going to follow the USA's footsteps, in regards to using it's naval assets (foremost carrier holding naval formations) to intimidate and harass military underdogs-aka it's neighbors.
- In any case, conflict involving a superpower or a high tech country like Japan/South-Korea will sooner or later include hyper sonic-weapons - that in turn will turn Naval surface assets into very expensive-prestigious sitting duck targets. - so I personally still fail to get the point towards such investments.
The UK's new carrier or those of other nations are not build ($billions spend) due to prestige - but to exert/project, political/military power towards other nations.
It would be hard for me to believe that e.g. the UK spend $billions on a carrier to protect e.g. the English Channel, Northern Ireland or the North-Sea.
But fare-more in order to keep their overseas territories, e.g. the Falklands (against a military underdog) and to exert political/military power in alliance with the USA towards other nations.
