As I understand it, post WW2, the USN almost got scuttled via the claims of the US Army and USAAF that
- There would be no need for a Marine Corps as there would be no amphibious landings ever again
- The US Army and USAAF could do everything the Navy could, so there would be no need for the Navy
The USAAF/USAF both roundly disliked carriers because they were air-assets they could not control, and post-war they wanted control of everything. They also believed the B-36 was their ultimate weapon -- 10,000 pounds of bombs
(or a nuke) while flying 10,000 miles and able to cruise at high-altitude and possess a sufficient degree of maneuverability up high
(granted, this was because a number of planes would either barely be able to fly level, let alone maneuver, or would just stall out in the thin air) to avoid it's destruction.
The USN decided to pursue a super-carrier, the USS United States instead of develop a sea-plane bomber
(which it would later do in the form of the P6M) as they felt the USAF would just move to take sea-plane aviation.
Now here's my question:
While seaplanes were assets that could be controlled by an any service, seaplane-tenders (which seaplanes depend on) are Naval assets just as much as Aircraft Carriers. Why didn't anybody notice that?