Points well taken. In the case of the Forrestal I was attempting to simplify to show the general point, and regarding Harriers vs F-18's as fleet defenders, the point was that a LARGE and DETERMINED force might be able to overwhelm fleet air defenses by sheer force of numbers. For example, I would NOT be in any hurry to deploy a US fleet within range of land-based Chinese planes in the event of a war over Taiwan...how many HUNDREDS of sorties and THOUSANDS of missiles might they launch, in hopes to score ONE hit, which might end US's involvement in the war? US strategy doesn't allow for even the CONSIDERATION of the loss of a US supercarrier. Western air doctrine tends to PRE-SUPPOSE air supremacy(or now, dominance) provided by fighter cover, and suffers badly when we don't have it. Meanwhile, Eastern-Bloc equipped forces tend to rely heavily on ground/surface based air defenses. A laser based air defense adds a capability otherwise lacking in the US arsena; to be able to engage an unlimited number of targets, within a 360' arc, at almost unlimited range, in a very short period of time.
Earlier I mention that this platform would most likely have a mixed, balanced armament. It's almost unfortunate, since one of the greatest advantages of going all-electric is being able to forgo the weight, danger, expense, and physical volume that would otherwise be dictated by the launchers, ordinance, and ammunition handling systems. Furthermore, the lasers, batteries, optics/mirrors, stabilisers, capacitors, and other weapon related gear will be extremely expensive, delicate, possibly quite large, and will CERTAINLY be the main FOCUS of the ship.
I have my doubts regarding use of lasers for ship to ship defense against small boats....This weapon is NOT optimal for engaging such craft under ANY circumstances (as in: "Ooooohhhhh, you burned a quarter-sized hole sideways (which doesnt even necessarily leak) through my little boat...gee, WHATEVER will I do, besides continue trying to crash my explosive laden boat into your multi billion (or trillion) dollar ship? Allah Akbar!"), and by the time the standards of our own own rules of engagement have been met in determining that a given small boat target is indeed "hot", it might be TOO CLOSE to engage by laser, depending on turret design, placement, and how LOW it can aim in defilade. The SOFTWARE that controls the weapon system would also have to be capable of recognizing and engaging these small targets, and might involve COMPLETELY different systems for surface vs aerial engagement. A small boat attack could even happen when the ship is docked, or in a narrow channel, making it even MORE vulnerable. This will be a LARGE and effectively PRICELESS asset that lacks both the MANOEVERABILITY and the EXPENDABILITY enjoyed by small boats attackers. Preventing such an attempt in the first place MUST be a large part of the solution, but a determined attacker WILL get through. Remember that the mighty superbattleship TIRPITZ was severely damaged and nearly sunk by 2 men in a midget sub, while in a heavily defended harbor, in a fjord deep within enemy territory, on the other side of anti-submarine nets that were being actively patrolled, during wartime. Our ships have to "show the flag" in hostile waters, without backup, in what is supposed to be peacetime, and yet they are attacked, ala the USS COLE. As for ASW, the helicopter, dual-use missile launcher and escorts (if any) will HAVE to be the primary defense. The laser is obviously of little use, except perhaps for intercepting sub-launched missiles.
Against small boat attack, helicopters (preferrably...why let them get anywhere NEAR the ship?), dual-purpose guns, automatic cannon, heavy machine guns, or even small arms fire from deck or separate motor launches will be MUCH more effective than using the laser, and not too expensive. Once again, we see that HI-TECH weapons are best deployed against HI-TECH targets.
Later in this thread, someone mentions mirrors as a defence. As for the idea of protecting air targets by mirroring them, I think this is a non-starter for several reasons.
1. The current name of the game is STEALTH, ie, NOT having a bright radar signature. A STEALTHY target has a better change of surviving than a shiney one, much less a target CALCULATED to reflect STRAIGHT back to the source.
2. The power of the laser. A mirror would have to be VERY shiney (like 100% reflective)and VERY resistant to heat to not be marred and burned through by the laser, pretty much instantly, and the fact that the laser is tunable further negates the defensive benefit.
3. The stress of flight and reentry. Whatever material the warhead is coated with, its polish and reflectivity must remain intact after a flight cycle that includes launch, high-speed flight, and possibly atmospheric reentry, across just about its ENTIRE surface. Good luck with that.
If anything, a big mirror might be more helpful to the small boat attacker, if only to get them into the safe minimum firing distance. Furthermore, a carefully angled mirror mounted on the bow of a low slung motorboat might be WONDERFUL camoflage at night...all a watchman might see is the reflection of the sky or water, until it's too late...you Navy radar folks tell me, how visible is a small wood or fiberglass boat on radar?
I think such a vessel has a DEFINITE niche within the modern navy, especially for air and missle defense. In the theatre and role where it can do the MOST good, it may even become a primary target, the same way that Iraqi air defenses where the US's FIRST objective during both the first and second Persian Gulf wars. It will be of the MOST service against a HI-TECH foe who can field aircraft, missiles, and UAV's (like China or North Korea), and will be MOST VULNERABLE to low-tech asymmetric attacks, like we might find most prevalent in the Middle East.