Bottom line: nuclear carriers are an irresponsible waste of money when conventional carriers (CV) can preform the EXACT same mission just as well as a CVN. It is also reckless and dangerous form a damage control perspective with no gain at all in mission performance. All in all CVNs are major monuments to vanity and stupidity. Bring back the CV. You can build 2 for 1.
Your opinion is has some interesting affects if implemented.
1. A CV can not do the Exact same mission, A CV and several more support ships to keep fueling her maybe.
2. The cost of the MUCH LESS effective Queen Elizabeth Class will be appx 4.5Bn 40 Aircraft vs 90 aircraft for a G.R.Ford class. So yes if you want half the carrier it is half the price more or less.
3. If you mean damage control due to nuke reactor being damaged in combat, the issue is null as anything that can borrow that deep means the ship is no longer effective be it a CV or a CVN
3 Cost of the Air wing if the CV and CVN were same size will be the same.
The ability to move at flank with out refiling is I think a fairly important. If nothing else it means that the CVN in the center of the group can run a far more evasive track than a CV can.