Well, I believe that Nimitz suffers from "Too valuable to lose, too valuable to use" syndrome. Global powers are seeking to build their armies on smaller stealthier and faster machines of war and naval forces are not an exception.
Really?
Lets see,
1) UK 65,000 tons up from 20,000-25,000 tons on carriers, Destroyers up to 8,000 tons. Frigates up in tonnage
2) Frances possible future carrier, up to 65,000 tons from around 40,000 at current I believe? Destroyers are also larger than current.
3) America has never got ships that are smaller. The planned future cruiser is large, the new carriers will be larger, the new amphibious assault carriers will be larger... America rarely goes smaller it seems
4) India, destroyers are larger, Carriers are larger.
5) China planning to invest in carriers.
6) Russia expanding carriers.
7) Italy's new amphibious carrier is larger and more powerful. Her destroyers are larger.
As a rule every SSN has got larger and larger. Every SSBN has got larger.
As for faster machines of war... The Daring was only required to have 28 knots as oppossed to the previous escorts having 30 knots. The QE class will only require 26-28 knots. One version of the LCS can indeed do an impressive speed but the cost and other sacrifices made to achieve this result in a somewhat weaker vessel IMHO. Furthermore when a missile is doing 500+ knots the difference between 28, 30 or 40 knots means very little.
Stealth yes, Longer range yes. Smaller... no. As a general rule a ship benefits from a larger hull than a smaller one due to stealth being able to make it appear small and the increased sea keeping, hull resilience, weapons space and stabalisation in the water that allows for a higher radar mast and thus increased coverage and a further radar horizon from the ship.
I don't know where you got the smaller machines of war from but it's not a majority rule observed by other nations around the world. You could argue that more nations are using Corvettes more and more but then I would argue that they have replaced the small missile boats, patrol boats and torpedo boats that the USSR for example used widely. I would also argue that a Corvette against a large destroyer will lose.... for that matter 4, 5, 6+ corvettes will lose because in the end the destroyer will have better sensors, higher up on the platform. It will be able to operate and fight in rougher seas and in deeper water. Should the corvettes seek to use the coast the blue water surface vessel can remain off coast and utilise a wide range of long range and capable options.
UCAVs are only widening this gap due to the ability of an 8,000 tonne vessel to have a forward mission bay and then be supported by a larger number of survelience and multi purpose areial platforms than is possible with the likes of manned aircraft.
