5 ms·

Robert Farley has a good explanation of how difficult it would actually be to sink one of the fleet carriers: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-re

Robert Farley has a good explanation of how difficult it would actually be to sink one of the fleet carriers: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-to-sink-a-modern-aircraft-car-1794182843 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-it-would-really-take-t...

Spooky23 9y ago
You don't need to sink an aircraft carrier, just keep it at long range. A country like Egypt, Iran or China could keep carriers out of territorial waters or block key choke points in their region with diesel subs or mine. A moderate projection of force could block the straight of Malacca and damage operations. Even if you didn't sink the carrier, you could wound it, which would be worse than a sinking in some ways. At best you can keep it a few hundred miles away, which will render its future complement of short-range F-35s safely neutered. Alternatively, you probably just need to sink a few container ships to get the desired outcome.
- vacri 9y ago
  > You don't need to sink an aircraft carrier, just keep it at long range. At which point you haven't neutralised it; it's just become a 'fleet in being'. You still have to account for it. You may be able to protect your home waters from it, but you can't project power when it's around.
Analemma_ 9y ago
It doesn't matter how difficult it is to sink them if they can't launch any planes because the catapult is broken.
- coldcode 9y ago
  Plus they might not be able to land, so basically kamikazes.
- stevenwoo 9y ago
  Those are just the new carriers which can't be deployed until they can prove it works as long as the Senate (from the article) is forcing the Navy to do according to established protocol.
stevenwoo 9y ago
The counterpoint is that foxtrotalpha article where when we borrowed a Swedish diesel attack sub for testing and it managed to get multiple attack runs in every time in simulated attacks on US carrier groups without getting caught. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-d...

Spooky23 9y ago

You don't need to sink an aircraft carrier, just keep it at long range. A country like Egypt, Iran or China could keep carriers out of territorial waters or block key choke points in their region with diesel subs or mine. A moderate projection of force could block the straight of Malacca and damage operations. Even if you didn't sink the carrier, you could wound it, which would be worse than a sinking in some ways. At best you can keep it a few hundred miles away, which will render its future complement of short-range F-35s safely neutered. Alternatively, you probably just need to sink a few container ships to get the desired outcome.

vacri 9y ago
> You don't need to sink an aircraft carrier, just keep it at long range. At which point you haven't neutralised it; it's just become a 'fleet in being'. You still have to account for it. You may be able to protect your home waters from it, but you can't project power when it's around.

Analemma_ 9y ago

It doesn't matter how difficult it is to sink them if they can't launch any planes because the catapult is broken.

coldcode 9y ago
Plus they might not be able to land, so basically kamikazes.
stevenwoo 9y ago
Those are just the new carriers which can't be deployed until they can prove it works as long as the Senate (from the article) is forcing the Navy to do according to established protocol.

stevenwoo 9y ago

The counterpoint is that foxtrotalpha article where when we borrowed a Swedish diesel attack sub for testing and it managed to get multiple attack runs in every time in simulated attacks on US carrier groups without getting caught. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984 http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-d...