3 ms·
It's a given that aircraft carriers will be sunk in an all out war. They're useful to project power in anything less than an all out war, which fortunately is m
by labrador 1y ago
It's a given that aircraft carriers will be sunk in an all out war. They're useful to project power in anything less than an all out war, which fortunately is most of the time.
Edit: I'm a former nuclear submarine sailor. We call aircraft carriers 'targets'
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nocoiner 1y agoIsn’t “targets” just all non-submarines?
- stoneman24 1y agoActually Other submarines are also prospective targets until proven to be allies. Great profession for the paranoid, everyone else trying to find you. Worked in shipyard with submariners, who are great people once you get to know them.
- adastra22 1y agoOnce you stop being targets, you mean.
- psunavy03 1y agoOP seems to be blurring the lines between standard interservice banter and actually thinking their platform is the center around which all military operations revolve, which is something people generally grow out of after their first tour of duty.
- cperciva 1y agoI thought "targets" was just anything designed by civil engineers.
- psunavy03 1y agoWhile I support inter-branch shit-talking, even from you bubbleheads, when push comes to shove, CVNs aren't "targets" for SSNs. We're on the same team, fighting against our true enemies . . . the Army and the Air Force.
- labrador 1y agoBut seriously... Google returns this for the keywords 'falkland war submarine aircraft carrier submarine sights periscope' "During the Falklands War, the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror used its periscope to sight the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano before sinking it, but did not engage the Argentine aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier was also stalked by British submarines but ultimately retreated and was never attacked."
- psunavy03 1y agoYes, 40 years ago, a submarine sunk a WWII cruiser. ASW is a thing, and subs are a legitimate threat. But this is also why we have submarines, because the best tool for hunting a submarine is another submarine. But claiming this magically makes aircraft carriers obsolete is largely internet fanboy noise. The US military trains and fights as a team, and the entire point is to use the strengths of one platform to protect the weaknesses of another and vice versa.
- labrador 1y agoI was on a boomer, not a fast attack sub, so I'll take your word for it. It does sound like something I'd tell myself if I served on a surface ship.
- StopDisinfo910 1y agoThe best tool to hunt a submarine is an anti-sub helicopter. Submarines are basically as good as dead if an anti-sub helicopter is nearby. They can't really retaliate, an active sonar will most likely expose them and they are not fast enough to escape a torpedo. > But claiming this magically makes aircraft carriers obsolete is largely internet fanboy noise. All surface ships are useless in a symetric warfare. Just look at what Ukraine did to the Russian navy in the Black sea. Ships are slow and exposed. Even if their defence allows them to survive a direct attack (dubious), they are necessarily prone to saturation attack. Very useful when you need to bomb a poor country to make them remember that you are a liberal country in name only and their tribute is overdue however.