Comment by labrador
7 hours 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'
While 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.
But 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."
Yes, 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.
1 reply →
Isn’t “targets” just all non-submarines?
Actually 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.
Once you stop being targets, you mean.
I thought "targets" was just anything designed by civil engineers.