Comment by psunavy03
4 months ago
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.
The 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.
> Submarines are basically as good as dead if an anti-sub helicopter is nearby.
Interesting that helicopters have proven particularly vulnerable in Ukraine. So subs need to release drones from underseas that surface then find and destroy helicopters.
I spent 20 years active and reserve in the US Navy, I'm a War College grad, and I'm well versed in what naval assets can and can't do, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.
This last bit above is just pure entertainment.
> I spent 20 years active and reserve in the US Navy
That's your issue right there.
I 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.