Comment by maxglute

More of a generalized comment, not limited to article. IMO even less point worrying about ASW lessons from 20 years ago vs peer threats with A2D2 that pushes carriers outside their strike distance while being able to hit them outside of it. TBH the entire point those stories were making rounds 20 years ago, i.e. around US pivot to Indopac was because PRC had mediocre legacy diesel subs. It was security theatre of the era, i.e. around the time muh carriers are fast filtered down to lay talking points. The strategic landscape against carriers vis-a-vis medium/long range strikes has change - flip side israel surviving 95% iran missiles is can US csg survive 5% PRC missiles. Likely not.

My comment was more directed at if US planners thinks no, would they even be capable of divesting, moving away from carrier model. My guess is no, there's too much sunkcost ineria across domains to pivot. USN is doctrinally, culturally built around carriers, which again numbers are legislated by law, hence extraordinary resource allocation, with layers of industrial and political inertia (no one is going to close/downsize Newport shipyard). The only thing to do is try to patch a potentially obsolete model like distributed survivability to duct tape around the fact that the csg probably doesn't work anymore.