
America Insists on a $13B Aircraft Carrier That's Easy to Sink - ourmandave
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/america-insists-on-a-13-billion-aircraft-carrier-thats-1793233401
======
Nomentatus
I've read discussions of this issue before that detail some of the
bureaucratic history within the Pentagon (etc) that have led us to where we
are now; it's at best odd that the author doesn't reference these. The best
reference I have concerns a recent push toward creating smaller carriers, for
the same reasons:
[https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20170215233616.aspx](https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20170215233616.aspx)
To see how little has changed over time, I recommend this image:
[https://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos...](https://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos_2011062623597.aspx)

------
tired_man
Author apparently doesn't know that carrier task groups typically travel with
their own attack sub. If there is a possibility of hostile submarines, someone
will be more than willing to stuff mk48 up their tail.

~~~
Nomentatus
Author knows not only this, but notes more than one instance of this defensive
tactic failing, including: "A small French nuclear sub, Saphir, snuck past
several points of defense and sunk the U.S. carrier Theodore Roosevelt and
half of its escort ships."

~~~
perilunar
Swedish and Australian diesel-electric subs have also 'sunk' US carriers in
war games.

see:

[http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-
stea...](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-
submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383)

[http://nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-
number...](http://nation.time.com/2012/12/04/more-than-the-navys-numbers-
could-be-sinking/)

------
fatjokes
I thought the push for defense spending was to satisfy Trump's political base,
who bristle at the thought of spending money for welfare and socialized
healthcare, but are happy to pump money into the military.

