by labrador on 10/13/25, 3:36 PM
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'
by rich_sasha on 10/13/25, 4:59 PM
Only an armchair enthusiast, but: these diesel/electric subs are quite slow and have limited range, certainly compared to a carrier group. Even with the new(ish) Air Independent Propulsion, they can stay underwater for a long time - maybe weeks - but can't go very fast. Their limited endurance also means they have to stay close-ish to their bases. The AIP bit often relies on special fuels (hydrogen, ethanol, and in any case, compressed oxygen) meaning they can't refuel at any random port, or generate the fuel at sea, like recharging batteries from diesel power.
They are amazing and great at coastal operations, but I just don't see how they can chase a carrier group around. They could of course lie in wait and pick the right spot/get lucky, but I'm not sure if this is a viable strategy.
by OG_BME on 10/13/25, 3:38 PM
The writing style of this article is interested, on one hand, it's packed full of details and information like a well-researched, human-written article.
On the other, there are many ChatGPTisms, it's not this, it's that, groups of 3 terms, em-dashes, etc.
My thinking is that there was a thorough draft written by a human that then was passed through an LLM and heavily modified. Not that there's a problem with that.
by markemer on 10/10/25, 4:49 AM
Isn't this like the exact plot of Down Periscope?
by psunavy03 on 10/13/25, 3:44 PM
This "news" was 20 years ago.
by credit_guy on 10/15/25, 1:31 AM
In case of a war with China, the US aircraft carriers would operate quite far out in the sea, most likely many hundreds of miles away from the continent. Submarines could try to get at them, but again, the most likely US tactic would be to have the carriers constantly on the move. China has 48 old Type 33 diesel-electric submarines, with a top (submerged) speed of 13 knots, less than half the top speed of any US carrier. The only hope for such a submarine to catch a carrier strike group would be to lie in wait. But the ocean is very large, and such a strategy is probabilistically very unlikely to succeed. China also has 6 nuclear attack submarines. It is however quite likely that in the even of a war, they'd be the first to be targeted by the US Navy. Sinking ships (or submarines) goes both ways.
by dmix on 10/13/25, 4:05 PM
Submarines similar to spamming ballistic or antiship missiles is one of those things we'll never really have a full answer for. There's only so many sonobouys you can drop in a huge ocean you need to transit. Ships just like soldiers will always be expendable at some level.
by kitd on 10/13/25, 4:12 PM
Interesting (to me) that the AIP is based on a Stirling engine. It's the first time I've heard of one being used at scale. No doubt HNers will have countless other applications at their fingertips, but to me they've always been only theoretically useful desk toys.
by numpy-thagoras on 10/13/25, 3:32 PM
This wasn't the first time a diesel-electric has caused havoc for US Navy expectations during a war game.
The article even mentions the added use of layered defence to try and counter this move.
by softwaredoug on 10/13/25, 3:28 PM
Ukraine has had success sinking large vessels with drones etc, so it doesn’t seem surprising the lessons of this articles are even more true today.
by exabrial on 10/13/25, 4:32 PM
Wasn't this exercise completed years ago? The article is dated 7 days ago which is surprising.
by ActorNightly on 10/13/25, 3:39 PM
There are 2 things that are VERY classified when it comes to US military.
First is missle defense capability
Second is sonar.
I believe something like 10 years ago, the declassified sonar capability was that it could reconstruct a 3d image of a goldfish 10 miles away.
TLDR; US is never going going "win" wargames because its not a good idea to showcase the true capability. Same reason why F22 and F35s "lose" to other jets - US purposefully nerfs them and flies them at decreased envelopes.
by lenerdenator on 10/13/25, 3:52 PM
IIRC, isn't the expected US response to the sinking of an CVN the use of weapons of mass destruction?
by jakedata on 10/11/25, 9:45 PM
My takeaway from this story is that as an (aspiring) billionaire I can buy an awesome Swedish submarine for less than the cost of a crazy megayacht.
Unfortunately, skull shaped volcano islands are harder to come by.
by maxglute on 10/13/25, 3:59 PM
Wonder if US/USN is even institutionally capable of moving away from carrier expeditionary model if on paper it's borderly demonsntratbly not survivable. Feel like too much of US national prestige is tied to muh 11+10 carrier+lhd literally legislated into law (10 US Code 8062a). Too much big dick energy ego tied to arguably obsolecent platform, well at least for peer war.
by ck2 on 10/13/25, 3:39 PM
$45 BILLION in F-35 orders have been cancelled by European countries because of the (illegal) tariff war
Nothing on the "tariff shelf" is gonna fix that, only bankrupt the country like his casino
And next war is going to be just thousands upon thousands of drones since apparently we have no way to stop them over airports and everything else