OT: Seven US aircraft carriers have been sunk in the past 30 years.

[swaghauler]

It is kind of funny that nobody mentioned the most important ASW asset that was attached to a carrier group starting in the 90's (my friend Tim served on one attached to the Nimitz). The one (or two in high threat environments) LA Class Attack subs. I don't think they would just let an enemy sub stalk a carrier group without performing an "intervention."

[Legbreaker]

Except as mentioned by that thesis I posted the link to a while back, the LA class aren't really up to the job and their crews, like the rest of the navy, aren't either.
Also, they're big noisy nukes, only suited to deep water operations. In closer to the shore they're nearly useless.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Except as mentioned by that thesis I posted the link to a while back, the LA class aren't really up to the job and their crews, like the rest of the navy, aren't either.
Also, they're big noisy nukes, only suited to deep water operations. In closer to the shore they're nearly useless.

I saw that BS thesis, the writing of which was supported by a guy who went on to push for a larger budget for the US airforce. Politics is like that. What was said about the Navy is total Bull. I know several sailors. They are very well trained and the equipment they have is top notch. Better trained than the Soviets (I have been in close proximity to Soviet ships sailing in the Bahamas and near Cuba) and every bit as good as all the other NATO powers. The LAs cannot be that noisy as they have frequently operated in the Gulf without detection. My friend Tim was in the Gulf in 91, and they launched Tomahawks from a few miles offshore without detection. The Soviets have no truly new technology on their ships (which were mostly built in the 60's, and 70's) and China is almost a generation behind the US DESPITE the continual theft of technology. Maybe you're confusing the US Navy with the rest of NATO (who have cut their defense budgets to the bone since 2000). Most of the ships I see countries other than The UK operating don't appear much bigger than a Frigate or Coastal Patrol Ship. The vast majority of NATO subs are Diesel Electric with limited range (compared to nukes) and limited submerged dwell time. They might be good for a war in Europe but couldn't project power, say to China. If the LA class were "flawed," the US wouldn't have built 90 of them. Keep in mind that the "think tanks" that claim such weakness in the US military also predicted 40% casualties to allied air power and 60% casualties to the ground forces during the 91 Gulf War. It didn't happen, did it? Never trust an analyst who hasn't served with the entity they are "analyzing."