[Skybird]

^ Still the Chinese were not the first who achieved this, if the story is true. Swedish, German and Dutch boats scored against carrier battle groups as well. And not just in exercises, but random meetings (where it should be demanded a carrier group were able to protect itself).

A carrier is a weapon to be used against an inferior enemy these days. Against an enemy of equal military capabilities at sea or on the air, a carrier is just a floating target. Relying on them today in projections about the future war compares to those admirals who in WWII still believed in battleships. The underlying mistake is to assume the next war will be waged by the ways and methods by which the last war was won.

Subs are superior against carriers. Autonomous drones, both under sea and in the air, are the future. The US is breeding dinosaurs when investing into new carriers. They are doomed to go extinct. The concept is an overaged waste of money considering military scenarios against enemies who operate on same eye level.

Chinese subs must not even strike themselves, its enough if they serve as ears - to provide intel for those refurbished ICBMs the Chinese have rebuild as carrier-killers.

Considering the short legs of the F35, its hard too believe how the Navy would be able to maintain carrier presence at a useful range to China without loosing carriers. Extending their legs by the use of tankers, means to expose the logistical basis for supplying a strike force in mid-air, also it could givce away attack vectors and thus neutralise the not really cheap-to-have advantage of stealthed fighterbombers. It just does not make sense to me, no matter how I turn it.

Already now, in case of a major war I do not take an American victory as granted. I must admit by now I even see chances having shifted below the 50:50 ratio already, against the US. And the shift goes on, every month.