The joke on our submarine was that aircraft carriers should more properly be called "targets." Sweden has a super quiet submarine design using Sterling engines:
A Stirling engine is particularly well suited for a submarine because the engine is nearly silent and can use the surrounding sea water as a heat sink to increase efficiency
In 2005, HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier
My own opinion is that aircraft carriers are very effective in projecting power around the world during peacetime or low intensity conflicts, but military planners recognize (I hope) that they will be quickly sunk in an all out war and have contingency plans.
There is this theory that at least US CVNs have enough power and the correct hull shape to hydroplane in an event of an emergency. It would likely do a lot of damage in the process so it's probably never tested, and it's classified so nobody really knows for sure.
But if informed that an attack is imminent there may be at least one ace up their sleeve.
There is no such theory. You can clearly see from construction pictures that those ships have displacement hulls. A displacement hull won't plane no matter how much power you put into the shafts.
Well it's more of a conspiracy theory really. Along with the Aurora aircraft, Area 51 aliens and the like. Just slightly more believable than the rest.
> A displacement hull won't plane no matter how much power you put into the shafts.
I wouldn't be so sure, the main difference between the two is that a planing hull has an angle of attack in regards to the water, so it can generate lift. You can achieve the same by increasing stern trim on a displacement hull.
As for it being flat on the bottom, there are also less stable flat planning hulls that work so that doesn't disqualify it either.
That seems pretty wild. Torpedos don't strike the side of a ship, rather they are meant to explode underneath for max damage. So even if a CVN could hydroplane, I don't think it would evade a torpedo.
Well an ADCAP can do as much as 55 kts, which is probably the fastest conventional torps go, and you'd definitely buy more time to deploy countermeasures and decoys.
A Shkval can go as fast as a missile, but it can't turn very well so you might be able to dodge it this way.
Sure it's not a good outlook in any case, but it's better than sitting there waiting to be hit.
They not only have ship escorts, they have submarine escorts. But no fence around a carrier is perfect. An attacking submarine doesn't have to chase a carrier, they can lie in wait in ship lanes. A new development since I was in the sub service is submarine launched cruise missiles in addiction to torpedoes.
A Stirling engine is particularly well suited for a submarine because the engine is nearly silent and can use the surrounding sea water as a heat sink to increase efficiency
In 2005, HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine
My own opinion is that aircraft carriers are very effective in projecting power around the world during peacetime or low intensity conflicts, but military planners recognize (I hope) that they will be quickly sunk in an all out war and have contingency plans.