Edit: I'm a former nuclear submarine sailor. We call aircraft carriers 'targets'
"During the Falklands War, the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror used its periscope to sight the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano before sinking it, but did not engage the Argentine aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo. The carrier was also stalked by British submarines but ultimately retreated and was never attacked."
The US military trains and fights as a team, and the entire point is to use the strengths of one platform to protect the weaknesses of another and vice versa.
Submarines are basically as good as dead if an anti-sub helicopter is nearby. They can't really retaliate, an active sonar will most likely expose them and they are not fast enough to escape a torpedo.
> But claiming this magically makes aircraft carriers obsolete is largely internet fanboy noise.
All surface ships are useless in a symetric warfare. Just look at what Ukraine did to the Russian navy in the Black sea.
Ships are slow and exposed. Even if their defence allows them to survive a direct attack (dubious), they are necessarily prone to saturation attack.
Very useful when you need to bomb a poor country to make them remember that you are a liberal country in name only and their tribute is overdue however.
Interesting that helicopters have proven particularly vulnerable in Ukraine. So subs need to release drones from underseas that surface then find and destroy helicopters.
This last bit above is just pure entertainment.
That's your issue right there.
Great profession for the paranoid, everyone else trying to find you.
Worked in shipyard with submariners, who are great people once you get to know them.