How useful are aircraft carriers in conventional navy vs navy battles? From what I read, it seems aircraft carriers are mostly used for air assaults on land from sea, but seem to be very vulnerable against other modern navies. The Gotland class sub repeatedly simulated torpedo kills on the Nimitz class carrier without being detected. And if there is a large barrage of supersonic missiles flying towards a carrier, there's nothing much that can be done to stop them. If India is serious about countering PLAN, then we must build 30-40 new attack subs, with a mix of nuclear and conventional. I don't see how useful our aircraft carriers, especially the skijump ones will be.
Subs versus Carriers is an old argument that won't be proven either way for a long time.
The US Navy has historically used its mammoth carriers to bomb targets on land since WWII, but that's not their only use. Carriers are the most effective tool for Area Air Defense and Sea Control. Functions submarines cannot do.
STOBAR or CATOBAR, carrier based aircraft can sanitize and control 500+ miles of air and sea space with ease. This provides safe space for other functions of the Navy, be it ASW or amphibious elements to function under the carriers protective bubble.
Plus, carriers operate withing a CBG, meaning Area Air Defense vessels are a present to ward off aerial raids and Anti-Ship Missiles in addition to the carriers own fighters. Whether supersonic or subsonic, an ASM is easy pickings for a supersonic fighter carrying WVR and BVR Ait-to-Air missiles.
Not to say that carriers are not vulnerable to submarines, they are. But a Gotland or any other conventional submarine would be hard-pressed to keep up with a carrier in open water. My point is Carriers + Submarines. One cannot replace one with the other.
