Happy Birthday USS Enterprise!

[darkshadow0001]

No, not the Star Trek Enterprise But the US Naval vessel CVN-65. It's 48 years old. I was watching a program on the history channel and they mentioned that, and I checked a website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65) and sure enough today's the ship's birthday.

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

Happy birthday indeed. A shame they're retiring her before she has too many more. And a bigger shame that, with the current USN trend of naming their carriers after former Presidents (the next one is the USS Gerald Ford), that we won't likely have another carrier named Enterprise.

Mark

 

[John Picard]

That turd is long overdue to be scrapped. But, rest assured, the Navy has had many vessels named "Enterprise". I bet the next one to bear the name will most likely be either a guided missile cruiser or destroyer.

 

[Krieg1981]

That turd is long overdue to be scrapped. But, rest assured, the Navy has had many vessels named "Enterprise". I bet the next one to bear the name will most likely be either a guided missile cruiser or destroyer.

Is the Enterprise really a turd? She's not due to be withdrawn until 2018, so I'm curious! My buddy used to call kitty hawk "the shitty kitty", and the america blew a ton of parts out the uptakes before decommissioning, Is enterprise just as rickety? Thanks!

 

[RaulMacca]

The Enterprise when one considers the year she was made in is perhaps the greatest ship of the 20th century, I can't think of any other ship that remained at the very top of the bad ass league for as long as the Enterprise, even today she's still more potent than any none US ship as such I can't get my head around her being called a Turd.

My Idea of a turd is the Zumwalt class

 

[John Picard]

That turd is long overdue to be scrapped. But, rest assured, the Navy has had many vessels named "Enterprise". I bet the next one to bear the name will most likely be either a guided missile cruiser or destroyer.

Is the Enterprise really a turd? She's not due to be withdrawn until 2018, so I'm curious! My buddy used to call kitty hawk "the shitty kitty", and the america blew a ton of parts out the uptakes before decommissioning, Is enterprise just as rickety? Thanks!

TURD. A co-worker and I went over to that ship and when I stepped into the *hanger bay* I thought, "This place is FILTHY!" Yes, the hanger bay. Once we got below decks, it was even worse.

The Navy is a big stickler for cleanliness of its ships and every command performs a weekly inspection. We had an Enterpriser transfer to our division, and he was shocked at how seriously we took cleanliness. He said that while on the 'Prise they rarely cleaned, and at most they merely painted over the dirt Also, she was converted to nuclear power after the initial design was approved and was set up with eight reactors designed for destroyers (Nimitz class carriers have two large reactors). For the longest time, she was running on 5, and that was with duct tape, bailing wire, and gum holding her together. She should have been scrapped in the 1990's.

The Enterprise when one considers the year she was made in is perhaps the greatest ship of the 20th century, I can't think of any other ship that remained at the very top of the bad ass league for as long as the Enterprise, even today she's still more potent than any none US ship as such I can't get my head around her being called a Turd.

My Idea of a turd is the Zumwalt class

Only Trekkers consider the Enterprise to be the greatest ship of the 20th century. If it were, then how come there was only one copy, while the Nimitz class has yielded nine copies?

 

[USS KG5]

Only Trekkers consider the Enterprise to be the greatest ship of the 20th century. If it were, then how come there was only one copy, while the Nimitz class has yielded nine copies?

The Big-E of WW2 has a much better argument for greatest warship of the 20th century - the field is, however, wide open.

 

[Krieg1981]

That turd is long overdue to be scrapped. But, rest assured, the Navy has had many vessels named "Enterprise". I bet the next one to bear the name will most likely be either a guided missile cruiser or destroyer.

Is the Enterprise really a turd? She's not due to be withdrawn until 2018, so I'm curious! My buddy used to call kitty hawk "the shitty kitty", and the america blew a ton of parts out the uptakes before decommissioning, Is enterprise just as rickety? Thanks!

TURD. A co-worker and I went over to that ship and when I stepped into the *hanger bay* I thought, "This place is FILTHY!" Yes, the hanger bay. Once we got below decks, it was even worse.

The Navy is a big stickler for cleanliness of its ships and every command performs a weekly inspection. We had an Enterpriser transfer to our division, and he was shocked at how seriously we took cleanliness. He said that while on the 'Prise they rarely cleaned, and at most they merely painted over the dirt Also, she was converted to nuclear power after the initial design was approved and was set up with eight reactors designed for destroyers (Nimitz class carriers have two large reactors). For the longest time, she was running on 5, and that was with duct tape, bailing wire, and gum holding her together. She should have been scrapped in the 1990's.

The Enterprise when one considers the year she was made in is perhaps the greatest ship of the 20th century, I can't think of any other ship that remained at the very top of the bad ass league for as long as the Enterprise, even today she's still more potent than any none US ship as such I can't get my head around her being called a Turd.

My Idea of a turd is the Zumwalt class

Only Trekkers consider the Enterprise to be the greatest ship of the 20th century. If it were, then how come there was only one copy, while the Nimitz class has yielded nine copies?

The maintenance has been lacking for a while, now. JFK was supposed to last until 2018, and from what I've heard her flight deck was de-certified before decommissioning. I think with the amount of money being spent elsewhere, certain things like maintenance are being neglected, especially when it comes to older generation carriers. My grandmother, a Chief Petty Officer had a friend, a Senior Chief who worked in the USS Oriskany's engine room, and he told me he had that thing running like a top at the time of decommissioning, 1976. So It hasn't always been this way. We should have sold some of those Spruance class DD's abroad, to pay for a decent refit instead of wasting them in sinkex exercises. FYI, Enterprise is in an 18 month Extended Docking Selected Restricted Availability at northrop grumman newport news shipyard, hopefully giving the turd a paintjob!

Actually, she was going to be the first in a class of six, but she ended up costing way too much in 1961 dollars and became an only child! Thanks for the insider info!

 

[John Picard]

^^ The Anti-Submarine Warfare systems from the Oriskany went to the USS Carl Vinson when she was built. The Vinson had that antiquated ASW gear until her refit in 1991. I know, because I served on the Vinson.

The Navy decommissioned it's conventional carriers as they were more expensive to operate over the nuclear carriers. I still don't understand why they spent all of that money for an 18-month SLEP for the Enterprise when she's slated to be decommissioned soon afterward. Then again, government budgeting and finance is always a joke.

It is also worth noting that the Nimitz class carriers have a superior design of compartmentization below the water line. This means that the ship can endure a great amount of battle damage and still remain afloat, because of the number of compartments that can be sealed off to prevent water from flooding too much on the interior of the ship.

I would love to know how much damage the USS America took when an experiment was conducted a couple of years back as she was purposefully sunk. From what I know, she took a helluva lot of torpedo and missile hits over a two day period before finally going under.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Any carrier sailor (especially nukes) who served since the late 80s can verify that the Enterprise is a big stinkin' steaming POS.

The sooner that floating metal turd is decommissioned, the better.

 

[RaulMacca]

Only Trekkers consider the Enterprise to be the greatest ship of the 20th century. If it were, then how come there was only one copy, while the Nimitz class has yielded nine copies?

The Big-E of WW2 has a much better argument for greatest warship of the 20th century - the field is, however, wide open.

The CV6 was indeed one hell of a ship but she never remained at the top of the bad boy list for anywhere near as long as her big sister the CVN65, no ship built in the past 100 years has remained right at the top of the bad boy list for as long as the cvn65, which is why I'd deem her a more successful design than just about any post dreadnought warship, even today she'd take a Nimitz class down to the last few fighters and thats quite an achievement for such an old ship.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe another capital ship has been at the top end of the bad boy list for as long, but can anyone name me that ship?

 

[USS KG5]

The CV6 was indeed one hell of a ship but she never remained at the top of the bad boy list for anywhere near as long as her big sister the CVN65,

You don't think in terms of efficiency and design the Nimitz and her siblings are superior ships in every way? I do.

As for the period for which it was "on top" the CVN-65 has never faced and survived the kind of pounding her predecessor did - a ship in service for 48 years in peacetime (with conflicts but nothing like WW2 thank heavens) does not in my book even compare to a ship that survived the carnage of the WW2 carrier battles., even if only under commission for 9 years they were 9 years that included Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz, Leyte Gulf, Okinawa....

no ship built in the past 100 years has remained right at the top of the bad boy list for as long as the cvn65, which is why I'd deem her a more successful design than just about any post dreadnought warship,

Well - actually no single battleship or dreadnaught was involved in as many successful engagements as the CV-6. The great fleets of WW1 really had one major battle (Jutland) which was essentially a tactical victory for the Germans but a strategic disaster.

Between the wars there was of course HMS Hood - but her combat career was decidedly short lived and all battle-cruisers are fundamentally flawed designs.

In WW2 the battleship was surpassed as the primary vessel of naval fleets by the Carrier, with big gun ships everywhere going down to air attack, and even the Bismarck crippled by a single well aimed torpedo from a slow biplane.

Im trying to think of any ship that really can rival the USS Enterprise CV-6 in terms of sheer hours under fire. She should really have been preserved but as an older design in a fleet of many newer Essex and Midway class ships, it was just not to be.

even today she'd take a Nimitz class down to the last few fighters and thats quite an achievement for such an old ship.

Well in fact pretty much any air group of equivalent size would give the Nimitz's a run for it's money. That has little or nothing to do wih the ship but the combat aircraft aboard her. Two air wings of F/A-18E/Fs could make quite a mess of each other regardless of which ship they fly from.

Even air forces with Russian equipment (the Iranians spring to mind) could pose a threat to a CVBG. Of course a well-handled sub is a much bigger threat.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe another capital ship has been at the top end of the bad boy list for as long, but can anyone name me that ship?

Arguably the Enterprise was surpassed in terms of design as soon as the Nimitz was laid down. While a successful ship in her own right her design is decidedly flawed compared to her big brothers, and I suspect in a major conflict now she would be considered very much on the second line.

Not that she has not had an amazing career and is doubtless remembered by many who served on her as a great ship - but the tendency to overrate her is pretty pronounced it seems.

 

[John Picard]

Only Trekkers consider the Enterprise to be the greatest ship of the 20th century. If it were, then how come there was only one copy, while the Nimitz class has yielded nine copies?

The Big-E of WW2 has a much better argument for greatest warship of the 20th century - the field is, however, wide open.

The CV6 was indeed one hell of a ship but she never remained at the top of the bad boy list for anywhere near as long as her big sister the CVN65, no ship built in the past 100 years has remained right at the top of the bad boy list for as long as the cvn65, which is why I'd deem her a more successful design than just about any post dreadnought warship, even today she'd take a Nimitz class down to the last few fighters and thats quite an achievement for such an old ship.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe another capital ship has been at the top end of the bad boy list for as long, but can anyone name me that ship?

USSKG5 pretty much laid it out, but I will still go so far as to outright accuse you of fanboy wankery when it comes to CVN-65. If the design was so superior, why was the America class, with the USS America produced next, followed by the USS John F. Kennedy, which was also a different design? The America was a conventional fuel powered ship as was the Kennedy; however, the Kennedy was originally intended to be nuclear but wasn't because the government ran out of funding.

My statements about the Enterprise being a turd were backed up by a former nuke. Several copies of the Nimitz class are testament to the superiority of *that* design.

 

[RaulMacca]

At no point did I say it had a superior design, if you took the time to read what I typed you'd see that, Greatest however does not equal superior design, far from it.

HMS Victory is a Great ship, but no match for a modern day US coastguard ship, but that still does not make the coastguard ship a greater ship.

The Iowa class had a superior design to the Bismarck, bigger guns, better armor scheme, better AA and so on and yet as the Iowa class never faced anything of note in battle it has to be deemed a total failure as a battleship, or a very expensive AA platform, whilst Bismarck sunk just about the largest battlecruiser ever built and chased off a battleship in doing so He earned a mythology, greatness, a greatness the vastly superior Iowa class just doesn't have.

Sure CVN65 never went up against japanese pilots and so on but dropping bombs on wee guys in the jungle is no less important, this is a ship that was around long before man landed on the moon and today is more or less a match for any warship in the world, you ask people to name a Aircraft carrier it's more than likely Enterprise will be the first one off their tongue, and when it comes down to it she will take any ship ever built in the world to the very last round of a fight even today in her old age.

 

[USS KG5]

At no point did I say it had a superior design, if you took the time to read what I typed you'd see that, Greatest however does not equal superior design, far from it.

You said "top of the bad boy list" which is wide-open for interpretation. In fact there is no way that the CVN-65 can be considered to have been on top as a warship since the superiror Nimitz class entered service.

HMS Victory is a Great ship, but no match for a modern day US coastguard ship, but that still does not make the coastguard ship a greater ship.

HMS Victory is a great ship because she was involved in one of the greatest naval engagements in history, the CVN-65 has never even come close to a battle along the lines of Trafalgar, or the Nile....

...or Midway, Santa Cruz, Leyte Gulf...

The Iowa class had a superior design to the Bismarck, bigger guns, better armor scheme, better AA and so on and yet as the Iowa class never faced anything of note in battle it has to be deemed a total failure as a battleship, or a very expensive AA platform,

Actually - in the role battleships were most effective as in WW2 - as monitors and AA platforms as you say - the Iowas were very successful. In surface engagements very few designs escaped without embarassment and against aircraft were proved extremely vulnerable.

whilst Bismarck sunk just about the largest battlecruiser ever built and chased off a battleship in doing so He earned a mythology, greatness, a greatness the vastly superior Iowa class just doesn't have.

The largest battle-crusier ever built I believe, though a design flawed enough that the commander of the home fleet at one point considered explicitly ordering Prince Of Wales to go in first and draw fire from the Bismarck, he did not send this signal and later regretted it (read Ludovic Kennedy's Pursuit for more info - great read).

I cannot argue here - but you are arguing against yourself if you are bringing mythology into it as the CVN-65 is famous for many things: -

1. First ever nuclear carrier.
2. Longest warship ever built.
3. Long service career.
4. Star Trek...

It, however, has not been top of the bad boy list for 30 odd years, and in absolute terms the old crate would probably be retired if the USN could spare her in these troubled times.

Sure CVN65 never went up against japanese pilots and so on but dropping bombs on wee guys in the jungle is no less important,

I'm not sure how you can justify this comment but I invite you to try. Just look at some of the numbers concerning the US PAcific campaign, look at battles like Midway and Leyte Gulf, truly massive events which helped totally change the far-east.

Now, while CVN-65 was involved in wars like Vietnam and the Gulf these do not compare to here predecessors amazing role in WW2 where she received 20 battle stars!

this is a ship that was around long before man landed on the moon and today is more or less a match for any warship in the world,

Her air group is a match, because it is stacked with Super-Hornets, modern effective combat aircraft. The ship herself has no firepower or ability to speak of and cannot operate as an independant unit, like any carrier.

you ask people to name a Aircraft carrier it's more than likely Enterprise will be the first one off their tongue,

No doubt a great ship, many brave men have served on her, and the name is justly legendary for three reasons, in rough order...

1. Star Trek
2. The WW2 era Enterprise
3. The exploits of the current ship.

and when it comes down to it she will take any ship ever built in the world to the very last round of a fight even today in her old age.

Well actually on her own, like any carrier, a submarine would sink her VERY QUICKLY INDEED.

As part of a battle group of cruisers, destroyers, subs, and 70 fast modern jets, she is still a significant unit, but this is a weak argument for your case IMHO.

 

[John Picard]

At no point did I say it had a superior design, if you took the time to read what I typed you'd see that, Greatest however does not equal superior design, far from it.

HMS Victory is a Great ship, but no match for a modern day US coastguard ship, but that still does not make the coastguard ship a greater ship.

The Iowa class had a superior design to the Bismarck, bigger guns, better armor scheme, better AA and so on and yet as the Iowa class never faced anything of note in battle it has to be deemed a total failure as a battleship, or a very expensive AA platform, whilst Bismarck sunk just about the largest battlecruiser ever built and chased off a battleship in doing so He earned a mythology, greatness, a greatness the vastly superior Iowa class just doesn't have.

Sure CVN65 never went up against japanese pilots and so on but dropping bombs on wee guys in the jungle is no less important, this is a ship that was around long before man landed on the moon and today is more or less a match for any warship in the world, you ask people to name a Aircraft carrier it's more than likely Enterprise will be the first one off their tongue, and when it comes down to it she will take any ship ever built in the world to the very last round of a fight even today in her old age.

Starting with the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), kevlar armor was installed below the waterline, added 2' to the draft. Starting with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-77), the "Bulbous Bow" design was incorporated. It has proven so successful in added stability in rough weather and decreased resistance in the water that the Navy plans to retrofit it to the earlier Nimitz class carriers.

Also, the Enterprise is/was outfitted with speed screws, while the Nimitz class carriers have torque screws. The E can get off the line faster; however, she'll easily be overtaken by a ship with torque screws.

Sorry, but just because the ship bears the name of a ship from a Sci-Fi series does not make it great. Even for it's day, it really wasnt that great of a ship.

And, as KG5 laid it out, the Iowa class battleships were indeed superior. If they were such a failure, why were the Iowa, Missouri, New Nersey, and Wisconsin, pulled out of mothballs (for the second time) in the 1980's and refitted with newer weapons? The US bombarded the piss out of Libya when Quadaffi dared us to cross his "line of death".

 

[Santaman]

Carrier groups are obsolete and very vulnareble even in the 80's they couldn't even deal with a few old DE's


Roger Thompson Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society wrote this:

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.

Its even so bad that the US Navy has sent many of its submariners to The Netherlands to get some proper training, the US navy might be the largest but in quality its second rate only.

 

[John Picard]

^^ Hence <a>reason why the US Navy has been moving towards generic hulls that can be outfitted within a matter of days depending on the mission. Attack drones are cheaper and quicker to produce than attack aircraft, and our missiles can be launched from a ship, fly down streets, turn corners, and nail a target.

Part of the problem is the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us against.

 

[RaulMacca]

In her day she wasn't that great a ship? so in 1960 their was another ship that could engage the enterprise and beat her?

Airwing size is more or less all that matters on a carrier, with battleships it's armor and guns but with carriers it comes down to airwing size, armor will do little good against a modern torpedo or bomb, as for speed you can't outrun a missile or torpedo, for 48 years against surface ships cvn65 has been able to sink any ship put to sea by a rival nation.

Carriers drop bombs, cvn 65 has dropped more bombs I dare say on more countries than any other carrier and whilst lets not beat around the bush the US doesn't fight proper enemy's she's survived them all and would take far younger carriers to the last fighter in a fight.

CV6 was not even the best carrier in her own time, she certainly could not have mixed it with the best carriers built 12 years later, much less 48 years later, the fact the cvn 65 can Is for my why I'd deem her as great a ship as any built in the past 100 years.

If the Nimitz class gets to 49 and is able to mix it with the best ships on the high seas in a fight I will revise my view but it's still got a way to go.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Carrier groups are obsolete and very vulnareble even in the 80's they couldn't even deal with a few old DE's


Roger Thompson Professor of Military Studies at Knightsbridge University and a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society wrote this:

In 1981, The NATO exercise Ocean Venture ended with much embarrassment for the U.S. Navy, and more specifically, its enormously expensive aircraft carrier battle groups.

During the exercise, a Canadian submarine slipped quietly through a carrier's destroyer screen, and conducted a devastating simulated torpedo attack on the ship. The submarine was never detected, and when the exercise umpire, a U.S. Navy officer, pronounced the carrier dead, his official report was promptly stamped classified to minimize the potential fallout. Unfortunately, a Canadian submariner leaked the story to a local newspaper, and indicated that this successful Canadian attack on an American supercarrier was by no means an isolated incident. This news caused quite a stir in Congress, and the U.S. Navy had a lot of explaining to do. Why indeed had a small, 1960s-vintage diesel submarine of the under-funded Canadian Navy been able to defeat one of America s most powerful and expensive warships, and with such apparent ease?

There are several possible answers. Firstly, Canadian submariners are extremely well trained and professional. Secondly, at that time, the Oberon submarines used by the Canadian Navy were probably the quietest in the world. A third possible reason, not so commonly stated, and with all due respect, is that the mighty U.S. Navy is simply overrated. It is my humble contention that the U.S. Navy is not all it's cracked up to be, and that is the focus of the present article.

Diesel Subs Feast on U.S. Carriers

While Canadian submarines have routinely taken on U.S. Navy carriers, other small navies have enjoyed similar victories. The Royal Netherlands Navy, with its small force of extremely quiet diesel submarines, has made the U.S. Navy eat the proverbial slice of humble pie on more than one occasion. In 1989, naval analyst Norman Polmar wrote in Naval Forces that during NATO s exercise Northern Star, the Dutch submarine Zwaardvis was the only orange (enemy) submarine to successfully stalk and sink a blue (allied) aircraft carrier Ten years later there were reports that the Dutch submarine Walrus had been even more successful in the exercise JTFEX/TMDI99.

During this exercise the Walrus penetrates the U.S. screen and sinks many ships, including the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71. The submarine launches two attacks and manages to sneak away. To celebrate the sinking the crew designed a special T- shirt. Fittingly, the T-shirt depicted the USS Theodore Roosevelt impaled on the tusks of a walrus. It was also reported that the Walrus also sank many of the Roosevelt's escorts, including the nuclear submarine USS Boise, a cruiser, several destroyers and frigates, plus the command ship USS Mount Whitney. The Walrus herself survived the exercise with no damage.

Not to be outdone by the Canadians and Dutch, the Australian submarine force has also scored many goals against U.S. Navy carriers and nuclear submarines. On September 24 2003, the Australian newspaper The Age disclosed that Australia's Collins class diesel submarines had taught the U.S. Navy a few lessons during multinational exercises. By the end of the exercises, Australian submarines had destroyed two U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarines and an aircraft carrier. According to the article: The Americans were wide-eyed, Commodore Deeks (Commander of the RAN Submarine Group) said. They realized that another navies knows how to operate submarines.

Its even so bad that the US Navy has sent many of its submariners to The Netherlands to get some proper training, the US navy might be the largest but in quality its second rate only.

I find it hilarious that they are never allowed to publish the rules of engagement involved in these exercises that effectively handcuff the Navy. In none of these joint exercises is the Navy allowed to use all of the equipment at their disposal.