Most air strikes done in Iraq and Syria have been done from CAGs.
It's like arguing with a retard. Wait, I am arguing with a retard. What's next, blind people aren't blind because the cones and rods in their eyes still fire and brain can detect light?
US navy's finest, right here. Dumb as a brick.
Yup, and the Missouri did shore bombardment during Vietnam, because it was there and it could. Point is they could be done by other means, that don't require the massive investment.
Bigger problem is one I'm sure I've gone into before in here.. basically the Tirpitz doctrine, where there's so much tied up in this resource, that in the sort of conflict where it would be a requirement (which is: against a strong and threatening enemy), the risk of losing it becomes too great to chance, and it is held back (what the Kriegsmarine did to the RN during WWI). The F22 fleet is a similar beast in the aero realm. IE: you can't risk deploying it until the environment is made safer for it to operate, by which time the need to deploy it is no longer there, and its duties can be performed by other, cheaper units.
For the record though, Sweden makes some fucking amazing diesel subs. It's no more shame to be taken down by one from the Brits or Germans (as examples)
No, it totally eliminates the magnetic signature, which is why these submarines continue to pop up right smack dab in the middle of your prestigious carrier battle groups, you dull fuckface. I love your logic by the way: yeah, they can't track them within 50 miles, but once they're 200 miles out, we can see them where ever they are in the world!
If we were at war with a country with submarines the Carrier fleet wouldn't move until the area where the submarines were operating was eliminated.