What isn't a surprise: the U.S. military wastes trillions with its
arrogance.
Only thing wrong with your account:
The American Task Force and the French sub were practicing war games as
they would in an actual sea battle. The American Task Force at one
point assumed the role as the "enemy" and the French sub's mission was
to attack and sink the carrier and other ships, which they successfully
simulated.
What's missing is that the American Task Force still provided
command/control intel for the French sub as a participating ally, even
though they simultaneously played the "enemy".
A more accurate test would be to have no communications allowed, no
sharing of command/control intel and to allow the American Task Force
to take offensive/defensive actions against the sub.
I don't think it is necessary to go through all that trouble to sink or
disable one of our oversized carriers. A "smart" missile with a nuclear
explosive would do it.
Aircraft carriers are there to project force against 3d world
countries. When Zumwalt was asked how long our carriers would last
against the Soviets he said "a couple days".
I will say, we have pretty good detection capability against subs but
that is not the only danger.
The Chinese have a truck mounted missile that could take out a carrier
from 2 thousand miles away. The opinion about how many the Aegis
screen could take down is mixed.
Getting close to a carrier and hitting the carrier are not the same thing.
--
Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.