Fact check: Amerima je trebalo mjesec dana da potope svoj vlastiti nosac aviona i to s svim vratima otvorenima i bez posade koja ce izvrsavat damage control.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement refers to the USS America SINKEX exercise in 2005, where it did indeed take approximately one month (four weeks) to sink the aircraft carrier ^{[1] [1]}. However, this was a controlled, deliberate test designed to gather data on carrier survivability ^[2]. The ship proved extremely difficult to sink due to its double-layered hull and extensive internal compartmentalization ^[3], ultimately requiring the placement of internal charges to complete the sinking ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• The sinking was a planned military exercise (SINKEX), not a failure or accident ^[3]
• Modern carriers like the USS Gerald R. Ford have even more advanced defensive capabilities:
• Multiple layers of steel armor
• Duplicate critical systems
• Support ships with anti-air capabilities ^[4]

According to Russian military expert Aleksey Lenkov, even 10 modern Tsirkon missiles would likely only damage, not sink, a current-generation carrier ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement presents the month-long sinking as a weakness, but this misrepresents several key facts:

• The statement implies incompetence ("with all doors open"), when in fact the lengthy sinking time demonstrates the carrier's robust construction and survivability features ^[3]
• The absence of damage control crews was intentional as part of the test, not a oversight ^[2]
• While modern carriers do face some vulnerabilities:
• Technical issues with systems like toilets and weapon elevators exist ^[5]
• They face potential threats from hypersonic missiles, underwater drones, and cyber attacks ^[5]

However, these vulnerabilities don't necessarily translate to easy sinking - multiple advanced weapons would still struggle to sink a modern carrier ^[4]

The original statement appears to be pushing a narrative that undermines US naval capabilities, while the actual exercise demonstrated the opposite - the extraordinary resilience of aircraft carrier design.