This is extremely deceptive. First of all, the term "Battle Fleet" is obsolete by about five decades. Secondly, if you assume they mean Carrier Battle Group, which has been the term since WWII, they were and are routinely under a dozen ships and can voluntarily change in size and capability. The Stennis Battle Group that has been operating in the Gulf until this Aug. is only 8 ships at it's largest. Third, as I said in a previous post, the Navy isn't using all of it's technology all the time. Especially in peaceful waters on a training exercise, it's wasteful in terms of resources and detrimental in terms of exposure and intelligence.
Given the shitty reporting, we could suppose that the battle group was dozens of the best U.S. ships escorting the Kitty Hawk with the latest and greatest the US has to offer or we could suppose that they were a handful of derelicts as old and as "sub-prone" as the Kitty Hawk. Sorry, nearly as old the Kitty Hawk (It is the Navy's oldest non-ceremonial vessel).
To be fair I guess, technically, you guys are right. The technology is falling behind and needs to be replaced (I can only assume that's why the Bush is being launched in 2009). But you act like this sub nearly sank the best technology the U.S. has to offer, when in reality it didn't even fire a torpedo (and it would've taken several direct hits to sink the Kitty Hawk) at the second oldest vessel our Navy has.