It wouldn't surprise me. Each Carrier Group is supposed to have at least one, possibly two attack submarines giving it cover, but they can't get too close to the Carrier and the rest of the Battle Group because of fratricide concerns. If you are willing to throw away a couple of submarine to get at a carrier (which actually would be a reasonable trade military wise) it should be possible (though the difference between possible and likely relies on training, equipment, personnel and luck.)
The easiest way would be park some submarines ahead of the projected path of Carrier group, and let them turn everything off and become black holes in the water. Attack subs tend to be passive listeners to avoid giving away their positions, making it hard for them to find a diesel sub if it is turned off (unlike nukes, who always at least have to keep their reactor pumps on) and the Carrier escorts try to keep their own active sonar off, because your own sonar can 'paint' friendly subs at ranges far beyond the ship's ability to detect enemy subs. If you have a sufficient number of submarines that can keep quiet when told to, achieving a shot should be possible.
That is part of the reason everyone is so hot for hyper-cavitation. Fire one of these, no one has time to react to stop it from hitting a Carrier. Thus the US Navy wants them, because using one as a counter torpedo may be the only thing that stops one.
I am actually not sure if the Navy would wargame it out, since the submarine and carrier factions are fighting over the budget pie. For the carrier faction, there is no upside to wargaming it out. If they win, they gain nothing, if they lose, the submarine faction may get points in the next budget battle. And any radical redesign of the Carrier would delay the replacement of the next retirement, dropping the size of the Carrier fleet.
Worse yet, the Navy and Air Force has be getting worried. Due to Pentagon politics, it's budget is cut roughly in thirds. So right now the Army and Marines are getting hammered, since they are expending equipment like there is no tomorrow in the Middle East, whereas the Air Force's and Navy operational tempos are less. The Army is spending millions, if not billions, weekly just replacing worn out equipment, and they are falling behind. The Navy and Air Force are spending their thirds of the budget on the next gen aircraft and ships. While the budget supplemental are mostly for the Army/Marines sooner or later some bright guy in Congress is going to realize that we could maybe live without the F-22 for a couple years, or that the future cruiser isn't really needed to fight Al-Qaeda, since they do not seem to be challenging our naval or air superiority. The logical conclusion would be to reallocate some of those funds to stuff we need now.
Logic has very little to do with the Pentagon's budget wars...