Surprisingly enough, the AEGIS Anti Ballistic Missile variant is in fact designed to intercept the name on the tin. That a handful of lazy journalists write "carriers are dead" articles with some regularity doesn't mean the actual Pentagon is clueless and asleep at the wheel vs it being a superficial take of a much more complex topic.

A couple years back the Navy asked congress for funding to demonstrate taking down an inbound saturation attack of 500+ missiles, probably as a deterrent to China. Congress declined.

> Surprisingly enough, the AEGIS Anti Ballistic Missile variant is in fact designed to intercept the name on the tin.

When people say "hypersonic missiles" they mean missiles with a hypersonic glide phase, which have non-ballistic flight paths and can't generally be intercepted by anti-ballistic-missile countermeasures.

This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet.

Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.

> And carriers can ... submerge underwater.

Not sure if you were serious or not, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

A carrier costs $10 billion. Without considering the crew and stuff in it. You can fire 50 $100 mil missiles simultaneously at it would still make a lot of sense, especially considering the morale aspect.

Regardless of missile cost, the hard part is getting an accurate targeting track and then data linking that back to a launcher. Satellites, aircraft, and submarines can all potentially accomplish that mission, but they only exist in limited numbers and are in turn vulnerable to the defensive weapons available in a carrier strike force.

You only need general location data. The missile can do the final approach itself.

It's hard to hide a strike group. Even civilians are tracking them these days with commercial sattelites:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/05/07/the-realiti...

US itself talks about sending out hundreds of cheapish drones in a swarm (5 km spacing) to seek out all naval assets over an area.

Bullshit. The missiles have only limited sensors and maneuvering capability. Commercial satellites don't provide real-time targeting data. And cheap drones lack the range for this mission. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about

> A carrier costs $10 billion. Without considering the crew and stuff in it. You can fire 50 $100 mil missiles simultaneously at it would still make a lot of sense, especially considering the morale aspect.

It would make sense for equal economies fighting.

Is there actually an independently confirmed useful hypersonic weapon?