> And carriers can ... submerge underwater.
Not sure if you were serious or not, but:
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
Re:Does the Tank Have a Future?
by robertlagrant on Thursday June 16, 2022 @03:55AM
(#31763524)
> 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.
Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.