What’s the point of a navy when interceptors are expensive and limited while drones are cheap and limitless? While this use of resources is arguably productive in a land war, Ukraine has once again demonstrated the folly of deploying a navy against a land-based opponent.
If Ukraine can do this to Russia in Russian waters, what could China do to a US carrier group off it’s coast, thousands of kilometers from the US?
The Russian navy is a bunch of rusting hulks crewed by glorified conscripts. People have been trying these tactics in the mideast against the US for decades, and they haven’t worked since the Cole.
As for interceptors, they are meant for ballistic or cruise missiles, which are also expensive. Ask the Houthis how effective they are. CIWS or RAM/ESSM should be able to handle drones easily, it’s just that commanders don’t want to take the risk.
Because as we all know, ground based batteries are immune to saturation attacks because of their tiny magazines and inability to move, and battlegroups don’t exist.
I suppose the US Navy still has more real operational practice. Still a good reason to not let hubris get in the way of sound thinking ( military or otherwise). I imagine the professional paranoids in the Pentagon are really losing sleep thinking about it.
The US Navy would fare just as badly if they were stupid enough to fight an opponent that is technologically not that far behind and only had that tiny little pond right next to the main land territory of that opponent to evade.
What’s the point of a navy when interceptors are expensive and limited while drones are cheap and limitless? While this use of resources is arguably productive in a land war, Ukraine has once again demonstrated the folly of deploying a navy against a land-based opponent.
If Ukraine can do this to Russia in Russian waters, what could China do to a US carrier group off it’s coast, thousands of kilometers from the US?
The Russian navy is a bunch of rusting hulks crewed by glorified conscripts. People have been trying these tactics in the mideast against the US for decades, and they haven’t worked since the Cole.
As for interceptors, they are meant for ballistic or cruise missiles, which are also expensive. Ask the Houthis how effective they are. CIWS or RAM/ESSM should be able to handle drones easily, it’s just that commanders don’t want to take the risk.
But yes, the Pentagon is asking a lot of the same questions you are. Their answer is to put a lot of money into lasers
Inherently, naval targets are vulnerable to saturation attacks from a ground-based opponent, particularly when isolated (like the Caesar).
Because as we all know, ground based batteries are immune to saturation attacks because of their tiny magazines and inability to move, and battlegroups don’t exist.
I suppose the US Navy still has more real operational practice. Still a good reason to not let hubris get in the way of sound thinking ( military or otherwise). I imagine the professional paranoids in the Pentagon are really losing sleep thinking about it.
The US Navy would fare just as badly if they were stupid enough to fight an opponent that is technologically not that far behind and only had that tiny little pond right next to the main land territory of that opponent to evade.
IDK but the US Navy has been wargaming stuff like that for ages.
In a peer conflict you’d have to intercept at substantially lower cost than your opponent can attack, otherwise they can just saturate your defences.