Would it not be preferable to launch drones from less of a big target? The issue is that the carrier is clearly visible and targetable. You could go submersible or just spam much smaller ships with smaller payloads. In those cases you get the benefits of the same level of assault without the potential of a hugely expensive loss.

At a guess, I assume much of the scale of carriers is tied to the logistics of air power, which are considerably less relevant in drone warfare. Carriers will always remain useful for more accurate strikes and operating aircraft that work at higher altitudes, but this broadside idea of volume might work better on a platform that scales better instead of the huge and expensive carrier footprint.

▲

jandrewrogers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Large aircraft are the cheapest and most scalable way to deliver a ton of explosive on target. That's why aircraft carriers exist. Everything else either is too expensive per unit of destruction or sacrifices too much lethality.

The size of the ship has little bearing on the visibility of it to sensors. You should also consider that it is much more difficult to sink a large ship than a small ship.

▲

overfeed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Large aircraft are the cheapest and most scalable way to deliver a ton of explosive on target.

An important variable missing from your calculus is distance from munitions factory/supply depot. There are far cheaper and scalable ways to deliver tons of explosives if your supply lines are short, such as rail when you're defending your homeland. Carrier groups are both transport and FOBs

> You should also consider that it is much more difficult to sink a large ship than a small ship.

How did that turn out for the Russian Black Sea flagship, the Moskva?

▲

Quarrelsome 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

sure but if we're simply delivering drones then it might be better to have 1,000 small platforms than one big one. You can then still use the carrier in its classical role from further back.

▲

mpyne an hour ago | parent [-]

We can barely build FFGs, to say nothing of bigger drone carriers that would still be dwarfed by aircraft carriers.

So you'd say, OK, what drones can we launch from the tiny fiberglass-hulled small craft that we can build lots of, but the issue is that such drones will be very small and will necessarily have ineffectively small payloads to suit.

	▲	Quarrelsome an hour ago \| parent [-]
		sure but that's the purpose of most drones. If you want big ordinance then that's why you have the carriers and the planes and missiles. I'm just saying that a carrier is probably the wrong footprint for something that serves up drones.

▲

randomNumber7 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this strategy is effective for Ukraine and Iran because they fight an enemy that is superior in terms of weapon capabilities.

If you are the big boy with the bigger gun you don't necessarily need that.

PS: I will take that back when someone manages to hit a carrier with a low cost drone boat.

	▲	Quarrelsome 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		sure but America's ship building doesn't appear to be at the level of being able to cranking out carriers should they start losing them. Conversely I imagine it might have a better shot at cranking out a smaller blue print en-masse.