undefined

points

[-]

> 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?

by Quarrelsome14 hours ago|

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.

by mpyne13 hours 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.

by Quarrelsome13 hours 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.