3 ms·
Yeah, good luck with that when you're dealing with latest tech in that regards. Talking about hyperspeed ones, like 20 Mach. At that speed interception is a cha
by unnouinceput 5y ago
Yeah, good luck with that when you're dealing with latest tech in that regards. Talking about hyperspeed ones, like 20 Mach. At that speed interception is a chance game, as outlined by recent tests.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoBut if you can do that, why not just use the hypersonic missile to hit the carrier? Why add the extra step of dropping drones? And deploying drones at Mach 20 might be rather hard on the drones...
- unnouinceput 5y agoMy entire point is economics. One hit might damage one ship, but 200 drones hitting on precise points, that's an entire different story. Also, let's assume the carrier does indeed posses great interception capability. There are other methods to deploy drones near it, be it underwater (submarine, human divers, submarine drone etc) or high above (missile, satellite). Speaking of satellites, if you manage to put those in orbit then the tech to also have drones inside a hypermissile already exists. Air superiority was always the first phase of winning the war. Boots on the ground was and always be the final phase. And the first phase was, throughout history, archers, ballistae, cannons, airplane and currently aircraft carrier. But these last ones are way too expensive and too juicy of a target. So the future of air superiority are drones. If anything the past 20 years of using Predator drones in Afghanistan already proves my point, but the HN crowd likes to downvote without actually thinking, but that's OK. Have at it.