USS Carl Vinson has first UAV command center install aboard an aircraft carrier

The Dongfeng 21 is a ballistic missile, and not usually referred to as hypersonic; the latter usually refers to cruise missiles capable of travel at > Mach 3. In addition, the DF-21 is very unlikely to be used in a conventional war, as it may look like a tactical nuclear weapon. The DF-21 is also relatively easy to intercept, and could only be successful if used in a saturation attack; the Wikipedia article is written more like an advertisement than a fact-based informational piece.

They may have discovered it far from the fleet, or may have missed it, or anywhere in between.

Also, during wartime fleets will be using active sonar. It's going to be a lot harder for subs to hide.

Next they would have to be able to target it with these drones. The drones would have to be fast, (otherwise the carrier has moved out of reach), long ranged (otherwise the airwing will neutralize the launchers) and completely autonomous (otherwise the carrier and its escorts will jam any comlinks.

If you think you could build such a weapon for $10K, good luck.

Nuclear powered vessel (all latest carriers?) + lazed weapon = you'll never run out of ammo.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/10/us-navy...

"The US navy demonstrated its new 30-kilowatt laser weapon system in the Persian Gulf, near Iranian waters. The device, which is 30 million times more powerful than a laser pointer, is capable of targeting mounted weapons systems on fast-moving boats, and destroying drones in mid-flight. According to the navy, a much more powerful 150 kilowatt system is currently in development"

This was two years ago.

Western military planners seem to have a blind spot here. Back in the 1980's, it was projected that NATO would slaughter Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces in a ground conflict -- for one month. At which point, western forces would have run rapidly through their ammunition and supplies, then the advantage would return to the less technologically advanced east. (Then NATO would bring out the "tactical" nukes.)

It's probably economic in nature. It's profitable to sell the government lots of expensive toys with sexy capabilities on paper and high ongoing maintenance costs.

All of U.S. military doctrine is based on the assumption that manpower is the limiting resource.

That didn't even absolutely work in WWII.

Today?

$10,000 to build something with a range of several hundred miles (any closer and the launch platform would be detected before they all launched).

$10,000 to build something such that 90% of them carry sufficient, collective explosive payload to cripple or destroy a carrier.

$10,000 to build the autonomy needed to get around jamming, GPS hijacking, and to track a moving target. I guess, once they're close enough, they can spot the shape of a carrier pretty effectively. But depending on their launch distance and speed, the carrier may be wildly off from where they expected it to be.

If electronic countermeasures weren't a concern, the swarm could spread out, locate the target, and relay coordinates to all others in the swarm. But jamming makes this a difficult proposition, after the first attack.

Then, this, if it works, is a $100,000,000 attack on a single carrier group. And a literal sunk cost at that, these won't be recoverable and reusable.

Lets start with your 'bomb', its an aircraft with a 2,000 mile total range (you actually need 2,500 to cover cases where you are flying upwind) and a one ton payload capacity. So in flying circles that would be a plane with a 2,500 mile range and one ton capacity. Looking through the various aviation web sites, that would not be available for $10K. Even looking at something like the Spirit of St. Louis which had the range but no cargo capacity is $144K in todays dollars[1].

Then there is the question of speed, if these things are flying at 150 - 200knots (typical of a single engine turboprop) you don't need to shoot them down, you can just buzz them with a fighter yet and let the jetwash destroy them.

And then there is the question of engagement, the larger the circle you start with around the carrier group the more dispersed your incoming bomb-craft can be. But a circle with a radius of 2,000 miles (worst case) is 12,000 miles. There aren't very many circles like that on the planet where they have significant land on the circumference, other places mean that a bulk of your bomb-craft come from a smaller number of locations. And even a 100 aircraft taking off from an airstrip and heading toward the carrier groups is going to get a response to the airstrip pretty quickly.

But the fundamental thesis is sound, if you can overwhelm the defenses with an inexpensive and mass produced threat then you stand a better chance of getting to the carrier.

The only way I know of that you could do something was an idea Jerry Pournelle used to talk about which was a kinetic kill weapon that dropped from orbit. He called it "a crowbar with wings" which would detach from a satellite, re-enter ballistically, and using fins steer itself to the target where the energy from the kinetic impact would destroy the target. However, you then need these satellites with this crowbars and a communications network and launch facilities. So once again it is hard to surprise someone that way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_St._Louis

In other words, a cruise missile. They cost a lot more than $10k.

Still, not totally inconceivable -- being overwhelmed by "small and cheap" is a legitimate risk.

I do wonder about subs though, and how effective submarine detection capabilities are. Cruise missile swarms are brute-force and logistically difficult. Better to sneak up and stab them in the back instead? What about long-range torpedoes, perhaps even ones that could be prepositioned like mines, sitting underwater and waiting for a signal to go?

What is shocking with that footage isn't the devastation of the nukes but rather how damn robust the battle ships sacrificed are. Some of them never sank even after direct hits from a nuke.

So I have to think a carrier might just completely ignore your flying bots and let them attack/hit :)

You're wishing into existence a capability nobody has or has had since the Soviet Union fell, and won't have for decades at least.

Beyond that, you're ignoring the ability of a carrier battle group to disrupt that kind of attack. The way to defend against that kind of thing is to destroy the launching platforms.

Also, rail guns don't replace the role of the aircraft that a carrier transports. It replaces some long range missile roles, and maybe some defensive cannon roles. But helicopters, jets, and now drones will need a platform to launch for other missions besides "blow shit up".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

The battleships really didn't need more speed for line of battle. But Iowas needed speed to keep up with the carriers.

It's readable enough, not bloated, and there's an understandable logic in how you navigate.

Hmm, the US Navy knows how to navigate! That makes sense.