I'm geting fairly old now and I have no recollection of ever thinking such a thing ...
> but if you send out, dunno, $100m worth of subs and sink a $10b carrier,
Even better if you can send out $80m worth of torpedoes attached to cheap arse unmanned drone delivery units all embedded within a 10x magnitude swarm of cheap arse drone units that have no torpedoes.
High chance of penetration, good chance there'll be some left over to confound and confuse the next carriers.
Absolutely that keeps the high end gear standing well off from tight spaces.
Yeah, but what's stopping the side with carriers from just attacking your torpedo launchers? That's literally the entire point of aircraft carriers, you get to attack things while the ship itself is out of range of retaliation.
If we're postulating magical "ai" attack drones loitering off the coast, what's stopping the americans from sending in their own fleet of equally magical ai attack drones to blow up all the defenders and then sail the carriers up?
Also, again, you'd have to know exactly where the carriers even are, right now $80m worth of torpedo drones would cover like .01% of china's coastal waters.
> Yeah, but what's stopping the side with carriers from just attacking your torpedo launchers?
Numbers game, what's the maximum number of targets that can be covered in a window, the cost of dealing with non torpedo launch capable platforms is the same as the cost of taking out an actual torpedo carrying launcher - the overwhelming threshold is something that is tested in games, of course.
> If we're postulating magical "ai" attack drones loitering off the coast
I'm not, I'm looking at a reasonable near term extrapolation of what China already has and tested.
> what's stopping the americans from sending in their own fleet of equally magical ai attack drones to blow up all the defenders
The usual constraints of hunting and finding in vast area
> Also, again, you'd have to know exactly where the carriers even are
Well, approximately .. and that's what China provides to Iran via sat coverage.
> right now $80m worth of torpedo drones would cover like .01% of china's coastal waters.
I thought the carriers were off Iran and staged well back? I can't see them being as far back as China myself, but perhaps you have some curious reason for wanting to spread them out some place far far away from the conflict. I have no knowledge of that, obviously.
> The usual constraints of hunting and finding in vast area
So how are you hunting and finding the carriers in the first place? You can't have it both ways.
> I thought the carriers were off Iran and staged well back? I can't see them being as far back as China myself, but perhaps you have some curious reason for wanting to spread them out some place far far away from the conflict. I have no knowledge of that, obviously.
We're talking about a hypothetical US carrier war against china. Is there something interesting to talk about with regards to iran trying to defend against carriers?
It's 2026, PRC has GEOsync ISR (optic+SAR) with persistent coverage of Pacific and beyond. Combined with 500+ other ISR sats, they basically have full coverage in relevant theatres, with hand offs for tracking/queuing/targeting. There's really nowhere for surface combatants to evade/hide anymore vs PRC tier adversary. US doesn't have ASAT capabilities to shootdown beyond LEO. Without ranting too much, highend C4ISR is basically massive enabler/coordination force multiplier, technically it's feasible to synergize highend C4ISR and upgraded COTs low end drones swarms to kill carrier groups, either via mathematically guaranteed saturation salvos or push A2D2 past max carrier standoff range, i.e. no viable sorties without entering no escape zone. Of course tier1 response is still hypersonics (including drones), but theoretically the techstack now exists for low end loitering swarms (well relative to PRC low end) to also do so for much less.
This is just nonsense. An unmanned platform that can stay on station for a significant time and strike at hundreds of miles and have enough payload to deal significant damage and be fast enough to arrive in meaningful time and somehow survive approaching a carrier group (those planes have guns, remember? it's not just SM-6 spam) cannot be cheap because of hard physical constraints like the energy required to stay in the air. There are no such "COTS" platforms, DJI quads don't cut it across multiple dimensions.
Clearly I'm not talking about hobbyist quads. We're talking shaheed tier loitering munitions, which is completely COTS (i.e. moped piston engines and for Iran sanctioned electronics stripped from washing machines). That's what PRC acquired 1M units of except with indigenous PRC supply chain which can also enhance Iran's D- execution, i.e. add resilient barrage EW proof mesh networking (all commoditized by now), more efficient hfe propulsion to extend ~2500km to ~4000km with some planform improvements. Synergize with high end orbital C4ISR = any carrier fleet within 3000km = swarm loitering no escape zone = as in carriers (must) bolt in opposite direction and drone will geometrically catchup. 3000km also basically max carrier sortie / stand off range with tanking, i.e. functionally A2D2 to push carriers to effectively 0 sortie range.
It's more or less simple VLS and CVW magazine math to figure out total carrier group saturation numbers. This also assuming prioritizing carrier survival... i.e. CVWs may not even be geometrically recoverable if carriers has to GTFO.
Napkin math hypothetical, if a stacked carrier group with 3DDGs quad packed antiair and CVWs where most tasking dedicated to shooting down drones... PRC needs to launch ~3000 enhanced shaheed136 tier moped munitions to fully deplete magazine and saturate. Considering PRC procurement likely getting them at fraction price of Iran (i.e. 10-20k, remember Iran has sanction tax), this probably actually cheaper than PRC hypersonic salvos. We're talking sub 100m swarms that effectively defeat carriers or at minimum draw billions in interceptors. VS 100m tier1 hypersonic ashm salvos that can do so in 1/20th time.
The TLDR is knowing where carriers are is theoretically a solved problem, and knowing where carriers are enables conemps/ops vs those who do not, i.e. if Iran can somehow launch 10000 drones, simply having shit C4ISR means they can't use same tactic.
You keep saying "loitering" and then use one way ranges. If "loitering", where does the time on station come from? Are the drones refuelled? Do they land or do they just crash when they run out of fuel? Or is "loitering" just as a buzzword devoid of meaning?
No, prop drones don't "geometrically catchup". Shahed's extreme range achieved by flying really slow, the top speed (which they don't sustain constantly to conserve fuel) is about 185kph, for the maximum flight time of about 13 hours. US carriers officially can sustain 60kph indefinitely, and in practice they can go faster. That means on a straight line a Shahed can only gain 1600km in the absolute best scenario. In reality it's much less, because launching takes time and the average speed is slower.
The capabilities that you're describing are a fantasy.
Loitering just means extended endurance, i.e. piston engine that can stay on station for 20+ hours / enhanced range of ~4500km, but can also function as attritable max range munitions. They're loitering because definitionally they can loiter, especially with datalink for midcourse corrections (again PRC specialty). It's basically value engineered TLAMs (which you know, loiters) on props instead of turbofan, where props trade speed advantage for range, but speed completely negated by massive A2D2 no escape zone because props still significantly faster than any surface fleet.
>geometrically catchup
A carrier at 3000km and GTFO sprint opposite direction at max speed, i.e. 30knots / 60km, will have prop drones closing speed/gap at 120km per hour. AKA intercept time distance around ~24 hours at 4500km. Hence why I said ENHANCED shaheeds, i.e. swap propulsion with 30% more efficient heavy fuel engines, increase aspect ratio and improved shaheed basically makes carriers operating within 3000kms unable to reach ~4500km endurance no escape zone. This within the platforms SWAP potential, technically can also just swap payload for fuel but HFE and planform improvements simply more efficient.
3000km also VASTLY optimistic scenario for carriers and limits of prop planform/SWAP potential, it's functionally carrier at 0 sortie scrap metal range. Realistically carriers max effective standoff is ~2200km, at which point effective sorties down to 20% (rest tanking/support). So no, mathematically, carriers cannot fastandfurious straight line out of this, and definitely not surface fleet escorts. The capabilities I'm describing is pedestrian for PRC. Unless one thinks PRC cannot build a better shaheed than Iran who literally built them in caves with box of scraps.
I'm geting fairly old now and I have no recollection of ever thinking such a thing ...
> but if you send out, dunno, $100m worth of subs and sink a $10b carrier,
Even better if you can send out $80m worth of torpedoes attached to cheap arse unmanned drone delivery units all embedded within a 10x magnitude swarm of cheap arse drone units that have no torpedoes.
High chance of penetration, good chance there'll be some left over to confound and confuse the next carriers.
Absolutely that keeps the high end gear standing well off from tight spaces.