The Russian navy is a bunch of rusting hulks crewed by glorified conscripts. People have been trying these tactics in the mideast against the US for decades, and they haven’t worked since the Cole.
As for interceptors, they are meant for ballistic or cruise missiles, which are also expensive. Ask the Houthis how effective they are. CIWS or RAM/ESSM should be able to handle drones easily, it’s just that commanders don’t want to take the risk.
Because as we all know, ground based batteries are immune to saturation attacks because of their tiny magazines and inability to move, and battlegroups don’t exist.
The Russian navy is a bunch of rusting hulks crewed by glorified conscripts. People have been trying these tactics in the mideast against the US for decades, and they haven’t worked since the Cole.
As for interceptors, they are meant for ballistic or cruise missiles, which are also expensive. Ask the Houthis how effective they are. CIWS or RAM/ESSM should be able to handle drones easily, it’s just that commanders don’t want to take the risk.
But yes, the Pentagon is asking a lot of the same questions you are. Their answer is to put a lot of money into lasers
Inherently, naval targets are vulnerable to saturation attacks from a ground-based opponent, particularly when isolated (like the Caesar).
Because as we all know, ground based batteries are immune to saturation attacks because of their tiny magazines and inability to move, and battlegroups don’t exist.