>>64207009
Mostly, this.
Thing is, going for fully magnetic launcher is also meant to remove the need to store gunpowder inside.
Personally, I'm wondering if full coilgun wouldn't be the final option.
>>64207220
While I agree that no cheap drone would destroy a -proper- navy, operating on high seas, simply because of the range & speed making it significantly harder, the point of cheap ammo is to overwhelm a target either up to destruction or while the costly projectile one-shoot the target.
Forcing your opponent to filter the dumb shit that's barely guided to intercept the costly stuff that's actually dangerous.
No one is going to give up micro-drones spam now that it has been proven to be so cost-effective. Those micro-drones cost sometime less than shells, definitely less than ATGM and the wired one, or ones with wired relay, do not give away their firing position.
Forcing your opponent to require constant jamming using high level equipment is already a victory in itself, severely limiting their opportunities.
>Hypersonics are also a meme against a moving ship, but that's another topic
And that's just retarded of you. While their effectiveness is overrated, a moving ship is not going to dodge them even if they tracked the missiles from the moment it was launched.
The point of those missiles is to get any tiny chance they can get to hit carriers that are basically irreplaceable during a war.
What is a meme, is the belief that all our plans for warfare will hold up in a real war. Supposing we can even have one between superpower without the Nuclear Option becoming Nuclear inevitability.
If I had to predict something, it's the rise of wingmen drones used simply to carry more missiles, with less chance of loosing them all in one hit, while also serving as expendable decoy. Future warfare will be about overwhelming the stuff that can't move, while avoiding a single-point failure yourself.
