Originally Posted by
glad rag
Not quite sure what your angle is Ken,
I thought my "angle" was quite clear and succinct. Since you apparently missed it I will repeat:
There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases.
I'm merely pointing out that technology advances and costs plummet.
An example is the planned 12,000 plus constellation of internet cube sats proposed by spacex to cover the continental US.
EG.BFR is said to have a capacity of 250 per launch, fh around 50@ 850 kg each.
Does this technology apply to military grade imaging satellites?
So a determined foe with launch capability even less than say F9 could, with multiple launches, seed the area of operations of a carrier group and continue to do so.
As for speculation who says every 850kg cube sat actually needs to be for surveillance ....
Seed the area of operations of a carrier group?! Do you imagine these satellites can hover over an "area of operations?" Regardless of the number of satellites that are so seeded, it takes ground stations to make those satellites of any value. Are those ground stations invulnerable? Can the links to/from the satellites be jammed? Can the satellites by blinded/soft killed with a directed EMP burst?