Land bases are susceptible to damage or harassment, but short of a BoS are almost impossible to destroy, or disable for weeks or months. The reverse applies to carriers at sea.

JP233, by the way, dates from well before the Falklands. It was mentioned in Flight in 1977. It was expected to shut down airfields for a considerable time and the Sovs were expected to come up with something similar, hence the desire to retain some STOVL and STOL capability in the force. This resulted in the GR5 and some features of the Typhoon. You'll recall that, around the same time, the USAF set a 1,500-foot STOL target for the ATF.

Land-based aircraft can be protected by GBAD, CCD and dispersal, all of which present Red with a cost-imposition problem that gets less favorable with standoff range, and by built-in resilience.

Carriers, by contrast, present a location problem - but one that gets easier the more imaging satellites there are in the sky.

I get what you mean. All those imaging satellites are quick and cheap to build, and their launch and mission support are also very cheap and thus they impose no "cost-imposition problem." And in a major shooting war where carriers are being targeted such satellites and their ground control stations are completely invulnerable. Yeah shur.

With the pluses and minuses on both sides, it's a good thing we'll have both ;)

Have you ever watched a space x launch onboard coverage?

Have you ever heard of cubesats??

What if the sats [cube or otherwise] are already in position???

So many questions but only one answer will becoming......

GR... pretty much. Schwacking everything out of LEO that can image ~1 m resolution is apt to be difficult and messy. But Yeah shur you can babble about Yeah shur if you want to make the problem go away, or better yet you can yell Rumplesnitz!

Surprised that this lengthy BBC News article has not already been linked.

More importantly:

1. Satellites are great for seeing things that do not move, but not so good as tracking moving things such as ships. Not only is the field of view limited, but the ship moves, and whilst the satellite comes back to the same point in its orbit, the Earth has moved.

2. Exactly what some of resolution do you expect from a Cubesat? Have any had a Earth Observation mission? No? What does that tell you?

3. Cubesats are only so cheap as they hitch a lift with a proper payload such as a satellite being launched in Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

Your points are noted.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/for-cubesat-specialist-isis-sigint-is-a-mission-cubesats-are-made-for/

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2a hUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4107%26context%3Dsmallsat&ved=2a hUKEwiUyK-huIjdAhXEDcAKHSifDUMQFjAHegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1-qL0grNUcXQiylQ9-cbzO

5 seconds on Google.

Interesting links -although they seem to be by the same company. I was assuming you were referring to imagery satellites. However many of the same limitations apply. The Western Navies have lived with hostile SIGINT for decades, including during World War Two. Counter measures do exist

Yes

Yes. Military grade high resolution imaging cubesats? Not so much.

What if they are? Cubesats can be neutralized even easier than higher orbit hardened military satellites. And that's just the satellites. You can effectively kill the entire satellite constellation by killing the few satellite control ground stations. Or are they magically invulnerable?

There are plenty of answers. None indicate that carriers are inherently more or less vulnerable than land airbases and none indicate that satellite constellations, even ones numbering in the thousands of individual satellites, are invulnerable.

Not quite sure what your angle is Ken, 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.
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 ....

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.

Does this technology apply to military grade imaging satellites?

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?

So, everything can be destroyed by something...

Judging by what a none nuclear Swedish Sub did to the Ronald Reagan and Battle Group during an exercise some years ago, and lived to tell the tail you do not need to have massively expensive systems. The cost of the said sub was equivalent to one of our much vaunted new fighters. As the Russian defence minister said about the new carrier when commissioned "it is just a big target". I know the idea is about power projection, but given our straightened circumstances and our potentially even poorer economy, are we still in the power projection league, or do we want to be ?
Regards
Mr Mac

yeah that's a great idea ken.

however bearing in mind the Russian tactical docrine in the first use of nukes, you may have inadvertently "hit the nail on the head"