Unless we have some sort of nuclear powered laser on every ship (for power and longevity) and a early warning system that can see incoming missiles miles away, what is the point?
And hypersonic missiles just multiplied that threat ten fold.
What about a hypersonic missile that explodes multiple warheads 5000 to 500 feet from the ship? what could stop that?
I said a couple of days ago that Russia is "losing" on purpose, but even if they aren't, they are equipped for intercontinental warfare. They can still sink our ships. They can still launch nukes. And according to some research i have seen, They are capable of launching a first strike EMP which will render our land based missiles useless. Anything launched from our subs in retaliation will be shot down by their decidedly low tech method of launching 10000 or so rockets at anything incoming. THIS is why Russia only has one real carrier. The way they will fight will not be the way we fight loser countries, and it will be for keeps.
Virtually all land based missiles and C23 are radiation hardened for EMP, at least on our side.
” They are capable of launching a first strike EMP which will render our land based missiles useless. “
Just one example of the B.S. in your comments. Military gear is hardened against EMP.
US land based ICBMs were designed to withstand EMP/TREE/SGEMP effects from nuclear explosions (not close by, of course). The Peacekeeper ICBM (now decommissioned) was far better at this than the Minuteman 3 ICBM. I worked on the Peacekeeper ICBM 4th stage (post boost) Nuclear Hardness & Survivability and know this for a fact. I would expect that the MM3 would be better after refurbishment and the addition of updated guidance and inertial nav that was based on that of the Peacekeeper.