There's a minimum size of vehicle you can mount a gun on.
The mount needs to absorb the recoil without breaking or getting pushed around too much.
The Swiss have been experimenting with recoilless chain-guns to try and reduce that footprint. Which might be interesting, but recoilless weapons are extremely unpleasant to be near due to the backblast. It still might make sense to mount such a weapon on a remote automated station, and stick it on the roof of any available truck or APC/IFV.
The hype around hypersonic missiles is overcooked. Ballistic missiles are faster. The hypersonic's advantage is supposed to be its manoeuvrability, expecting an heavy anti-ship missile to be more agile than an interceptor is just silly.
And It'd take way more than 10 missiles to overwhelm a carrier groups air defence. The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers.
In order to overwhelm the systems, you'd be getting close to the point of exhausting their interceptors. So why even bother with the fancy missiles?
The Swiss have been experimenting with recoilless chain-guns to try and reduce that footprint. Which might be interesting, but recoilless weapons are extremely unpleasant to be near due to the backblast. It still might make sense to mount such a weapon on a remote automated station, and stick it on the roof of any available truck or APC/IFV.
The hype around hypersonic missiles is overcooked. Ballistic missiles are faster. The hypersonic's advantage is supposed to be its manoeuvrability, expecting an heavy anti-ship missile to be more agile than an interceptor is just silly.
And It'd take way more than 10 missiles to overwhelm a carrier groups air defence. The combat system on an American destroyer can track "100+" targets. The carrier group has several destroyers.
In order to overwhelm the systems, you'd be getting close to the point of exhausting their interceptors. So why even bother with the fancy missiles?