I would say ships are cheap to maintain for the sensors and capabilities they are carrying and demonstrating far from the homeland, uninterrupted for months or even a year in some cases (on per-day basis). None of the "mobile" sensors can ever provide the same capability fused at a single spot and neither for that long term. This converts 21st century ships into "floating sensors and command centers" which relies on defensive tactics than the offensive.
Yes correct modern warships are more a mobile sensors node than actual offensive platforms like on the age of battleships. Think about a floating radar+missile batteries which could change course and speed at will.
. ASuW is barely a function of a frigate or destroyer nowadays, they are more of ASW and AAW assets.
Correct I've emphasize this multiple times.
Nevertheless, if i were talking for USN i would say AShM (even the symbolic 8 Harpoon) are not needed on any surface asset since they have a remarkable non-surface based strike capabilities with carriers and submarines.
It's better safe than sorry, even a 2x2 configuration is enough.
But for other navies who lacks such a response time on counter-offensive i would say higher amount of AShM or more capable kamikaze drones, or variety or swarm capable munitions are needed.
Let's say we're talking Indonesian navy. What they need is more air launched platforms for their naval aviation. A Bayraktar TB-2 is enough to survive most south east Asian countries naval air defense (think about the limited air defense onboard a Lekiu, Gepard or Jose Rizal class) then proceed to act upon those ships once spotted.
Yes airforce is the backbone of the offensive tactics, but none of the airborne sensors can ever provide a fraction of what a surface ship is providing in terms of radar or electronic warfare capabilities (at the sea).
An AWACS could out detect flying and surface target far further away. Shipborne radars for example are more optimized for air search than surface search which are limited due to earth curvature.
What navies offer is a much longer loitering time
in situ.
Since unlikely to receive any missile system above 300 km due to the MTCR and unlikely able to form and maintain a proper ship based aviation wing in near to mid future, i
I think it's enough, not many neighboring countries has the capability to shoot air breathing aerial contacts farther than 100km.
There's also the option to fly hard deck to avoid radar detection, although I'm not sure how effective it is, since FLIR and CIWS technology has advances way much since the Argentinians pummeled the RN in San Carlos.
Rafales - F-15s launching Exocet / Harpoon sounds exciting but i think these airplanes would serve better to protect airspace around the homeland and Indonesia has no luxury of loosing them. Simply get an UAV to fulfill this duty if interested in delivering a missile. Even a customized low maintenance stealth UAV able to carry one AShM would serve the duty, why risk a well trained pilot and an expensive airplane instead of a few $million worth unmanned UCAV.
I couldn't talk about attrition, but all possibility should be used, high altitude penetrating fighters, or low altitude penetrating fighters in combination with MALE drones armed with medium sized AShM (Cakir, C-705 or Marte). All has it's distinct advantage and disadvantage.
