Keep in mind that we once had many battleships in the fleet. They were rendered obsolete by the airplane.
Battleships are very fat targets in this age.
Bismarck and Musashi were eventually sunk by bombs. Then there was the near-successful attempt sinking USS Cole reflecting the potency of asymmetric warfare, and of course current drone technology which, if Ukrainian boat drones are able to sink large Russian missile cruisers, what more with a battleship about the size of an Iowa?
He’s in it mainly for the belief he wants to show a bigger e-peen.
It might be better to compare a modern example, the $4000 pricetag on NATO 155mm shells vs. $500 FPV drones. But for some reason artillery is in much higher demand, and accounts for far more casualties, than the FPV drones…
They have that budget, though. And yet none of the russian naval assets destroyed have been taken out by drones, let alone $500 FPV drones. And that’s the russian navy, who’s close in radar jams the ship-wide intercom (Moskva) and who’ve never demonstrated their own CIWS capabilities. It’s also ignoring things like the complete lack of the use of cheap drone swarms at any point in the Ukrainian war (and there’s technical reasons for that) - even operation spiderweb, the closest thing to a true drone swarm we’ve seen yet, only used 117 drones across all the deployment zones (and then those were still not truly simultaneously coordinated).
The argument that any weapon system can take out any other weapon system isn’t in dispute - there’s a confirmed kill on a panzer with an umbrella, for example. But what you’re presenting is pretty broad speculation that boils down to “Because I think this is right” and there’s not much to do with that.
The full quotation, by the way, runs:
It’s not the presentation of a hard and fast rule, it’s a cautioning to avoid a lazy pitfall.
(I have a lot more I could throw out here and if I remember tomorrow morning I will, apologies for keeping it brief but it’s very late here.)
They have that budget overall. Not $500k just to sink one ship.
Yes, because the Russians have been smart enough to keep their ships in Russian-controlled ports.
Which means they’re somehow immune to being attacked by drones? Russia has had naval assets repeatedly damaged by drones (both aerial and seababies) while in port, and yet none of those many attacks have been enough to truly take down one of those ships (also there are several examples of a warship being damaged, and even destroyed, while not in port by a drone… specifically by bayraktar TB2s firing missiles) (Might need to be doublechecked on that claim, I think it’s right although I didn’t did too deeply into the exact location around snake island several vessels were at when they were destroyed so they may have actually been in ports and I was just unable to confirm that)). The attack on the Moskva used (at least) two Neptune missiles, which cost between $1m - $1.5m each, and boy did that work spectacularly.
Again, I’m not disputing that any weapon systems, under ideal conditions, can destroy any other weapon system (see again Digby Tatham-Warter (it was a Sd.Kfz. 234 not a panzer, whoops)). What I am disputing is that the drone units absolutely have that budget (and more), and yet despite having ample choice of high-value targets, and their choice of an inventory of extremely versatile drones, they have yet to find a solution that works, even when the ship is in a vulnerable place near land and with limited maneuvering options.
What you’re claiming as a nearly forgone conclusion is much much more difficult than the thing they have already repeatedly tried and failed to do. The reasons to use missiles and planes to attack ships are manifold, as are the reasons to use drones in roles they are suited for. But they complement each other; the maneuverability of a drone is not somehow a straight replacement for the ability to carry a 500kg warhead.
edit: bayraktar is hard to spell