Thank you for the detailed reply. Makes a lot of sense. But, a worthy military opponent will be a good enough match if not a bullet to bullet man to man match. Saying so, he will be adequately supplied in offensive and defensive departments and will ensure the same dilemma is thrown back at the carrier group owners (say the attackers) i.e. to not be too sure about what to defend more though they were the attackers in the first place. Doing this their defenses will be stretched and the probability of a successful hit on the carrier or of a hit at another valuable target would increase manifold equally. Now, if we keep these dilemmas aside having established both the attacker and defender are faced with similar ones, and simply try and gauge the abilities of weapons defending the carrier VS weapons attacking the carrier, the score might be 1-0 in the favor of latter
Again, it's never about whether or not US Carrier could be hit, if you are attacking at a right time or place, anything can be destroy, there are no "Wonder Weapon" in this world that guarantee your survival.
That question is hence not a one on one situation, as that would be a tactical decision, what I was talking about is the grand strategy.
From the attacker, they have a choice to whether or not you would deploy your Carrier in an AO, they can choose either to deploy, or not, but for the defender, that choice is not available, they will need to deploy their resources to counter the enemy Carrier Threat, whether or not the attacker are going to use them in Battle. They will have to do it simply because the attacker has it.
The question about whether or not the chance to hit a carrier is not in the strategic calculation. As the problem has now entering a 4-dimension defence strategy. Basically, it's about resource management. Let's simplify the problem so I can explain to you in a way you could understand. Say I have a whole 100 KM coast line to defend, I have 2 division of troop (or 6 Battalions) to defend a single front line. Which for me, if I have to defend the whole thing, I would have to have 2 division lay side by side stretch along the whole 100 KM front line. Which would mean I have a Battalion to defend 15 km line each, and they all have to be equally distributed.
However, for an attacker, even if I only have 1 division of troop to attack that front line, I don't need to be stretching it out like the defender, in fact, I can concentrate to attack on one or two battalion holding the line, then I can stack a 3 on 1 ratio on that 15 km frontline on the defenders. For the attacker, the front line is not 100 KM, but only however long you choose to fight.
The dilemma does not exist on the attacking ends, as they have the initiative, they will have to attack only one spot of the line, but for the defender, they will have to defend the whole line.
In this case, the line is not just a numerical game we play before, but also different type of equipment. Where you can only deploy and support a limited number of defensive equipment at a given area, that mean to put your force in static defence in modern time would mean a dilution of force. However, for the attacker, that problem does not exist as A.) You can attack with concentration. B.) You dictate the tempo and initiative.
Because it does not matter, you will have to put DF-Series Missile in case of US attack, however, US may attack with or without their Carrier, and each DF Missile have to be supported and serviced by rear area troop, and that mean for every weapon platform you deploy, it stretch your supporting force further, and there are a limitation on how many unit or troop you can support in theatre, if US does not use Carrier for their offense, then DF-series missile cannot be use to attack something else, then their present is wasted.
