Yeah, but you're talking about "very, very larger numbers" of city-busting missiles. And they are all one-time use.
Both beancounters and strategists have made calculations and figured out that the destroyer is the better option over missiles even when using the same budgeted amount.
An IRBM is supposed to cause damage in many billions, so the use is specialist. As mentioned, nukes, bunker buster, special HVAs, like a carrier.
Iran proved ALL of these objection stupid and obselete. Against the most competent war planners. About time we learn from the REALITY and not from stupid theory. In this war, missiles have been vindicated and conventional bombers have been proven stupid. US lost a number of tankers and fighters worth 300-400 million. And Iran used 1/3rd of that money to inflict MASSIVE damage to US allies.
Its Game Set Match already.
Just so you know, it's extremely difficult to sink large warships. An IRBM may not necessarily sink one of them, especially since it's likely to miss more than hit. And successful hits are more likely to cause surface level damage rather than true structural damage. At the very least, it can help achieve mission kill, but that's about it. 1 missile will probably take out 1 compartment out of half a dozen to a dozen. And to sink such ships, you need to take out 60-70% of such compartments.
Who said one missile wonly?
One missile can completely disable a ship, subsequent hits meaning its airbatteries are out of comission too. Few more hits by drones and missiles and it goes down.
10 missiles + 200 drones = 70 million in ammo vs 1.5 billion dollar down the drain.
Tactical missiles can be built in the thousands. The USAF is planning to build over 10000 JASSM/LRASMs for example. The USN has 4000 Tomahawks. The US Army plans to induct 4000 PrSMs. And Taiwan's building 1000 missiles a year of various types. So tactical missiles are available in the tens of thousands already, and this only complements the main capability.
Its about cost.
Cost of buying one Rafale : 200-300 million (Plane + fuel + ordinances + pilot etc etc etc).
Cost of buying 10 IRBMs + 100 drones? 70 million.
Its not even an argument.
That's merely the cost of the missile. The actual cost is the supporting infrastructure.
Have you calculated cost of running an airbase?
Infra cost in ports, air strip etc is MASSIVE.
Each missile is 17.5 m long. It's as big as an apartment building. Where will be keep them?
Silos? Sure, but who's gonna pay for that? That's why the superpowers only build a few hundred and put nukes in them. The Americans are planning on spending a hundred billion on 400 odd silos.
Trucks and rail cars? Again, where are we gonna place that many? All these are easy targets. At least silos need 2 hits with nukes to take out.
Have you calculated the cost of tunneling?
We have a MASSIVE country. If Iran can tunnel and hide its missiles, India can do too. We have all the space we need. LOL! We have MASSIVE mountains to dig into. We are not running out of space anywhere.
Cost of tunneling with a tunnel bore machine is peanuts compared to cost of making a air bases and ports.
Plus drones just need simple trucks and nothing more.
Take example of Zongi-la tunnel : 13 KM tunnel for 2600 Cr INR or 280 million USD. Thats peanuts compared to multi billion dollar airbase.
And even 10 KM can accomodate 300 missile launchers (assuming each launcher takes 30 meter of space). Two lane tunnel can easily ensure any laucher to move out.
5-6 billion is enough to host 6000 such missiles and launchers. And you can reuse launchers.
For 1/3rd the cost of Rafale deal, you can have ALL of this.
Nukes are problematic diplomatically and nukes do not allow calibrated ramp up of hostility. Plus nukes require centralized command. You can not allow base commanders to let nukes fly. It needs a succession of leadership and strategic command.
Nukes and Iranian style missile complex are complementry and not overlapping.
Nuke are for responding to nukes.
They will use nukes on us.
I think you need to look up the purpose of nuclear deterrence.
What Iran's doing is well below the nuclear threshold, they can get away with it 'cause the US and Israel are doing way worse to them.
No, they will go back. We have nukes too. China will NEVER be the first country to use nukes. Becase that means nuking of entire china.
Simply put with a conventional asymetric missile + drones threat, China will simply stop messing with India militarily. Becase it has more to loose.