I'm about to butcher some numbers here so I'm gonna round off the best I can. Why isn't there a Missile Carrier? An Aircraft Carrier is roughly $10 billion with about $6 billion in aircraft. Then factor in 5000 sailor salaries (and lives) plus the costs of munitions. With a 600 mile strike range (more with in air refueling), our carriers are within range of current missiles. Our aircraft have to evade deadly air defenses trying to bring down our $6 million men. Now surrounding these behemoths is a strike group with about 3 or 4 hundred missiles give or take and that is probably plenty. Imagine now, a super tanker covered in vertical missile launchers. Cruise, ballistic, anti air/ship, and the new hypersonics. Missiles with potential ranges of hundreds to thousands of miles. There are about 96 missiles on Arleigh Burks so its probably safe to say a couple thousand missiles could be loaded here. And with current automation, you probably only need a few hundred sailors. Now I'm sure I have way over sized this beast and its missile numbers, but has the Navy ever considered a Missile Carrier? If not to replace the Aircraft Carrier, but maybe add one to a strike groups offensive capability? Or indeed, to even replace an Aircraft Carrier in a strike group. The concept of this ship would be a very expensive boat able to strike farther than our aircraft are capable of. Instead of $6 billion in aircraft, you would have $6 billion in missiles. Aircraft Carriers strike fear into our enemies, but they also know there is a chance of shooting our planes down and capturing/killing our pilots. With a hypothetical Missile Carrier on the other hand, all they get is the debris.