Back in WWII, warplanes launched from land or carriers always had the advantage over warships at sea due to their small size, fast speed, and due to the lack of accurate anti-aircraft weapons. The warplanes can go in and out quickly while the ships' defense can only engage them in close range with massive but inaccurate firepower. Modern technologies allow warships have the ability to shoot down jets over 100 miles out with long range anti-aircraft missiles, as well as having CIWS (Close In Weapon System) to fire very accurately at any incoming missiles and aircraft in close range. Even the main guns on destroyers/frigates are now designed to engage aircraft with high accuracy and high rate of fire. I remember watching a video of presentation of how a fleet of warships deal with incoming missiles. 1. Enemies fired dozens anti-ship missiles at the fleet from over 100 miles away. 2. The fleet use long range jamming as counter-measure. A few enemy missiles lost the target lock and dropped all over the places. 3. The fleet fires long range AA missiles which intercepts about half the incoming missiles. 4. The fleet uses its main guns to shoot down some of the remaining incoming missiles at medium range. 5. The fleet uses its CIWS to shoot down the last few remaining incoming anti-ship missiles. 6. The fleet wasn't hit at all by the enemy anti-ship missiles as they are within visual range. (of course, I'd say in a real battle, there is always the chance for some of the missiles to get through the multilayer defense if the enemies had fired lots lots of them). The question is, if it's just a group of fighter jets armed with anti-ship missiles against a fleet of warships with no air cover, who has the advantage?