The Age of the Aircraft Carrier is Over Thanks to China’s Missiles

As tensions escalate in the Indo-Pacific region, there is increasing scrutiny concerning the importance and resilience of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. These massive floating airbases that cost tens of billions of dollars to build and billions more to maintain, long seen as symbols of raw U.S. military might, are now increasingly susceptible to China's rapidly advancing missile technology.

In fact, over the last few months, we have seen the Houthis try to attack U.S. Navy aircraft carriers with such technology, albeit with systems that were not as advanced as China has developed.?

But don’t let the Houthis failures create a false impression, as U.S. naval experts have been sounding the alarm over this threat for over a decade now, especially at the U.S. Naval War College. With Beijing's array of anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), cruise missiles, and hypersonic weapons, the sobering truth is that U.S. aircraft carriers could be highly vulnerable during a potential confrontation.?

In fact, it isn’t a stretch to say that in the opening moves of a possible U.S.-China war, we could very well see the end of the aircraft carrier era as we know it, thanks to a swarm of Chinese missiles.?

How China Would Strike Navy Aircraft Carriers?

China's progress in developing weapons platforms that could negate the utility of Navy aircraft carriers should serve as a call to action for U.S. decision-makers and military planners to consider the changing military environment in Asia, especially around what is known as the ‘first island chain.’?

The creation of the DF-21D and DF-26B ASBMs, ominously known as "carrier killers," has transformed naval warfare significantly. The DF-21D, with its 1,500-kilometer range, and the DF-26B, reaching up to 4,000 kilometers, are specifically designed to target and incapacitate warships like aircraft carriers. Their maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) present challenges for existing missile defense systems.

However, China's threat extends beyond missiles. Their arsenal also includes cruise missiles, like the YJ-18, which can avoid detection through low-altitude flight patterns and rapid terminal maneuvers.

In addition to the challenge, there are weapons like the DF-ZF glide vehicle that can reach speeds faster than Mach 5. These missiles' high speed and agility make current missile defense systems nearly ineffective according to most experts.

Options for Missile Defense: A Challenging Situation for the Navy Aircraft Carriers?

Despite their sophistication, the U.S. Navy's missile defense systems are not foolproof and would struggle with China’s growing arsenal of weapons.?

The Aegis Combat System, found on Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, is meant to identify, track, and intercept threats using SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 missiles. Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) such as Phalanx act as a layer of defense by shooting a barrage of projectiles to intercept close-range missiles. However, these systems are not equipped to handle the number of missiles China could launch in a saturation attack.

Indeed, the sheer number of U.S. missile defenses, whether on U.S. Navy warships or on land, would most likely lose what many call the ‘math game’ when it comes to taking on Beijing’s missile complex. China has thousands of potential missiles it could fire on U.S. aircraft carriers that would respond to a crisis over Taiwan or the South China Sea. No matter how advanced, any missile defenses would surely be overwhelmed in any possible contingency. That would leave Navy commanders with a tough choice: stay in the fight or risk possible damage or destruction.?

The Navy does have other options beyond missile defense, however. Electronic warfare (EW) systems provide a level of defense by disrupting or misleading enemy radar and guidance systems. Nevertheless, they can also be overwhelmed by China's frequency targeting systems and countermeasures integrated into their missiles. In a scenario involving conflict, intercepting every missile becomes increasingly unlikely.

Reflecting on Naval Strategy

The vulnerability of U.S. Aircraft carriers in a conflict with China requires a reassessment of naval tactics. Carriers have traditionally been the linchpin of U.S. strength, projecting power and facilitating a military presence. However, their vulnerability to missile threats poses a challenge to their effectiveness.

A transition toward distributed lethality, where offensive and defensive capabilities are distributed among more maneuverable vessels, could help mitigate this risk. By dispersing capabilities, the Navy could decrease the likelihood of a strike, severely hampering its capacity. Washington has realized this and has been working on it for roughly a decade now. However, the Navy is still dependent on carriers to drop ordinances on a target in many instances.?

Strategic and Tactical Ramifications

The consequences of carrier losses in a conflict with China are significant. Carriers serve not as platforms for launching aircraft but as symbols of American strength and deterrence. Their presence provides reassurance to allies and acts as a deterrent to adversaries.

However, this deterrent's effectiveness is questioned when confronted with advancements in missile technology and the sheer number of missiles the U.S. Navy is facing in the Pacific.

Practically, the loss of a carrier would have an impact on the U.S. military's ability to carry out operations. Carriers play a role in missions such as ensuring air superiority, conducting strike operations, performing reconnaissance tasks, and providing humanitarian assistance. Without them, the Navy's operational flexibility and overall effectiveness would be severely restricted.

An Urgent Appeal

The possibility of U.S. Aircraft carriers being destroyed in a conflict with China is not merely a scenario; it is a reality that requires immediate action. With Beijing improving its missile capabilities, it is imperative for the U.S. to adjust its tactics and technologies to uphold the efficacy of its forces.

In the short term, allocating resources toward missile defense systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and distributed lethality strategies is not just advisable; it is imperative for security. The future strength of U.S. forces hinges on our capacity to innovate and respond effectively to emerging threats. The time for action is now—before changing circumstances make our current approaches ineffective.

However, tough calls need to be made in the near future. The Navy must begin to consider whether spending over $120 billion on new Ford-Class aircraft carriers is a good idea when they would have to operate very close to within several hundred miles of any target in an Indo-Pacific kinetic conflict. In any scenario involving China, Taiwan, or the South China Sea, there is no rational way for Navy aircraft carriers to launch sorties and not come under a large amount of missile fire from Chinese weapons platforms.?

What makes more sense is to consider building more platforms that can take U.S. naval power under the waves, like more Virginia-class aircraft submarines or even a modernized version of the Ohio-Class SSGN cruise missile-carrying subs. While these subs at present can’t replace the aircraft carrier, the time for a transition to something that is far less vulnerable to missile attacks by China is long overdue.?

About the Author

Harry J. Kazianis is the Senior Director of National Security Affairs at the Center for the National Interest.