Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

China Has A 1 Word Answer to Sink U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers

U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier
Nimitz-class carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) transits the Atlantic Ocean while offloading munitions via helicopter to the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), June 27, 2025. Gerald R. Ford, a first-in- class nuclear aircraft carrier and deployed flagship of Carrier Strike Group Twelve, incorporates modern technology, innovative shipbuilding designs, and best practices from legacy aircraft carriers to increase the U.S. Navy’s capacity to underpin American security and economic prosperity, deter adversaries, and project power on a global scale through sustained operations at sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jarrod Bury)

Key Points and Summary – China’s massive and diverse land-based missile arsenal, featuring thousands of projectiles, creates a formidable anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) shield that could protect its aircraft carriers in a potential conflict.

-So-called “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missiles like the DF-17, DF-21D, and DF-26 have ranges that exceed the combat radius of US Navy carrier-based fighters like the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

-This strategic asymmetry could create a “no-go” zone for US surface ships, allowing Chinese carriers to operate with relative impunity in the Indo-Pacific.

-While the US has superior combat experience, China’s ability to re-supply land-based launchers quickly presents a significant challenge.

Chinese Missiles Will Protect Their Aircraft Carriers Well

One of the most significant aspects of modern warfare is the use of ballistic missiles.

The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have shown that missiles are sometimes used more than any other weapon. Just look at both the Russians and Ukrainians, the Houthi terrorists, and the Iranians – all depend greatly on ballistic missiles to prosecute warfare.

Keeping the U.S. Navy Down and Out

We are aware that China also possesses a substantial missile force, comprising as many as 2,400 projectiles of various ranges.

In warfar,e these launches could enable Chinese aircraft carriers to operate unabated in East Asia. Chinese missiles could create a sea denial “no-go” zone for American and allied shipping, fully instigating a screen that would allow anti-access/ area denial strategies.

1 Word Answer to Sink the U.S. Navy: Missiles (Lots of Missiles)

American ships would be blocked from some regions of the ocean, and People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) carriers could patrol without fear of getting attacked by American ships.

The People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) features ground-launched cruise missiles (400), short-range ballistic missiles (900), intermediate-range ballistic missiles (500), medium-range ballistic missiles (1,300), and long-range or intercontinental ballistic missiles (500). These varying projectiles, each with a combat radius that could threaten American ships, can keep Xi Jinping’s carriers safe in a potential clash with the Americans in the Indo-Pacific.

China Can Place Two Aircraft Carriers in the Water at Once

Two Chinese aircraft carrier strike groups are currently patrolling in the region. The carriers Liaoning and Shandong are in the vicinity of southern islands in the Pacific about 750 miles south of Tokyo. The aircraft carriers have sailed in the First Island Chain before – a demarcation line that includes Japan, Taiwan, and the Philippines. They have also steamed near Guam as well in the Second Island Chain.

Are the Americans Protected from a Missile Attack? 

When close to Japan and Taiwan, Chinese aircraft carriers are protected by missiles that can be launched from shore, submarines, frigates, and destroyers in the carrier strike groups.

The Americans are protected somewhat by the Aegis Combat System and electronic warfare systems. This missile screen functioned well against Houthi missile and drone attacks aimed at U.S. Navy carrier strike groups. However, the Chinese tactics are considered superior to those of the Houthis. Plus, the Chinese rocket force is more diverse, with different ranges that can cover the waters close to the mainland.

The Carrier-Killers Are on the Loose

China’s DF-17 medium-range missile, which has a range of 1,500 miles, could do damage to an American carrier strike group. The DF-21D is also an aircraft carrier killer. This is another medium-range, solid-fueled, road mobile system. The DF-26B is an even more troubling anti-ship missile. These are all designed to destroy moving targets. The Nimitz and Ford-class carriers would be in danger from these three missiles.

This could create a Chinese missile screen that would allow the PLAN’s carriers to operate without the fear of being destroyed by the U.S. Navy’s missiles and airplanes. That would leave American submarines to pick up the slack. This is not the ideal set of circumstances for the United States, which has long depended on carrier strike groups to dominate the maritime battle space.

“The range of Chinese missiles now exceeds the strike radius of carrier-based aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, typically limited to around 700 kilometers without aerial refueling. While the introduction of the F-35C with its stealth characteristics and slightly extended range helps bridge some of this gap, the fundamental asymmetry remains: China can launch precision missiles from its coast, while U.S. carriers must sail thousands of kilometers and operate within striking range to be effective,” according to ArmyRecognition.com.

This means that Chinese carriers could enjoy operating with impunity in East Asia, knowing they are protected by a layered defense from shore and sea-based ballistic missile launchers. The United States typically operates two carrier strike groups in the Indo-Pacific. With China having two carriers in the water at all times, the opposing forces have parity.

This boils down to the performance of individual sailors working on Chinese and American ships, and who are deployed with missile launchers on land, in China’s case. Which side is better trained and more experienced? The Americans have learned ample lessons during their engagement against the Houthis. There were some close calls in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, but no U.S. Navy ships were damaged or sunk.

China lacks nearly enough combat experience. They hope that all the training missions will prepare the PLAN and the PLARF for actual combat. For the Chinese, launching a missile is not particularly difficult, despite their limited prior experience in combat situations. Plus, the PLAN and PLARF have also gleaned lessons learned from the Houthis. They could focus their efforts on rapid-fire volleys with different types of ballistic missiles. China could also send decoy or dummy missiles to overwhelm American air defenses.

One problem with the missile fight is that U.S. Navy ships could run out of projectiles both for offense and defense. If this type of combat lasts weeks or months, the American vessels would have to be resupplied somehow, and that may take precious time. Since the Chinese fire many projectiles from land, they would be able to replenish stocks faster than the Americans.

The PLAN and PLARF are thus formidable due to their extensive missile stockpile. The varying missiles create a protective screen that enables their carriers to operate effectively. The Americans have an edge in combat readiness and have survived a missile fight with the Houthis. They are more experienced than the Chinese.

However, the PLAN and PLARF have an edge due to the number of carrier-killing missiles and their ability to resupply their land-based launchers easily. This is concerning to the U.S. Navy as it considers a potential missile confrontation with China.

It is always difficult to predict how future combat will evolve based on prior engagements, but the People’s Republic looks to have the advantage in a missile fight, and that is music to Xi Jinping’s ears.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.

Russia’s Bomber Forces

Tu-22M3: The Bomber Ukraine Hit With Drones

Tu-95 Bear: This Might Be Russia’s Version of the B-52

Putin Could Soon Test a Tactical Nuclear Weapon

Brent M. Eastwood
Written By

Dr. Brent M. Eastwood is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and Foreign Policy/ International Relations.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – NASA’s X-43A Hyper-X program was a tiny experimental aircraft built to answer a huge question: could scramjets really work...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – China’s J-20 “Mighty Dragon” stealth fighter has received a major upgrade that reportedly triples its radar’s detection range. -This...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Article Summary – The Kirov-class was born to hunt NATO carriers and shield Soviet submarines, using nuclear power, long-range missiles, and deep air-defense magazines...

Military Hardware: Tanks, Bombers, Submarines and More

Key Points and Summary – While China’s J-20, known as the “Mighty Dragon,” is its premier 5th-generation stealth fighter, a new analysis argues that...