Key Points and Summary – China’s deployment of advanced land-based “carrier killer” missiles, such as the DF-21D and DF-26, has fundamentally overturned the strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific.
-These weapons create a formidable anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) zone, making it incredibly perilous for U.S. aircraft carriers to operate safely within vast areas of the Western Pacific.
-This new reality shatters decades of American naval dominance, forcing the Pentagon to rethink its reliance on supercarriers.
-The shift also compels regional allies to bolster their own defenses, questioning the reliability of the traditional American security umbrella in this contested maritime theater.
The Navy’s Aircraft Carriers Have a Missile Challenge from China to Solve
Having transitioned from the unipolar moment dominated by the United States after the Cold War to the current multipolar moment defined by great power competition, today’s international order presents the United States with a range of new strategic challenges—perhaps the most important of which is to be found in the Indo-Pacific region, where China’s growing arsenal of land-based missiles has already begun reshaping the regional balance of power in Beijing’s favor.
Chinese missile capabilities—most notably the DF-21D and the DF-26—present a significant and historical strategic challenge to the US Navy. These missiles, widely known as “carrier killers” within defense circles, can strike surface vessels—including aircraft carriers—from a distance of up to 1,500 kilometers (936 miles) away with unprecedented accuracy. That’s a game changer of epic magnitude in the calculus of warfare at sea, enabling China to project far more striking power into the Western Pacific. Such missiles are likely to inhibit the movements of US naval vessels in the event of a geopolitical crisis or outright war.
The guidance system in the DF-21D is high-end, and it can hit moving targets. Precision is achieved through a combination of satellite navigation (satnav) and terminal guidance, which means it has a high probability of hitting fast-moving naval targets. The implications of that ability are profound, and place American naval planners in the unsettling position of not being able to relegate to the back of their brains the nightmares of a carrier strike group worth of sailors being killed in a single missile attack. The seemingly extended range at which such missiles can be employed means that US aircraft carriers, previously regarded as having solid immunity from direct attack while steaming (often in circles) and high-sided on the high seas, must now be wary and increasingly guard against missile attack.
The DF-26, with a greater range of about 4,000 kilometers (about 2,485 miles), can hold at risk not just maritime targets, but critical US military infrastructure in Guam. This dual conventional and nuclear posture not only complicates the US conventional deterrence posture in regional contingencies but also unnecessarily complicates, increases the costs and risks of, and hinders the planning and conduct of a variety of military operations for American military planners and decision-makers. These new missile systems are another game-changer, meaning the US Navy will no longer be able to freely roam these waters, as it has been doing so for decades. The DF-26 can attack both land and sea-based targets, complicating the United States’ options in any conflict.
The change it entails is huge. During the unipolar moment, the US Navy was largely unchallenged, and its ships could sail wherever they wanted. Now, however, the US Navy is working in the shadows of China’s missile dome. These days, American military planners are grappling with the notion that even their most advanced weapons systems, including multibillion-dollar aircraft carriers, might fall prey to comparatively simple strikes, and that the forces wielding them are not easily deterred. Such weakness will necessitate a reassessment of naval warfare, including a potential shift to distributed operations involving small grey hulls capable of operating in a battle-threatened environment.
Furthermore, the Chinese missile systems are part of a broader anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy aimed at limiting the US military’s freedom of operation throughout the Pacific Ocean. According to researchers, such capabilities are believed to slow down the US military’s response to contingency operations under combat conditions, making it more challenging for the US to counterattack.
With a potentially decisive strategic advantage accruing to China as it seeks to expand its reach and influence across the Indo-Pacific, this could be a significant concern. The A2/AD model isn’t just about missiles; it’s a comprehensive system of surveillance and intelligence capabilities that enable China to monitor US naval movements and counteract them in detail. And after decades of freedom of the seas, the US Navy now is being forced to navigate a more contested maritime domain, a space in which that freedom, while not necessarily entirely lost, is also no longer simply a given.
A change in the global balance of power, of course, isn’t only about might—it’s also about diplomacy and alliances. As China has expanded its military presence, US allies in the region, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, among others, have begun to reevaluate their security relationships. The concern that the United States may not be able to offer the same level of protection against a more formidable People’s Liberation Army has prompted these countries to explore ways to strengthen their own defense forces. This tangible uncertainty also necessitates a nuanced examination of alliances, adding to the complexity of the US posture in the Indo-Pacific. Nations that had made a habit of relying heavily on American military patronage now want a little more self-reliance, including higher defense spending and even the basic building of their own military capabilities.
America’s response to these threats must be both military and diplomatic. For example, new approaches to countering China’s missile force will have to be pursued. That means investing in the next generation of missile defense systems, cyber capabilities, and also emerging unmanned systems that can operate effectively in high-end contested areas. It’s a doctrine that other nations have sought to emulate, because for decades the US has been the only military on earth that can generally carry the fight wherever we need to and not stop until we achieve our objectives. The face of war is changing, though, and if the US is going to remain strategically dominant—or even competitive—it will have to change right along with it.
The United States also needs to pursue a coalition-building with like-minded regional countries. Strengthening existing coalitions and forging new partnerships will be necessary to contain Chinese aggression and restore regional stability. This cooperation could include participating in exercises, sharing intelligence, and adopting joint defense strategies that ultimately bolster and reinforce each other’s security consensus across the Indo-Pacific. You can see that in projects like the Quad (the US, Japan, India, and Australia), whose purpose is to deepen cooperation in the area and dissuade potential competing countries.
China’s missiles represent several forbidding problems, but none that are intractable. The US needs to unshackle itself from a culture of naval omnipotence and see the world military realities for what they are. That will require a strengthening of Washington’s strategic relations with other states concerned about China’s growing military capabilities and a re-orientation of the US’s military posture to meet the new strategic realities.
What Happens Now?
Ultimately, China’s vast land-based missile force has quite literally reshaped the military balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. As the multipolar world of great power competition continues to unfold, Washington will have to deal more effectively with the new realities of that world. That’s not just moving around on the battlefield, but a full-bore diplomatic campaign to reassure friends and deter enemies. The stakes are high, for the cost of failing to act is great—not only for the United States, but also for the stability of the global order.
By adjusting to a shifting strategic landscape and constructing a framework of cooperation, the United States can continue to meet the security challenge posed by China, even as the latter’s military power continues to grow, thereby helping to ensure that the Indo-Pacific remains stable, peaceful, and prosperous.
About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.
More Military
The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Crisis Is Real
Jim
July 18, 2025 at 11:41 am
I read this article with dismay.
Our greatest capitol ships are vulnerable to hypersonic missiles which both Russia & China have in increasing numbers as they are obviously ramping up production.
This makes any defense of Taiwan much more problematic, than it already was. Heck, objective analysts know the United States defending Taiwan is like the U. S. S. Titanic sailing straight ahead for the Taiwanese iceberg.
But so many advocates for defending Taiwan “independence” are “mouth pieces” who suggest over and over defending Taiwan would be ‘doable.’
It’s not doable.
And, seriously, if a U. S. aircraft carrier were sunk with 5,000 souls aboard, don’t you think that would trigger a full World War against China as Americans would be howling for more than a regional defense of Taiwan.
It would be Americans calling for World War Three and a coin toss away from going nuclear.
Back to the aircraft carrier vulnerability:
In total war they are liable to be sunk.
Now, I have an idea; submarines on a larger scale than currently produced, capable of launching all manner of missiles from near-surface, then submerging beyond the reach of hypersonic missiles.
Carriers are great (but expensive) tools of force projection in less-than-total war situations against foes who don’t have hypersonic missiles.
Or we come up with reliable defense technology which can intercept hypersonic missiles, but that maybe physically impossible, we don’t know, but we have to try our best to see what can be done.
Submarines with novel capabilities maybe in our future because aircraft carriers are increasingly (at least in total war situations) an obsolete concept much like battleships (as powerful as they were and looking beautiful to boot) are a past glory tied up at the museum pier to be admired by little boys and grown men.
Submarines, my boys, are the future of the Navy in total war.
And that is what we face in a war against China.
Jim
July 18, 2025 at 12:45 pm
You want the Jules Verne version, however grandiose & imaginative, a submarine large enough to hold airplanes, which can surface, wet or dry, and launch attack aircraft and submerge until the planes return from their mission and re-submerge once again.
Or… attack aircraft which have the ability to launch submerged and rise out of the water and propel to their target seemingly with little effort…
… as if beyond the laws of gravity…
… oops, that’s another story for another time.
Horsemen-of-the-Apocalypse
July 18, 2025 at 3:14 pm
Missiles to hit (and sink) capital ships are just one part of a multi-faceted national defense mandatorily required to ward off the coming unwanted embrace of uncle Sam.
During the battle of teutoburg forest, the attacking tribesmen hurled a rain of javelins onto the approaching Roman legion.
Today, same thing also. A rain of missiles required to hit (and destroy) the modern legion.
Except that the modern legion of today has far more than just marching advancing warfighters.
The modern legion of today a.k.a. the pacific forces also have nuclear weapons designed to obliterate entire cities, dams, town, plants and ports. And hospitals and water supplies and other vital utilities.
To forestall those weaponry or the use of those weaponry, the defending nation must DEPLOY A FUNCTIONING NUKE ARSENAL to space.
But is the defending nation doing what is so critically necessary. Looking at current events, answer is no.
Today the US govt in Washington is looking increasingly shaky and unstable due to the great ‘hoax’ but Elon musk showed on x a photo taken in Feb 2025 of a binder with a label bearing the words epstein file phase 1.
Thus it wasn’t or isn’t a hoax.
The pacific war 2.0 is coming.
doyle
July 19, 2025 at 9:04 am
Foooh !
The hoax has now become the witch-hunt. Foooh.
Shows the US of A is a highly unstable country where politics is like a shifting piece of quicksand, or a patch of quicksand that’s always mobile and always moving.
Hoax and witch-hunt are two different things. A hoax is a big joke or crude bluff, but a witch-hunt implies a victim awaiting to be brought forward.
Now, in this furore, who’s the victim.
Is the victim Ghis Maxwell who’s now rotting in jail, or the VIPs who enjoyed visiting the hideaway island bordello, or foreign countries who are targeted for coming bombing and shooting operations.
Foooh, US of A is a real bloody patch of quicksand, where the victim or victims may suddenly get swallowed up and then never ever seen again.
Commentar
July 19, 2025 at 5:40 pm
Rumors are swirling that trump could pay a visit to xi jumping in early September, and also, Putin could be with them.
In September 2025.
An unholy trio. Three who should step down from their posts. Now.
Putin has made a messy mess in Donbass where his army is currently enduring a bloody bloodbath simply to allow him a few or some boasting rights.
Trump’s past experiences with pretty young very young women are coming back to haunt him, though latest turn of events indicate the terrible storm’s already passed the worst hour.
Xi jumping like Putin has made a terribly blood-bloody mess of his country, from setting up a military base in Djibouti, almost next door to a US base, and senselessly sending a truly massive army of diplomats, ‘tourists’, ‘students’, policemen, cultural officials, spies, businessmen with massive
checkbooks and infrastructure project workers abroad.
That has truly frightened a lot of forrign people as well as a lot of foreign countries, while letting China becoming more vulnerable to a most deadly gaza-fordow style military attack.
Thus the expected gathering of the unholy trio in china in September bodes ill for mankind and for the future of the world.
What would kim jong-un think of it. Asmodeus meeting with his two rebellious sidekicks.