American magazine NJS published a commentary article on October 17, emphasizing the vulnerability of American aircraft carriers when facing China.
The article listed anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26, hypersonic weapons, stealth carrier-based aircraft, AIP submarines, and unmanned systems, pointing out that these systems can form multi-layered, cross-domain kill chains.
The article gave a concrete expression to the anxiety of the US side, stating that many Pentagon analysts are troubled at night, wondering how to deal with various means that China might use to sink aircraft carriers.
It can be seen that the strategic culture of the United States, which has long relied on aircraft carriers for power projection, is being forced into a corner by new weapons and perception networks. The US aircraft carriers can still show off their might to other countries, but for its greatest opponent, they are losing practical value.
American Aircraft Carrier
The fragility of the American aircraft carrier mentioned by the US does not mean it will be shattered upon contact, but rather that it could suffer mission kill, meaning it retains its physical structure but loses its combat capability.
The protection of an aircraft carrier relies on multi-layered defense by the battle group, electronic warfare, intelligence chain, and continuous supply. If any link is systematically weakened by the opponent, the aircraft carrier could quickly lose its ability to take off, recover, and command.
The danger of China's anti-aircraft carrier system lies in its joint nature: land-based missiles provide a long-range strike window; stealth carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles create air threats; submarines and underwater unmanned vehicles form an interception network in the sub-surface layer; satellites and electronic reconnaissance make target positioning more continuous and accurate.
In this case, the traditional defensive logic of intercepting incoming missiles with escort ships and close-in defense systems would be shattered by saturation attacks and maneuvering trajectories.
An aircraft carrier may not instantly disintegrate, but it could be gradually hollowed out, becoming an expensive but useless floating platform.
History also shows that large ships are more likely to become high-value targets; the way to harm them is not necessarily a sudden sinking, but making them no longer capable of tactical deterrence.
American Aircraft Carrier
The reason why the US is now focusing on the issue of aircraft carriers being sunk is because of its long-term neglect of the proposition that aircraft carriers could be sunk.
Experience from World War II and the Cold War shaped a belief that aircraft carriers equaled offshore projection and strategic deterrence; therefore, military academy education, budget allocation, navy organization, and local shipbuilding economies all formed a stable interest community around large aircraft carriers.
In an era without equivalent long-range anti-ship systems, this path choice was not problematic, but when the technological gap was compressed, beliefs became blind spots.
More importantly, the US's technological confidence led to a strategic assumption filled with blind optimism, believing that US intelligence, electronic warfare, and interception capabilities would always surpass the opponent. This assumption is not always valid in continuous operations and high-intensity consumption scenarios.
Plus the political influence of the aircraft carrier industry, the cost of tens of billions of dollars, the employment of tens of thousands of people, and the regional pressure supported by Congress, any suggestion that challenges the central position of the aircraft carrier would face strong resistance.
Therefore, when the aircraft carrier really could be sunk, the US had no way to respond.
American Aircraft Carrier
Certainly, it is not to say that the US is truly in an impossible situation, the problem lies in time, cost, and coordination difficulty.
Now, the military is unable to sleep at night, due to the reality that all effective response plans require significant changes to the current system, either sacrificing certain functions of the aircraft carrier or being unable to deploy in the short term.
The contradiction lies in: these changes would weaken the existing projection advantages of the aircraft carrier, or take years to take effect, while China will not wait for you.
The military is thus caught in a dilemma: continuing to invest along the old track increases the risk; suddenly shifting course is costly and may temporarily lose deterrence.
The US still has the technology, industry, and alliance network to alleviate the risk of aircraft carriers being hit or mission failure in the medium to long term, but this requires acknowledging the reality that they are no longer invincible.
The US military's inability to sleep is not because the end is near, but because they clearly see that converting faith into capabilities that can withstand real combat tests comes at a cost far higher than expected and takes much less time than they hope.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7562040798428676648/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [Up/Down] buttons.