According to an article published by the U.S. magazine NSJ on November 5, American scholar Latham pointed out that China has established a complete aircraft carrier kill chain system, from land-based Dongfeng series anti-ship ballistic missiles, to long-range cruise missiles in maritime and air coordination, and information networks composed of satellites, drones, beyond visual range radars, and underwater sensors, which are sufficient to prevent U.S. aircraft carriers from advancing beyond the first island chain.

The article argues that the U.S. aircraft carrier power, which it once relied upon, is gradually being undermined by China's asymmetric strike strategy, fundamentally weakening the U.S. ability to project power and political deterrence.

For the United States, this is a harsh reality: the super aircraft carrier, which symbolizes its maritime hegemony, has been forced into a position of passive survival for the first time.

Therefore, the article believes that the competition for maritime power has shifted from control of the sea to survival, and aircraft carriers are no longer invincible; the U.S. military needs to learn how to take hits.

American Aircraft Carrier

During the Cold War, U.S. aircraft carriers could roam freely in the deep ocean, as it was difficult to accurately strike a moving fleet at long distances. Even the Soviet Union's long-range nuclear navy found it extremely difficult to destroy U.S. aircraft carriers when they were far from Soviet territory.

However, today's multi-dimensional precision strike, ocean satellite, and unmanned reconnaissance systems established by China make it impossible for U.S. aircraft carriers to ensure their survival.

And any one of our salvoes has a high chance of destroying a hundred-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.

The U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups not only cannot cope with traditional but massive saturation attacks, but also cannot intercept our hypersonic missiles.

This makes aircraft carriers no longer tools to attack others without being attacked, but expensive platforms that may be sunk.

If we lose the bet, the cost will be enough to shake the entire country's strategic confidence.

Multiple U.S. internal defense reports have warned that any loss of an aircraft carrier today is not only a military strike, but also a collapse in politics and psychology.

The era of "control the sea, win the war" has ended. Now, the maritime game has become who dares to take risks loses first. In other words, the U.S. aircraft carrier has turned from a strategic stabilizer into a risk burden, marking the collapse of the U.S. aircraft carrier myth.

American Aircraft Carrier

Aside from the possibility of being destroyed, the decline in the U.S. ability to build aircraft carriers is also a factor that cannot be ignored.

The Ford-class aircraft carrier is touted as a miracle of the new era, but it has instead become a problem of the new era.

Since its project was initiated in 2005, the first ship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, has cost over $13 billion, and its construction period has repeatedly been delayed, with numerous system failures.

Subsequent ships of the Ford class have all fallen into the same pit.

A Pentagon audit report even directly stated that the self-consumption speed of the U.S. aircraft carrier construction system is exceeding its production capacity recovery speed.

Add to that the high maintenance costs, and after five years of service, the average maintenance budget of an aircraft carrier is more than 25% higher than that of the Nimitz class.

As a result, the U.S. Navy budget is consumed by aircraft carriers, yet it does not gain proportional combat capability.

American Aircraft Carrier

Certainly, it is not to say that aircraft carriers are useless, but relying on them to dominate the world again is clearly unrealistic.

The advantage of aircraft carriers lies in their projection and symbolic significance, but these roles have failed in high-intensity confrontation. Especially the intimidating attribute, which used to have strong deterrence when two aircraft carriers were stationed at the door, now seems to be nothing more than that, even unable to defeat the Houthi rebels.

So the U.S. is now seriously thinking about how to take hits.

In the past several decades, the U.S. military has never faced real equal firepower. It fought against Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan - these opponents either had no navy or no air defense.

Americans have been accustomed to fighting others, never thinking about others fighting them.

Now, in a battlefield full of missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons, it must learn how not to be directly destroyed. If it can't withstand the first wave of attacks, how can it fight back?

A new concept has emerged within the Pentagon called "resilient operations," meaning the ability to maintain command, communication, and logistics capabilities after being struck.

The U.S. is simulating recovery processes after an aircraft carrier is damaged, researching how fleets can reorganize without air cover, and even discussing how to disperse fuel, ammunition, and spare parts to prevent a single strike from causing systemic paralysis.

This indicates that the U.S. is preparing psychologically for the first time. But the problem is, it has no experience.

Its past operational system was centered around proactive strikes and preemptive action. Now, it must shift to first holding on before it can counterattack. This not only requires tactical adjustments but also a cultural transformation.

But the real battlefield will not give a nation that has long enjoyed maritime supremacy much room for trial and error.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7569464606683382324/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author and welcomes you to express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.