The Question the Navy Must Ask: Is the Age of the Aircraft Carrier Over?

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: The debate over the relevance of U.S. Navy aircraft carriers in modern warfare continues as advanced threats like China’s DF-21 and DF-26 carrier-killer missiles raise concerns about their survivability.

-These missiles, with ranges exceeding 2,000 miles, challenge carriers’ ability to project air power near hostile coastlines.

-The Ford-class carriers, while vulnerable, remain central to U.S. maritime strategy due to advancements in layered defenses, unmanned systems, and long-range drones like the MQ-25 Stingray.

-However, evolving technologies, including lasers and electronic warfare, bolster their defensive capabilities.

-The future might see a mix of smaller carriers, unmanned vessels, and innovative countermeasures shaping naval warfare.

Are U.S. Aircraft Carriers Obsolete in the Era of “Carrier-Killer” Missiles?

Whether US Navy aircraft carriers are quickly becoming obsolete continues to dominate debate and thinking regarding the future of maritime warfare, perhaps in considerable measure, because it is a complex question with many intersecting and contradictory variables. 

In one clear and unambiguous sense, aircraft carriers are without question more vulnerable given the rapid arrival of often discussed Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship cruise missiles. 

These weapons, referred to as carrier killers, are consistently tested by the People’s Liberation Army and reportedly operate with an ability to track and destroy carriers as far as 2,000 miles offshore (some say more) in the case of the DF-26 and DF-26B.  

As is often discussed, the intent of these weapons is to essentially “push” carriers out of strike range by denying them the ability to operate close enough to shore to project the needed amount of air-attack power. 

Weapons such as this form the core foundation for long-standing discussions about  “anti-access, area-denial,” wherein platforms and attacking forces cannot survive closer to an enemy coastline.  

Can the Ford-Class survive what looks like an era where so many weapons could not only attack these aircraft carriers but maybe sink them> 

Vulnerable Ford-class Aircraft Carriers? 

Indeed, the scenarios above present a tactical and operational challenge for US Navy Carrier Air Wing power projection, as an F-35C operates with an overall range of about 1,300 miles. 

This means that any ability to reach targets on mainland China with sufficient “dwell” time and range would be quite challenging if carriers needed to operate more than 2,000 miles off-shore.  

Years ago, the Navy launched several future-fleet studies to address this question. One idea was to significantly adjust the size and configuration of the Ford-class carriers after the third big deck platform was built. 

It may not be apparent if this idea has gotten substantial traction, yet the Navy is, without question, advancing several strategic and technological responses to the growing threat to carriers. 

The seriousness of the Chinese anti-ship missile threat is so significant that it has led some to question the very existence of the USS Ford. 

Some posit that the USS Ford-Class carrier is simply far too vulnerable to exist, implying that it may be obsolete. 

While concerns about the growing vulnerability of large carriers are certainly valid, there is little question that the USS Ford adds indispensable value to the US Navy’s maritime power projection. 

Also, there may be questions about how precise guidance and targeting technologies are on these PLA weapons, and it may not be apparent if they can genuinely track and hit “moving” targets to a sufficient extent.  

Nevertheless, this threat is, and should be, taken quite seriously. Chinese anti-ship missile threats have generated ongoing US Navy deliberations about whether to produce smaller, faster, more mobile, and survivable air-power projection platforms. 

Japanese Aircraft Carrier Defense Strategy

Perhaps amphibs can increasingly project 5th-gen air power? 

Japan, for instance, is building smaller, faster F-35B-centric mini-carriers, likely with these PLA weapons in mind. 

This makes great sense given the threat ranges, as Japan is roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of mainland China, so operating in the Sea of Japan and East China Sea are clearly high-risk propositions for Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces. 

US Navy Carrier Defenses

However, despite the seriousness of these Chinese weapons, there is still much room for debate regarding carrier size, operation, and power-projection capability. The Navy continues to express confidence that its carriers can function “anywhere, anytime” as needed by mission demands. 

Why is this? The service has been making rapid progress with advanced layered ship defenses for years and has taken steps to mitigate and minimize the threats posed by these “carrier-killer” weapons. 

One strategic approach geared toward these kinds of threat scenarios likely pertains to the US Navy’s efforts to fast-track more unmanned, longer-range attack platforms and more survivable refuelers. US Navy carriers are now also built with specially engineered drone-specific command and control centers. 

Yet another response to these threats can be observed with the arrival of the US Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray, an unmanned refueler more survivable than large, manned KC-35 refuelers. These refueling drones are certainly in a position to potentially extend the air-attack range for carriers operating much farther offshore. 

Drone Aircraft Carriers? 

Also, it would not be surprising if the US Navy continued building unmanned vessels capable of launching large numbers of attack drones.

Indeed, the service is already progressing with “mobile-fire-base” kinds of large unmanned vessels capable of launching drones while supervised by humans operating at safer stand-off distances.

The Navy is progressing with its large unmanned surface vessel, which will be armed with guns, missiles, radar, and drones. 

However, despite increasing technological abilities to support unmanned navigation and operations, these “mobile firebases” would be supervised by humans performing command and control. Doctrinally speaking, this would be required for any possible use of lethal force. 

Lasers, EW & Interceptors

The Navy is also making rapid progress with ship defense technologies, including the fast arrival of laser weapons, EW, interceptors, more precise radar, and other countermeasures. 

Not only are carriers most often protected by well-armed supporting vessels in carrier strike groups such as destroyers and cruisers, but they are also increasingly equipped with defenses. 

High-fidelity Aegis radar on a destroyer could, for example, track incoming anti-ship missiles at farther stand-off distances, offering ship commanders more time to determine an optimal countermeasure such as EW to “jam” a missiles guidance systems, a deck-launched interceptor of some kind or even direct an air-to-air strike from fighter aircraft in position to shoot down a traveling DF-26.  

Air-to-air intercepts have been used significantly in the Red Sea to track and intercept attacking Houthi drones. 

Even with all of this preparation, we may never know if the aircraft carrier era is over until someone tries to sink these massive warships. 

Let us hope we never find out the true answer. 

About the Author: Kris Osborn 

Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.