Can Chinese missiles really sink US Navy aircraft carriers? The outside world has shown great interest in China's DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) in the past few years. If it works, it will pose a very serious threat to the US Navy aircraft carriers as well as other advanced warships of the US Navy, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force, and other countries.Anti ship ballistic missiles are not just missiles, they require a huge and complex support system. Unlike missiles launched towards static targets, ASBM requires terminal guidance as it must correct its trajectory after re-entry into the atmosphere. From launch to hitting the target, the flight time of ASBM may take about 15 minutes, during which the aircraft carrier is likely to sail a considerable distance at sea. Therefore, missiles need to have the ability to adjust their trajectory and self identify aircraft carriers. This process depends on the operation of a complex set of sensors, as well as the integration of the data obtained by these sensors and the transmission of this data to the missile's communication system. As the renowned Chinese military observer Andrew Erikson emphasized, "The fusion of high-quality, real-time satellite imagery and target positioning data, as well as the successful positioning of reliable local satellite navigation systems, will help to put enemy ships in danger through destructive multiple strikes." The US Navy is very concerned about the DF-21D, which is also one of the reasons why the US Navy is making such efforts in carrier based anti missile (ABM) technology. The US Navy is still studying other countermeasures, including striking DF-21 launch sites (possibly carried out by cruise missile submarines) and electronic warfare when war breaks out. That is why it is emphasized that the auxiliary ISR and communication systems that contribute to the operational effectiveness of the DF-21D are so important. The United States does not need to destroy every missile launcher or shoot down every missile in flight.

Both ISR and communication systems represent important capabilities, but the key to striking them is to disrupt the missile support system, making it difficult for China to identify, target, and strike US aircraft carriers. No one knows what would happen if the Rocket Force fired DF-21D at the US carrier strike group in unison. If there are no special circumstances, some missiles will always go astray. US escort ships will use shipborne anti missile systems to shoot down some missiles, and electronic interference will also cause some missiles to safely penetrate deep sea. Finally, the remaining part is likely to hit the aircraft carrier or its escort ships. A successful strike is almost certain to result in at least one 'mission kill', rendering US aircraft carriers unusable in the remaining conflicts. It should be emphasized that China's anti aircraft carrier killing firepower is a system that does not rely entirely on specific weapons. Other weapons of China's anti aircraft carrier system include nuclear submarines, conventional submarines, bombers, surface vessels, and land-based cruise missiles. These platforms are capable of launching multiple weapons, with the most important being a sufficiently large cruise missile force. In the case of a sufficient number of missiles, all of these could pose a threat to the survival of aircraft carriers. In a conflict, we can expect China to use all of these systems or decide to use or stop using some weapons based on political and military developments.

Some of these weapons are easier to fight back than others, while others bring higher costs to the Chinese. For example, any surface vessel launching cruise missiles at a US Navy aircraft carrier strike group could be quickly destroyed. Similarly, aircraft and submarines will face very high rates of wear and tear when attacking American ships and facilities. Compared to these weapon systems, ASBM has some significant advantages. The DF-21D relies on land-based operations and is capable of launching attacks on aircraft carrier strike groups at a range farther than any cruise missile. The US shipborne air defense weapons were mainly designed to resist Soviet cruise missile attacks, but ballistic missile attacks are completely different from them. Although the United States can strike its land-based bases, China can protect relatively vulnerable ships and aircraft through active and passive defense measures, providing a more rigorous defense against these targets. The development of DF-21D may have prompted the US Navy to focus on air defense vessels capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, at the expense of the LCS and DDG-1000 destroyers.

But as previously suggested, the United States has considered other options, including SSGN missiles and hypersonic weapons aimed at attacking Chinese bases before launching missiles for the Rocket Force. According to speculation, the United States has also considered other options, including cruise missiles launched by SSGN and launch sites to attack Chinese bases before the Rocket Force launches missiles. It is speculated that the United States is also researching network, electronic, and military means to disrupt China's reconnaissance and communication systems. However, there are still some people who believe that the DF-21 has already made supercarriers obsolete. Although it depends on how Americans use the word "outdated," it may be too early to say so. China has spent a lot of time and resources deciding how to destroy US aircraft carriers, indicating that the Chinese military attaches great importance to carrier combat capabilities. In addition, in the foreseeable future, the number of countries interested and technically capable of developing ASBM systems may be limited to two: China and Russia. Nevertheless, efforts to diversify the United States' strike capabilities certainly make sense. Cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) equipped with ground attack cruise missiles can compensate for many shortcomings while maintaining relatively safe strike capabilities. Amphibious attack ships, used by the US Navy to carry out some tasks of light aircraft carriers, can efficiently perform most of the "strategic impact" missions currently carried out by supercarriers. Having anti-ship ballistic missiles does not necessarily mean that China will use them, even in a conflict. Its purpose is not to use it, but to prevent the United States from joining the war. Secondly, it will prevent the US Navy from actively using its aircraft carrier strike groups in warfare. The sinking of an aircraft carrier may kill 6000 Americans in a few minutes, which may make the US president reconsider intervening in any dispute with China. In addition, ASBM and various other systems will make US Navy admirals very concerned about putting their major assets in danger. Aircraft carriers not only symbolically represent national power, but they themselves are a part of national power. Losing two to three aircraft carriers will greatly weaken the United States' ability to intervene in situations in other parts of the world.However, the DF-21D will face the same issues as various global strike weapons that the United States and other countries have been considering for many years. The credible threat of destroying a US aircraft carrier from a distance is enormous, but no one knows what will happen when the Rocket Force first reflects anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Any medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) launched can carry a nuclear warhead and aim at aircraft carriers or other targets. Within 15 minutes between launch and hit, the Chinese leadership will have to rely on Washington's very calm mind. This largely depends on the level of contact between Beijing and Washington during the escalation of the conflict; If this process involves multiple misunderstandings, then launching missiles may lead to an escalation of conflicts that China is not prepared for. In extreme cases, launching missiles at US aircraft carriers represents a huge risk as it could initiate a decision-making process leading to a full-scale nuclear retaliation by the United States. China still lacks sufficient secondary strike capability against the United States, and it will be difficult to safely deploy its ballistic missile nuclear submarines in conflict situations, which will make the situation more unstable, because the Americans may suspect that the PLA has participated in the idea of "using it or losing it". Even if the United States correctly assesses the nature and purpose of the attack, destroying the aircraft carrier may help the United States engage in the conflict at a deeper level, rather than scaring it away.

The United States is also facing escalating issues. In the past, the dominant "air sea integrated warfare" in many discussions of the US Pacific strategy clearly envisioned a preemptive strike on China's land-based missile facilities. From a combat perspective, this strike has significant implications and represents a serious risk of escalating strategic conflicts. Similarly, China must recognize the intentions behind the US attack and avoid making inappropriate responses, which is exacerbated by China's limited nuclear weapons. ASBM is essentially a maritime denial/anti access weapon, not a maritime weapon. It cannot prevent the US Navy from destroying Chinese ships, but can only change the consequences of the American action. Using this weapon in anger may have serious consequences for both parties.The United States is also facing escalating issues. In the past, the dominant "air sea integrated warfare" in many discussions of the US Pacific strategy clearly envisioned a preemptive strike on China's land-based missile facilities. From a combat perspective, this strike has significant implications and represents a serious risk of escalating strategic conflicts. Similarly, China must recognize the intentions behind the US attack and avoid making inappropriate responses, which is exacerbated by China's limited nuclear weapons. ASBM is essentially a maritime denial/anti access weapon, not a maritime weapon. It cannot prevent the US Navy from destroying Chinese ships, but can only change the consequences of the American action. Using this weapon in anger may have serious consequences for both parties.

Source: Military of Strong Countries