In a sharp rebuke to conventional American naval dominance, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has sounded an alarm that has sent tremors across the Pentagon and strategic think tanks: the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers — symbols of unchallenged power projection — could be rendered obsolete in the opening minutes of a future war with China.
“If 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like?” Hegseth asked, rhetorically, in a recent interview that has gone viral across defense forums. His comments have reignited a fierce debate about whether the age of the floating airbase is nearing its end.
The core of Hegseth’s concern lies in China’s breakneck development of hypersonic missiles — weapons that travel at least five times the speed of sound and can maneuver unpredictably, evading most known missile defense systems. This maneuverability and speed make them especially lethal against large, slow-moving targets like aircraft carriers.
Among the most talked-about is the DF-17, equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). Designed for conventional missions but capable of carrying nuclear payloads, the DF-17 is intended to pierce layered defenses and strike with little warning. Meanwhile, the longer-range DF-27 was successfully tested in 2023. U.S. intelligence leaks describe it as able to “breach all known missile defense systems.”
According to the 2023 China Military Power Report, the DF-17 “will transform the PLA’s missile force.” Analysts warn that its range — estimated at over 2,000 kilometers — makes it ideal for targeting U.S. warships operating in the South China Sea or even the wider Indo-Pacific.
U.S. officials concede China now leads in hypersonic technology, surpassing both Russia and the United States in deployment-ready weapons. In the words of one Pentagon official, “We’re now facing a missile threat that can cross oceans in minutes and strike with pinpoint accuracy.”
Despite being the world’s leading military power, the U.S. has struggled to match China’s advances. Only in recent months have its hypersonic capabilities begun to materialize.
In December 2024, the U.S. Army, in coordination with the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, successfully conducted a full end-to-end test of a hypersonic missile. That was followed by another launch in April 2025, this time from Cape Canaveral, showcasing the Dark Eagle — America’s newest hypersonic weapon.
Yet weapons are only part of the equation. The more urgent question is how to defend against such attacks.
The Pentagon’s answer? HELCAP — the High-Energy Laser Counter-Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Program. Designed to address the challenge of maneuvering, low-flying missiles, HELCAP incorporates advanced laser weaponry, electronic warfare capabilities, and artificial intelligence to detect and neutralize threats at lightning speed.
Still, these systems are in nascent stages. Full deployment is years away. Until then, America’s carriers — including the $13.3 billion USS Gerald R. Ford — remain exposed.
Aircraft carriers have long been the backbone of U.S. global influence. With five acres of flight deck and four squadrons of aircraft, the Ford-class carriers can unleash destruction, deliver humanitarian aid, or impose a no-fly zone, all while sailing under the protection of sovereign U.S. law.
These vessels are not just ships; they are symbols — mobile embassies of power. Their presence deters adversaries, reassures allies, and anchors America’s geopolitical strategy.
But this strategy now faces a structural threat. According to Hegseth, the entire concept of naval power projection may be outdated if aircraft carriers can be neutralized before they even launch a plane.
The evolution of satellite tracking, AI-powered reconnaissance, and ballistic trajectory prediction means near-peer adversaries can locate and potentially target carriers from thousands of miles away.
In Hegseth’s words, “We’ve invested trillions in a platform that might not survive the first round of shots.”
Yet there is another side to the story — one that tempers panic with realism. In 2005, the U.S. Navy conducted SinkEx, a classified experiment to learn how a supercarrier fares under sustained attack. The vessel chosen was the USS America, a 1,000-foot-long Kitty Hawk-class carrier nearing the end of its service life.
Over a span of 25 days, the America was bombarded with every conceivable weapon — torpedoes, bombs, missiles, and explosive charges placed inside and outside the hull. The results were surprising.
Despite the sustained punishment, the carrier refused to sink. It withstood direct hits to the flight deck, hull breaches from underwater detonations, and onboard explosions. Only after weeks of unrelenting assault did the ship finally slip beneath the waves, resting now more than 16,000 feet deep in the Atlantic.
The secret to its resilience lay in internal compartmentalization and a double-layered hull. The America’s structure was designed not just to float — but to keep floating after being attacked. Critical areas were insulated behind layers of steel and air pockets. These features prevented a single point of failure from dooming the ship.
The findings from SinkEx didn’t stay underwater. They became part of the DNA of the Ford-class carriers — the most advanced warships ever built.
These new carriers incorporate reinforced hulls, automated damage control systems, and redundant propulsion mechanisms. They’re not invincible, but they are designed to stay in the fight — even after being hit.
Moreover, carriers no longer sail alone. They move with entire strike groups: destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and aerial drones all working in unison to detect and eliminate threats before they can strike. These integrated defense layers are supplemented by future systems like HELCAP and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense.
Critics may scoff, pointing to the unprecedented speed and maneuverability of hypersonics. But modern military doctrine does not assume perfection — it assumes resilience. The ability to take a hit and keep going may matter more than avoiding one altogether.
Defense experts remain divided.
Proponents of Hegseth’s warning argue that hypersonic weapons represent a “paradigm shift” in warfare, likening them to the advent of nuclear arms or aircraft carriers themselves in WWII. If the U.S. does not adapt fast enough, it could find its global influence dramatically curtailed in a conflict scenario.
Skeptics, however, caution against drawing sweeping conclusions. One successful test or even one new missile does not equal dominance. Warfare is not waged in labs or simulations but amid a chaos of countermeasures, deception, and electronic warfare.
“No weapon is undefeatable,” says Dr. Amanda Kroll, a naval warfare analyst at the RAND Corporation. “It’s only undefeatable if your doctrine hasn’t evolved with the times.”
There is also the deterrence factor. An attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier — legally considered sovereign territory — could trigger massive retaliation, possibly even nuclear. China, aware of this, may brandish its hypersonic arsenal more as a psychological threat than a first-strike weapon.
Nowhere is the risk more acute than in the Indo-Pacific. With American carriers routinely patrolling the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, and Chinese missile installations extending deep into the mainland, the tension is both spatial and strategic.
In any hypothetical conflict over Taiwan, U.S. carrier groups would be among the first targets. The narrow geography, proximity to enemy territory, and dense anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) zones would force the Navy to fight on the back foot.
Military planners have begun adapting. Future strategies involve dispersed carrier groups, decoy vessels, and drone fleets to confuse and saturate enemy sensors. Submarine-launched drones and sea-skimming UAVs are being considered as stand-ins for aircraft launched from supercarriers.
The Navy is also exploring “Lightning Carriers” — smaller amphibious ships equipped with F-35Bs — to supplement traditional flat tops in contested zones. These ships are cheaper, faster to deploy, and less visible than their giant counterparts.
There is another dimension to Hegseth’s comments — one of messaging. By openly acknowledging the vulnerability of aircraft carriers, he may be preparing the public and policymakers for a future pivot away from legacy platforms. Or he may be pressuring Congress to accelerate investments in counter-hypersonic technologies.
Either way, his statements have sparked critical conversations. In the theater of geopolitics, perception shapes policy. If allies believe U.S. carriers can no longer guarantee security, they may hedge. If adversaries believe carriers are soft targets, they may gamble.
The truth likely lies somewhere in between.
The aircraft carrier will not disappear tomorrow. It remains the most potent symbol of U.S. military reach — a 100,000-ton declaration of presence. But its role is changing.
Hypersonic missiles have exposed a vulnerability that can no longer be ignored. Yet history — and the sinking of the USS America — suggests these giants of the sea are more resilient than headlines suggest.
