Iranian missiles rained down on U.S. carriers during Operation Epic Fury, yet advanced defenses repelled every single one, proving carriers remain formidable.
By Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven
The question of U.S. Navy carrier vulnerability has essentially been made famous in recent years due to the advent of China’s long-range, precision-guided anti-ship “carrier-killer” missile known as the DF-26, a weapon which has inspired some to posit that perhaps carriers themselves have become obsolete by virtue of their vulnerability.
Are large carrier platforms still relevant and effective in a modern threat environment consisting of long-range, precision-guided anti-ship missiles? Certainly this remains an open question to some extent, yet Operation Epic Fury has offered new evidence that indeed carrier and carrier strike groups may prove successful in defending these kinds of weapons. Emerging details from Operation Epic Fury reveal that the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers and aircraft carrier strike groups were consistently targeted by Iranian cruise missiles, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Despite this consistent targeting and Iranian claims, “zero” carriers and large Navy warships supporting Epic Fury .. were hit.
“They shot 100 missiles at one of our aircraft carriers, one of the biggest ships in the world, actually. And of 101 missiles shot, every single one of them was knocked down. So you think of it, think of what that means. 101 missiles, highly sophisticated, very fast missiles shot, and of 101, all 101 were shot down, and now for the most part lying at the bottom of the sea,” President Trump stated, as quoted in Naval News.
While carrier defenses have always been critical to the Navy, the operational concern has been taken to new heights in recent years due to the arrival of these Chinese “carrier-killer” missiles reportedly capable of traveling 2,000 miles to attack carriers positioned off the coast. The PLA’s DF-26, for example, is reported to operate with an ability to track and destroy large carriers from distances up to 2,000 miles off shore. Iran is known to possess cruise missiles with precision guidance as well, in the form of inertial measurement systems and GPS, yet it is totally unclear if Iran’s missile guidance technology in any way resembles Chinese capabilities.
Carriers Obviously “Not” Obsolete
For many years now, the existence of these weapons have driven variations of different arguments about the extent to which long-range, precision-guided Chinese anti-ship “carrier killer” missiles could make US Navy carriers obsolete or at least very vulnerable and challenged to operate at distances within reach of attack. Is this true? Certainly, the Navy seems to recognize the seriousness of this threat and is fast evolving smaller, faster maritime warfare platforms, a growing sphere of unmanned systems, and an ability to extend fighter-jet attack range from distances where carriers might be less vulnerable. We’ve all heard of Chinese “carrier-killer” missiles as they have been widely discussed and “hyped” by Chinese government-backed newspapers.
What about Iran? Iranian weapons attacks related to this question have been on display in recent weeks during Operation Epic Fury … and despite Iranian claims .. “no” carriers were hit. What weapons might Iran have used, and what kinds of U.S. Navy ship defenses may have proven effective against these attacks?
Iranian Cruise Missiles
An interesting research essay published by Iran Watch lists two new, testing and “possibly deployed” long-range Iranian cruise missiles which “might” have been used, the Soumar and the Hoveizeh. The Soumar missile, which is estimated to operate at a range up to 3,000km, reaches a distance which would hold US Navy Carrier Strike Groups at risk. The Hoveizeh is potentially more current as it is described as a variant of the Soumar family and capable of hitting targets out to 839miles. Perhaps of greatest significance, the Hoveizeh is cited as a precision weapon able to use inertial navigation systems to hit targets within as little as one meter of accuracy. This claim may or may not be true, yet INS technology of this kind does seem to exist. The Hoveizeh also operates in “sea-skimming” mode like many anti-ship cruise missiles in order to fly below the radar aperture and avoid detection while en route to a target. How dangerous are these missiles? If these weapons were used, they appear to have been stopped, jammed or intercepted, according to Hegseth.
U.S. Navy Carriers “Ruggedized”
Perhaps of greatest significance, the US Navy has in recent years made massive efforts to “ruggedize” its carrier force, add high-tech elements to its system of layered defenses and develop new tactics and concepts of operation sufficient to counter the Chinese threat. Some of these efforts include the addition of “refueler” drones such the emerging MQ-25 Stingray carrier launched drone refueler. This new system can potentially refuel fighter jets such as an F-35C or F/A-18 Super Hornet hundreds of miles away from the carrier it launched from to greatly increase mission dwell time and overall “range” enabling air-attacks from further offshore. In these instances, carriers could hold mainland China at risk from safe stand-off ranges greater than 2,000 miles off shore …. Ranges of course out of the striking range of the DF-26 or Iranian Hoveizeh. While the Stingray was reportedly not operational in Epic Fury, indications are that the drone refueler will arrive in 2026. It seems more likely that ship-based Aegis radar may have been used to track and “intercept” incoming Iranian missiles. In the case of cruise missiles, warship defenses such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Block II can operate in “sea-skimming” mode in order to intercept anti-ship cruise missiles flying at lower altitudes parallel to the ocean surface to elude ship-based radar.
Warships Defend Carriers
While US Navy carriers have for years been capable of some self-defense, they typically operate in Carrier Strike Groups in which service destroyers and cruisers provide protections to carriers with advanced Aegis Combat Systems radar, interceptor missiles and forward-operating reconnaissance platforms such as ship-launched helicopters and drones.
Layered Ship Defenses
Certainly the specifics of many ship-defenses are likely not available for security reasons, the Navy has for years discussed critical elements of its layered defense systems in a general way. Of course nearby US Navy Arleigh Burke-class DDG 51 destroyers are armed with SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 interceptor missiles capable of blanketing and protecting short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles with precision tracking and intercept technology designed to “knock” incoming enemy anti-ship missiles out of the sky.
In more recent years, the Navy has been innovating and refining a new generation of upgraded ship defenses, many of which are integrated onto carriers. Of course ships have the Rolling Airframe Missile, yet US Navy destroyers and carriers each have different combinations of a number of additional key ship defenses. Carriers do not have Vertical Launch Tubes able to fire SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 interceptors, yet they are often networked with supporting destroyers and operate with EW, Close-In-Weapons Systems, SeaRAM missiles and even “lasers” to a growing degree.
Close-In Ship Defenses
Some defenses such as SeaRAM, Standard Missiles and certain lasers are only on Destroyers, yet many carriers are armed with RAM, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles Block II and Close-in-Weapons Systems (CIWS) which use phalanx area-weapons to blanket surface and air areas with hundreds of defensive projectiles per second. Designed as the closest-in-defenses, CIWS can knock out small boats, drones and some incoming projectiles. Both SeaRAM and CIWS have been upgraded in the past 10 years as well; Raytheon has engineered SeaRAM to reach longer ranges and improved guidance, and CIWS has been upgraded into a "1B" variant capable of defending ocean surface areas from small boats in addition to countering air threats.
Navy carriers are also armed with decoys and electronic countermeasures designed to throw attacking torpedoes off course and, in some cases, “jam” the electronic guidance systems of incoming enemy weapons. Navy destroyers, and possibly carriers to some extent, are increasingly armed with an advanced EW technology called Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block 3 (SEWIP) which uses a new generation of advanced electronic countermeasures sufficient to identify and “jam” or “disable” incoming anti-ship missiles and other weapons.
Networked Warship Missile Defense
All of these layered defenses, however, are increasingly enabled by “networking” technologies designed to share threat information, target-track loop data and radio signal communications between ships, drones, helicopters, aircraft or surfacing submarines. Advanced ship defenses can now operate beyond the horizon using networked aerial nodes or gateways positioned in the sky. For example, US Navy Hawkeye surveillance planes and even F-35s function as critical gateways within the Navy’s now-deployed Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system. In service on destroyers for nearly 10 years, NIFC-CA connects ship-based command and control systems and Aegis radar with aerial gateways to identify and “see” threats from beyond the detectable radar aperture of ship-based systems. Using an aerial gateway, ship commanders can identify and destroy incoming enemy anti-ship missiles at distances beyond the radar horizon. This gives ship commanders a much improved time-window within which to decide which countermeasure to use or how best to implement ship-defenses or counter attacks. A critical element of NIFC-CA is a networked SM-6 interceptor missile which can, through the integrated system, be launched to intercept and destroy attacking anti-ship missiles at otherwise unreachable ranges.
In recent years, the SM-6 has been made increasing capable with what Raytheon weapons developers have described as a “dual-mode” seeker, meaning software upgrades enable the missile itself to send its own forward “ping” and adjust course in flight to hit moving targets … without needing to rely upon a ship-based illuminator.
Years of Progress
The implementation of NIFC-CA and many of these other ship-defense upgrades and additions go back more than 10-years to the Navy’s fleet-wide Distributed Lethality Program. This effort, begun more than 10-years ago, represented a sweeping initiative to better arm the surface fleet with offensive and defensive weapons to increase great power, “blue-water” major maritime warfare scenarios. These adjustments were critical to the service, and the impact of many of them is seen today, as the service sought to transition from the kinds of counter-terrorism, counter-piracy kinds of missions primarily focused upon during the 15-years of counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. While these missions, which included operations such as Visit Board Search and Seizure, are still important to Navy concepts of operation, they have been massively supplemented by vastly improved and upgraded ship-integrated weaponry and defenses. The results of this strategic effort can now be more fully seen across the force, given that surface ships and carriers operate with new generations of layered ship defenses sufficient to better protect carriers at risk of anti-ship missile attack. Specifically, for example, a Chinese DF-26 or Iranian cruise missile could be seen at much greater stand-off ranges with NIFC-CA, advanced EW might detect its electronic signal, deconflict elements of the electromagnetic spectrum and “jam” its guidance technology or perhaps even “laser” weapons able to incinerate approaching anti-ship missiles from surface ships or even aircraft.
Kris Osborn is 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.