How Many Hits to Sink a Carrier?

击沉一艘航母需要多少发命中弹？

What would it actually take to sink a 100,000-ton U.S. Navy supercarrier? In this episode, we break down one of the most debated questions in modern naval warfare — how many hits, missiles, or torpedoes it would take to destroy a Ford-class aircraft carrier. Using declassified Soviet documents, open-source intelligence, and real-world examples from naval combat, we analyze China’s DF-21 “carrier killer” missiles, U.S. Navy defensive systems, and the true survivability of the world’s largest warship.

要真正击沉一艘 10 万吨级的美国海军超级航母，到底需要付出什么代价？我们拆解现代海战中最具争议的问题之一 —— 摧毁一艘福特级航空母舰，需要多少次命中、多少枚导弹或鱼雷。借助解密的苏联文件、开源情报以及海战中的真实案例，分析中国的东风21“航母杀手” 导弹、美国海军的防御系统，以及这艘全球最大战舰的真实生存能力。

以下是各国网友的评论：

Peter-Frankston
I'm a Vietnam era ex Navy. Modern torpedoes are scary. They explode under the hull. One was enough to break in half the destroyer I served on. Fortunately, the ship was decommissioned by then and is now a dive wreck. I'm not up to speed with the very latest tech, but in deep water I think the advantage is with the sub. Underwater drones should be able to track a task force. Every ship has its own "electronic fingerprint". Every reasonable size military could identify the aircraft carrier out a task force. One problem would be getting through the destroyer screen. We knew that we were intended to literally get in the way of any attack, be it aerial or subsurface. Sea skimming missiles are a real threat. Ask the RN. If the destroyer screen is fully alert, it should be able to deal with the threat. Fast missiles come over the horizon and give very little time for defences to react. One real risk is missile "spam" where the defences are simply overloaded. I'm glad I'm way too old to serve now and I hope China never declares war in our region. I'd rather not know the answers to the questions posed.

我是越战时期的海军士兵，已经退役。现代鱼雷太吓人了，会在船底爆炸。一枚就够把我服役过的驱逐舰炸成两半。好在那时候这艘船已经退役，现在成了供人潜水探索的沉船残骸。我对最新技术不太了解，但在深海里，优势应该在潜艇这边。水下无人机应该能追踪舰队特遣部队，每艘船都有自己的“电子指纹”。任何有一定规模的军队都能从特遣部队中认出航母。难点是突破驱逐舰组成的防护网。我们当时都知道，我们的使命就是实打实挡住任何攻击，不管是空中来的还是水下的。掠海导弹是真正的威胁，问问英国皇家海军就知道了。如果驱逐舰防护网保持全员戒备，应该能应对这种威胁。高速导弹从地平线外飞来，留给防御系统反应的时间特别短。真正的风险是“导弹饱和攻击”——防御系统会被直接压垮。我很庆幸自己年纪大，已经没法再服役了，也希望中国不会在我们所在的地区宣战。这些问题的答案，我宁愿不知道。

YOUwillNEVERcatchME
I've worked on Navy ships for 23 years. There will be well over 100 killed if a warhead detonation occurs inside that hull

我在海军舰艇上工作了23年。要是弹头在舰体内部引爆，死亡人数肯定会超过100人。

Bob1934-l6d
In the 1970s and 1980s we trained for a Nuclear attack. If we survived all the sprinklers came on. Something to see when a Carrier turns on ALL of the sprinklers to wash down from radiation exposure. By the way after we launched a strike we were told we would last about 30 minutes to an hour in full scale WW3. The USSR plan was a tactical nuke for Carrier battle groups.

上世纪七八十年代，我们接受过核攻击应对训练。要是能活下来，所有洒水装置都会自动启动。航母把所有洒水器都打开，冲洗辐射污染的场景，真是让人印象深刻。对了，我们当时还被告知，一旦发动攻击，在全面第三次世界大战中，我们大概只能坚持30分钟到1小时。苏联当时的计划是，用战术核武器攻击航母战斗群。

LeadPaint1
Are all the 2 meter thermal exhaust ports covered?

那些两米宽的散热排气口都盖好了吗？

WilliamNeacy
If a carrier gets to the point of relying on it's physical armor, a systemic failure has occurred. Failure of leadership, training, tactics, or logistics.

如果一艘航母沦落到要靠物理装甲来防御，那就说明已经出现了系统性故障——可能是指挥、训练、战术或后勤方面出了问题。

WilliamNeacy
There's a reason we don't armor our ships like WW2 battleships. ASCM's are so effective that it makes much more sense to avoid getting hit in the first place.

我们不再像二战战列舰那样给舰艇装厚重装甲，是有原因的。反舰巡航导弹的威力太大了，所以从一开始就避免被击中，才是更合理的做法。

ichardsMiscCorner
If China were actively hunting a carrier in a shooting war, I'd assume 100 incoming would be the absolute minimum they'd fire off. What would the $$ tradeoff be? how many missiles could china launch that would equate to the 20 or so billion in a carrier battle group? how long would it take the US to replace a modern carrier battle group?
This is where "combat" experience kind of falls apart for even the vaunted USN. China wouldn't just attack with ballistics, they would attack with 4 vectors at once a) ballistic b) hypersonic glide c) sea skimming terminal phase mach 3-5 YJ18's d) torpedos .. not to mention unmanned craft. Even if 3 type 055's decided to go carrier hunting and had type 52's to do area defense, that's what? 340 missiles just from sea-launched platforms?
China is observant. They saw that a) the Houthis caused concern but didn't accomplish much, b) to defeat the Iron Dome, you had to saturate it.
Not that I agree with much that Hegsworth states, but he's probably not far wrong that China's area denial would probably at least mission kill a few carriers in hours.
Also keep in mind that the protection of the carrier wouldn't survive the initial seconds, as even if a hypersonic missile is intercepted, the debris will rip through burkes, etc, and mission kill the battle group and leave the carrier on its own.
I honestly don't think China would care if they sunk a carrier - taking it out of action with the state of the US naval yards would be more than enough.
This is all hypothetical, of course, because if China and the US ever got this hot, all options, including nuclear, would probably be on the table - and none of us would win then.

如果在实战中，中国要主动搜寻并攻击一艘航母，我觉得他们至少会发射100枚导弹，这是最低限度。这里的成本权衡是什么？要发射多少枚导弹，成本才相当于一个价值约200亿美元的航母战斗群？美国要多久才能替换一个现代化的航母战斗群？

即便是号称战力强悍的美国海军，在这一点上，所谓的“作战经验”也没什么用。中国不会只靠弹道导弹攻击，他们会同时从四个方向发起攻击：a)弹道导弹 b)高超音速滑翔弹 c)末端掠海飞行、速度3-5马赫的鹰击-18导弹 d)鱼雷，更不用说无人作战平台了。就算只有3艘055型驱逐舰去执行猎歼航母任务，再配上052型驱逐舰负责区域防御，那光海基发射平台就能发射多少导弹？足足340枚啊。

中国很善于观察。他们看到了两点：a)胡塞武装虽然造成了一些恐慌，但没取得什么实质性成果 b)要突破铁穹防御系统，必须用饱和攻击。

我虽然不太同意赫格斯沃思（Hegsworth）的大部分观点，但他说中国的区域拒止能力可能在几小时内就让好几艘航母失去作战能力，这大概没说错。

还要记住，航母的防护在最初几秒就会失效——就算高超音速导弹被拦截，产生的碎片也会击穿伯克级驱逐舰等护航舰艇，让整个战斗群失去作战能力，只留下航母孤立无援。

说实话，我觉得中国根本不在乎能不能击沉航母——以美国海军造船厂的现状，只要让航母失去作战能力，就已经足够了。

当然，这一切都是假设。因为如果中美关系紧张到这个地步，包括核武器在内的所有选项可能都会被摆上台面，到时候没人能赢。

AndyViant
Estimated cost of a DF21 is about $10 Million, so 100 missiles incoming = $1 Billion. A Ford Class carrier is worth about $13.3 Billion.
So It's an order of magnitude win to the Chinese if it takes 100 Missiles at that price.
Obviously cheaper shorter range missiles or torpedos would greatly improve that return on investment. Even a mission kill without sinking the carrier, so long as the repair time was long enough would be considered a win at that exchange rate. A mission kill might realistically only need 3 or 4 hits, rather than the 10 or so to sink it.
But more importantly the construction lead time on one Ford class would mean the war would be over before a replacement was built, unlike replacement missiles. USS John. F. Kennedy is going to take 12 years to build.
This is where the economics of extending the life of the Nimitz class which are still superior to anything anyone else is running has to be considered.
It's also where the economics of erm unconventional weapons need to be considered. If you've got the US throwing that many super carriers at one opponent, then the normal rules of warfare 1946-2025 have well and truly gone out the window.

东风-21导弹的预估成本约为1000万美元一枚，所以100枚导弹就是10亿美元。一艘福特级航母的价值约为133亿美元。所以要是用100枚导弹就能搞定一艘福特级航母，从成本量级来看，中国是大赚的。

显然，更便宜的短程导弹或鱼雷，能大大提高这种投资回报率。就算不用击沉航母，只要让它失去作战能力，而且修复时间足够长，按照这个交换比，也算是一次胜利。实际上，让航母失去作战能力可能只需要3到4次命中，而击沉它大概需要10次左右。

但更重要的是，福特级航母的建造周期太长了——等新航母造好，战争可能都已经结束了，导弹的替换可不会这么久。“约翰·F·肯尼迪”号航母的建造时间要长达12年。

这时候就必须考虑延长尼米兹级航母服役年限的经济性了，毕竟尼米兹级的性能依然领先其他国家的所有航母。

同时，也得考虑非传统武器的经济性。如果美国要动用这么多超级航母去对付一个对手，那1946年到2025年以来的常规战争规则，就彻底失效了。

ferdievanschalkwyk1669
They are extremely resilliant to sinking. But making them combat ineffective for the duration of a conflict, will not take many hits.

航母的抗沉性极强，但要让它们在整个冲突期间失去作战能力，并不需要命中太多次。

phil20_20
Military structures are much more tough than an average civilian one. We had to demo a World War Two hanger at an airport, and the wrecking ball just bounced off the concrete. We had to get in there with welding torches and cut it apart. It took months to finish the job

军用建筑比普通民用建筑坚固得多。我们曾经要拆除一个机场里的二战时期机库，结果“拆楼球” 撞在混凝土上直接弹了回来。最后只能用焊枪进去切割拆解，花了好几个月才完成。

kennethng8346
I'm sure when the Chinese were testing that carrier in the desert the US was observing them.
Congrats, you are the first person I've seen that mentioned that Hypersonics have a blind spot on the way in that stops communications and radar tracking.

我敢肯定，中国在沙漠里测试航母模型的时候，美国一直在监视。恭喜你，你是我第一个看到的、提到高超音速武器在飞行途中存在“盲区”的人——这个盲区会导致通信中断、雷达无法追踪。

r3771-n2r
you don't need to sink a carrier you need to destroy its ability to launch aircraft. Sufficient damage to the flight deck, the elevators etc. Much lower bar than sinking it.

没必要击沉航母，只要破坏它的飞机起降能力就行。只要把飞行甲板、升降机等设备破坏到一定程度就够了，这比击沉它的难度低多了。

alykkw
1) From the recent South China Sea conflicts, it is evident that US aircraft carrier position is transparent to PLA. Although China never mentioned how they did this, we can speculate that it is either through AW-10 unmanned aerial vehicle or through satellite. We know that China has recently launched satellites with AI quantum computer that can analyze super high resolution pictures taken at real time. So can easily determine and track an aircraft carrier.
2) China has overcome the ionization blackout barrier, can track supersonic missiles and communicate with them. i.e. the missile can receive aircraft carrier location co-ordinates from satellite in real time.
3) The terminal speed of DF21D is Mach 10, not Mach 5. So is YJ21. From launch to target hit is only 5 minutes.
4) Due to ionization blackout barrier and changing projectile, it is not possible for US missile defence system to intercept DF21D or YJ21.
5) PLA has already collected the radar signature of different US warships. So it is not possible for the missile to mistaken a decoy with the aircraft carrier.
6) How many hit to sink a carrier? According to unverified sources, a year ago it was said that PLA strategy was to launch 8 nos of YJ21 to target a carrier. Recently, this figure changed to 2 only. That means that PLA believe 1 can sink a carrier. 1 more to play safe.
7) DF26 is equipped with sonar sensor. Which means that instead of direct hit from the air, it is also designed for acting like a torpedo at its terminal stage.

1) 从近期南海冲突来看，美军航母的位置对中国人民解放军来说显然是透明的。虽然中国从未透露过具体方式，但我们可以推测，要么是通过AW-10无人机，要么是通过卫星。要知道，中国最近发射了搭载人工智能量子计算机的卫星，能实时分析超高分辨率图像，所以很容易锁定并追踪航母。

2) 中国已经突破了“电离黑障”难题，能够追踪超音速导弹并与它通信。也就是说，导弹能实时接收卫星传来的航母坐标。

3) 东风-21D的末端速度是10马赫，不是5马赫，鹰击-21也是如此。从发射到命中目标，只需要5分钟。

4) 由于电离黑障和导弹变轨技术，美国导弹防御系统不可能拦截东风-21D或鹰击-21。

5) 中国人民解放军已经收集了美军不同舰艇的雷达特征，所以导弹不会把诱饵当成航母。

6) 击沉一艘航母需要多少次命中？根据未经证实的消息，一年前有说法称，解放军的策略是发射8枚鹰击-21攻击一艘航母。最近这个数字改成了2枚，这意味着解放军认为1枚就能击沉航母，多发射1枚是为了保险。

7) 东风-26配备了声呐传感器，这意味着它除了可以从空中直接命中目标，在末端阶段还能像鱼雷一样运作。

danthemansmail
They may be hard to sink, but not so hard to cripple. Three years in a drydock and half a billion dollars in repairs is a pretty good second prize.

航母可能很难被击沉，但要让它瘫痪却没那么难。让它在船坞里修三年，花掉5亿美元维修费，这也算是个不错的“次优战果”了。

hindugoat2302
USA carrier group had to retreat from the primitive Houthi's, because if they did manage to sink a carrier, the USA navy would lose all credibility as an unstoppable force.
they cant risk losing 1 ever, for the same reason

美国航母战斗群不得不从装备简陋的胡塞武装那里撤退，因为要是胡塞武装真的击沉了一艘航母，美国海军作为“不可阻挡之力”的信誉就会彻底扫地。出于同样的原因，他们永远不敢冒损失一艘航母的风险。

Buck-w3j
The first problem is that a lot of the defenses for mach 10 missiles relies on early detection; if the satellites are taken out, which is entirely possible and not even that hard, then early detection goes away. The second is that it doesn't all have to happen at a single moment in time. The Chinese can fire 60-90 missiles at a time for days and days on end. I'm sure they've done the math, and I'm quite sure they have enough launchers and missiles to keep up the attack for as long as it takes. So i think a more interesting question might be, what if one or two or even three of our carriers are sunk or otherwise not battle ready.

第一个问题是，针对10马赫导弹的很多防御手段都依赖早期探测；要是卫星被摧毁——这完全有可能，而且其实并不难——早期探测能力就没了。第二个问题是，攻击不一定非要在同一时间完成。中国可以一次发射60到90枚导弹，并且连续攻击好几天。我敢肯定他们已经算过了，也有足够的发射装置和导弹，能一直保持攻击态势。所以我觉得更有意思的问题是：如果我们的一两艘甚至三艘航母被击沉，或者失去作战能力，会怎么样？我们会完蛋吗？还是说有应急恢复计划？

PitFriend1
When the Navy scuttled the much smaller USS Oriskany to make it into an artificial reef it took 22 carefully placed 500 pound demolition charges and that still took 37 minutes to sink. And this was against a ship that was already prepped to sink so watertight hatches were locked open and much of the structure was weakened, and it also didn’t have damage control teams fixng anything. While multiple missile hits could most likely put a Nimitz class carrier out of action but it’s unlikely to sink.

海军为了把体型小得多的“奥里斯坎尼”号改装成人工礁而将其凿沉时，用了22枚精心放置的500磅爆破炸药，即便如此，船还是花了37分钟才沉没。而且这艘船已经提前做好了沉没准备——水密舱门都被固定在开启状态，大部分结构也已被削弱，还没有损管团队进行修复。所以就算有多枚导弹命中，尼米兹级航母很可能会失去作战能力，但要击沉它却不太可能。

dracon501
The immediate US response to losing a carrier would be total war on the responsible country.

美国要是损失一艘航母，第一反应就是对肇事国发动全面战争。

shanerooney7288
I think by the point of sinking carriers, total war was already implied.

我觉得一旦到了击沉航母的地步，就已经意味着全面战争了。

mikebrant192
I was an Air Force brat, and my Dad was stationed in Clark AFB in the Philippines. I was at Subic Bay for a high school soccer game, and saw Enterprise come to dock at the carrier pier, still smoking. Later, I enlisted in the Navy and served aboard Enterprise - in a space over the fantail. There was a pair of circular weldments - one in the overhead and another in the deck directly below, -the path of a hot Zuni rocket that caused that very fire.

我是空军子弟，我爸爸当年驻扎在菲律宾的克拉克空军基地。有一次我去苏比克湾参加高中足球比赛，看到“企业”号航母驶进航母码头时，还在冒着烟。后来我参军加入海军，就在“企业”号上服役——岗位在舰尾上方的一个区域。那里有一对圆形焊接痕迹，一个在天花板上，另一个就在正下方的甲板上，那是一枚灼热的祖尼火箭弹造成那场大火时留下的轨迹。

继续阅读：航母   东风21   导弹

此文由 三泰虎 编辑，未经允许不得转载！：首页 > 资讯 » 击沉美国一艘10万吨级的航母，需要命中多少发东风21导弹