How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Moderator: MOD_Command
How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
I keep searching for a strategic 'value' of one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, that if one of them get sunk by enemy's attack, then how US will react for revenge?
It's also for one of my CMANO scenario project, that there's supermassive (over 100 frontline principal ships) naval warfare settle in pacific ocean with story background and fictional political backdrops. I still cannot be certain what US will do if those so-called 'carrier-killers' from China really took a mission-kill to a Nimitz.
Will it be a salvo of minutemen at two or three major cities of China? Or an entire Chinese navy with nuclear warheads? Or summon EVERY SINGLE Nimitzs to surround China sea?
Can anyone enlighten me about it?
It's also for one of my CMANO scenario project, that there's supermassive (over 100 frontline principal ships) naval warfare settle in pacific ocean with story background and fictional political backdrops. I still cannot be certain what US will do if those so-called 'carrier-killers' from China really took a mission-kill to a Nimitz.
Will it be a salvo of minutemen at two or three major cities of China? Or an entire Chinese navy with nuclear warheads? Or summon EVERY SINGLE Nimitzs to surround China sea?
Can anyone enlighten me about it?
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
If anybody sinks one its an act of war so all involved nations would find themselves planning and executing something strategic rather than focused on one key loss. I don't think the response would be instantly nuclear unless the CSG was hit by one or we've elected Dr. Manhattan.
I'd expect a surge of at least 2-3 carriers and large numbers of USAF aircraft to friendly bases but the rate would depend on time, distance and planning.
Mike
I'd expect a surge of at least 2-3 carriers and large numbers of USAF aircraft to friendly bases but the rate would depend on time, distance and planning.
Mike
-
- Posts: 2418
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2014 1:53 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
I would imagine either a massive conventional strike, or nuclear war. I don't expect that if the nuclear option was taken that it would be a limited strike, I think it would tend towards the total annihilation end of the spectrum.
Really depends on the circumstances: how, when and where the carrier was sunk, who is in power in the USA, and what the strategic backdrop is (is it a surprise attack? Is the US already at war with China?) would be the first variables to consider.
Really depends on the circumstances: how, when and where the carrier was sunk, who is in power in the USA, and what the strategic backdrop is (is it a surprise attack? Is the US already at war with China?) would be the first variables to consider.

RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Interesting, I will think about it. Though I am still certain a loss of nuclear-powered unit can be considered as nuclear strike, even it's conventionally killed.
As for the political backdrop and scenario setting, I will propose it at 'Mods and Scenarios' sub-forum.
As for the political backdrop and scenario setting, I will propose it at 'Mods and Scenarios' sub-forum.
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Well... lets think about this.
If a Nimitz class carrier (or even an LHD when you look at it) is ever sunk, you'd probably be talking about more Americans dying in that attack than died on September 11th. Almost everyone in the country would either know someone who died in that attack or know someone who knows someone.
It would be a major historical event, and certainly merit a military response.
The question is what sort?
Unless it was sunk with a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons would be off the table.
They probably would not send the whole fleet of CVNs to attack the aggressor nation, there's practical considerations which would prevent it, and if one CVN was sunk, what's to stop them from sinking more? Also, in the case of China, you don't need to surround them with CVNs. There's land bases all up and down Japan and the Pacific. They probably would send several carriers, though, just not all of them. Assuming the sank the forward deployed CSG, it might take a while for the replacement carrier plus a few more to flow into the theater.
Once all the new carriers are in place, you'd probably seen a combination of USN, USAF and USMC aircraft attacking military targets throughout China and in the Pacific. The precise nature of those targets depends a lot on the situation. Also, Article 5 of NATO might be invoked (an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all of them), potentially drawing the Europeans into it. If American fighters are flying from Japanese territory then China would attack Japan, so they'd be drawn into it.
All in all, expect a HUGE MESS of a war in the Pacific best avoided.
If a Nimitz class carrier (or even an LHD when you look at it) is ever sunk, you'd probably be talking about more Americans dying in that attack than died on September 11th. Almost everyone in the country would either know someone who died in that attack or know someone who knows someone.
It would be a major historical event, and certainly merit a military response.
The question is what sort?
Unless it was sunk with a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapons would be off the table.
They probably would not send the whole fleet of CVNs to attack the aggressor nation, there's practical considerations which would prevent it, and if one CVN was sunk, what's to stop them from sinking more? Also, in the case of China, you don't need to surround them with CVNs. There's land bases all up and down Japan and the Pacific. They probably would send several carriers, though, just not all of them. Assuming the sank the forward deployed CSG, it might take a while for the replacement carrier plus a few more to flow into the theater.
Once all the new carriers are in place, you'd probably seen a combination of USN, USAF and USMC aircraft attacking military targets throughout China and in the Pacific. The precise nature of those targets depends a lot on the situation. Also, Article 5 of NATO might be invoked (an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all of them), potentially drawing the Europeans into it. If American fighters are flying from Japanese territory then China would attack Japan, so they'd be drawn into it.
All in all, expect a HUGE MESS of a war in the Pacific best avoided.
ORIGINAL: Dysta
I keep searching for a strategic 'value' of one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, that if one of them get sunk by enemy's attack, then how US will react for revenge?
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Some hawks in the US government (*cough* McCain) would cry havoc and let slip the nuclear dogs of war int hat moment. And in reality, they are far too likely to win the heated internal debate, since China's nuclear deterrence is too weak to actually deter the US from launching a nuclear first strike to disarm China, and follow on strikes against critical military and industrial targets. China's minimum deterrence doctrine backfires the moment she has to deter an US, that is literally foaming with anger, during a shooting war.
And China knows this. So, it is inconceivable that China would risk war with the US before she has completed her race towards nuclear parity. So, we have to assume that every sinking of an USN CVBG would happen after China has established MAD with the US. In that case, the US response to a sinking wouldnt be an immediate nuclear strike anymore, but ramping up more conventional assets for a prolonged war.
And China knows this. So, it is inconceivable that China would risk war with the US before she has completed her race towards nuclear parity. So, we have to assume that every sinking of an USN CVBG would happen after China has established MAD with the US. In that case, the US response to a sinking wouldnt be an immediate nuclear strike anymore, but ramping up more conventional assets for a prolonged war.
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
If they were to plan an attack on a carrier, I'd have to believe they'd attack Kadena and any other close airbases also
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Without a doubt the Chinese carrier (and escorts) would be sunk without question. There is always at least 1 or more frontline subs hovering near the Liaoning. She immediately becomes a wreck on the ocean floor. As to the remaining response, it would indeed depend on many factors. If it was an unprovoked or surprise attack, this would at the very least be seen as a blatant act of war, and would warrant an enormous surge of firepower all the way to borders of China. If the attack was nuclear in nature, I'd have to believe that there would be a nuclear response as well. Most probably an SLBM strike against a military target, probably in the South China Sea, like Woody Island or the new Fiery Cross man-made reef. And then there would be a wait-and-see period. There may be a chance for de-escalation after that, but if China retaliated with further nuclear provocation, particularly resulting in significant civilian casualties- I believe that the US would more than likely destroy a more significant strategic target like Shanghai. After that, it's anyone's guess, but suffice to say the world would definitely be a very different and possibly very bleak place afterwards. All I can say is, I would hope that the government of the PRC would avoid such foolishness if at all possible because the horrors that would be unleashed as a result would be too monstrous to even contemplate.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Assuming it stays conventional, the response would certainly not be with 'all' other CVN's. The advantage of having the number that the USN has is flexibility. There are some real concerns which would keep a CVG in the Atlantic if not two, one in the Med or IO. The USN fielded 8 in the Gulf War which was impressive, but it took a couple months to assemble them, and the global threat was minimal.
The response would undoubtedly include massive USAF effort and allies to support the carriers. Would be interesting.
B
The response would undoubtedly include massive USAF effort and allies to support the carriers. Would be interesting.
B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
McCain or not...I can't see any U.S. Leader advocating nuclear retaliation just because a carrier as sunk....the only exception being if it was sunk by a nuclear strike.
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Again, I'd say that was largely based on context. Sink a carrier out of the blue, without provocation? I would not bet a large amount of money that the command authority would not nuke a military target, if a large number of civilian casualties could be avoided. If it was done with nuclear weapons, I'd say that a nuclear response was almost assured, without a great deal of deliberation.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
-
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:38 pm
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
The lack of a powerful Anti Ship Missile in most of the surface fleet still bothers me. I don't know how much damage a Standard Missile could do (I guess if it can knock out radars and such, its a mission kill at the least). Of course the Air Fleet can bring out some different weapons.
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
I suspect the loadout of the nearest two SSGN TLAMs would make a mess of the major naval facilities used by the nation that launched the attack. I also suspect that any naval vessels and any national flag vessels of that nation would be sinking as soon as an SSN could get within range. After that? What are 5000 American lives and a few billion dollar carrier with air wing worth? How many Chinese/Indian/Pakistani/Iranian/Russian vessels and other things get destroyed? I suspect that most countries, esp. China and Iran, will missunderestimate an American response to a sneak attack if that is how it happens.
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
If an American ship were sunk with nuclear weapons, is it possible that America would respond with a very limited nuclear response--i.e., nuclear weapons used against enemy ships and subs but NOT against land targets (and, therefore, almost certainly civilians). After all, if America does not at least match the use of nuclear force, does it perhaps make it more likely that a second nuclear strike might be made because it looks like we're willing to let people get away with it?
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
It would be one huge mess. All the responses so far are focused on a purely military response by the US which in turn would certainly spark a response by the Chinese and possibly the USSR and North Korea?
At this scale and level you could expect the Chinese to launch cyber attacks against the US. The open border policy of the US and lax immigration enforcement has IMO allowed sleeper agents to slip into the US and its reasonable to assume they occupy key positions in technology and/or have access to other industries where they could do significant damage if activated.
If you think the recent stock market chaos tied to the economic slowdown in China is bad, its peanuts compared to what would happen if a shooting war between the US and China began.
Then there is space. We all know how dependent the US is on space based reconnaissance, communication and GPS. The Chinese know that too and its no secret they are working and more than likely have some means to attack US space based assets.
Let's also not forget the close ties between China and countries like Iran. Do you think radical Islamic elements are isolated or have infiltrated all parts of the West including America?
Yes, indeed one huge mess.
At this scale and level you could expect the Chinese to launch cyber attacks against the US. The open border policy of the US and lax immigration enforcement has IMO allowed sleeper agents to slip into the US and its reasonable to assume they occupy key positions in technology and/or have access to other industries where they could do significant damage if activated.
If you think the recent stock market chaos tied to the economic slowdown in China is bad, its peanuts compared to what would happen if a shooting war between the US and China began.
Then there is space. We all know how dependent the US is on space based reconnaissance, communication and GPS. The Chinese know that too and its no secret they are working and more than likely have some means to attack US space based assets.
Let's also not forget the close ties between China and countries like Iran. Do you think radical Islamic elements are isolated or have infiltrated all parts of the West including America?
Yes, indeed one huge mess.
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Thanks for all your responses.
It is purely a military reaction, so technically, the AI/player on US side have every right to retaliate in any measure. All of those opinions might be realistic, so it is beyond any estimation what kind of retaliation is the most possible.
Proposal is about to come out anyway.
It is purely a military reaction, so technically, the AI/player on US side have every right to retaliate in any measure. All of those opinions might be realistic, so it is beyond any estimation what kind of retaliation is the most possible.
Proposal is about to come out anyway.
- AdmiralSteve
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:32 pm
- Location: Red Bluff, CA
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Several people have used words and phrases such as "huge mess" and "it depends" and that's about it in a nutshell but what about the whole nut tree picture? The USS Stark FFG-31 attack, as an example, was a "huge mess" for decades afterwards. Dead and injured sailors, $140 million in damage, CO relieved of his command and Iraq had agreed to terms of a settlement in 2011 for the attack.
Again with the Stark, I believe that their was not an military response because of the circumstances, i.e., Stark was near a war zone, single aircraft with pilot who possibly was not trained well on nighttime ASuW attacks, and improper id'ing of the Stark when the pilot was possibly seeking out a Cypriot supply vessel name "Zeus" which was attacked earlier in the day by Iraqi aircraft. This is where the "it depends" part comes in.
If a US carrier was transiting the South China Sea 300 miles south of Hong Kong and was hit by a Chinese DF-21D, I could imagine a much more stern response would arise from the US if thousands were killed and missing from the carrier. Having said that, I don't believe that the Chinese would strike in that scenario since that is clearly in international waters. If the carrier ventured a bit closer to the mainland, in the Taiwan Strait or the Yellow Sea, I believe that the Chinese would be rather careful with an attack. AEW aircraft would have been launched, surface vessels would have been already in transit, everyone would have been on high alert if the carrier was not expected to be in that area, such as in a port visit to Hong Kong.
If a carrier was sunk in international waters by a single missile, I would think that a retaliatory nuclear strike would clearly NOT be an option. Sanctions, holding of financial instruments within the US financial system, trade embargo's, etc, would be the primary weapon the US would have. The US has seen unfathomable amounts of money go into wars since the Gulf War in 1991 including the rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure and I don't see the US with a lot of military strike options in that scenario.
In the event of a well orchestrated, planned and premeditated attacks on a carrier anywhere in the South China Sea, I would expect some military strikes; SSGN's near Taiwan (since it could be used as a "hostage" by China), at-least one CVSG near the Philippines and one near Japan/South Korea in the East Sea. Not being a strike planner, I could only guess that long range ASuW facilities such as DF-21D sites, PLAN bases, bunkers and weapons manufacturing sites would be targeted. I also believe that the US would attempt some form of diplomatic stranglehold on China with aforementioned embargo's and seizing of assets here in the US. I don't believe that a nuclear 1st strike would be used in this scenario either as Japan (which we know the history) has recently spoken out against the use of nuclear weapons.
If China had used nuclear weapons, I believe the US would still be reluctant to return the gesture unless Armageddon was on the Chinese agenda and wanted to wipe out everything between Guam and Bermuda but I don't see that either.
Messy, difficult, troubling...lots of ways to describe it.
Again with the Stark, I believe that their was not an military response because of the circumstances, i.e., Stark was near a war zone, single aircraft with pilot who possibly was not trained well on nighttime ASuW attacks, and improper id'ing of the Stark when the pilot was possibly seeking out a Cypriot supply vessel name "Zeus" which was attacked earlier in the day by Iraqi aircraft. This is where the "it depends" part comes in.
If a US carrier was transiting the South China Sea 300 miles south of Hong Kong and was hit by a Chinese DF-21D, I could imagine a much more stern response would arise from the US if thousands were killed and missing from the carrier. Having said that, I don't believe that the Chinese would strike in that scenario since that is clearly in international waters. If the carrier ventured a bit closer to the mainland, in the Taiwan Strait or the Yellow Sea, I believe that the Chinese would be rather careful with an attack. AEW aircraft would have been launched, surface vessels would have been already in transit, everyone would have been on high alert if the carrier was not expected to be in that area, such as in a port visit to Hong Kong.
If a carrier was sunk in international waters by a single missile, I would think that a retaliatory nuclear strike would clearly NOT be an option. Sanctions, holding of financial instruments within the US financial system, trade embargo's, etc, would be the primary weapon the US would have. The US has seen unfathomable amounts of money go into wars since the Gulf War in 1991 including the rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure and I don't see the US with a lot of military strike options in that scenario.
In the event of a well orchestrated, planned and premeditated attacks on a carrier anywhere in the South China Sea, I would expect some military strikes; SSGN's near Taiwan (since it could be used as a "hostage" by China), at-least one CVSG near the Philippines and one near Japan/South Korea in the East Sea. Not being a strike planner, I could only guess that long range ASuW facilities such as DF-21D sites, PLAN bases, bunkers and weapons manufacturing sites would be targeted. I also believe that the US would attempt some form of diplomatic stranglehold on China with aforementioned embargo's and seizing of assets here in the US. I don't believe that a nuclear 1st strike would be used in this scenario either as Japan (which we know the history) has recently spoken out against the use of nuclear weapons.
If China had used nuclear weapons, I believe the US would still be reluctant to return the gesture unless Armageddon was on the Chinese agenda and wanted to wipe out everything between Guam and Bermuda but I don't see that either.
Messy, difficult, troubling...lots of ways to describe it.
“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959
-
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:38 pm
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
The thing with the Carrier is, its also likely to have a whole Surface Group with it,(not to mention 1 or 2 subs(, Not a single alone ship like The Stark.
- NakedWeasel
- Posts: 500
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
It's not just likely, it's a foregone conclusion. The US Navy would never send an active duty carrier anywhere without escorts.
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
RE: How US retaliate if one CVN sunk?
Doesn't mean it can't be sunk. The numerous international exercices have shown it.
If it is sunk by conventional means, it is very unlikely that US will use Nucler force unless they want also to be nuked. However, a huge economical political retaliation will follow for sure. On the military terrain, since a fulll-scale war in unlikely, once again because of nuclear weapons, the answer should be proportionnal to the attack, meaning destruction of large parts of China Navy and Airforce and it's adavanced bases, but no direct attacks on its territory, except some coastline military installations.
If it's sunk by nuclear means, than the answer HAS be nucler, otherwise all the concept of deterrance vanish into the air, and could trigger terrible events. But again, the nuclear response should be proportional to the attack, in order to avoid a mutual destruction.
If it is sunk by conventional means, it is very unlikely that US will use Nucler force unless they want also to be nuked. However, a huge economical political retaliation will follow for sure. On the military terrain, since a fulll-scale war in unlikely, once again because of nuclear weapons, the answer should be proportionnal to the attack, meaning destruction of large parts of China Navy and Airforce and it's adavanced bases, but no direct attacks on its territory, except some coastline military installations.
If it's sunk by nuclear means, than the answer HAS be nucler, otherwise all the concept of deterrance vanish into the air, and could trigger terrible events. But again, the nuclear response should be proportional to the attack, in order to avoid a mutual destruction.