Matrix Games Forums

Another variation...

The carrier is not sunk, but there is clearly a deliberate attack and some damage is done. Say country X does something we consider naughty (e.g., seizing an island and setting up a no-fly zone over it) and we send ships into the area to protest this behavior and demonstrate we do not recognize any of country X's legal claims to this territory. Some of our ships get too close, at least according to country X, and country X (which has missile sites on the island now) shoots at them. Most of the missiles are knocked down by air defenses, but a few get through and one or more ships are hit, with perhaps one or two destroyers or cruisers actually being sunk.

The carrier is still on station but perhaps damaged, certainly she is looking at a situation where her battle group has taken a body blow, and she is probably busy trying to rescue hundreds of people from damaged and sinking ships.

What happens in...

...the next hour?

...the next day?

...the next week?

Worse, what if it is being captured, by a super adventurous paratroopers and/or marines boarding it? They got 'hostage' and have more military advantage than sinking it.

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Worse, what if it is being captured, by a super adventurous paratroopers and/or marines boarding it? They got 'hostage' and have more military advantage than sinking it.

That seems highly unlikely. First of all, getting a boarding party anywhere near a Carrier, whether by boat or by aircraft, would be extremely difficult given the strength of the usual CVBG.
Might be slightly easier when the Carrier is in port, but even then you have to, basically deal with...


... a crew of just under 6000. Now, most of these aren't marines, but it would still take a significant force to capture a CVN.

Don't wanna kill the plot but I think if it has to be the Chinese, a carrier probably would not be their desired target of choice.
If anybody risks hostilities with the US, it is very likely he will do a very limited attack only, to support his own projection of power in a claimed region or to take out a threat which bears at least some basis for justification of his act in the international media wars.
If I would attack anything American, I would make sure that my aggression stays a drop below the threshold which just not yet justifies a nuclear retaliation. So I have to pick very wisely, some target which has the most efficient ratio of hurting US power projection the most, without giving too much justification for an all out war. Killing a CV would of course hurt, but is not that effective, as it ruins all options below open hostilities and effectively doesn't hurt strategically. Because the US Navy may and will simply send another carrier, and even more. So I gained nothing. While having wasted my only first shot.

Despite of all that and while I agree there may be some (or enough) hawks quickly starting to press for the nuclear option, don't underestimate the power of economic interests. The US has lots of economic ties and also dependencies with China. There are powerful companies making lots of money, which is being risked to go down the drain if hostilities erupt too fast. They would clearly oppose the hawks.

Probably most of the posts in this thread were typed on a keyboard made in China. Of course most of our countries will be able to construct own keyboards. But they simply don't. So it is not that easy. I think you get my point[;)]

Even China wants to keep their steady income for selling consumer electronics to the world. Losing Europe and most of the Americas as customers overnight would be far beyond of a disaster. Probably all these risks weigh even heavier than considerations regarding the military response to any kind of incident.

So even if something gets sunk/shut down, I think in this case we would observe both sides trying to find a solution which enables everyone to keep his face at home and still keeps the business running.(Hopefully!)

ORIGINAL: Gneckes

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Worse, what if it is being captured, by a super adventurous paratroopers and/or marines boarding it? They got 'hostage' and have more military advantage than sinking it.

That seems highly unlikely. First of all, getting a boarding party anywhere near a Carrier, whether by boat or by aircraft, would be extremely difficult given the strength of the usual CVBG.
Might be slightly easier when the Carrier is in port, but even then you have to, basically deal with...


... a crew of just under 6000. Now, most of these aren't marines, but it would still take a significant force to capture a CVN.

And you would have to deal with miles of passages, thousands of rooms and watertight doors, presumably without doing too much damage to the carrier, aircraft and especially the reactors, munitions or fuel. I imagine that would be even tougher than combat in a city and urban environment given all those factors would favour the defence.

Unless of course Gary Busey is the XO... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Rongor

Don't wanna kill the plot but I think if it has to be the Chinese, a carrier probably would not be their desired target of choice.
If anybody risks hostilities with the US, it is very likely he will do a very limited attack only, to support his own projection of power in a claimed region or to take out a threat which bears at least some basis for justification of his act in the international media wars.
If I would attack anything American, I would make sure that my aggression stays a drop below the threshold which just not yet justifies a nuclear retaliation. So I have to pick very wisely, some target which has the most efficient ratio of hurting US power projection the most, without giving too much justification for an all out war. Killing a CV would of course hurt, but is not that effective, as it ruins all options below open hostilities and effectively doesn't hurt strategically. Because the US Navy may and will simply send another carrier, and even more. So I gained nothing. While having wasted my only first shot.

Despite of all that and while I agree there may be some (or enough) hawks quickly starting to press for the nuclear option, don't underestimate the power of economic interests. The US has lots of economic ties and also dependencies with China. There are powerful companies making lots of money, which is being risked to go down the drain if hostilities erupt too fast. They would clearly oppose the hawks.

Probably most of the posts in this thread were typed on a keyboard made in China. Of course most of our countries will be able to construct own keyboards. But they simply don't. So it is not that easy. I think you get my point[;)]

Even China wants to keep their steady income for selling consumer electronics to the world. Losing Europe and most of the Americas as customers overnight would be far beyond of a disaster. Probably all these risks weigh even heavier than considerations regarding the military response to any kind of incident.

So even if something gets sunk/shut down, I think in this case we would observe both sides trying to find a solution which enables everyone to keep his face at home and still keeps the business running.(Hopefully!)

Totally agree. The economic cost for both countries and collapse of global trade would probably be the best argument or reason to avoid conflict and seems to be one that is often overlooked if you consider it purely from a military perspective. It wouldn't just be confined to the US and China, but the rest of the world would suffer as well given the globalised economy, our total dependence on trade and the fact that so many items are manufactured in China. Once everyone realises there will be no more iphones, ipads and all the other items that are made in china for the foreseeable future, they are likely to lose their appetite for war, especially between 2 nuclear powers and there will be a lot of pressure on politicians to resolve the crisis peacefully. Even China would not be immune and given the CCP fear an internal revolt perhaps more than any external threat, getting into a war they cannot be guaranteed to win and destroying the economy in the process, only for it to possibly end in a humiliating defeat isn't in their best interest.

A CVN can be sunk? Is that possible?. Apart from humor, this is a very interesting scenario that you propose, and i would be playing it for sure, please publish it or tell me how to get it.

May be if the AEW is shot down, the EW is shot down, then the CAP's and the interceptors; finally, a missile strike is launched with enough volume (aircraft, submarine, several vectors of attack) as to saturate several US cruisers and double number of destroyers... This speaks of either a highly planned and massive attack, or a sneaky and unsuspected strategical advantage on the side of China. Or let' say that China's got a new kind of sub, a plastic undetectable sub with plastic torpedos or something weird, that can lie down on the ocean for years, and when the CVN goes over it, voila, fireworks. This case would represent also a highly planned and treacherous attack against a key asset of the US Navy.


I think that the response from the US to such an attack would be inmediatly retire the US Navy assets closer to the US, as well increase the presence of the USAF assets on Allied bases. Also, I would expect a kind of retribution attack, a hugh sweep of the pacific with ASW ships, satellite, ASW air, anything to uncover such a threat that could sink a US Carrier. I don't think that the target would be China's land, as by the nature of the attack the origin is Unknown.

I don't think that a strategic nuclear strike would be an american response in any case other than in response to a nuclear attack agains US or US partner land.

Also, the US has 9 more CVN's. Also the LPD can carry aircraft. Also, Japan is an strategic partner of USA, as well as South Corea, so the US has bases to project power in the Pacific, apart from the CV's. USAFs bombers can bomb from far away, provided they are undetectable or have air superiority and support from local based fighters.

So the most likely scenario for this context is a fallback, where the wouded US SAG might regroup with another CVN coming from the US, and then use whatever means to locate the origin of the attack or a chinese CVBG, then sink it with coordinated SSGN, strategic bombers and a US SAG, all using conventional missiles.

[8D]

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?

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?

The response will be diplomatic, keeping in mind that war is diplomacy by other means.

China put a Song Class Submarine within 5nm firing range of Kitty Hawk in 2006. It took a F/A-18 and a Prowler to notice it. Submarines are at that point that they can strike a Carrier. The Swedes caused a fit to the point the U.S. borrowed a Gotland for 2 years.....Last week I read work on their next generation of Submarines is underway. (It might even have been on here, I don't remember).

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Worse, what if it is being captured, by a super adventurous paratroopers and/or marines boarding it? They got 'hostage' and have more military advantage than sinking it.

If it was captured by space aliens from Mexico ....

No military response needed - every T-Bill held by China is repudiated until and unless China apologizes, pays damages, and demils?

Interesting non-military estimations before and after the attack.

Though it is still the admiral of the relative fleet who owns the carrier, and the DoD decide the final judgment. Would billionaires or candidates of presidency really care (I mean, not even interested to express what US should do)? I think not, they are not holding the missile launch buttons anyway.

There would be huge political implications. The nation would be united in its vehement and violent condemnation of such an attack and any political candidates would be competing for who would be the best suited to use military force to defend the nation from foreign threats. It is almost guaranteed that the candidate that sounds the most furious or most militaristic would be seen as the best choice.

A little divergence from the original topic. A paper written by a retired US Navy Captain who believes the carrier has become something of a relic made worse by US Navy/defense policy that has made a huge mistake by emphasizing shorter range aircraft more suited to a different task than long range fleet defense. The end result of this shortsighted policy is a huge target that is far to vulnerable to countermeasures like the Chinese DF21.

Essentially, any carrier that operates within 1,000 nautical miles of Chinese military placements could be open to a strike from an antiship ballistic missile. This would not be a problem, except that the average unrefueled combat range of US carrier air wings operates at half that distance.

http://www.cnas.org/retreat-from-range#.VibgXis9bHC

You're asking us to speculate on an unprecedented military catastrophe and likely the deadliest day for US Forces in history without anything close to enough background. First of all that's the kind of thing that several hundred page papers by research firms attempt to analyze and even they can't give a straight answer. Second, you're throwing in even more variables (the opinions of billionaires and presidential candidates? That's a little too political here). I'll go into it a little more, but basically I suggest from the scenario you want to make you just shape the narrative as you see fit. None of us can give you a "realistic" answer.

Things to consider:
1. ASBM - US Satellites would detect the launch immediately (these satellites are essentially untouchable by any Chinese means). It would be an incredibly tense couple minutes because there would be no way of knowing if those missiles were nuclear or conventional tipped. Trajectory could be computed pretty quickly, but that would be cold comfort to anyone on the receiving end. Would that merit a nuclear response? Hard to say. Again, we're talking potentially the largest single loss of American Lives in one strike. You could plausibly retaliate with a comparable nuclear strike, although that's the hardest line. It definitely wouldn't be targeted at a city. More realistically, Liaoning is instant KO'd as well as any other PLAN vessel that has a sub behind it, which there would be plenty. From there it's almost impossible to say.

2. US Shadow Government stuff - Not even worth bothering to discuss here, those conversations never go anywhere good. If you want to include it, go for it, if not, you shouldn't. But the American people wouldn't give two thoughts to any potential political race in the event of that strike. Again, this is bigger than 9/11. Candidates would probably offer condolences and calm down while the sitting president unleashed hell on the perpetrators.

3. Capturing a Carrier - I actually spit my coffee out at this. Please don't include this. Paratroopers or super marines would still have no way of doing this, in port or (especially) at sea.

I also caution a scenario with 100+ surface combatants as being rather ambitious. Some similar ideas have broken down a Pacific War into smaller regions to keep it manageable. If you factor in all the sensors going off, aircraft, and subs, this sounds like it can be quite huge on computers. It's also a lot to manage. That's the hardest thing about CMANO, you're always just one guy doing the job of a full staff.

An aerial attack on Pearl Harbor was executed in a practice experiment by US aviators long before December 7th, but dismissed as preposterous by the Navy if I'm not mistaken, so you can't dismiss a DF21 attack hitting a US carrier and the aftermath completely.

Certainly whoever is CiC and their temperament is a major factor as well as the context of the attack (surprise out of the blue attack, in response to conflict with Taiwan or Japan) and whether it was a nuclear or non-nuclear attack on the CBG.

I'll assume for now it was a non-nuclear (conventional) attack.

First off the equation has changed. Sending 1,2 3 or more carriers and their escorts has become far more risky-that's stating the obvious. I would think afterwards the Navy would be very wary of sending carriers within range of Chinese missiles. The military and political risks are just too great.

Japan-what would Japans posture be? Are they involved in the conflict? What about Taiwan and South Korea? The posture of one, two or all 3 would make a huge difference as they would be unsinkable airbases with early warning assets and anti ballistic missile batteries that could provide valuable cover and assets to support surface and carrier battlegroups or surface battlegroups.

Are these countries neutral? Supportive? Would they be willing to commit assets to assisting a US response? The JMSDF is to my knowledge is well regarded and well equipped. Idk what their surface ABM capability is. I suspect for many ships its on par with what the US Navy has. I did see a recent article that their constitution has been modified to allow greater latitude in conducting military operations. Given the past history between China and Japan any involvement by Japan would likely stir up emotions in China and ratchet up tensions.

I believe in this situation the best and most effective response would come from the silent service-submarine force. Unless I'm mistaken or some miracle ASW breakthrough occurs, China would be hard pressed to counter a large scale and concerted submarine campaign.

I would give China a week to apologize, take full responsibility for the attack. If not then declare unrestricted submarine warfare against all Chinese flagged ships-military or merchant. Impose a complete blockade of all ports-any ship going in or out of Chinese ports becomes subject to subsurface attack. Use subsurface assets to launch cruise missile attacks on key military and infrastructure targets.

You could also expect many Western allied nations to support or refuse to allow Chinese ships to enter their ports.

Unrestricted submarine warfare has not been used since WW2 and a modern well trained and equipped force could easily seriously inhibit or shut down trade-most commerce still moves on ships. If China loses the ability to import oil, that alone would have a huge impact. Combine that with coordinated air force attacks against key targets using stand-off weapons and you could easily send any nation back quite a few decades.

Cutting off oil supply and hitting the power grid with sub and air launched cruise missile would cause enormous damage. Just think, Apple has sold a gazillion iPhones in China, if they suddenly stopped working, that alone would cause serious unrest in China...

I'm sure somewhere deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, this has already been well though out.

I actually began toying around with the editor to come up with a Chinese strike against a CBG. Unfortunately I have too much going on to really work on it, but one thing became obvious-you can get far too ambitious and come up with something that will be too unmanageable and bring even the most powerful computer to a crawl if you're not careful.

Maybe the special modified non-civilian version can run on some sort of clustered system and the nerds have come up with a way to simulate just about anything