PLAN would lose up to 40% of it's entire fleet to sink just 1 US aircraft carrier

[StobieWan]

That's the problem. They may not have that much time. They wouldn't know whether it was a nuke or conventional warhead and a CVN is a capital asset. It's a totally different scenario to Saddam Hussein launching Scuds. The big question is how far down the nuclear attack warning reaction and decision chain do they get before a US SIOPS response go /no go? Then there are the Russian, Indian and Pakistani responses to a Chinese launch and possible US SIOPS response. It would be a very dangerous and touchy situation.

If the deterrent isn't at risk, there's no requirement to do the full SIOPS doomsday routine is my point however - they're not accomplishing anything by launching inside that window as the carrier would be lost anyway.

They may well choose to retaliate on those lines, after some assessment but launching under warning against a limited and point attack which may well not be nuclear doesn't sound likely.


If it were part of a wider action with strikes against the US or US bases overseas, then than might trip the response but I suspect given the disparity in nuclear arsenals, the US can ride out any predicted strike by the Chinese with more than enough of it's deterrent force intact to sit and mull things over for a half hour before working out how much gravel and rubble they're making as a response.

 

[swerve]

That's the problem. They may not have that much time. They wouldn't know whether it was a nuke or conventional warhead and a CVN is a capital asset.....

Are you saying that nuclear weapons should be a normal response to an attack on a CVN? Would you fire nukes on sight of a torpedo aimed in the general direction of a CVN, because it's "a capital asset"?

 

[alexkvaskov]

Wasn't that one of the reasons that the US stopped work on the conventional trident missiles.

Yes, but just because the US is not actively pursuing such a capability does not mean other UNSC members aren't. So why deny yourself that capability? Obviously there were reasons that I'm simply ignorant of.

 

[Eeshaan]

The issue of Chinas capacity to strike has been discussed at various PACRIM military conferences since the first I attended in Hawai'i 2004 - and basically becomes a major duscussion point every year since 2004

Nobody is going to place forces inside the chinese umbrella, That means delamination of red team as much as poss.

China is a land based power, ie she cannot effectively project and/or protect extended forces without the protection of her land based air - despite all the fuss and bluster about what people want her to be able to do in canned scenarios, until 2020-2030 she is highly dependant on having her fleets protected by land based air - and hence also why the response in the region by all of SEA and EA is to buy modern subs - In fact sub purchases in the PACRIM is the fastest growing anywhere,

Blind freddy says that you aren't going to play to your opponents advantages - and that means neutralizing the red team well before you bring your forces to bear and within range of reds abilities and strengths

They can move major air elements to over 1500 airfields capable of taking those assets. In a lot of cases they are dry bases - but they don't need to be able to do anything but get the air up once and on its way. Both Japan and the USAF know that, so for the USAF to be on its way in time to provide support for whichever force needs it is a big ask - so countering chinese saturation has to be done before anyone launches anything

There seems to be this concept that china vs japan/USN can be debated much like a game of counterstrike/chess etc..... that's far from the reality.

The purchasing and intended purchasing behaviour of the regional neighbours since 2004 is a fairly good indicator of how other countries want to counter chinas growing force development. Even Janes have been able to get their analysis right as the trends are blatantly obvious.

Nobody is going to be fighting to chinas strengths - so the counterstrike type scenarios (traditional thinking if you like) were divorced as good ideas almost 10 years ago.

Look at curr weapons developments. More importantly, start drawing range rings around chinas principle weapons systems and think about what "you" would do to break those range rings

Thanks alot for clearing that up. I had totally forgotten to keep Asian submarine purchases in mind when I thought about this scenario.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes, but just because the US is not actively pursuing such a capability does not mean other UNSC members aren't. So why deny yourself that capability? Obviously there were reasons that I'm simply ignorant of.

Prompt Global Strike seems to have weaved back and forth a bit over the years - it was prototyped on a Minuteman and initially it was said there were no plans to perform PGS from a sub, but that rolled back a couple of years later.

Currently it looks like they're delivering it from some sort of hypersonic glider which I guess can't be mistaken for an ICBM.

 

[ngatimozart]

Are you saying that nuclear weapons should be a normal response to an attack on a CVN? Would you fire nukes on sight of a torpedo aimed in the general direction of a CVN, because it's "a capital asset"?

No I didn't mean it that way, but I think a ballistic missile launch against a CVN and its group could be far more dangerous in this scenario than say a torpedo or AShM launch.

 

[StobieWan]

It's irrelevant in that respect - the effects of the weapon would still be self evident before a nuclear response could be generated. Given that, an IRBM will be evaluated in the same way that an anti ship missile or a torpedo would be.

 

[Waylander]

Torpedos and AShMs are nuclear tipped since ages and nobody would start lobbing ICBMs/SLBMs when faced with an attack by them on a battlegroup at sea.

What would the US gain by launching it's nuclear arsenal against China while a ballistic missile is inbound on one of their carrier groups? They can't stop the missile by doing so, so their is no incentive for a rash nuclear counterstrike.

 

[ngatimozart]

Torpedos and AShMs are nuclear tipped since ages and nobody would start lobbing ICBMs/SLBMs when faced with an attack by them on a battlegroup at sea.

What would the US gain by launching it's nuclear arsenal against China while a ballistic missile is inbound on one of their carrier groups? They can't stop the missile by doing so, so their is no incentive for a rash nuclear counterstrike.

Thanks guys. I stand corrected. A good learning discussion for me.

 

[rjtjrt]

Deleted as wrong thread

 

[alexkvaskov]

Prompt Global Strike seems to have weaved back and forth a bit over the years - it was prototyped on a Minuteman and initially it was said there were no plans to perform PGS from a sub, but that rolled back a couple of years later.

Currently it looks like they're delivering it from some sort of hypersonic glider which I guess can't be mistaken for an ICBM.

Are there any other nations known or suspected to be developing something akin to PGS?

 

[StobieWan]

Not so far as I'm aware - it's possible the Russians might have the capability or the motivation given they've tinkered with IRBM's vs bad guys but it's an expensive "boutique" capability to spend money on.