"A hypothetical involving smaller carrier navies" Topic

Ok first I'm not wanting to start another could North Korea invade South Korea or compare the two's military I'm just using the hypothetical situation to discuss a way to get Brazil's aircraft carrier into a game.
So here's the scene North Korea with a nudge from China invades South Korea. (pick your own reason) China then uses the diversion to make good on some of her claims in the Pacific, and Taiwan. (again just a fictional scenario for a possible modern game)
The UN condems the aggression and the US sends a couple of carriers and France sends the Charles de Gaule.
for the sake of good fiction China has their carrier fully operational so is a threat to be neutralized.

Here is were it can be interesting and the possibility for the game to be replayed with very different outcomes.
1. Brazil has the Sao Paulo and has been friendly with China even letting China train on this ship. Brazil also wants a bigger roll in the UN. So what side does Brazil pick? if Brazil sends its carrier group to join the UN force how much of a liability or asset it be? Or if Brazil sided with China how much of an asset for China?
Figure at least 12 upgraded A-4s, which can carry guided bombs and at least AIM-9s possible a BVR A to A weapon and possible a few more unupgraded a-4s. It also has a good helicopter component for ASW at least.

Another good add is the Indian Carrier Vikramaditya again, what side, or neutral, and liability or asset for the side India chooses?

If you are looking to another midway, both are liabilities. If you are talking a game of hide the sausage in the south China sea, perhaps not so much.

I think if China is going to move into the south pacific, India is certainly not going to come in on China's side IMHO. I think a good scenario might involve China moving more aggressively in the South China Sea, alarming countries like Vietnam, Phillipines, etc, who then appeal to India for solidarity (after appealing to the US likely).

Damon.

like i said the scenarios are many, you have the carriers providing air support for invasions/defenses. could have a carrier battle. and of course ASM. I kind of like the use of the carriers for air support, both ground attack and air to air.
and of course to add to the fun (tiptoes around the edge of blue fez) Pakistan could side with China. This would put F-18s and MiG-29s side by side against F-16s.

Now back to the original question you have USS Reagan, and USS Carl Vinson, joined by Brazil's Sao Paulo. would the added flight deck (of course unusable by the US fix wing) with a dozen extra old but upgraded attack jets and helicopters be useful or a liability.

I'm thinking an A-4 upgraded by Embraer might be a hot little bird, no Supper Hornet, but in the company of the f-18 survivable at least and carries a useful bomb load.

Why go so far afield. You have potential problems in SA to work with. Get Britain involved. They are currently down to one carrier included in a total of 20 blue water ships. Ignore subs of which they have 13. Could be quite a little confrontation if you put it in Brazilian waters.

Given the current leadership in Brazil, siding with the Chinese seems reasonable.

India would side with the UN, if it doesn't remain neutral. Expansionist moves by China might cause it to help on the intervention side.

I think the Brazilian carrier would be far more likely to get involved in South American waters exclusively though, especially given its inherently weak aircraft complement, e.g. no real fighters to protect itself, just light, strike bombers. It is much better suited to strike ops against a weak opponent.

Perhaps getting involved in a conflict between Colombia and Venezuela – again siding with the communists/socialists, so aiding Hugo and Venezuela.

Round two of the Falklands Conflict is possible too, especially now that the UK doesn't have any carriers and the FAA has been disbanded. Of course, they'll have to figure out how to deal with the far more capable jets stationed in defense there – Typhoons, and/or Tornadoes, but a special forces raid launched from a sub might work.

The UK would be hard-pressed to mount another force to free the islands again, but I imagine they would try.

Brazil? Really? I don't think Brazil is interested in getting into a shooting war and their carrier would be of limited use.

India vs. China: Could definitely happen as India is not going to accept a Chinese presence anywhere near the Indian Ocean and it's not like they haven't fought before.

Finally, in any kind of shooting war involving China and the U.S., the Chinese carrier is going to the bottom of the sea pretty quick, victim of a U.S. sub.

I concur on Brazil, but Hugo could get into a fight with them over offshore oil. Then Venezuela and Brazil could come to blows.

Doubtful, but possible.

I agree on the Chinese carrier, and others in the region just might take a shot at it, with their diesel-electrics, and/or AIP subs, if the Chinese continue their aggressive moves there, or try to expand on their influence in the region.

The subs are very quiet, so would be very difficult to detect, especially in the shallow South China Sea's waters, and there are so many of them, from a variety of nations, that they might have cover as to who actually fired the torpedoes to sink it.

Not sure how good Chinese ASW tech is, but imagine it is a bit behind the West, so they may not be able to tell which class of subs, or which subs within a class a sound signature belongs to, like some other nations can.

Mako11,

Cruise missiles and SAS/SBS launched from subs. Army with recent/current combat experience. All surface combattants more than capable of defending themselves against existing Argentinian aircraft. OK, no big carriers and naval fixed wing aircraft for a tad …. but I suspect the
UK would still have a very big edge.

Cheers

Given the UK's current air capabilities, and assuming the prescence of one SSN, I think the Argentinans would have a very hard time even getting to the Falklands.
Yes, the RN is very short on surface ships at present, but I believe the Argentinian navy is currently much worse off now than it was in the early 1980s.

Hoser

Not sure, but imagine both navies are mere shadows of themselves now.

The Argentines could use merchant vessels to get their troops to the islands, if needed, since they would most likely have the element of surprise over the British. The British can too, but given the distances and forces arrayed against them, would be in greater need of warships than the Argentines.

Britain can launch attacks with their subs, but would be hard-pressed to occupy the islands with any sizeable force that far away, from a logistical standpoint, especially without carriers for protection.

Supposedly (not sure if the rumors are true), the US offered to loan the British a conventional carrier during the last war. I doubt the current administration would be willing to do that now, sadly. The American people would probably support it, but not our President.

Argentina, similarly would be hard-pressed as well, after another initial surprise amphibious landing, given the presence, and superiority of Britains nuke boats. They'd have to fly in supplies via C-130, or other aircraft, after initial supply stocks landed by sea, are used.

Not sure if they keep a SSN patroling off the Falklands, but wouldn't be surprised to hear they do.

If Argentina wanted to take the islands, they probably could again, and then would need to spread their infantry out to keep from providing a lucrative target for the enemy to attack. Of course, that makes them vulnerable to SF raids, but they will probably have larger numbers on their side, so it is less of a concern.

They'd also need to secure the airfields there for their use, and base attack jets on the islands. Of course, they'd need to spread them out better, to protect them from naval bombardments, and cruise missile attacks, but keep them close enough to provide a decent perimeter protection ring to prevent SAS/SBS raids like at Pebble Island.

I'm not as confident as you about Britain's ships being able to protect themselves, especially without a Sea Harrier CAP, and given the problems they had dealing with that the last time, against archaic aircraft dropping dumb bombs.

My guess is that Argentina now has greater stocks of cruise missiles, and has probably addressed the fusing issue on their bombs (only about 20% worked properly during the last war).

The UK definitely has the edge in terms of training, leadership, and equipment, but given the distances, and limited forces available, I'm not sure it would be enough to win round 2 without heavy losses.

The British would definitely need to take the Falklands airport, and keep it secured, so they could operate fixed-wing aircraft from there. Air tankers would be the weak link in that, and again, I doubt the USA would be willing to provide any on loan, now.

If they could do that, the Argentines would have a tough time of it, and would most likely lose.

The UN condems the aggression…

Not gonna happen.
China has a veto in the Security Council, and the General Assembly is useless.

Anyone responding will be doing so without the dubious "legality" of UN support.

Falklands 2 would make an interesting hypothetical wargame, if you have/can get accurate details on the forces available.

The UN condems the aggression…

Not gonna happen.
China has a veto in the Security Council, and the General Assembly is useless.
Anyone responding will be doing so without the dubious "legality" of UN support.

it happened in 1950 in a way. and if China is already a beligerant then I'm sure there is a way around it.
and it is a fictional scenario.

In 1950, the USSR was boycotting the UN when North Korea invaded the South.

If China is going to be a beligerant, no way will she be boycotting the UN. What happened in the past is a lesson that I am sure China would note.

There is NO "way around it". The UN will be useless, except as a very large debating society with no teeth. If anything, the UN will be firmly against anything the US or its allies will want. It has been that way for years, and there is no reason to think it will change.

Play your scenario WITHOUT the UN. It is not needed.

Considering China's quiet and very quiet political movements in South America and the generally unpopular status of US interests there, I'd look around for even more possible scenarios involving other nations as well. Granted, limited in resources many of those nations might be, the distances combined with the general retreat of Western superpower politics has poised SA to become satellites of China, et al.

Augustus: nice comment.

so we can make it even more interesting China manages to stir up trouble in South America managing to tie down US and (UN/NATO/allied) forces. The Sao Paulo is a powerful ship for that area. (I know subs have been mentioned but for game purposes I plan to leave them out, not really a good game mech for them for how I like to play). how long would it last against say the Teddy Roosevelt, and Charles de Gaule in a battle group. I figure Brazil and its allies will have land based support where the US/France group wouldn't not or very little.
looks like I may need some Mirrages and F-5s too.

Yea, they screwed up when they created the UN.

Should have made it open only to countries with true democracies, and free people. Letting others get membership, vetoes/votes, or to have control, especially over the rotating human rights commissions, etc. is just nonsensical.

It has been interesting to read this thread, but I am surprised that no one has mentioned the possible use of Thailand's small VSTOL carrier or the Japanese Navy's helicopter carrying 'destroyers' which look very like carriers to me!

If the UN became involved then there is the possibility of Italian and/or Spanish involvement, and both navies have VSTOL carriers.

Just to make your south chine saes scenario a bit more interesting, how about having the Chinese play the "we own the US economy" card as the CVNs are about to deploy, which leads to the US deciding its busy elsewhere and can't make the party. IIRC this was the basis for at least one techno-thriller set in these waters in recent years.

These baby carriers are formidable weapons against a second or third world navy. They are designed for littoral work where they have support from shore based fighters, not long range force projection. They can't go up against a US flat top or any surface group with Soviet-style robust air defense unless they have lots of support from somewhere else.

Why not have some fictional flare up with the Indian Carrier Vikramaditya in the Caribbean on a good will tour. The Indian carrier has to go through the Panama canal to get back home, but the Sao Paulo is in her way? That way you can have two small carrier groups fighting each other.

I think that if sufficiently aggrieved, the US could go toe-to-toe with China for about 6 months before the lack of civilian niceties gets unbearable. The problem is, China's economy would collapse, too.

baby flat-tops, huh?

I think the Sao Paulo would be screwed in most of those situations since it doesn't have a fighter complement. A4s might be able to carry Sidewinders, but they are NOT fighters. I think even one of the JMSDF DDH's would be able to thrash her. F35s versus A4s is a very uneven fight, and once the A4s are gone the Sao Paulo is useless.

In the event of Korea 2 (give it 10 years, it WILL happen), I find it highly likely that China would invade the DPRK, and install a less-insane ruler. Nuclear-armed loose cannons on your border are not conducive to long-term national prosperity.

The F-35 is not part of a carriers airwing yet. A well flown A-4 has humbled many a F-18 driver. but yes I think the Sao Paulo vs a Nimitz class one on one would be very one sided. specially when the escorts are figured in for both sides. but the Sao Paulo in South American waters would have lots of land based support the US strike group pretty much on its own. No doubts Brazil and allies would loose in the long run but would enough resources diverted and casualties be inflicted to make a difference in a far east pacific conflict.

The F-35 is not part of a carriers airwing yet.

They will be in 10 years, and it will take the Brazilians and Chinese at least that long to get comfortable with their naval aviation.

A well flown A-4 has humbled many a F-18 driver.

A well flown, UNLOADED A4 in a dogfight, you mean. One word for you: AMRAAM.

Anyone who thinks that Brazil has ideological – or even owerwhelming economic ties – to China has been drinking too much Dixie beer.

Absent a complete re-arrangement of power in the world, there is no plausible hypothetical scenario which would end up with the São Paulo in the Pacific.

A Brazil vs. Venezuela scenario is a lot more plausible. Brazil is not a pal of Hugo's, despite attempts by 'connect-the-dot" conspiracy theorists in the U.S. to link the two via their so-called "socialist" governments.

(Hugo is an old-timey populist statist bordering on fascist and our own Workers' Party here in Brazil does whatever the banks tell it to do. But I digress….)

Brazil vs Argentine?

I know they are the very best of friends at present..
link

but "interesting" things can happen between friends..

Or it could be Brazil & Argentine vs UK over the Falklands

ps. wasn't Brazil looking to buy/build French SSNs?
link

Wouldn't it be more significant to factor in "The UN does nothing."

But sends a powerless negotiator, then breaks into factions and sends conflicting statements back and forth while the crisis goes on and…..

OH sorry…..that's the way it usually operates!

As far as UN involvement. The Korean war was not ended. It is merely in state of Armistice! If North Korea attacked the south there would be no need for a resolution to defend South Korea. It already exists.

All the nations that took part in the Korean War are still party to the conflict if the Armistice is breached.

Supposedly (not sure if the rumors are true), the US offered to loan the British a conventional carrier during the last war.

Do you have source on that?

I think that it refers to another thread..
TMP link

from that thread:
While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan's administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26…

Supposedly (not sure if the rumors are true), the US offered to loan the British a conventional carrier during the last war.

yes but that was back when the UK still had a few guys who remembered how to land a cat and trap jet on a boat.