If they are just going to operate their aircraft carriers in the Asis Pacific region then they might as well saved their money and just bought some long range inflight refuelling tankers and long range fighters...
for sustained presence in the SC Sea, W. Pac. & later in the Indian Ocean, CBGs r needed.
so how strong are those HATO navies you are talking about?
The US 2nd & 6th fleets, RN, FN, Italian & Spanish navies also have CV/Ns, subs+many air tankers, AWACSs, MPA & land based long range fighters/bombers with bases in the Med. Sea, along/on the N/S Atlantic coasts/islands, & on Greenland, Iceland, Falklands, & the Azores.
Even some F-15Es with Combat radius: 790 mi (687 nmi, 1,270 km)
can carry 6× AGM-65 Maverick, 2× AGM-84 Harpoon, 2× AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER
The F/A-18E/F has 1.75 less Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km)
Eurofighter armed with Sea_Killer missiles has Combat range: 1,389 km (863 mi, 750 nmi)
The USN may be assisted by some B-1B/B-2/21/52s in anti-ship roles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM#DesignTo date, the B-1B is the only one of the three that has launched an LRASM, but both the B-52 and B-2 could be adapted easily to carry them. Other weapons could also be used in the maritime strike mission aboard bombers. Though Air Force aircraft have never launched Tomahawk cruise missiles, it is slightly smaller and lighter than the AGM-86C/D conventional air-launched cruise missile—of which a B-52 can carry 20. The US Navy is slated to deploy an anti-ship variant of the Tomahawk in the 2020s. Thus, the possibility of integrating an anti-ship variant of the Tomahawk onto B-52s and B-1Bs should be investigated as a possibility to enhance maritime attack capabilities for little additional investment. ..a single bomber equipped with LRASMs could launch a salvo equal to that of a destroyer or submarine—and two bombers could launch as many as an entire carrier air wing. In addition to the strike flexibility of their weapons, the range and speed of bombers allow for great operational flexibility in the maritime mission. All three Air Force bomber types have flown numerous long-range sorties from bases in the United States to strike targets in Asia, then safely returned home. The unrefueled combat radius of Air Force bombers—the maximum distance they can travel to a target and return—is between 2,500 and 4,500 nm, depending on the variant and payload. With this range bombers can strike from distant bases safe from enemy attack, approach from unpredictable directions, and attack from multiple azimuths simultaneously. ..The mobility of maritime targets presents a complex targeting and cueing problem. However, in just two hours, two B-52s can monitor 140,000 square miles (364,000 square kilometers) of ocean surface—orders of magnitude greater than possible with two surface ships. This mission area also epitomizes the potential to engage via a “combat cloud” approach that links together various sensor and shooter aircraft and surface platforms. In the 1980s, the Air Force and Navy practiced strike cueing by using the E-2C, P-3, and E-3A AWACS to cue B-52s. In 2004, as Pacific Air Force’s director of operations, I orchestrated the “Resultant Fury” test exercise demonstrating that an E-8 JSTARS aircraft could find and track maritime targets and pass that information to B-52s and their weapons to strike ships under way. The Navy’s P-8 and MQ-4C remotely piloted aircraft can also detect and track maritime targets and share that information to bombers. Networking capability has steadily improved across the Air Force and Navy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VavSuj-sx6cThe U.S. Navy meanwhile is looking to upgrade its P-8 Neptune maritime patrol planes—already Harpoon-capable, but normally focused primarily on submarine hunting missions—to carry LRASM as well as naval mines, decoys, and precision glide bombs that would effectively turn the souped-up Boeing 737 airliners into bombers.
Modified C-130Js/17s & A-400Ms may release dozens of U/CAVs to track & engage ships & planes. 2 SSGNs in the Atlantic rearmed with 154 AShMs=308 total shouldn't be discounted either.
If the US had decided to invade a Chinese carrier group arriving would have changed their minds...
France & UK, having possessions in & around L. America, may also send their CV/Ns & AFs to intercept/confront the PLAN. The Brazilian, Chilean & other navies may join them. https://navaltoday.com/2018/08/14/panamax-2018-wraps-up/
By the same token, I doubt China would risk a war over Cuba or Venezuela, esp. so close to the Panama Canal the US is always ready to defend & keep other muscle flexers away from.
Unless China gets a base in the Western Hemisphere to forward deploy a CBG at (even then, it will be as vulnerable as bases in Yokosuka, Okinawa & Guam r to NK, RF & PRC), good will visits won't help- it'll take at least 3-4 weeks, if not more, for it to get (even if unopposed) from China or the Indian Ocean to Venezuela-by then, it could be infiltrated by guerillas, bombed &/ invaded by the US & its neighbors.
Logistics & local supply problems were already solved with smaller ships passing through the region. The PLAN now has big supply ships & is building more; other ships could be sent & prepositioned ahead of time, if need be.
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:02 pm; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)