Every little helps.

Why not? And how would PLA achieve air control if it failed to cripple ROCAF and ROCN? If they do NOT plan to use the ballistic missile force this way, why was it put under 31st Group Army (corps) control? It is a Second Artillery force, not an army ground forces force.

Why would PLAN, with at least half a dozen SSNs (the Xia should be counted as an SSN by the way - she is one of the best they have and she never carries missiles) and ten times that many diesel boats oppose a CBG with TWO SSNs? And the numbers you are saying are "good" were that getting a carrier would cost "10-20 subs" - IF they are going to be lost why are they not in the fight?

This is almost right. There are exactly these ships in 7th fleet - except the carrier is Kitty Hawk. She also cannot approach from the south without taking a long route most of the time - costing many days. She is much more likely to approach from the East or Northeast, and she is also then covered by Japanese surtass ships and submarines, affording her some hope of early warning about Chinese submarines.

How does one "aggressively search" for submarines? It is normal to quietly search.

Fiction. The Seawolf class is based in the Atlantic fleet and needs weeks to transit. It will not be an early participant screening Kitty Hawk, which will be the lead CBG.

Her SSNs would provide early warning. The fact that you say "any hope of early warning" shows youe bais. There is plenty hope of stopping Chinese SSNs if the USN acts correctly. Also it is not wise to fall for the obvious. The Chinese have many options for taking Taiwan. Ballistic missiles are not counted out in my scenario. Read a little more closely. Also it doesnt have to be the Kitty Hawk. It could be any of 6 CV/CVN.

"will be the lead CBG" Oh and you know this how? What if the Chinese do this and another CSF is closer? It also doesnt have to be a SeaWolf. A Los Angeles class would be more than enough. You are getting hung up on irrelevancies. And The SSN could be deployed well in advance of the CSF. Aggressive in that the SSNs are not likely to be sitting underneath the CSF just waiting for trouble. What is with the questions? These are established and practiced tactics.

This is certainly conventional wisdom. It is, however, somewhat misleading. US submarines will not use active sonar because it is a beacon - it betrays own position several times as far as it can detect - which means the enemy then may evade or engage as he chooses. And passive sonar, no matter how great, cannot hear noise you are not making. The great defense of a submarine is to not make noise. This can be achieved by not moving fast, and other measures. And it is one reason that you left the diesels out of the picture - they are quieter than SSNs in most cases (and in the Chinese case). The CBG CANNOT be quite, and it cannot even mitigate its noise and sail at speeds that put it in the operational area in time or facilitate flight operations. A quiet submarine has a great chance of not being detected until it is quite close. Theoretical ability to detect at a few hundred meters or a few km is not operationally significant when it can hear the CBG at upwards of 80 nautical miles. In conditions that reduce that, the ability to hear the sub is similarly reduced. It is all very technical, complicated, and almost an art, not in the least guaranteed - but IF you MUST bet - bet on the sub - not the CBG.

Because the others are fighting Taiwanese Navy and Japanese, South Korean Navies possibly. If the CSF is in transit responding to the crisis the Chinese would have to react to this. And they may decide that it is in there interest to try to interdict the CSF before it gets in position.