Military Review

China conducted exercises with missiles called "destroyers of aircraft carriers"

93

The picture shows the aircraft carrier USS George Washington US Navy



The Chinese naval forces have conducted exercises in the South China Sea, where American warships, including aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG), are trying to master. According to the latest information, as part of the exercises, anti-ship missiles, which are called "destroyers of aircraft carriers", were tested.

According to SCMP, the PLA navy fired two missiles, the DF-21D and the DF-26B, "making it clear to Washington and the regional powers that they are not afraid of military confrontation if the United States challenges China."

The report says the missiles were tested on August 26. One of them was released from the landfill in Zhejiang province in the southeast of China. Both missiles hit targets in the square between Hainan Province and the Paracel Islands (Chinese - Xisha Islands) - about 220 km from Hainan Island. Previously, the Chinese Navy closed the target area.

The DF-21D is an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that, according to the developers, is capable of destroying an aircraft carrier at a distance of up to 1550 km. It is also claimed that this Chinese missile is capable of penetrating shipborne missile defense systems, including Aegis Combat Systems.

The DF-26B missile has a range of up to 4 thousand km. According to the latest information, during the tests, it was released from a test site in the continental province of Qinghai, located thousands of kilometers from the coast. In China, this missile is defined as capable of causing serious damage to American military infrastructure on the island of Guam.
Photos used:
Facebook / USS George Washington
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757
    rocket757 27 August 2020 07: 53
    +5
    "poor" aircraft carriers !!! encroach on them, encroach on them again! so their age will end, in eternal encroachments.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 08: 04
      +5
      Quote: rocket757
      so their age will end, in eternal encroachments.

      Necessarily! As soon as spaceships begin to roam the galaxy ... laughing
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 27 August 2020 08: 24
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Necessarily! As soon as spaceships begin to roam the galaxy ...

        Aircraft carriers can only frighten the Papuans. Russia in Syria has shown that without any aircraft carriers it is possible to solve the same tasks, but much faster and more efficiently.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 08: 36
          17
          Quote: Boris55
          Aircraft carriers can only frighten the Papuans.

          You can scare anyone and anything, but not the fact that they will be scared. Well, the main tasks of aircraft carriers lie in a slightly different plane - establishing dominance in the far sea and oceanic zones, establishing zonal dominance in the near sea zone for the period of a particular operation, destroying enemy fleet forces and so on and so forth.
          As for the projection of force ... it is not the aircraft carrier that scares, it is the policy of the state that drove it to your shores and its readiness to use force.
          Quote: Boris55
          Russia in Syria has shown that without any aircraft carriers it is possible to solve the same tasks, but much faster and more efficiently.

          If:
          1) There are kind people who are able to allocate a large air base;
          2) There is a possibility of supplying this air base;
          3) The enemy does not have the ability to destroy this very airbase
          Then yes.
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 27 August 2020 09: 02
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If:
            1) There are kind people who are able to allocate a large air base;
            2) There is a possibility of supplying this air base;
            3) The enemy does not have the ability to destroy this very airbase

            1. Pristina (operation not brought to its logical conclusion).
            2. Aircraft carriers also require supplies.
            3. Potential opponents already have such an opportunity - to destroy the aircraft carrier. Try to destroy the unsinkable aircraft carrier "Crimea".

            Russia is a self-sufficient country, 20% of all the world's natural resources belong to us. We do not need to take something away from someone by force, and if someone asks for help in restoring constitutional order, he will provide the base.
            1. Avior
              Avior 27 August 2020 09: 10
              +4
              1. Pristina (operation not brought to its logical conclusion).

              just because point 2 was not fulfilled.
              2) There is a possibility of supplying this air base;
              1. Boris55
                Boris55 27 August 2020 09: 12
                -3
                Quote: Avior
                just because point 2 was not fulfilled.

                Not because of this, but because there were traitors in the Kremlin.
                The army is an instrument of political power.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 27 August 2020 09: 16
                  +7
                  because it suddenly became clear that permission from NATO countries was required to fly to Pristina, but they did not give it.
                  Having made a march, the Russian battalion was left without supplies, hoping to get it by air by aircraft. Once surrounded, the Russians, according to the same Blunt, said a couple of days later: “Listen, we have no food or water left. Maybe we will share the airfield? ”[21]. However, it is known that the situation with hot meals for the Russian battalion was adjusted earlier than that of the British [22].
                  According to the plan of the operation, after the capture of the airport "Slatina", military transport aircraft of the Russian Air Force were to land on it soon, which was to transfer at least two regiments of the Airborne Forces and heavy military equipment. However, Hungary (a NATO member) and Bulgaria (a NATO ally) refused to grant Russia an air corridor, as a result of which 200 paratroopers were practically left alone for several days with all the arriving NATO forces [23].

                  According to the head of the Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense of Russia in 1996-2001, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, it was planned to enter three battalions:

                  One was supposed to go to the city of Kosovska Mitrovica in the north of Kosovo and mark our sector. But Hungary and Romania did not allow passage through their airspace, so the battalion, which was supposed to go to Mitrovica, turned to Pristina.
                  They wanted to land the second at the airfield in Pristina.
                  The third, as a reserve, was to land on Serbian territory near the city of Niš. [24]
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 17
              +7
              Quote: Boris55
              1. Pristina (operation not brought to its logical conclusion).

              It's hard to understand what it has to do with it. Could an aircraft carrier be fit there?
              Quote: Boris55
              2. Aircraft carriers also require supplies.

              By sea, which is usually much easier to provide. In this case, the aircraft carrier is a much better equipped airfield than the same Khmeimim - on the American avik, the air group service + pilots is 2500 people + a bunch of equipment.
              Quote: Boris55
              ... Potential adversaries already have such an opportunity - to destroy the aircraft carrier.

              Potential opponents would easily and without straining destroy the base like Khmeimim. It is possible only because in Syria we are opposed by the barmaley - but they also managed to reach, they still damaged several aircraft at the base.
              Quote: Boris55
              We do not need to take something away from someone by force, and if someone asks for help in restoring constitutional order, he will provide the base.

              We need to at least control the nearby seas in order to protect our own SSBNs and destroy enemy submarines with Tomahawks with nuclear warheads (everything goes to their return). Without aircraft carriers, these tasks are, to put it mildly, difficult to solve. And the costs for their solutions will be comparable to AB, but the quality will be worse
              1. tihonmarine
                tihonmarine 27 August 2020 09: 24
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It's hard to understand what it has to do with it. Could an aircraft carrier be fit there?

                Well, if the Americans say that they will bring their fleet into Belarus, why not enter into Pristina, and maybe into the Sahara. The main thing is to want, not to enter.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 34
                  +5
                  Quote: tihonmarine
                  The main thing is to want, not to enter.

                  Nuuuu, noble sir, here an unsatisfied desire can play a cruel joke laughing hi
              2. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 17: 27
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                but they also managed to reach, they nevertheless damaged several aircraft at the base.


                Not supported by anything.
          2. Adam Khomich
            Adam Khomich 27 August 2020 09: 14
            -4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            the main tasks of aircraft carriers lie on a slightly different plane

            What is an aircraft carrier? A large barge with a runway, even damage to which removes the entire AUG from the battle formation, and makes all the contents a healthy target. China's message is clear - to land or squeeze the US out of the Chinese seas.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 33
              11
              Quote: adam khomich
              What is an aircraft carrier?

              Mobile airfield of naval aviation
              Quote: adam khomich
              A large barge with a runway, even damage to which removes the entire AUG from the battle formation, and makes all the contents a healthy target

              By the way, this can be said about absolutely any weapon. For example: a Kalashnikov assault rifle is an expensive and useless toy, just damage the bolt and you can throw it away.
              First, AB must be found. Secondly, it must be damaged. Thirdly, the American AB has 4 catapults in different places on the deck, so it is very problematic to disable them all. In reality, it is possible to knock AB out of order by damaging the section of the corner deck where the landing is carried out, but this is only a part of the AB deck and can only be targeted by accident.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 27 August 2020 09: 48
                -3
                And again the old songs about the main thing. Do you think that the strike on an aircraft carrier will be conventional? If someone foolishly decides it will be a blow to defeat. Nuclear. To scare to the maximum.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 59
                  +5
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  And again the old songs about the main thing. Do you think that the strike on an aircraft carrier will be conventional? If someone foolishly decides it will be a blow to defeat. Nuclear.

                  And again the old songs about the main thing. Have you ever studied the damaging factors of nuclear weapons? Obviously not - otherwise they would not have thought that nuclear weapons would solve the issue of defeating the AUG.
                  Let me just remind you of 2 indisputable facts - in the USSR, to fight the AUG, various forces were created, including SSGNs and a missile-carrying aviation division for the fleet. IN THE NUCLEAR WAR. This is one, and here is two - the attack of the air division of our missile carriers, was to be preceded by a strike with 8 X-22 nuclear-powered missiles (warheads from 350 kt to 1 mt) And the task of this attack was not to destroy the AUG, but only to suppress its electronics EMP pulse for a short time.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 27 August 2020 10: 36
                    -2
                    You only supported my words. The attack on the AUG will be complex and with the use of nuclear weapons. Discussions about damaged catapults and destroyed runways are not relevant.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 11: 04
                      +3
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      You only supported my words.

                      In which place?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The attack on the AUG will be complex and with the use of nuclear weapons.

                      Agas. And now let's remember that the AUG were going to be destroyed, having a dozen SSGNs for the theater and 2 missile carrier air regiments, not counting other forces. With the use of nuclear weapons. Where do you see today we or China have sufficient forces for such a strike?
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 11: 45
                        -1
                        We do not, and unfortunately it is not expected. China is working on this and quite hard. The same two-wave ballistic ones have a chance. In the first wave a couple of dozen in "area" the second wave with controlled warheads. The bottom line is that WITHOUT YABCH, no one even has a chance, and that's why if they decide to beat, they will only beat NUCLEAR.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 12: 13
                        +3
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The same two-wave ballistic ones have a chance. In the first wave a couple of dozen in "area" the second wave with controlled warheads.

                        For this, at a minimum, you need to know the area where the AUG is located and control its movement in real time. Which the Chinese do not have. If there is, then they do not need ballistic missiles, the issue is solved easier and cheaper with conventional anti-ship missiles from aircraft
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 12: 34
                        -1
                        I didn't talk about tactics and strategy. In the original post, I just said that the reasoning about damage to the runway, catapults and finishers is far-fetched and does not correspond to reality. Or the aircraft carrier is disabled by a nearby underwater explosion of a nuclear warhead. Either the attack was repulsed by Aegis. There is no third.
                        And by the way for the price. A couple of regiments of anti-ship missile carriers plus a dozen SSGNs on one side and 30 pieces of Poplar analogues, half with guided warheads on the other. It is not known what will be cheaper. Especially if there are no other goals for aviation. But this reasoning is divorced from reality. Purely theoretical.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 12: 44
                        +3
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Or the aircraft carrier is disabled by a nearby underwater explosion of a nuclear warhead. Either the attack was repulsed by Aegis. There is no third.

                        Yes, not necessarily. In theory, in order to ensure the breakthrough of several missiles to the AB, a salvo of dozens of anti-ship missiles is needed. Well, equip all of them with nuclear warheads? It is much easier to "hide" a few with nuclear warheads in a swarm of conventional anti-ship missiles, but here is another question - well, how will they accidentally be shot down? In general, the defeat of AB by conventional explosives remains a very urgent issue.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And by the way for the price. A couple of regiments of anti-ship missile carriers plus a dozen SSGNs on one side and 30 pieces of Poplar analogues, half with guided warheads on the other. It is not known what will be cheaper.

                        The question is in controlled warheads - they are not there, and it is not a fact that they will be in the foreseeable future. And even if there are, it is not a fact that they are piled up on Poplar.
                        So far we have only been able to "Vanguard", and it is an order of magnitude simpler, because it only maneuvers to hit a stationary target, the coordinates of which are known in advance. But it is placed as much on UTTH, and as far as I know - one warhead per missile.
                        It is time.
                        Second, ballistae will be counted towards strategic nuclear forces if there are agreements on arms limitation of the type of strategic offensive arms
                        The third - and the most unpleasant thing. Let's say some thread American President Omar Baabka went crazy and decided to touch us with conventional weapons, thinking that everything will work out. If we answer him with TNW (the same anti-ship missiles with nuclear submarines), this is a limited nuclear conflict, and there is some chance that it will not spill over into Armageddon. If we hit with ballistic missiles, this is Armageddon without options
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 13: 14
                        -2
                        The swarm of anti-ship missiles will contain most of the missiles with conventional warheads. But they will be allowed until only memory and oil stains on the water remain of the AUG. In the event of a conflict, no one will leave the undershoots at hand. Well, Granite also had an organized swarm. It is quite possible to hide missiles with nuclear warheads in a swarm. Although, on the other hand, the use of missile defense missiles with nuclear warheads is also not excluded. You can't hide there.
                        A supersonic guided warhead for a ballistic missile is not a problem and is much simpler than the Vanguard. Counteraction to the AUG will be limited to primary strikes "on the area. An analogue of Harpoon or Uranus is enough. But with a reduced range, with nuclear warheads, but a very sophisticated seeker. So that the AUG could see the consequences of a nuclear explosion.
                        If Saray Abramovich or Donald Duck go crazy and their generals don't shoot him, it doesn't matter who shoots with what. The avalanche cannot be stopped. America does not like unpopular leadership decisions. And the loss of an aircraft carrier without a response is an extremely unpopular decision. The people will not let you endure. There, because of the dead criminal, the power bends down. And they won't be allowed to stand for an aircraft carrier.
                      6. ancient
                        ancient 27 August 2020 15: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But they will be allowed until only memory and oil stains on the water remain of the AUG.


                        Well, you have a very "bold" statement ... very wassat
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        An analogue of Harpoon or Uranus is enough. But with a reduced range, with a nuclear warhead, but a very sophisticated seeker

                        How much more to cut off the range? ... Or do you hope that you will be allowed to the aircraft carrier ... as in the parade ... they will be allowed to approach the aircraft carrier? belay
                        About the "fancy GOS" ... no words ... wassat
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 27 August 2020 16: 15
                        -1
                        I heard the ringing and heard where he was. The anvil rang in the forge and told everyone that there was a temple.
                    2. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 17: 36
                      0
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      And they won't be allowed to stand for an aircraft carrier.


                      They will endure, you can tell the people a fairy tale about the fall of the Bolide ... (By the way, such a plot was in the series "Stargate")
                    3. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 27 August 2020 18: 12
                      0
                      Well, if Captain America personally tells this from the screens, then yes. Otherwise it will not work. The US leadership keeps its people in a half-cocked state. So that they react more sharply to messages about external threats and are less interested in where the money has gone. If China has the hardness of the scrotum to hit the AUG and have enough resources to drown it, then this will definitely lead to an exchange of blows. Perhaps the first American strike will not be massive and will be aimed only at China's military infrastructure. The rest will depend on China. Either endure and roll back to the Stone Age, or die beautifully and pick up the ball.
                    4. Cyril G ...
                      Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 18: 50
                      0
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      then this will definitely lead to an exchange of blows.


                      It won't, I'm more than sure. The maximum will be demolished in response to the AUG naval base .... The probability that it will come to strategic carriers is extremely unlikely. Everything will end with the exchange of bases and ship formations ..
                    5. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 27 August 2020 19: 06
                      0
                      And the root cause of the conflict? In order for China to hit AUG, it must be very strongly provoked. I don't know how much. And therefore the conflict will have a reason. In any case, America will have no options. America cannot win the economic war with China. There is also a protracted confrontation like the Cold War. China has many times more human and technological resources. Plus Russia. China will force Russia to provide assistance with resources and technologies. The three-polar world will collapse.
            2. ancient
              ancient 27 August 2020 15: 19
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              It is much easier to "hide" several with nuclear warheads in a swarm of conventional anti-ship missiles

              When using products from special warheads ... although one of the parties will lead to ... in short .. ". The whole world to dust" (I think so .. but maybe we can get by with another .. "concern"). wassat
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              to ensure the breakthrough of several missiles to AB, a salvo of dozens of anti-ship missiles is needed.

              We do not have so many carriers ... that would .. "run" several dozen anti-ship missiles.
              And all, well, practically all carriers will already be on the lines of the approach and will feel in their "own skin" the opposition of carrier-based aircraft and air defense systems of cover ships.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In general, the defeat of AB by conventional explosives remains a very urgent issue.

              At the present time ... no longer ... because there is no strength, no time, no .. means. crying
            3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 16: 57
              +2
              Good day, dear Ancient!
              Quote: ancient
              When using products from special warheads ... although one of the parties will lead to ... in short .. ". The whole world to dust"

              Yes - with a probability of 99,9% But still there is a vanishingly small fraction of the probability that if they climb up to us in full scale but without nuclear weapons, and we respond with tactical special ammunition, it will cool some heads and everything will be fine. But the launch of at least one ballistic intercontinental missile is definitely everything, no options
              Quote: ancient
              We do not have so many carriers ... that would .. "run" several dozen anti-ship missiles.

              Of course we don't have them. But the same China, if it continues to work with its own Armed Forces, it may well create them - not tomorrow, of course, but in the foreseeable future.
              Quote: ancient
              At the present time ... no longer ... because there is no strength, no time, no .. means.

              Not for us, for China :)))))
            4. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 17: 34
              0
              Quote: ancient
              products from special warfare units ... although one of the parties will lead to ... in short .. ". the whole world to dust"


              It is unlikely that even a battle of fleets or a fleet with a coast using tactical nuclear weapons will lead to the launch of strategic delivery vehicles.
            5. ancient
              ancient 28 August 2020 10: 54
              +1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              It is unlikely that even a battle of fleets or a fleet with a coast using tactical nuclear weapons will lead to the launch of strategic delivery vehicles.

              So I wrote ... that ... "the use of products from special warheads ... although one of the parties will lead to ... in short ..". The whole world in dust ""? request
              Or did you want to write something different? wink
            6. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 11: 08
              0
              Quote: ancient
              Or did you want to write something different?

              Certainly different. Once again - The likelihood that the use of individual special items on the enemy will immediately lead to the massive use of strategic nuclear forces is extremely small, I would say vanishingly ...
              Accordingly, the reason for the massive use of strategic nuclear forces should be exclusively the enemy's attempt to influence our strategic nuclear forces.
            7. ancient
              ancient 28 August 2020 12: 07
              +1
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              The likelihood that the use of single special items on the enemy will immediately lead to the massive use of strategic nuclear forces is extremely small,

              In my opinion, purely "personal opinion" ... this is a delusion soldier
            8. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 12: 38
              0
              Well, then we have both opinions diametrically opposite ...
              Our ideas that God forbid they will immediately bang on us are based purely on concepts published by our enemy and their open discussion, which, as they believed, we are also studying at that time. However, the way it really is.
              In fact, even if only from an understanding of human nature, this is nothing more than a bluff. The maximum answer will be proportionate. No more than that. In order to show the strength and prevent further escalation ... Their elite do not care about the number of victims, but understand that in half an hour you have no desire to fall on your head. And they sunk an aircraft carrier out there somewhere in the Atlantic and do not care
  2. ancient
    ancient 27 August 2020 15: 12
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For this, at a minimum, you need to know the area where the AUG is located and control its movement in real time.

    Andrey, how can we conclude from the information gleaned from the official media "... in the near future, the participation of YES soldier in "destroying or at least disabling AUG or AUS" is .. "a matter with a high degree of probability .. practically .. destructive."
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 16: 58
    +2
    Quote: ancient
    . in the near future, the participation of the YES soldier in the "destruction or at least disabling the AUG or AUS" is .. "a matter with a high degree of probability .. practically .. destructive."

    Undeniably hi
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 17: 32
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    that nuclear weapons solve the issue of the defeat of the AUG.

    This is actually a realistic way to solve the problem.

    preceded by striking 8 X-22 nuclear-powered missiles (warheads from 350 kt to 1 mt)

    True, they just usually forget to say that anti-ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads were also used in the main strike, the calculation was based on the fact that at least 1-2 anti-ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads will get inside the order, which will ensure the defeat of the AVMA, with a given probability.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 27 August 2020 19: 10
      0
      This is the ONLY realistic way.
      Well, they also forget that out of 8 nuclear to AUG, a maximum of 2 broke through. And then not inside the order but stupidly nearby.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 19: 14
        0
        In general, in the textbook "Navy tactics", and the last time I leafed through it a long time ago, a bunch of schemes for the combat use of SIS and without using TNW are described, but if we talk about today, then there are simply no other options besides raising rates by using TNW ...
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 August 2020 19: 47
        0
        And even under the USSR there were few options. From 1-2-3 maybe 4 AUG without nuclear weapons could fight back. And from everyone?
      3. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 20: 25
        0
        What year?
      4. garri-lin
        garri-lin 27 August 2020 21: 01
        0
        At the very peak of strength.
  • Hagen
    Hagen 27 August 2020 09: 35
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    As for the projection of force ... it is not the aircraft carrier that scares, it is the policy of the state that drove it to your shores and its readiness to use force.

    In this case, there is a mirror answer. The United States is also not eager to get a drowned property of $ 3-6 billion and under 6000 corpses of not the last citizens of the country in one move. The presence of a real opportunity for a greyhound to get this greyhound in the nose, at least, cools. Eun's example is illustrative.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 10: 00
      +5
      Quote: Hagen
      Eun's example is illustrative.

      The example with Eun is indicative of the fact that if you are not ready to fight, and they know about it, do not rattle your weapons.
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 27 August 2020 10: 33
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The example with Eun is indicative of the fact that if you are not ready to fight, and they know about it, do not rattle your weapons.

        I said the same - "The presence of a real opportunity for a greyhound to get this greyhound in the nose, at least, cools." What's wrong?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 11: 10
          +1
          Quote: Hagen
          I said the same thing

          It's not the same at all
          Quote: Hagen
          "The presence of a real opportunity for a greyhound to get this greyhound in the nose, at least, cools."

          Eunwoo's aircraft carriers are too tough - he has no means against them. Nuclear weapons - there is, but its delivery to the United States is extremely doubtful.
          The bottom line is that Trump, IN PRINCIPLE, was not ready to fight with North Korea - and this was known. In this situation, the aircraft carriers off the coast of Eun could not frighten the latter with anything in principle - what difference does it make if they are not allowed to use anyway?
          1. Mikhail Tynda
            Mikhail Tynda 27 August 2020 14: 28
            0
            Well, maybe the main territory of the United States is questionable. The aircraft carrier is also US territory. What about the AUG resistance to nuclear warhead detonation in the immediate vicinity?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 14: 59
              0
              Quote: Mikhail Tynda
              What about the AUG's resistance to nuclear warhead detonation in the immediate vicinity?

              Norm. But the question does not make sense - Eun has no way to deliver the nuclear warhead to the AUG
          2. Hagen
            Hagen 27 August 2020 16: 17
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The bottom line is that Trump, IN PRINCIPLE, was not ready to fight with North Korea - and this was known.

            Is Trump ready to fight Xi today? How can this be seen? For this, Xi fired "ballistics" at surface targets and expressed his determination that Trump was ready to fight even less.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 17: 10
              +1
              Quote: Hagen
              Is Trump ready to fight Xi today?

              no, not ready. And what does C have to do with it?
              Quote: Hagen
              For this, Xi fired ballistics at surface targets and expressed his determination that Trump was ready to fight even less.

              Not for that. In foreign policy, everything is a little more complicated, about 4 orders of magnitude :)))))
              Trump doesn't need a war with China at all. Not because he is afraid of her, but because she is not needed - as a result of the war, one cannot get a peace that would be better than the pre-war for the United States. Trump needs China to accommodate him on a number of political and economic issues. And China doesn't need that.
              In order to force China to follow its policy, Trump is ready to intimidate China - not a hot, but a cold war, that is, a kind of confrontation similar to the USA & the USSR. China by launching its missiles shows that:
              1) ready to view the United States as a potential enemy and not afraid of the Cold War
              2) is not afraid, among other things, because he considers his military potential sufficient to inflict sensitive damage on the United States, should something happen.
              You can tell - what is the difference then? The difference is that now the United States and China are discussing the Cold War, as it were, and not actual hostilities. From a political point of view, this is a huge difference
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 27 August 2020 18: 06
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In foreign policy, everything is a little more complicated, about 4 orders of magnitude :)))))

                Where are we, sivolapy? You are the most knowledgeable and knowledgeable here. Then tell me, what are the US AUG doing in the South China Sea? Do they catch fish? They are there trying to squeeze China out of territories that are considered controversial. They may try to block communication routes from the mainland to the islands. Of course, they will act by force of their own Navy. So China is trying to show that it will defend its interest on the islands. Everything about politics in the wake is your speculation. American doctrinal documents directly name China as a threat to US interests. What's the wake here? If it were not for the threat of active retaliation from China, the United States would not discuss anything with them at all. To what degree this standing on the SKM will reach, even they do not know. The fact remains that China is interested in the NSR as an alternative to the southern sea route to Europe. This means that it allows the possibility of attempts to block it for its own ships. Of course, both states will try to avoid a big war. And just for this they will show their "fierce faces, hiding their weaknesses. Everything is quite understandable, the louder the" rattle ", the more hopes for peaceful consumption in their corners.
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2020 07: 53
                +1
                I read your comment ... You know, well, really
                Quote: Hagen
                Where are we, sivolapy?

                Quote: Hagen
                Then tell me, what are the US AUG doing in the South China Sea? Do they catch fish? They are there trying to squeeze China out of territories that are considered controversial.

                You should have familiarized yourself with the history of the conflict at least at your leisure.
                Quote: Hagen
                They may try to block communication routes from the mainland to the islands.

                Can not. That is, it's not that they can't - they won't.
                The Americans demonstrate their presence in the zone of geopolitical conflict between China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and do not allow China to squeeze the latter out of the South China Sea, which China did insolently in 2011, sending its ships into the zones of control of Vietnamese and Philippine border guards.
                It all started with the fact that China appropriated 80% of the territory of the South China Sea, declaring them its own :)))) But that was not enough - it also poked its way to its neighbors. In response, the United States sent a fleet.
                And then the presence of the US Navy fully justified itself - China changed its rhetoric and did not try to use forceful methods further, "being satisfied" with 80% :))) But this does not suit the United States and American aircraft carriers are walking in South China, thereby stating that Trump does not recognize of this Chinese decision. That is, American aircraft carriers indicate that the United States does not recognize China's inclinations. China said - "it's mine!" The Americans replied: "No, this is not yours, but general." China, seeing that the "honest" exchange "80% - for me, 20% - for the rest" does not work, again increased anti-American rhetoric. But there is no question of squeezing the Chinese Navy out of the South Chinese - they have the right to be there, but on GENERAL grounds. Moreover, the Americans are not going to block anyone there.
                Quote: Hagen
                American doctrinal documents directly name China as a threat to US interests. What's the wake here?

                That is, you do not even understand that the very fact of China's inclusion in these documents is a means of political pressure on China, designed to force it to follow the interests of American policy?
                Рњ-РґСЏ ...
              3. Hagen
                Hagen 28 August 2020 16: 52
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You should have familiarized yourself with the history of the conflict at least at your leisure.

                Well, you are not very good friends with history either. Or rather, not at all .... These territories have been disputed by three parties, China, Vietnam and the Philippines, since the 70s, when hydrocarbon deposits were discovered in those areas. Each country has its own rationale for claims. Where does the US stand if they do not have a UN mandate? And everything is simple, the United States, having recaptured these islands for Vietnam, will receive preferences in the development of adjacent fields, as opposed to the positions of our Zarubezhneft, and serious political influence in Vietnam as a decisive force. If you take a pro-American position, this does not mean at all that it is true.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The Americans replied: "No, this is not yours, but general."

                When Americans say: "No, this is not yours, but common" - It means that they rolled their lips on "this". Apparently, no history teaches you ... And you are also trying to teach.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That is, you do not even understand that the very fact of China's inclusion in these documents is a means of political pressure on China,

                In. Mr. Evidence. Psaki with a microphone is also a way of pressure. Eka news ... Want to say something new? Speak. And to teach ... on this you need a basis, weight, authority and a large amount of reinforced concrete knowledge, you can and a bit of tact.
  • ancient
    ancient 27 August 2020 11: 13
    +2
    Quote: Boris55
    Russia in Syria has shown that without any aircraft carriers it is possible to solve the same tasks, but much faster and more efficiently.

    belay belay belay ? request
  • Mikhail Tynda
    Mikhail Tynda 27 August 2020 14: 25
    0
    Well, suppose spaceships have been roaming the galaxy since 1961. Maybe the vastness of the Bolshoi Theater ?!
  • antivirus
    antivirus 27 August 2020 08: 06
    +1
    "unsinkable US aircraft carrier" was more scared ........................................... ..........................
    for 35 million Chinese dead, there will not be enough flooded UDCs
    also the market for Chinese production of auto and electronics needs to be freed
  • Lionnvrsk
    Lionnvrsk 27 August 2020 08: 29
    +2
    It is not clear why the author stuck a photo of CVN-73, which has been undergoing overhaul at the Newport News shipyards since 2017. Like, why the heck do repairs if the Chinese are threatening missiles?
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 27 August 2020 08: 50
      -2
      Money for repairs has been allocated. It is necessary to master.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 27 August 2020 09: 01
      -2
      Quote: LIONnvrsk
      Like, why the heck do repairs if the Chinese threaten with missiles?

      Not. This is a warning. Like any US aircraft carrier would look like this.
      And what are called "destroyers of aircraft carriers" belay , it's so easy for children to get hold of adult toys, they babble that they will climb into an unreasonable head request Ballistic anti-ship missiles - stone age.
      Understand and forgive.
      1. Crimean partisan 1974
        Crimean partisan 1974 27 August 2020 09: 26
        -4
        Ballistic anti-ship missiles are a stone age ... ... I would not categorically state ... the warhead of a ballistic missile itself accelerates in free fall to 3000 km per hour, and if the "gas" is added to the hyper, it will come out without problems , there is simply nothing to intercept, and this despite the fact that the warhead of ballistic missiles itself is a very tough nut to crack
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 09: 35
          +9
          Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
          Ballistic missile warhead

          Cannot aim at a moving target. All.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974
            Crimean partisan 1974 27 August 2020 09: 46
            -5
            Cannot aim at a moving target. Everything ... no, not everything. the warhead itself has only an inertial system that can be adjusted from the air repeater. this type of guidance of the warhead of a ballistic missile was tested in the USSR, as an anti-ship missile was the R-25 ICBM as a Tu-16 repeater, the tests were successful but rather bulky materiel, especially since the classic anti-ship missiles began to multiply and are quite successful and not so energy-intensive, the topic of ballistic anti-ship missiles decided to close it ... it looks like in the tea house it was this experience that they decided to implement
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 10: 04
              +7
              Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
              the warhead itself has only an inertial system that can be adjusted from an air repeater

              You can not.
              That is, it is possible, of course ... when the warhead slows down and leaves the plasma cocoon, so that it can be controlled. But by this time, it will be possible to correct the fall of the warhead from strength per kilometers, which is clearly not enough. That is, simply speaking, it will not be possible to bring the warhead to AB so as to get it by means of correction.
              And how do you see the presence of a repeater aircraft in a combat situation at the AUG? :)))
              1. Cyril G ...
                Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 18: 56
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                and will come out of the plasma cocoon, so that it can be controlled.


                By the way, it was recently written there, it turns out that there are transparency windows for certain frequencies, which is why it is possible to ensure the guidance of a warhead or a PCRB at a target
              2. Crimean partisan 1974
                Crimean partisan 1974 27 August 2020 23: 25
                0
                And how do you see the presence of a repeater aircraft in a combat situation at the AUG?: ... nk waxes this historical fact. Moreover, there is no need for an air relay to hang around the AUG. it is enough to gain the cherished 12 meters and is not in the zone of opposition of the AUG, but well. at the moment there are satellite constellations that can cope with the task of relaying ..... are there any doubts? I do not have ... the more I communicate with you via satellites .... and what is the military strained with this ????
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2020 08: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  nk waxes is a historical fact.

                  Unreadable
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  Moreover, there is no need for an air relay to hang around the AUG. it is enough to gain the cherished 12 meters and is not in the zone of opposition of the AUG

                  fool Hornet has a service ceiling of over 15 km.
                  Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                  at the moment there are satellite constellations that can cope with the task of relaying ..... are there any doubts? I do not have..

                  I have the knowledge that such groups do not exist today. Dot. Perhaps our 2 satellites of the active radar "Liana" can do something like that, but that's all. And you, forgive me, do not know anything about the war at sea at all, if your plane is 12 km away from the AUG carrier-based aircraft.
                  1. Crimean partisan 1974
                    Crimean partisan 1974 28 August 2020 10: 23
                    0
                    Perhaps, 2 of our satellites active radar "Liana" .... well, let's say that we really do not have a satellite constellation. but you should familiarize yourself with the Chinese Beidou and everything will fall into place ...

                    if you have a 12 km plane unattainable for AUG carrier-based aviation ....... why print nonsense if you can plunge into history, ... a test of the R-25 ICBM in the anti-ship version of the D-5 complex with firing at a target such as AUG on range of 1500 km., Tu-16, located at an echelon of 12 meters at a distance from the target of 000-700 km, acted as a relay, and now read the combat radius of the hornet and in one count the flight time of the ICBM and the flight time of the hornet ... will be on its own meta
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2020 11: 29
                      +2
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      but you should familiarize yourself with the Chinese Beidou and everything will fall into place ...

                      What will get up? That you do not understand at all, what are you writing about? So it was clear from the previous comment.
                      Beidou is a NAVIGATION SYSTEM that IN PRINCIPLE CANNOT determine the coordinates of an object on land or at sea. The essence of ji-pi-es, glonass and beidou is that the satellites themselves give a signal, and on the ground, the station, having estimated its distance from the satellites, determines its own position by triangulation.
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      why print nonsense

                      Don't print.
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      if you can plunge into history,

                      Instead of studying it, you drowned in it
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      testing of the R-25 ICBM in the anti-ship version of the D-5 complex with firing at a target of the AUG type at a distance of 1500 km, the Tu-16, located at an echelon of 12 meters at a distance from the target of 000 -700 km, acted as a repeater,

                      wassat M-dya .....
                      Firstly, not the R-25, but the R-27K. The range of which never exceeded 1 km. Tu-100 there could relay data from the "Legend" to the submarine, which fired, by itself, without a satellite system, it is useless. And the AUG at those tests "depicted" a barge at anchor, with a powerful radar operating on it, according to the radiation of which the R-16K was guided
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      Now read the combat radius of the hornet and calculate the flight time of the ICBM and the flight time of the hornet for one ...

                      And now remember the concept of "radio horizon", and realize that neither the Tu-16 nor any other aircraft CAN IN PRINCIPLE detect the AUG for 700-800 km. At 12 m, the radio horizon is about 000 km, if anything
                    2. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 28 August 2020 16: 07
                      0
                      And now remember the concept of "radio horizon", and realize that neither Tu-16, ... then you should remember about over-the-horizon radars ... Tu-16 is just a repeater ... read about over-the-horizon radars of the Duga type

                      Firstly, not the R-25, but the R-27K. The range of which never exceeded 1 km .... just the same R-100 acted as the first ICBM for AUG. then there was the R-25, which has a range of 27 km
                      , and realize that neither the Tu-16 nor any other aircraft CAN IN PRINCIPLE detect AUG for 700-800 km ........ tovarisch ... where are you in heaven !!! Tu-16 RETRANSLATOR and that's it .... the detection of this type of aircraft does not provide for detection, although the Chinese clone in the form of H-6 can
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2020 10: 58
                      +1
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      here you should remember the over-the-horizon radar ...

                      Is it okay that ZGRLS cannot give target designation? :))))
                    4. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 29 August 2020 13: 34
                      -1
                      that ZGRLS do not know how to give target designation?: ...... what are you on the moon ????? ZGRLS is doing just that.
                    5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 August 2020 23: 42
                      +1
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      that ZGRLS do not know how to give target designation?: ...... what are you on the moon ????? ZGRLS is doing just that.

                      Surprise :))))) ZGRLS NEVER gave target designation and does not know how to do it.
                      Welcome to the real world:))))
                    6. Crimean partisan 1974
                      Crimean partisan 1974 1 September 2020 23: 08
                      0
                      The GRLS NEVER gave target designation ..... read you finally how the ZGRLS work at all, why are you crushing manure in a mortar !!!!
                    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 September 2020 10: 34
                      +1
                      Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                      Yes, read you finally how ZGRLS work in general, why are you pounding manure in a mortar !!!!

                      Kid, don't get excited, but follow your own advice - read how ZGRLS work :)))
  • _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 27 August 2020 09: 47
    -3
    Cannot aim at a moving target. All.

    everything is changing, technologies do not stand still, they could not before, now this statement is questionable
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 August 2020 10: 05
      +5
      Quote: _Ugene_
      everything changes, technologies do not stand still

      Yes. But we - we do not know how, the USA - do not know how, but China, which cannot make a normal aircraft engine of its own, has suddenly been honored. It doesn't happen
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 27 August 2020 18: 40
        +1
        in the early 80s, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT) worked out a coastal reconnaissance and strike system (RUS) to defeat aircraft carrier formations of a potential enemy on the approaches to the shores of the USSR on the basis of the 15Zh45 MRBM of the Pioneer mobile complex and the target designation systems of the Navy MKRTs "Legend" and IDRC "Success". Work on this system was stopped in the mid-80s due to the high costs of creating and in connection with negotiations on the elimination of medium-range missiles. It is quite possible that China took the same path, by the way, the American military said back in 2005 that China had tested the anti-ship version of the DF-21, 15 years have passed since then, and it is possible that the project was finished.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 August 2020 08: 04
          +1
          Quote: _Ugene_
          in the early 80s, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT) worked out a coastal reconnaissance and strike system (RUS) to defeat aircraft carrier formations of a potential enemy on the approaches to the shores of the USSR on the basis of the 15Zh45 MRBM of the Pioneer mobile complex and the target designation systems of the Navy MKRTs "Legend" and IDRC "Success".

          In fact, this was what the Makeevites were doing. And they made a rocket - R-27K. TSU was given by Legend. But her last stage of correction was transatmospheric, and passive, that is, to the radiation of AUG, and even with nuclear warheads under a megaton, the probability of hitting was ... to put it mildly, extremely doubtful. Makeevtsy just understood that atmospheric correction was needed and were looking for a way to break through the plasma cocoon
          And MIT ... If they tried to do something, I think they were infinitely far from success.
          Quote: _Ugene_
          It is possible that China followed the same path.

          China has no Legend
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 August 2020 09: 39
    +4
    The warhead of a ballistic missile is accelerated in space to high hypersonic speeds.
    And entering the atmosphere, on the contrary, is inhibited by friction against the atmosphere.
    And this is sometimes a good thing, because adjustments at the terminal site can only be made by ultrasound.
    To hit a city with a nuclear charge, an adjustment is not needed, but to destroy an aircraft carrier, it is necessary.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 27 August 2020 09: 27
    -2
    Quote: LIONnvrsk
    Like, why the heck do repairs if the Chinese threaten with missiles?

    Suck until better times.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 27 August 2020 10: 11
    0
    They are not poor ..... Only encroaches on the USSR / RF .... and China started. Everything, the whole ball is free, the main oil-bearing region of the planet is free, the sea communications of the same China are available
  • bald
    bald 27 August 2020 08: 22
    +2
    In China, everything is as usual, everything is pretentious. Of course, the speed is amazing, but the speed is not enough, as we understand it. Let them do it - good luck without anger.
  • An64
    An64 27 August 2020 08: 55
    +1
    It is somehow very emphasized that these missiles are against the United States. The missile does not care whose target it hits, and China today is competing with the United States, and tomorrow it is not yet known with whom. We, too, would not be bad to think about protection against such missiles.
    1. Adam Khomich
      Adam Khomich 27 August 2020 09: 02
      -2
      Quote: An64
      these missiles are against the United States.

      It is written in black and white - "against aircraft carriers"! The rest you yourself invented and pedal, as the main message of the article.
      1. An64
        An64 27 August 2020 09: 51
        +3
        Quote: adam khomich
        The rest you yourself invented and pedal, as the main message of the article

        I haven't come up with anything, I read the text carefully, not just the headings, unlike some:
        where American warships are trying to master, including aircraft carrier strike groups (AUG)

        making it clear to Washington and regional powers that they are not afraid of military confrontation if the United States throws a real challenge to China

        Chinese missile is capable of penetrating shipborne missile defense systems, including Aegis Combat Systems

        In China, this missile is defined as capable of causing serious damage to American military infrastructure on the island of Guam.
      2. An64
        An64 27 August 2020 10: 01
        +2
        Quote: adam khomich
        The rest you yourself invented and pedal, as the main message of the article

        I'm embarrassed to ask - didn't you write a little higher?
        China's message is clear - land or push the US out of China's seas
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 August 2020 10: 35
      +2
      Quote: An64
      It is somehow very emphasized that these missiles are against the United States.

      And against whom else do we need ballistic anti-ship missiles designed to defeat a target covered by an echeloned air defense system and difficult to destroy with conventional anti-ship missiles?
      Against three or five living surface ships of the Pacific Fleet?

      China has deployed conventional MRBMs against us.
      1. Mikhail Tynda
        Mikhail Tynda 27 August 2020 14: 41
        +1
        About three to five alive:
        For 2019, the following ships are listed in the Russian Pacific Fleet.


        Ships of rank 1 (ocean zone):

        Missile cruiser of project 1164 "Atlant" - Varyag;

        Destroyer project 956 "Sarych" - Fast;

        Large anti-submarine ships of project 1155 "Fregat" - Admiral Tributs, Admiral Vinogradov, Admiral Panteleev.


        Rank 3 ships (coastal zone, coastal defense ships):

        Small patrol ships (corvettes) of project 20380 - Perfect, Loud;

        Small missile ships of project 1234 "Gadfly" - Smerch, Hoarfrost, Moroz, Razliv;

        Small anti-submarine ships of project 1124 "Albatross" - Kholmsk, Primorsky Komsomolets, Koreets, Sovetskaya Gavan, MPK-107, Metel, MPK-82, Ust-Ilimsk;

        Missile boats of project 1241 "Molniya" - R-79, R-261, R-297, R-298, R-11, R-14, R-18, R-19, R-20, R-24, R- 29.


        Landing ships:

        Project 1171 Tapir large landing ship - Nikolay Vilkov;

        Large landing ships of project 775 - Oslyabya, Admiral Nevelskoy, Peresvet.


        Minesweepers:

        Marine minesweepers of project 266-ME - MT-264, MT-265;

        Basic minesweepers of project 1265 "Yakhont" - BT-100, BT-325, BT-114, BT-232, BT-245, BT-256, BT-215;

        Project 1258 harbor minesweeper "Korund" - RT-471.


        Boats:

        Project 14159 anti-sabotage / patrol boats - P-391, P-400, P-404, P-405, P-406;

        Project 21980 anti-sabotage boats "Grachonok" - P-377, P-420 Yunarmeets of Primorye, P-417 Yunarmeets of Kamchatka;

        Landing craft project 1176 "Akula" - D-704, D-70, D-57;

        Landing boat project 11770 "Serna" - D-107;

        Landing boat project 21820 "Dugong" - Ivan Kartsov.


        Strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs):

        Project 667BDR Kalmar nuclear submarine with ballistic missiles - K-44 Ryazan;

        Project 955 Borey nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles - K-550 Alexander Nevsky, K-551 Vladimir Monomakh.


        Nuclear submarines:

        Nuclear submarines with cruise anti-ship missiles of project 949A Antey - K-456 Tver, K-186 Omsk, K-150 Tomsk;

        Project 971 Shchuka-B nuclear torpedo multipurpose submarine - K-419 Kuzbass.
        Diesel-electric submarines:

        Diesel-electric torpedo submarines of project 877 "Halibut" - B-445 St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, B-394 Nurlat, B-464 Ust-Kamchatsk, B-494 Ust-Bolsheretsk, B-187 Komsomolsk-on-Amur, B-190 Krasnokamensk, B-345 Mogocha.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 27 August 2020 15: 42
          +1
          Quote: Mikhail Tynda
          About three to five alive:
          For 2019, the following ships are listed in the Russian Pacific Fleet.

          We immediately discard the second rank and below - no one will spend ballistic anti-ship missiles on them. Taking into account their air defense, it is easier to throw them with conventional anti-ship missiles.
          They won't spend on submarines either - they won't get them under water, but you can hit bases and conventional ballistic missiles.
          Remain:
          Project 1164 "Varyag".
          pr. 956 "Fast", which is more than 30 years old, and it will not last long (taking into account the power plant).
          pr. 1155 "Admiral Tributs", "Admiral Vinogradov", "Admiral Panteleev". Plus "Marshal Shaposhnikov". Four units, of which three are in service - taking into account the departure for modernization.
          In total, six ships worthy of a BPCR, of which a maximum of five are in service. And then there are questions about Project 1155 - their air defense is designed only for self-defense, so it is a little irrational to spend an expensive BKR on them.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 27 August 2020 18: 59
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            so it is a little irrational to spend on them an expensive BPCR.


            They are clearly not for us ...
  • sen
    sen 28 August 2020 05: 27
    +1
    It is also claimed that this Chinese missile is capable of penetrating shipborne missile defense systems, including Aegis Combat Systems.

    With a massive attack, it is possible.