Military Review

China's New Aircraft Carrier Key to Beijing Supremacy?

50

Soviet heredity



The photos presented this summer demonstrate the obvious progress of the PRC in creating its most powerful aircraft carrier, designated Type 003. In particular, in one of the photographs you can see the already installed superstructure of the ship, which indicates a high degree of readiness.

There is confusion in the names. The fact is that earlier some observers called the second aircraft carrier of the PRC, now well known as "Shandong", as Type 001A. And the third (which will be discussed) was conventionally called Type 002. However, after Shandong received the designation "Project 002", the third ship became firmly associated with the current name.


No matter how the ship is called, before us is the largest, most powerful and expensive aircraft carrier (and in general a warship) in stories PRC. Everything that came before this, to one degree or another, represented the development of the Soviet project 1143. The only Russian aircraft carrier, "Admiral Kuznetsov", we recall, belongs to the project 1143.5. "Varyag", which after its sale by Ukraine to China became "Liaoning", belongs to the project 1143.6.

"Admiral Kuznetsov", "Liaoning" and "Shandong" have differences. The "Chinese", for example, do not carry strike weapons (after modernization, as far as can be judged, "Kuznetsov" will also be deprived of it). But there is a main feature that unites them. This is the presence of a springboard on the take-off deck and the absence of a launch catapult, as in American ships of this class. On the one hand, this makes the project cheaper, on the other, it sharply limits its capabilities: both in terms of the combat load of carrier-based fighter-bombers and in the types of aircraft that can be used.

If we deviate a little from the topic, it is worth saying that the 1143 project was also developed in this direction. The first "full-fledged" Soviet aircraft carrier was supposed to be "Ulyanovsk" of project 1143.7: it was decided to equip it with two steam catapults "Mayak", but due to the difficult economic situation after the collapse of the USSR, the construction of the ship was stopped.

Attempt number three


If the first Chinese aircraft carrier - "Liaoning" - was literally a Soviet-built ship, and the second became its development with a "Chinese face", then Type 003 can be considered the first aircraft carrier entirely developed and built by China.

The construction of the ship, according to various sources, began either in 2015, or in 2016, or even in 2017. First of all, the size of the aircraft carrier attracts. If "Shandong" and "Liaoning" have a displacement (full) of about 70 tons, then for the Type 000 this figure will be up to 003 tons. The length of the new aircraft carrier is approximately 85-000 meters, which is roughly comparable to that of the American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (300 meters).


The main difference from the American aircraft carriers was the choice of the power plant. The Chinese have probably given up on nuclear reactors, but the exact type of installation remains unknown even now.

The type of catapult that the Chinese decided to install is also difficult to judge unambiguously. Electromagnetic catapults, such as those on the newest American aircraft carrier, Gerald R. Ford, generally perform better than steam catapults, such as on ships such as the Nimitz. This, in particular, concerns the smoothness of aircraft launches. But there is also a downside - price and technical complexity. Americans, who had high hopes for the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), have already faced a number of problems.

"I will issue a decree that steam catapults are used in the construction of new aircraft carriers."

- said former US President Donald Trump in 2019.

However, the point of no return has already been passed. As Western media reported this year, the EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) installed on the Gerald Ford ensured 8000 successful aircraft launches and landings. Presumably, neither the United States nor the Chinese will abandon technology. However, the Celestial Empire has yet to overcome the difficulties that the Americans have already overcome.

The beginning of a long journey


As already mentioned, the catapult will allow launching more types of aircraft and with a greater load. Among them will be the Xi'an KJ-600 early warning aircraft - a "copy" of the American Hawkeye flying radar.

However, do not go to extremes and immediately put the Type 003 on a par with aircraft carriers such as Gerald R. Ford or even Nimitz. And it's not just a matter of the ship's readiness (the lead American aircraft carrier of the Gerald R. Ford type, we recall, has been in service since 2017).


So far, China does not have a Boeing F / A-18E / F Super Hornet-class multi-role carrier-based fighter. It is pertinent to recall that last year the F / A-18 Block III Super Hornet, the latest and most "advanced" version of the fighter, took to the skies for the first time. The production aircraft will receive, in particular, a new IRST sensor and a large touchscreen display for the cockpit. It has perfect avionics and can use almost the entire spectrum aviation weapons that are in the arsenal of the US Navy.

In turn, the only carrier-based fighter of the PRC Navy, the Shenyang J-15, is a Chinese version of the Su-33. The basic version of these machines is the Soviet Su-27, which was not created as a carrier-based aircraft and is not very suitable for this role, if only because of its size. At one time, The Asia Times reported that in China the plane is called a "jumping fish" for its inability to work effectively from the deck of aircraft-carrying ships.

The main difference between the J-15 and the Su-33 is its enhanced strike capabilities. It is known that the machine can use, among other things, air-to-surface missiles: YJ-91, YJ-83K, KD-88. However, this is not enough for a full-fledged "deck". According to Western experts, the WS-15 engines created for the J-10 are notable for their low reliability, moreover, they are not powerful enough for such a heavy machine. In addition, the Americans counted at least four J-15 crashes with a total small number of aircraft produced.


It is pertinent to say that in the future, the latest F-18C of the fifth generation will become the basis of the US Navy's carrier-based aviation along with the F / A-35E / F. The fact that the aircraft belongs to the fifth generation "conditionally" does not negate the fact of its stealth, which gives an advantage over Chinese carrier-based fighters, at least out of line of sight. According to rumors, as well as a photo from the Web, the PRC is creating its own inconspicuous shipborne fighter FC-31, but so far the data on this aircraft are contradictory and often speculative.


Undoubtedly, the new aircraft carrier will give China new leverage in the Asia-Pacific region and will be a huge step forward for the entire PRC. On the other hand, there is no real superiority over the US Navy.
Author:
50 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 30 August 2021 04: 13
    +1
    Great news! The stronger China is at sea, the more pain in the butt of the Japanese, mattress mats and small-britters. good
    1. Igor Vorobyov
      Igor Vorobyov 30 August 2021 12: 39
      +12
      we have no less a splinter. China is still a pretzel. From which you can expect any dirty trick. as for example with Albania on May 17, 1961
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 31 August 2021 08: 45
        +2
        Quote: Igor Vorobiev
        we have no less a splinter. China is still a pretzel. From which you can expect any dirty trick. as for example with Albania on May 17, 1961

        As the saying goes, it is better to lose with a smart one than find with a fool.
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 30 August 2021 04: 17
    +1
    On the other hand, there is no need to talk about any real superiority over the American Navy.
    But parity, in the Soviet style, is already quite evident.
    1. Civil
      Civil 30 August 2021 07: 53
      +11
      The communists of the PRC clearly show how to develop their country, especially to the capitalist ruins of the 3rd world on the territory of the former USSR.
      1. dauria
        dauria 30 August 2021 14: 53
        0
        Communists of the PRC

        laughing They made fun. The capitalists of the PRC have proved the old truth - in preparation for war and other cataclysms, a dictator is needed. The Americans call such a regime "presidential rule."
        Only the trouble is that a person does not pay attention to burns, flayed skin and fractures only in case of fire. To survive. But you won't be able to live like that - you will die from infection or something else. How the USSR died.
  3. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 30 August 2021 05: 24
    -2
    I think in the future it will be cheaper to order an aircraft carrier in China, it will be much cheaper.
    1. Peak
      Peak 30 August 2021 05: 53
      +3
      Quote: Pessimist22
      I think in the future it will be cheaper to order an aircraft carrier in China, it will be much cheaper.


      We do not want to develop ourselves and will not?
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 30 August 2021 07: 07
        -2
        Quote: PiK
        We do not want to develop ourselves and will not?

        Looks like another liberal. Remember what Chubais and Gaidar said in the early 90s? Like, "we have oil, we will sell it and buy everything we need, we don't need to produce anything ourselves."
        1. faiver
          faiver 30 August 2021 08: 28
          +7
          Do we need a fleet now? Or someday later?
          We are not in a position to build anything more serious than a frigate now, and not because there is no money, but because we have gone through technological chains, therefore we have been building frigates for five years, and China is building many times faster. The same problem with aviation, problems with the production of Il-76, Be-200, Il-112, Il-114, MS-21
          1. arkadiyssk
            arkadiyssk 30 August 2021 13: 59
            +5
            Well, what five years for a frigate? Unfortunately, it is 10 years old and we plan to come out at 8. For five years we have been building corvettes, which China rivets in 2 years and puts them on the water every 2 months due to serial production at 4 plants.
            1. faiver
              faiver 30 August 2021 14: 40
              +4
              exactly, well, I was a little mistaken, it happens hi
      2. Aleksandr21
        Aleksandr21 30 August 2021 07: 28
        0
        Quote: PiK
        We do not want to develop ourselves and will not?


        Here the question is in costs ... the construction of a new aircraft carrier (or rather a series) in Russia will require colossal investments (this is the creation of infrastructure for its construction / maintenance / repair / basing + the creation of a new carrier-based aircraft + other costs (yesterday Roman Skoromorokhov had an interesting article on this topic .... and the problems are urgent). And of course the construction time ... therefore, it is cheaper, really to buy a ready-made one (if they sell, of course, and again, even if you exclude the costs of creating it, then service everything it will also have to + other expenses will not go anywhere), but I very much doubt this scenario, i.e. not the fact that China has free capacity for the construction of a new aircraft carrier, and even for a third country + there should be a go-ahead from the very top of China's CPC - and nothing is free, and besides, ours, apparently, after the construction of the UDC will try to master the construction of a new aircraft carrier ... but this will require colossal costs.
        1. Peak
          Peak 30 August 2021 07: 35
          +4
          Quote: Aleksandr21
          the construction of a new aircraft carrier (or rather a series) in Russia will require colossal investments (this is the creation of infrastructure for its construction / maintenance / repair / basing + creation of a new carrier-based aircraft + other costs


          ... and as a consequence of all this - "untwisting" related industries and research activities.

          Quote: Aleksandr21
          (Yesterday Roman Skoromorokhov had an interesting article on this topic ... and the problems are urgent)



          Let's read and analyze the opinion of ten experts in this industry, who "ate the dog" in shipbuilding and planning the appearance of the Navy, and not blogger Skomorokhov yes

        2. ramzay21
          ramzay21 30 August 2021 08: 21
          +1
          This is the logic of those who live one day. And if tomorrow we have a fight with China, then what will you sing? Where will you deliver for repairs and where will you get spare parts?
          And most importantly, now, when the income from oil alone is $ 250 billion a year, while the entire budget of $ 300 billion is not enough for an aircraft carrier. And what will happen in 20-30 years when oil reserves run out?
          1. Aleksandr21
            Aleksandr21 30 August 2021 08: 39
            -4
            Quote: ramzay21
            This is the logic of those who live one day. And if tomorrow we have a fight with China, then what will you sing? Where will you deliver for repairs and where will you get spare parts?
            And most importantly, now, when the income from oil alone is $ 250 billion a year, while the entire budget of $ 300 billion is not enough for an aircraft carrier. And what will happen in 20-30 years when oil reserves run out?


            I'm not talking about buying an aircraft carrier in China, i.e. if you just consider this possibility, it will be cheaper and faster, but other costs (maintenance / repair) will remain, you are right about spare parts, the problem is urgent ... in general, if you want to know my opinion, then in the near future there is other more urgent tasks in terms of building a fleet ... well, for example, what kind of surface fleet do we have now? Individual production and mostly a mosquito fleet. those. there is a need for a series of ships of the far sea / ocean zone: 22350 / 22350M and possibly 23560, and only after that think about building a series of aircraft carriers, but this is a very distant future 2040-2050 at best, and maybe 2050+
          2. faiver
            faiver 30 August 2021 08: 56
            -3
            I agree with Alexander21, an aircraft carrier is a question of the future, but today we have no destroyers, we don't take the pale remnants of the Saryches into account, what prevents us from ordering a dozen Chinese 052Ds? And after all, after a maximum of 4 years we will get 10 full-fledged first rank warships.
            1. Baron pardus
              Baron pardus 6 September 2021 03: 12
              0
              You don't need to buy a nifig. You need to learn to do everything yourself, otherwise even the engines have forgotten how to do it. And torpedoes. And sonars. Start small. Build yourself a corvette the size of Allen Sumner. Something small, toothy to drive away everything that is possible from their shores. Well, diesels from Sumner, or rather their modern version, I hope the Russian industry will master.
              1. faiver
                faiver 6 September 2021 13: 19
                0
                otherwise even the engines have forgotten how to do
                - and we once knew how to make a good engine? That the USSR, that the Russian Federation has always had problems with this
                1. Baron pardus
                  Baron pardus 6 September 2021 21: 05
                  0
                  EMNIP ship diesel engines and turbines, in the CCCP, turned out well, especially for small ships (up to 5000 tons). There were no problems with the engines on the Petrel. And it seems that there were no cruisers on the "Grozny" class either. So I think something like Sumner can be done, even out of boredom I began to do the general features of the Sumner project for the Russian fleet :-)
        3. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. seti
              seti 30 August 2021 11: 50
              0
              Quote: Stroporez

              Reasoning on the topic is needed / not needed hides the main question whether we can or not.
              Today we CANNOT! Point.

              How can you argue? That's so categorical! Absolutely no. But I'm saying what we can. But we do not need them today or tomorrow. This does not apply to Kuznetsov.
              1. Sling cutter
                Sling cutter 30 August 2021 12: 28
                +4
                Quote: seti
                How can you argue? That's so categorical! Absolutely no. But I'm saying what we can. But we do not need them today or tomorrow. This does not apply to Kuznetsov.

                Can? nu-nu ... And we can go to Mars, but we don't want to.
          2. Per se.
            Per se. 30 August 2021 11: 00
            0
            Quote: seti
            I'm generally talking about aircraft carriers. If yes, first answer yourself - why?
            For a full-fledged fleet. If you can tell by your personal car why you need Lexus, you can have a cheaper car, in general, ride a scooter or not have anything, and use public transport, you cannot say that about the fleet. He is either there or he is not, he is either weak or strong. The strap cutter is right, it is not a question here whether it is needed or not (needed), but we can or cannot build it. The rest of the evil one, in general, the armed forces are generally a costly thing, so can they immediately surrender in order to "save money"? Only, the colony and the slaves will no longer have money.
            1. seti
              seti 30 August 2021 11: 53
              +2
              I wrote an article on this topic. "We may or may not and why." Hopefully it will be missed. Not only Skomorokhov read with Timoshkin.
              I say we can. The facts confirm this. So are our engineers. But the main thing for us now is with you - what for?
              What will you do with them? Or is self-esteem the main thing for you?
              1. Sling cutter
                Sling cutter 30 August 2021 12: 30
                0
                Quote: seti
                I say we can. The facts confirm this. So are our engineers.

                It will be curious to see your justification.
              2. Per se.
                Per se. 30 August 2021 12: 32
                +3
                Quote: seti
                What will you do with them? Or is self-esteem the main thing for you?
                I do not make a fetish out of an aircraft carrier, for me it is only an aircraft carrier at sea. Why and why aviation at sea? Now, when aviation, as one of the most effective types of armed forces so far, becomes obsolete, then aircraft carriers will not be needed.

                This has not happened yet, and basic aviation cannot solve the tasks that carrier-based aviation solves. Therefore, it is not a question for me whether an aircraft carrier is needed for the fleet, but whether we can or cannot build it. We do not need as many aircraft carriers as the Yankees, but we need a full-fledged, not defective, fleet capable of solving all tasks at sea. The fleet will not be able to solve all tasks without aircraft carriers. At least one or two operational squadrons with an aircraft carrier, at the right time and in the right place, we need to have.

                I hope that your article will be not biased and interesting.
                1. Baron pardus
                  Baron pardus 6 September 2021 21: 11
                  0
                  Do you realize that: a) An aircraft carrier is more expensive than several airfields. b) Deck aircraft, due to the specifics of their use, will ALWAYS have worse performance characteristics than ground ones.
                  c) For an aircraft carrier you need to dock an escort. That 4-5 missile destroyers (and an aircraft carrier costs more than 4-5 destroyers) is already a force, and one aircraft carrier for the same money is a magnet for missiles.
                  d) Before building an aircraft carrier, you need a regular fleet, both to escort this aircraft carrier and to cover the shores. e) Are you aware that geographically Russia is located in such a way that in the case of Makhach, no fleet will simply have time to help another. Neither the Black Sea, nor the Baltic, nor the Pacific. And if you build aircraft carriers, then where to place them? In a puddle of black or Baltic type that are being shot at by everyone and everything? England, France, USA, Japan, and even ITALY are easier with aircraft carriers. They do not have several waters separated by thousands of kilometers of land. True, the United States does, you cannot quickly transfer a fleet from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic, but they have only TWO water areas, but the huge ones, neither the Pacific Ocean nor the Atlantic, cannot be shot through, unlike the Baltic and the Black Sea. Another question is WHERE to put this aircraft carrier? In the Pacific Ocean? The USA + Japan will simply crush him by the amount. For the same money, it is better to build several missile frigates, nuclear submarines and ground-based aircraft.
              3. bayard
                bayard 30 August 2021 20: 06
                +2
                Quote: seti
                I wrote an article on this topic. "We may or may not and why."

                smile
                Quote: seti
                and why

                lol
                It's clear . When you feel bad, the easiest way is to say "yes, I didn't really want to" .... "because it is not necessary."
                Just answer the question, do we have a power plant for ships of a class higher than a frigate?
                And the one that appeared for the frigate ... how suitable is it for operation?
                This is not sarcasm, just a consultation of facts related to it (GEM for pr. 22350).
                At first, it is reported with fanfare that the first domestic power plant was delivered to the manufacturer for installation in the building of "Admiral Golovko" ... Then a year of deathly silence and ... NEW MESSAGE: "The first domestic power plant was delivered to the manufacturer for" Admiral Golovko ... just now ..." what
                And where did the FIRST one go?
                The one that was delivered a year earlier?
                But about her later.
                Now about the second one, which was called the "First" ... It turned out that they did not know how to install it in a hull that was already launched. belay The question "What were they thinking about when the hull was lowered into the water" is too inconvenient ... but it was answered long ago: "In order to make room for the next hulls" ...
                And the suffering began ... more precisely, the torment of engineering creativity, because an ordinary port crane could lift and with great difficulty install this power plant ONLY in parts!
                Then, after a long period of time, we learned that the power plant was still loaded into the case in parts ... But how (!) Was it copied and adjusted there ???
                With crowbars and jacks?
                After all, according to the process technology, it must be loaded assembled when mounted on a slipway!
                A bridge (!) Crane into a stationary (!) Body.
                Passed again ... a year ... "Admiral Golovko" a couple of months ago was supposed to start sea trials ... But they are not. request
                Why
                Silence .
                But USC has already notified us that sea trials are postponed ... to next year.
                Really expected?
                It was expected by me from the moment I saw the loading of a gas turbine by a port crane ... into a hull swinging on the waves.
                But the power plant was loaded a year ago!
                What were they doing there?
                But by doing so, with crowbars and jacks, they tried to adjust high-speed turbines and diesel engines with a gearbox.
                And apparently COULD NOT.
                Which is not surprising, because perhaps no one would have been able to.
                And what do we have now instead of a year as the promised frigate?
                And we have a disabled ship, which is unlikely to be a good walker. And it is unlikely to be put into operation soon.

                And what happened to the FIRST GEM, you ask?
                request This mystery is shrouded in darkness. But we can safely assume that it was either ditched during tests (which is less likely), or simply drowned / dropped / distorted during the first attempt to install the power plant afloat.
                For what we are seeing now is already the second attempt.

                So answer now:
                - "We can, but we don't want to"?
                - or "We want to, but we can't"?
                - or the third option "We do not want (the authorities, the management of the USC), and we cannot!" ?

                Everything that we have observed in recent years clearly indicates that they DO NOT WANT and CANNOT.
                And in everything.

                And about the potential capabilities of our industry, science and engineering, we can only talk aloof, speculatively and empirically.
                People can .
                AUTHORITIES don't want to.
                ... and they can't.
      3. Sling cutter
        Sling cutter 30 August 2021 09: 15
        +2
        Quote: PiK
        We do not want to develop ourselves and will not?

        What preconditions do you see for development? Maybe there is a state development plan?
        All infrastructure projects of the modern Russian Federation are aimed only at ensuring the export of resources.
    2. Monar
      Monar 30 August 2021 08: 37
      +1
      Where did you order before?
      1. Peak
        Peak 30 August 2021 08: 55
        -2
        Quote: Monar
        Where did you order before?


        Don't you know?
        Before , their aircraft carriers (aircraft carrier cruisers) we built in Soviet Ukraine...
    3. Bekasov Artem Andreevich
      Bekasov Artem Andreevich 30 August 2021 13: 05
      0
      Idiotic thoughts creep into your head! (Do not be offended, but this is nonsense)
      Maybe order destroyers from them? Why, they rivet them like on a printer
      1. Peak
        Peak 30 August 2021 13: 20
        -3
        Quote: Bekasov Artem Andreevich
        Idiotic thoughts creep into your head! (Do not be offended, but this is nonsense)


        The word "before" specially highlighted in the text for people like you didn’t tell you anything?

        What were you generally guided by, fantasizing to yourself that I supposedly propose to order something NOW belay belay belay (is this word noticeable?), in Bandera-Ukraine?
  4. dauria
    dauria 30 August 2021 11: 15
    +3
    The basic version of these machines is the Soviet Su-27, which was not designed as a carrier-based aircraft.


    So after all, the F-18 was not created as a deck. It, called YF-17, lost the F-70 competition in the 16s for the place of "cheap fighter" in a pair of F-15s. By the way, the F-16 was then called "Condor", not the Falcon.
    And then the loser was picked up by the sailors, made stronger and equipped with takeoff and landing and folding bells and whistles.
    This is for fans of the "heavy-light" concept. The Americans did not have it. It was a simple and rational "expensive - cheap".
    1. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 6 September 2021 21: 17
      0
      Read the documentation. F15 and F16 were created to complement each other. Exactly as a "Heavy / Light" link. At first, the proportions had to be 1: 3. But in view of the growth of the capabilities of F16 thanks to the new radars that made it possible for F16 to carry AMRAAM, a, at the same time in view of the greater accident rate of F15x (already cited information in his old entries on the same forum), now the ratio is 1: 6 in favor of F16, and F15 in general in the majority they were taken to the National Guard. Which flies less and is mainly engaged in air defense.
      F18 is exactly the MEDIUM aircraft. When it was created, it had a radar, but not as powerful as on F15, but more powerful than F16 THEN, F18 could immediately carry AIM7, but F16 could not. And according to LTH F18 is also somewhere in the middle.
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 30 August 2021 11: 33
    0
    The first "full-fledged" Soviet aircraft carrier was supposed to be "Ulyanovsk" of project 1143.7

    And it could have become etc. 1160. And then there would be no two mutants (1143.3 and 1143.4) and two non-Avian carriers (1143.5 and 1143.6). sad
  6. Sling cutter
    Sling cutter 30 August 2021 12: 26
    0
    Weird. Why was my comment removed? what
    Reasoning on the topic is needed / not needed hides the main question whether we can or not.
    Today we CANNOT! Point.
  7. DrRey
    DrRey 30 August 2021 12: 26
    0
    "On the other hand, there is no need to talk about any real superiority over the US Navy" - for now.
  8. APASUS
    APASUS 30 August 2021 13: 59
    0
    An aircraft carrier in Russia is a matter of the distant future. We have Kuznetsov alone, there is no infrastructure. Then something is not heard about the development of an AWACS aircraft, such as Hawkeye. And of course, for AUG, you need escort and it's still quiet here.
  9. Rin
    Rin 30 August 2021 14: 30
    0
    China will someday catch up with America in aircraft carriers, but Russia has no money and the technological capability means it will develop weapons in order to be able to destroy the enemy's AUG.
  10. SKVichyakow
    SKVichyakow 30 August 2021 16: 06
    0
    Well what can I say, the GOOD MEN are Chinese. We moved from flashlights and sneakers to a higher level. And we continue to buy these flashlights from them.
  11. Region-25.rus
    Region-25.rus 30 August 2021 19: 11
    +1
    In particular, one of the photographs shows the already installed superstructure of the ship, which indicates a high degree of readiness.
    Author. With all due respect, but the willingness of what? Housings? Or an entire ship with all systems, mechanisms, weapons, and so on? what
  12. Alexander P
    Alexander P 30 August 2021 21: 36
    0
    If the whole world has invested in the economy of China and still the technologies are old, then there is no alternative to the USSR in the world ... Digitizers, with their bluetooth, are stuck in a dead end ...
    1. Mirabo
      Mirabo 31 August 2021 12: 17
      -1
      Military technology may be old, but civilian - at the global level. What the USSR, and even more so Russia could never boast of and are unlikely to be able to in the coming decades.
  13. loaln
    loaln 31 August 2021 08: 37
    0
    A good example of a society without grabbers and traitors.
    Moreover, on the basis of socialism.
    With what color it is, the second thing, especially the teachers of our traitors once extolled Eurocommunism (socialism), probably mocking its prospects, frightening our dogmatic members with it, who have already fully formed into the ruling bourgeois class. The estate of TRAITORS.
    Improvement of socialism was of no use to them.
    Ah, no, China is laughing at everyone now.
    Well, what about the RF?
    Alas, the country of traitors to its Motherland is NOT ABLE for creative enthusiasm.
    And without it, not only decent aircraft carriers cannot be built, but the industry cannot be restored either.
    They have already cut off the supply of advanced technologies (although they sold one old piece before), but there is no TYAMU of our own.
    He died along with the Soviet regime.
    Why can we claim this?
    And you compare the affairs of the country for the periods: 1917-1947 and 1991-2021.
    And stick your tongue, you yourself know where, wishing to once again bark at Stalinism, socialism, the Soviet people.
    And stop bragging about your military achievements.
    These are not your achievements, these are the achievements of Soviet fundamental science, revised on a new element base.
    In 30 years, it’s a pity we won’t be able to see, local homemade products will appear, if they appear.
    But thieves, thieves around, thieves are unlikely to allow this.
  14. Borisych
    Borisych 31 August 2021 21: 45
    0
    Aircraft carrier race. Whoever has more aircraft carriers, the same aircraft carrier. If it is an end in itself for the Chinese to build such large ships, let them build them. Russia needs ocean-going ships with hypersonic weapons and amphibious assault ships with aircraft-based capabilities.
  15. Glagol1
    Glagol1 5 September 2021 19: 22
    0
    And China is not chasing striped ones. When they have 3 aircraft carriers, they will provide cover in the area they need.
  16. TexHo
    TexHo 6 September 2021 04: 50
    0
    I'll tell you a secret
    The Chinese have never been able to fight with other countries.
    They can only crush their citizens with tanks.

    That's it.
  17. silver_roman
    silver_roman 10 October 2021 23: 53
    0
    Just why does China need an aircraft carrier? They have those in the geopolitical expansion strategy. Perhaps only in relation to Taiwan, but an aircraft carrier is not needed there. Although it may well be that the PRC will soon acquire bases in Africa, the countries of which are largely controlled by the PRC.
  18. 75 Sergey
    75 Sergey 7 November 2021 09: 28
    0
    In my opinion, the AUG should consist of at least three aircraft carriers with two parallel catapults - one worked, and the second is already ready for use, in order to be able to quickly launch a link of aircraft, but it is not effective to launch one at a time.