China's mini-aircraft carrier: a technical masterpiece or a technological "crutch"?

48 384 89
China's mini-aircraft carrier: a technical masterpiece or a technological "crutch"?

It’s strange, but the US military fashion trendsetters, who currently have the most powerful fleet There is no ship like the Sichuan in the world. And although it is the first of its kind, it will certainly not be the last. This is evidenced by all the plans that China is implementing today.

On December 27, 2024, at the Hudong Shipyard, just outside the sprawling city of Shanghai, the Chinese Navy launched one of the world's largest and most innovative warships: the Type 076, named Sichuan.




Named after the Chinese province of the same name, the Sichuan looks like a flat-decked amphibious assault ship capable of deploying Marines ashore using helicopters and landing craft, but it has one special feature: it has an electromagnetic catapult that can launch carrier-based aircraft and drones.


But the emergence of unmanned aerial vehicles and the assessment of their effectiveness is the meaning of their use in the navy, ships capable of launching and receiving drones in large quantities, will become vital elements of the fleet.

For example, Taiwan is not far from China's coast in maritime terms. The complicated relationship between China and Taiwan is no secret, and the West believes that one of the goals of China's four-decade military buildup is to create a force capable of successfully invading Taiwan.

The strategy is clear: to capture the island, it will be necessary to cross the Taiwan Strait, seize the beaches, ports and airports, and then land a large amphibious force to suppress resistance and seize the island. At the forefront of the attack will be eight brigades of the People's Liberation Army Marine Corps, which will ensure the solution of all combat tasks.

"Sichuan" is intended to serve as a delivery vehicle.


The warship, 260 meters long, with a flight deck width of 45 meters and a displacement of 40 tons, can carry more than 000 marines and transport them to the coastline both by sea and by air.

The Sichuan is designed to accommodate a fleet of medium- and heavy-lift helicopters to ferry marines and their weapons to shore. In addition, the ship can act as a platform for controlling landing craft, such as the Type 726 Mustang hovercraft. For this purpose, the Sichuan is equipped with a well deck, that is, a stern section that allows landing craft to enter the Sichuan, load dry, then fill the compartment with water again and exit with equipment and troops.

The Sichuan is also a carrier aircraft carrier. drones. The ship is equipped with electromagnetic catapults capable of lifting fixed-wing aircraft into the air, and three rows of braking devices for the safe return of the aircraft after flight. Three elevators deliver aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck.

The electromagnetic catapult makes the Sichuan a unique ship. In general, there are quite a few aircraft carriers in the world that launch planes using a ski-jump or a steam catapult, but only two ships are equipped with an electromagnetic catapult so far: the US Navy's Gerald R. Ford and the Chinese Navy's Fujian. The Sichuan is the third ship in the world and the first landing ship equipped with an EMALS catapult.


How do electromagnetic catapults work?


The aircraft is attached to a special trolley, which is located on rails along which magnets are installed. These magnets create a very strong field that accelerates the trolley with the aircraft attached to it to the speed necessary for takeoff, and the aircraft lifts off from the deck.

The main advantage of an electromagnetic catapult over steam catapults is that acceleration can be very precisely controlled by changing the strength of the magnetic field depending on the weight of the device. A fighter will weigh much more than a reconnaissance drone, so if you accelerate a UAV like an airplane, it can be damaged and disabled.

In addition, electromagnetic catapults have far fewer moving parts than classic steam catapults, are less prone to error, and require less maintenance. Electromagnets also charge faster than steam generation, so EMALS can launch more rockets in a single period of time.

The catapult was hidden at the opening ceremony. It may not be fully operational yet, or China wants to prevent its technology from leaking out.

The ship is designed to carry attack drones, with its primary armament being Hongdu GJ-11 Sharp Sword unmanned combat aircraft. The jet-powered GJ-11 is said to be faster and better armed than the US Air Force's MQ-9 Reaper drones. It also has a high stealth capability, allowing it to evade radar as it penetrates enemy airspace.


There is also speculation, though so far unconfirmed, that the GJ-11 could be equipped with rockets class "air-to-air". Accordingly, the "Sharp Sword" will be able not only to perform independent flights, but also to support Chinese J-20 and J-35 aircraft as a wingman in combat. The second pilot in the J-20 cockpit could act as the UAV operator, evaluating the data transmitted by the reconnaissance aircraft or monitoring the drone's target acquisition and giving the order to open fire.


Here, however, we should never forget the sad experience of using the S-70 UAV by the Russian Aerospace Forces. The drone was shot down by a missile from its own aircraft when control was intercepted by the enemy from the ground.

In addition to the GJ-11, the Sichuan's hangars can accommodate the WZ-7 reconnaissance drone and the smaller and less powerful CASC Rainbow unmanned attack aircraft.

The very wide deck indirectly confirms the presence of large aircraft on board, that is, it is believed that the Sichuan was created "for growth", for aircraft and UAVs of the future. For example, for the J-35, and this is a rather large aircraft.


In general, the Sichuan is a leader in size. Yes, its displacement is announced at 40 thousand tons, but the Americans believe that the Chinese deliberately underestimated the tonnage to create a false impression of the ship's combat capabilities. The War Zone experts generally estimated the displacement of the Type 076 at 50 thousand tons, which makes the Sichuan truly the largest landing ship in the world.

For comparison: the UDC "America" ​​is 257 meters long, 32 meters wide, and has a displacement of 45 tons. The Italian "Trieste" has a deck 600 meters long and 230 meters wide (and a ski jump). And both UDCs are capable of launching and receiving the naval version of the F-36B.


UDC "America"

The fact that the GJ-11 is a frankly large aircraft (length 12,2 meters, wingspan 14,4 meters) and is quite comparable to modern aircraft (the F-35B has a length of 15,57 meters and a wingspan of 10,67 meters) and even surpasses them, such a wide deck as the Sichuan guarantees sufficient space for maneuvering unmanned vehicles of such dimensions.

There is no reliable information yet that China plans to use conventional aircraft on the new ship. However, if such plans are announced, the ship will really be ready for this both technically and in terms of crew training, because working with the GJ-11 will provide a sufficient level of training. Moreover, all the conditions have been created for this: the Sichuan is built according to the latest configuration, with two towers. It is believed that the distribution of ship control and services in one tower, and flights in another, has a positive effect on the organization of service on the ship.

The twin-turret configuration is considered modern and is also used in Western countries. The Italian UDC Trieste and the British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are built using the same scheme.

weaponry


Naturally, like all ships of this class, the Sichuan lacks strike weapons. But it has a fairly decent set of defensive weapons capable of protecting the ship from missiles or drones that break through to it, but in general, the protection of such ships should be taken over by specialized ships such as destroyers and frigates.

How will Sichuan defend itself?

3 launchers for HQ-10 missiles, located on the stern of the ship. In general, there is enough space on the Sichuan to accommodate even more. But the option with 24 missiles per launcher (and this is an analogue of the American RIM-116) is quite good for protecting the ship. HQ-10 missiles have a range of up to 9 km and are a very effective weapon to combat small-sized targets, such as anti-ship missiles and drones.


Stern with Type 076 SAM system with HQ-10 (left and right) and Type 1130 SAM (middle)

Also visible in the photos are 4 decoy launchers, 2 on each side of the ship. They are usually loaded with decoy missiles, which are used to interfere with the infrared and radar homing heads of enemy missiles.


One of the decoy launchers can be seen at the bottom left.

The Sichuan is armed with three Type 1130 CIWS - on the left, back and right of the ship's deck, covering a sector of about 300 degrees. The 11-barrel 30mm automatic cannons have a rate of fire of up to 11 rounds per minute and an effective range of up to 000 km.


Each ship's anti-aircraft artillery The Type 1130 has its own radar, so it can independently engage incoming airborne targets. The system is considered the last active line of defense against anti-ship missiles and kamikaze drones, but it can also be used to engage waterborne targets such as boats and floating kamikaze drones.

Just a few years ago, such anti-aircraft artillery systems were considered almost an anachronism, but everything changed with the advent of unmanned kamikaze boats (UBK), cheaper than torpedoes, but no less effective. And today, the presence of a ZAK/ZRAK on deck is a relative guarantee that the UKB will not reach the side of the ship.

Application


While the combination of an amphibious assault ship and an aircraft carrier isn’t exactly innovative, it does give the Chinese navy more flexibility in how it carries out its missions. If the initial mission were to land an amphibious assault, the ship would have transport helicopters and hovercraft. Once the Marines were ashore, the Sichuan could reconfigure itself as an air platform and use its attack drones to suppress enemy defenses while the Marines took up positions.

If, for example, the task is to blockade Taiwan in order to disrupt the island's supply, unmanned aerial vehicles can be used to patrol the airspace and guide ships with boarding teams that will inspect the ships using helicopters and small boats. And the Sichuan itself can carry anti-submarine helicopters on deck and in hangars to search for those same submarines.

Here, of course, many may ask: isn't there some overkill in the ship's concept? An electromagnetic catapult for launching aircraft is a complex, expensive and luxurious thing for an aircraft carrier working with hundreds of aircraft of different classes, and here we have a landing ship.

Here in the US Marine Corps they use UDCs, which use F-35B fighters with short takeoff and vertical landing, for takeoff and landing this aircraft does not require catapults and braking devices. For use with UDCs, you can’t think of anything better, at first glance.


China does not have such aircraft, and it seems that it does not even expect to have any. The reason for this is a certain lag in engines, which will not allow the Celestial Empire to establish at least the design of aircraft such as VTOL aircraft.

That is, there is a solution to the problem using other technologies. However, if China has the ability to build a number of ships with electromagnetic catapults and use aircraft with them, perhaps this is a more interesting move than building no less technologically advanced and complex VTOL aircraft. Of course, if you turn to Russia for help, this problem can be solved, but the choice itself is not so critical.

It's like a steam catapult and a ski jump: some build with a catapult, and some with a ski jump. And there are no fewer ships with ski jumps than with catapults.

So the question of whether China needs to develop and build its own VTOL aircraft remains open. It should be noted that the F-35B does not particularly shine in the skies over the sea, and the naval aviation The US still prefers the time-tested F/A-18 in its latest upgrade. And the VTOL is used by the Marine Corps, whose ships are not capable of operating normal aircraft. So who plugs the technological holes how – that’s another question.

"Sichuan" is a very interesting phenomenon: a landing mini-aircraft carrier and a maxi-drone carrier. Such ships have a certain future, at least the Turks are building their own similar ship. It is clear that they are not doing this because life is good, but attack unmanned vehicles have a very big future. Especially at sea, where it will be much easier for them to operate, and here's why: who or what is the main opponent of attack UAVs today? The correct answer is EWOn land, it is easier to work on neutralizing UAVs: electronic warfare systems are easier to deploy, easier to camouflage, easier to give them target designation.

On the water, especially on the open ocean, a ship has nowhere and nothing to camouflage itself with. Therefore, such a target is perfectly visible from great distances. Yes, the ship has its own electronic warfare systems, its own Defense. The whole point is that a UAV as large as the GJ-11 can approach the closest safe distance and launch missiles at a ship without being detected by its surveillance equipment. And then go away, leaving the ship's crew to deal with the suddenly emerging threat.

At sea, UAVs have a better chance of being an effective means of delivery than on land, so drone carriers have certain prospects. The functional commissioning of the Sichuan is not expected before 2026, I am sure that many interested eyes will be watching the tests. The experience of the Chinese may be of interest to other countries. And it may well turn out that the Chinese ship will become the subject of study in terms of experience of use and an example to follow.

This is, of course, something that has "gone too far", but what to do if "Sichuan" is a really interesting project? Yes, at first glance it seems like a very "universal soldier", but isn't this exactly what many people in the world are striving for today?
89 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    29 January 2025 04: 05
    Sichuan is designed to accommodate a fleet of medium and heavy-lift helicopters
    The Chinese do not have heavy helicopters, much less convertiplanes. Accordingly, they cannot deliver equipment and artillery to the landing site by air. Thus, they are only capable of landing on a coastline accessible to floating craft, which makes it easier for the enemy to defend. In the long term, provided that they receive something similar to the V-22, CY-53, CY-47, the capabilities of the Sichuan will expand, but for now it is a ship with limited capabilities.
    1. +4
      29 January 2025 04: 31
      Hello!
      Quote: Puncher
      The Chinese do not have heavy helicopters, much less tilt-rotor aircraft
      While serial There really are no analogues to V-22, CH-53, CH-47.
      Quote: Puncher
      Accordingly, they cannot deliver equipment and artillery to the landing site by air.

      I would not be so categorical No.
      For example, the latest versions of the Z-18 have a lifting capacity of up to 5 tons on the external suspension.
      1. +1
        29 January 2025 04: 52
        Quote: Bongo
        For example, the latest versions of the Z-18 have a lifting capacity of up to 5 tons on the external suspension.

        It is impossible to squeeze Super-Frelon indefinitely, as far as I understand this is the maximum that they managed to squeeze out. A new modern machine with a lifting capacity of 15+ tons is needed, it is somewhat naive to believe that the enemy, having missed one landing, will allow several more flights to be made. Moreover, if we take Taiwan Island specifically, then given the density of the combat systems, one landing may not take place in the required volume.
        1. +4
          29 January 2025 15: 26
          1. They can afford it.
          2. The Communists of the PRC send fiery greetings to the builders of developed capitalism in one former northern superpower.
          1. -1
            29 January 2025 21: 07
            Quote: Civil
            Communists of the PRC

            Where did you find the communists there?
    2. +15
      29 January 2025 04: 41
      The Chinese do not have heavy helicopters, much less tilt-rotor aircraft.

      Just 15 years ago, China did not have aircraft carriers, but today it does.
      Road going by walking!
      1. -1
        29 January 2025 04: 55
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Just 15 years ago, China did not have aircraft carriers, but today it does.
        Road going by walking!

        This is certainly true, but China still has a huge gap in engine building. China is a leader in shipbuilding, but they are incomparably worse in aviation. And the UDC is a fusion of the first and the second.
      2. 0
        29 January 2025 22: 21
        35 years ago the USSR seemed indestructible.. there were problems, there was Afghanistan, but.. could anyone imagine that all this was just a house on the sand.. Today China also seems to be at its peak.. the second (or rather the first) economy in the world.. the PLA and the navy are furiously re-arming themselves with the latest (yes, and "unparalleled") types of weapons.. and ahead is a victory over the old and decrepit hegemon (and this is not Ukraine and not even GayrOpa), but.. all the same, somewhere there (in the depths of the soul) the bigwigs of China live fear.. fear of the victim, fear of the loser.. fear (well, not war in life, Chinaites, traders and officials who know Confucius but have never won.. yes, never and no one at all (unless of course you believe their movies about Shaolin and other Kung Fu adepts)... that's how it is They will continue to build new... hardware and convince themselves that they are cool and deadly, but... even the small Viet Cong, in terms of fighting spirit, will give the entire PLA... a loan...
        well and of course everything may not be so and the PLA is a real Macedonian phalanx and Roman legions (yeah, two in one) and the whole world trembles from their menacing gait...well and then...Ave China...morutari and salutator...
    3. +2
      29 January 2025 06: 25
      Quote: Puncher
      The Chinese do not have heavy helicopters, much less tilt-rotor aircraft
      What can a tiltrotor do that a helicopter can't?
      Quote: Puncher
      Accordingly, they cannot deliver equipment and artillery to the landing site by air.
      Of course they can. A heavy helicopter of joint Russian-Chinese production
      1. +3
        29 January 2025 07: 49
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        Of course they can. A heavy helicopter of joint Russian-Chinese production

        In the Marvel universe, perhaps...
        1. +2
          29 January 2025 10: 00
          The contract for the development of the heavy-duty AC332 AHL helicopter was signed by the Russian Helicopters holding (part of Rostec) with the Chinese Avicopter in 2021. The Russian side must develop some of the units for it: transmission, tail rotor, anti-icing system and resource pumping, as reported earlier on the Kremlin website. It was noted that the implementation period of this large project is about 13 years.
          https://ria.ru/20240516/vertolet-1946481540.html
          1. -1
            29 January 2025 20: 37
            Pictures and layouts cannot be used on the finished UDC. They will not help in any way. The probability of implementation is 0%.
            1. +3
              29 January 2025 21: 04
              Quote: Puncher
              Probability of implementation is 0%.

              Why such confidence?
              1. +1
                29 January 2025 21: 06
                Quote: Doccor18
                Why such confidence?

                Well, from history. Not a single joint project with China was implemented.
      2. +4
        29 January 2025 09: 51
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        What can a tiltrotor do that a helicopter can't?

        The combat radius, capacity and payload are greater than those of helicopters, at least American ones. That is why the complex and capricious Osprey has been in development for two decades now...
  2. +6
    29 January 2025 04: 33
    The ship is very interesting and worthy of attention. But unfortunately the author was in a hurry, and the translation is crude.
    1. +2
      29 January 2025 05: 09
      Of course, it is worth comparing the combat qualities of the ships, but still I decided to compare the same UDC America and this Sichuan from an aesthetic point of view... and as for me, the Chinese one looks like cardboard, it creates the feeling that it is "fake" or something, when looking at it. The American is somehow made with a soul, brutal)))
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 20: 14
        The first two ships of the UDC America type are full-fledged escort aircraft carriers. If the author understands what this term means and what role such ships played in WW2. That is, America and Tripoli do not have any landing chamber! These areas are given over to their aircraft repair shops. Therefore, it can fully conduct combat operations without the need to fly aircraft to land or the nearest aircraft carrier to service the sides. (except for aircraft engine repair, they still carry engines to the aircraft carrier with Ospreys). But this jack of all trades is Chinese, it is just not clear what is unique about him. Just a UDC and that's it.
    2. +4
      29 January 2025 09: 54
      Quote: Bongo
      But unfortunately the author was in a hurry, and the translation is crude.

      Unfortunately.
      In the photo, instead of America, there is the last of the Wasp-class ships - USS Makin Island.
    3. +2
      29 January 2025 10: 26
      The translation is not just "raw"))) it's a nightmare - just "deck - well" is worth something))) it's clear, Google Translate translates literally. But you should know that this is a dock camera)))
  3. +1
    29 January 2025 06: 03
    Application

    In general, the combination of an amphibious assault ship and an aircraft carrier is not that innovative, but it gives the Chinese navy greater flexibility in carrying out its missions.
    . An order was given to him... but where will he go?
  4. -3
    29 January 2025 06: 08
    I still don't understand from the article why the aircraft carrier is mini? It can carry planes, the deck is sufficient, there is a catapult, there is a flight control center. Why is it suddenly mini?
    1. +2
      29 January 2025 06: 17
      In terms of the number of aircraft placed on board and the capabilities in terms of providing flights for aircraft on this type of ship in particular.
    2. +2
      29 January 2025 10: 28
      Because it's not quite the size of a normal aircraft carrier. And Zhaboyedov's "de Gaulle" is bigger. And so on, on to the little things.
    3. +2
      29 January 2025 11: 02
      Quote: your1970
      Why all of a sudden - mini?

      Because there is only one catapult, while standard aircraft carriers have 3 to 4. Because this is a UDC, not an aircraft carrier, and its main purpose is to transport a battalion of marines and land them using its own delivery vehicles. A UDC is not an aircraft carrier, but with the light hand of the author it became a "mini".
      1. 0
        29 January 2025 12: 02
        According to the article, there are 1000 marines. And that's already a regiment.
        1. +3
          29 January 2025 14: 41
          Quote: stankow
          And this is already a regiment.

          The Chinese Marine Corps does not have regiments, only brigades (5000-6000 men) and battalions (1000-1500 men).
        2. +2
          30 January 2025 11: 30
          Quote: stankow
          According to the article, there are 1000 marines. And that's already a regiment.

          This is the Marines. There, the battalions are in fact battalion tactical groups - the battalion includes and counts all the means of reinforcement and reinforced rear, which for the ground forces are at the regiment-division level. For the Marines, what they planted is what they fight with, and so the battalions swell.
          The Yankees, I remember, had up to 2,5 thousand people in the Marine Expeditionary Battalion, and the Expeditionary Division swelled to as many as 50 thousand.
          1. 0
            30 January 2025 11: 31
            I see. A special branch of the military, a special organization...
  5. +2
    29 January 2025 06: 19
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    "Sichuan" is intended to serve as a delivery vehicle
    I don't understand, is this some kind of likeness of the French "Mistral" or the American "Tarawa", only more advanced?
    1. -4
      29 January 2025 07: 18
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
      "Sichuan" is intended to serve as a delivery vehicle
      I don't understand, is this some kind of likeness of the French "Mistral" or the American "Tarawa", only more advanced?

      I didn't get it either, apparently yes, like the Mistral - that's why the aircraft carrier is "mini"
      1. 0
        29 January 2025 08: 16
        Quote: your1970
        that's why the aircraft carrier is "mini"
        It is not a "mini" but rather a "sub", a sub-aircraft carrier. A few planes, a few drones, a few helicopters, and also sea landing craft. wink
        1. +5
          29 January 2025 09: 03
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Quote: your1970
          that's why the aircraft carrier is "mini"
          It is not a "mini" but rather a "sub", a sub-aircraft carrier. A few planes, a few drones, a few helicopters, and also sea landing craft. wink

          This type of aircraft carrier is called a "universal landing ship"; sometimes they are called "small aircraft carriers". In fact, it is only a third smaller than our Admiral Kuznetsov and half the size of Nimitz. At the same time, this is the second type of ship with an electromagnetic catapult.
          Somewhere like that.
          1. -1
            29 January 2025 10: 14
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            This type of aircraft carrier is known as a "universal landing ship" and is sometimes referred to as a "small aircraft carrier".

            Well, how can I say it? In my opinion, the Chinese have overdone it with this "white elephant".
            As a small aircraft carrier, the landing function is completely unnecessary. Large volumes of space and tonnage are used for a secondary profile.
            As for the UDC, there is an overkill with the catapult and dimensions, which cannot but affect the cost of both construction and operation.
            1. +5
              29 January 2025 10: 30
              Perhaps they overdid it, and perhaps not. The presence of a catapult allows the use of heavy (jet) UAVs of long range, both in reconnaissance and strike versions.
              1. -1
                29 January 2025 10: 37
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Perhaps they overdid it, and perhaps not. The presence of a catapult allows the use of heavy (jet) UAVs of long range, both in reconnaissance and strike versions.

                The whole question is how much this ship needs it. Any landing operation is basically impossible without air superiority. It cannot provide this on its own, therefore either base aviation or a full-fledged aircraft carrier as part of the formation. And why then these "crutches" on the UDC?
                1. 0
                  30 January 2025 11: 46
                  Quote: Adrey
                  The whole question is how much this ship needs it. Any landing operation is basically impossible without air superiority. It cannot provide this on its own, therefore either base aviation or a full-fledged aircraft carrier as part of the formation. And why then these "crutches" on the UDC?

                  The whole concept of the UDC is an echo of the long-standing American tensions between the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Marines needed a carrier for their aviation that was independent of the Navy.
                  Because the fleet provided the DESO only theoretically. In theory, everything was neat and simple: the fleet gains supremacy at sea and in the air in the landing area, and also supports the landing force for the entire time necessary for the Marine Corps to build airfields for basing its aircraft. After which the Marine Corps aviation begins to perform these tasks, and the fleet continues its fight against the enemy fleet.
                  In practice, after Guadalcanal, it became clear that there was no hope for the fleet. At any moment, the ships could disappear into the fog, leaving the Marines alone with the enemy. And the Marine Corps, in order to cover the gap between the landing and the commissioning of land airfields with aviation, began to acquire its own aircraft carriers, basing its squadrons in WWII on escort aircraft (which no one would throw into battle at sea). However, after the war, these carriers were written off - and the Marine Corps was left alone with the fleet. The Marine Corps did not like this situation - and again began to acquire carriers tailored for landing, not naval tasks. At first, these were landing helicopter carriers, then - UDCs.
            2. +2
              29 January 2025 10: 40
              Quote: Adrey
              As a small aircraft carrier, the landing function is completely unnecessary
              Apparently, this is a highly specialized ship, specially designed to resolve the issue with Taiwan.
              1. +2
                29 January 2025 10: 45
                Quote: Dutchman Michel
                Apparently, this is a highly specialized ship, designed to resolve the issue with Taiwan.

                Absolutely not. All of Taiwan is within range of coastal aviation. The strait is 125 to 180 km wide, and they don't need UDCs (a mass grave of marines) there, but landing craft like the "Serna" in commercial quantities.
                1. +2
                  29 January 2025 10: 48
                  Quote: Adrey
                  All of Taiwan within range of coastal aviation
                  Then to close the topic of the Spratly archipelago. It's not like we're going to land troops in America, is it? However, for Taiwan, for example, a landing of marines with the support of aviation and drones would also be suitable
                  1. +2
                    29 January 2025 10: 55
                    Quote: Dutchman Michel
                    Then to close the topic of the Spratly archipelago.

                    Now that's more likely. But such scale is unnecessary there. The islands are 1000x500 m. Where can you land a thousand marines there? And a real aircraft carrier would be needed for full air cover.
                    Africa looks more promising, but to what extent are heavy, stealthy UAVs needed there?
                  2. +1
                    29 January 2025 11: 02
                    Quote: Dutchman Michel
                    However, for Taiwan, for example, a marine landing with the support of aviation and drones would also be suitable.

                    The whole point of the UDC is to carry out the so-called "over-the-horizon" landing outside the effective coastal defense (200-250 km from the shore). I have already indicated the width of the strait to you. There is already a giant UDC at that distance called Mainland China.
            3. +6
              29 January 2025 11: 19
              Quote: Adrey
              As for the UDC, there is an overkill with the catapult and dimensions, which cannot but affect the cost of both construction and operation.

              The Chinese are not stupid. They know what they are doing and why. In the near future, the world will face a new round of global military-economic conflicts, in which China, no matter how much it would like to, will be one of the main players. Only the Navy will be able to ensure the security of trade routes, foreign assets and investments, but the number of standard aircraft carriers is extremely small, and the situation will not change in the foreseeable future, so Chinese strategists decided to level this gap with the help of huge UDCs, which will have the ability to use aviation to support their troops (much more effectively than just UDCs). All that remains is to work out the deck-based IB, and these semi-Aircraft Carriers will start to be "baked in batches", to the envy of overseas democrats...
              Quote: Adrey
              which cannot but affect the price of both the building

              The cost of construction is in any case several times less than that of a standard aircraft carrier, and the "golden Americas" of the Americans...
              1. +1
                29 January 2025 11: 35
                Quote: Doccor18
                It's hard to call the Chinese stupid.

                Yes, I do not argue, but everyone can be wrong. The British are not stupid either, but they cobbled together "light battle cruisers" in WWI, and then they were good for aircraft carriers.
                Quote: Doccor18
                In the near future, the world will face a new round of global military-economic conflicts, in which China, no matter how much it would like to, will be one of the main players. Only the Navy will be able to ensure the security of trade routes, foreign assets and investments

                Undeniably
                Quote: Doccor18
                but the number of standard aircraft carriers is extremely small, and the situation will not change in the foreseeable future

                Well, why not? If only there was money, and the Chinese have it. For now, at least.
                Quote: Doccor18
                So Chinese strategists decided to counter this counterattack with huge UDCs that would have the ability to use air power to support their troops (much more effectively than just UDCs).

                Now that's debatable. You can understand the Japanese with their "Izumo", there is a platform in the form of a destroyer-helicopter carrier, the runway conditions allow the F-35B to be deployed, so why not? You can understand the Americans, the same situation, there is "America", the F-35B pulls, why not? In all cases, the platforms already existed, they just needed to be "tinkered with" a little with a file. But so far no one has expressed a desire specially "cross a snake with a hedgehog". The Chinese are the first, well, we'll see.
                In any case, the cost-effectiveness criterion will come first.
                1. +3
                  29 January 2025 12: 17
                  Quote: Adrey
                  There would be money

                  Our "effective managers" thought so too..., but "suddenly" it turned out that much more was needed for this.
                  The aircraft carrier fleet takes a long time to build, regardless of financial capabilities... They need at least six full-fledged AUGs (and better yet, nine), so that two or three are constantly at sea. They need to build at least four units (the first one doesn't count), and that's another 12-15 years. They'll be churning out UDCs much faster...
                  Quote: Adrey
                  The Chinese are first, well, we'll see.

                  The Japanese only do what they are allowed to do.
                  The Americans have 11 attack aircraft carriers and 80 years of experience using them, and that says a lot...
                  1. 0
                    29 January 2025 12: 22
                    Quote: Doccor18
                    Our "effective managers" thought so too..., but "suddenly" it turned out that much more was needed for this.

                    The Chinese have exactly this "lots of things".
                    Quote: Doccor18
                    The aircraft carrier fleet takes a long time to build, regardless of financial capabilities... They need at least six full-fledged AUGs (and better yet, nine), so that two or three are constantly at sea. They need to build at least four units (the first one doesn't count), and that's another 12 years, no less.

                    But not so much for such a project. For "beginners" there are certain advantages here - they will have time to master the technique, tactics and prepare personnel.
                    Quote: Doccor18
                    They will stamp out UDCs much faster...

                    Which will in no way replace full-fledged aircraft carriers, even if there are 5 to 1 of them. request
                    1. +2
                      29 January 2025 12: 26
                      Quote: Adrey
                      Which in no way replace full-fledged aircraft carriers

                      It is better to have a ship with a small air group in the area than to have nothing...
                      Quote: Adrey
                      For "beginners" there are certain advantages here.

                      There are no advantages, they are lagging behind and lagging behind seriously, and there is little time. Trump can "do something funny" with economic sanctions and give the order to "Tamahawks forward"...
                      1. +2
                        29 January 2025 12: 35
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        It is better to have a ship with a small air group in the area than to have nothing...

                        But you don't have to drag a thousand Marines along with you to do this.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        There are no advantages, they are lagging behind and lagging behind seriously, and there is little time.

                        So everyone here is lagging behind compared to the States. Moreover, the United World Fleet will hardly be able to resist them recourse
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Trump can also "do something weird" with economic sanctions, and give the order "Tamahawks forward""...

                        He had no history of suicidal tendencies. Maybe things have changed, but the bullet seemed to hit him in the ear, not the brain. laughing
                        And economic sanctions are already present.
                      2. +1
                        29 January 2025 12: 42
                        Quote: Adrey
                        But you don't have to drag a thousand Marines along with you to do this.

                        And who said that they will definitely drag it? The Chinese are cunning, maybe he will "drag" a hundred attack UAVs, instead of a thousand marines...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        So everyone here is behind compared to the States

                        All, but for China it is more critical than, for example, for Russia. For them, world trade is life, and export is the blood of their economic organism...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        He had not previously been noted for suicidal tendencies.

                        So not about China itself, but about its investment projects, etc. Motor Sich was taken over by raiders... Where is the guarantee that something in Africa, Southeast Asia or Latin America won't be taken over?
                      3. 0
                        29 January 2025 12: 56
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        And who said that they will definitely drag it? The Chinese are cunning, maybe he will "drag" a hundred attack UAVs, instead of a thousand marines...

                        It will be difficult to do. UAVs designed for launching from a catapult cannot be crammed into the cockpits and dining rooms, and from the dock chamber they still need to be lifted onto the deck. So you and I come to the conclusion that it is more practical in your version to have something like the Izumo and a classic UDC in one harness. Everyone is engaged in own business, either together or separately.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        All, but for China it is more critical than, for example, for Russia. For them, world trade is life, and export is the blood of their economic organism...

                        For any developed and independent country this is critical.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Where is the guarantee that something won’t be taken away in Africa, Southeast Asia or Latin America?

                        In this situation, the Chinese can't do without a full-fledged AUG request. You don't think that with such developments the States will act in rubber boats? Even if the Chinese bring 10 super UDCs, the American AUG will "gobble" them up in half a day.
                      4. +1
                        29 January 2025 13: 19
                        Quote: Adrey
                        You don't think that in such a development of events the States will act in rubber boats?

                        Americans are used to fighting under complete dominance, under total dominance. There were so many examples from the Cold War when the presence of a Soviet squadron thwarted the plans of American hawks, and almost always the Soviet forces were in the minority, but nevertheless... It's one thing when you act without looking back, and quite another when a KUG with an aircraft carrier is "playing on your nerves" a hundred miles away...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        The American AUG will "gobble" them up in half a day.

                        Of course, but this is already a war, a real war between two nuclear superpowers...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        For any developed and independent country this is critical.

                        I agree, but for some it's a matter of life and death...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        , and from the dock chamber you still need to lift it onto the deck

                        Who knows what the Chinese have designed there...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        What is more practical then in your version, something like "Izumo" and a classic UDC in one harness. Everyone does their own thing, either together or separately.

                        A narrow specialist will always be better, but multifunctionality, nevertheless, rules, because it is cheaper and more convenient...
                      5. 0
                        29 January 2025 13: 42
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Americans are used to fighting under complete domination, under total domination.

                        Do you consider this a disadvantage? In my opinion, it only shows that they take this extremely seriously. War is not for the sake of war, the result is important, and to achieve it quickly and effectively, you need maximum concentration of forces and energy, forecasting possible scenarios and appropriate preparation.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        There were so many examples from the Cold War when the presence of a Soviet squadron thwarted the plans of American hawks, and almost always the Soviet forces were in the minority, but nevertheless...

                        If we follow this example, a couple of frigates will be enough. But we are not considering the "deterrence" option, but the use of ships in real combat operations.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Of course, but this is already a war, a real war between two nuclear superpowers...

                        Quote: Doccor18
                        A narrow specialist will always be better, but multifunctionality, nevertheless, rules, because it is cheaper and more convenient...

                        Not better and not cheaper, just worse and more expensive. Any distraction to secondary tasks worsens the performance of the main function.
                        As an example: the Americans, after acquiring full-fledged aircraft carriers and figuring out how to use them, immediately abandoned aircraft on the LKR, TKR and LK, freeing up the tonnage of ships to improve their main characteristics. All the "work" in the air was taken over by specially adapted ships - aircraft carriers. The British did the same.
                      6. +1
                        29 January 2025 15: 41
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Do you consider this a disadvantage?

                        To some extent, yes. For there are many examples in history where, thanks to courage and talent, smaller forces have defeated larger ones...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        But we are not considering the option of “containment”, but the use of ships in real

                        Why not consider the containment option if it is successful?
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Not better and not cheaper, just worse and more expensive

                        Worse, but for certain reasons, multifunctionality still wins in the navy. They are trying to make aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates, fighters and helicopters multipurpose, because, given the cost, even the fantastic Pentagon budget is not enough for highly specialized ones. Another thing is what comes out of it...
                      7. 0
                        29 January 2025 16: 24
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        To some extent, yes. For there are many examples in history where, thanks to courage and talent, smaller forces have defeated larger ones...

                        In my opinion, it is doubtful. To make success dependent on courage and talent? Maybe it is better to add superiority in strength to this?
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Why not consider the containment option if it is successful?

                        So it makes no difference what to deter with, a 5kt frigate or a 50kt super UDC. The sinking of both will lead to an armed conflict.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        It's worse, but for certain reasons, multifunctionality still wins in the navy.

                        Everyone who "played around" with multifunctionality and modularity eventually abandoned it. The only exception is IB. There, yes. But helicopters, no longer. I wonder if Apache will replace Black Hawk and vice versa.
                      8. 0
                        29 January 2025 18: 40
                        Quote: Adrey
                        So it makes no difference what you use to deter, a 5kt frigate or a 50kt super UDC

                        There is a difference. If the forces are ridiculous, then deterrence will not work. Still, there should be at least some chance in a hypothetical confrontation, if not of victory, then of maximum possible damage to the enemy. A 5 kt frigate cannot provide this even in theory, but a KUG consisting of: 1-2 UDCs, 1-2 destroyers and 2-4 frigates is quite...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Everyone who "dabbled" in multifunctionality and modularity eventually abandoned it.

                        The world is still building multi-purpose ships: destroyers and frigates, the "aircraft carrier club" is not large, but the same Americans and Chinese see the point in multi-purpose aircraft carriers. Nuclear submarines are also assigned a lot of tasks, which is why they are called: MAPL (multi-purpose nuclear submarine). Moreover, if by some miracle it was possible to reduce the size of SLBMs several times, then the SSBN/SBN class would inevitably disappear...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        But there are no helicopters anymore.

                        They are also trying to assign a lot of tasks to heavy deck helicopters: anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance and target designation, rescue and anti-ship functions...
                      9. 0
                        29 January 2025 19: 22
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        There is a difference. If the forces are ridiculous, then deterrence will not work. Still, there should be at least some chance in a hypothetical confrontation, if not of victory, then of maximum possible damage to the enemy. A 5 kt frigate cannot provide this even in theory, but a KUG consisting of: 1-2 UDCs, 1-2 destroyers and 2-4 frigates is quite...

                        There is no particular difference. The Americans will simply have to bring a full-fledged AUG. In terms of money, it will cost both of them a pretty penny. Remember the "cod wars", what did Iceland use to chase shaved "piss rags" around the sea? That Nevi piano was an antique for one bite and nevertheless request
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        The world is still building multi-purpose ships: destroyers and frigates,

                        This is probably a bad example. Traditionally, the main criterion for these ships is control of the surrounding space and countering threats from surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. In this case, the ship must counter any of these opponents within a feasible radius and at a certain cruising range and autonomy. The larger the ship, the greater the radius of the controlled zone and cruising range. If you remove at least one of the functions, control of space will not work.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Nuclear-powered submarines are also assigned a lot of tasks, which is why they are called MAPL (multi-purpose nuclear submarine).

                        We have three classes, the others have two. And in essence, in terms of functionality, there are two. SSBNs (by the way, I disagree with you about the size of SLBMs. Mixing together the performance of general fleet tasks and strategic nuclear forces is quite a feat) and MAPLs, and what and how enemy ships will be sunk, torpedoes, missiles - a matter of taste.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        They are also trying to assign a lot of tasks to heavy deck helicopters: anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance and target designation, rescue and anti-ship functions...

                        You're being disingenuous). Submarine helicopters and AWACS helicopters are not nearly interchangeable. By reconnaissance we don't mean visual contact, do we? And anyone can lift a person from the surface, but I don't think they'll send an AWACS helicopter there for sure.
                      10. 0
                        29 January 2025 20: 05
                        Quote: Adrey
                        The Americans will just have to bring in a full-fledged AUG.

                        That's it anyway.
                        Quote: Adrey
                        In terms of money, both will cost a pretty penny.

                        Of course, but the Chinese will only have two AUGs (and only in the near future), while the Americans can send 2-3 AUGs to any point at any time... Difference! Only mass production of aircraft carriers of the 076 type will be able to somehow correct the situation.
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Remember the "cod wars"

                        One could accept this example, but... there was always a huge shadow of the USSR looming somewhere in the background, if it weren't for it...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Mix together the performance of general naval tasks and strategic nuclear forces

                        Now imagine for a second that EACH of several dozen submarines can now be used for a nuclear missile strike... The entire doctrine of deterrence and counteraction will have to be rewritten/rethought... It's one thing to track 3-4 submarines, quite another to track 15-20...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        PL helicopters and AWACS helicopters are not nearly interchangeable

                        The element base is getting smaller and lighter year after year, which means that it is possible that in the near future each of the deck helicopters will be able to have AWACS capabilities. Well, and it already performs all other tasks.
                      11. 0
                        29 January 2025 20: 13
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Only the mass construction of aircraft carriers of the 076 type will be able to somehow correct the situation.

                        As targets for a full-fledged AUG?
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        One could accept this example, but... there was always a huge shadow of the USSR looming somewhere in the background, if it weren't for it...

                        Behind every Chinese corvette there now looms the giant shadow of China request
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Now imagine for just a second that now EACH of several dozen submarines can be used for a nuclear missile strike...

                        The nuclear forces will go crazy, and then the navy will go crazy laughingThere is nothing worse than a split and duplication of command. recourse
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        The element base is getting smaller and lighter year after year, which means that it is possible that in the near future each of the deck helicopters will be able to have AWACS capabilities. Well, and it already performs all other tasks.

                        There will be a lot of things in the future, right? We are talking about now, right?
                      12. 0
                        29 January 2025 20: 59
                        Quote: Adrey
                        As targets for a full-fledged AUG?

                        Well, let's try to simulate the situation: You are tasked with "bringing to his senses" yet another "not democratic enough leader" from a distant continent. At the head of the AUG (1 Ford/Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, 2 Burke and 1 Ticonderoga, 1 Virginia and 1 Wasp, as well as the KKS) you are determined to carry out the order. The forward link with Hawkeye reports 350 km from the designated target that 50 miles from the capital "not particularly
                        "democratic regime" for some reason "is cooling off":
                        1. single corvette/frigate of the PLA Navy
                        2. A squadron of the PLA Navy (1 UDC 076, 2 destroyers 052D and 2 frigates 054A), which prudently guard their investments at 40 yards (in US currency), and do not consider the leader "critically undemocratic"...
                        What are your actions in each of the options?
                        Quote: Adrey
                        The nuclear forces will go crazy, and then the navy will go crazy

                        And at the same time, the admirals of the potential enemy will begin to feel an irresistible craving for mood stabilizers...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        There will be a lot of things in the future, we are talking about now.

                        How seriously did they take UAVs a few years ago? And now? The future is much closer than we always think...
                      13. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 15
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        What are your actions in each of the options?

                        The mission is accomplished. Only the detail of forces for situation control will be increased. We will have to constantly keep the "Hawkeye" in the sky with cover, and the "Virgin" will get down to business.
                        The difference is small. A single corvette would only require periodic inspection.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        And at the same time, the admirals of the potential enemy will begin to feel an irresistible craving for mood stabilizers...

                        We'll have to put our generals and admirals on sedation even earlier.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        How seriously did they take UAVs a few years ago? And now?

                        Very seriously. Those who understood what was being discussed (this is not about our General Staff). "Raptor", "Reaper" and "Poseidon" made many people think. This was demonstrated in all its glory in Karabakh. Well, and now, you're just rubbish...
                        And yet... If the ship is designed to use advanced drones, why does it need marines?
                        Below, by the way (I looked at the thread), there is a good comment from my colleague solar. Everything is described correctly. My train of thought is the same.
                      14. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 27
                        Quote: Adrey
                        Completing the task

                        "Brevity is the sister of wit." How?
                        Quote: Adrey
                        The difference is small.

                        Oh, come on. A single ship, even with all the desire, will not be able to prevent the landing of a battalion of marines and an air strike on the "undemocratic regime". And a squadron can easily disrupt all plans. The appearance of 15-20 enemy attack UAVs in the air will not change the original plan of action?
                        Quote: Adrey
                        This was demonstrated in all its glory in Karabakh.

                        It was only five years ago... And what will happen in another five years? Not in fifty, but in five...
                        Quote: Adrey
                        If the ship is designed to use advanced drones, why does it need marines?

                        Mistress - multifunctionality. The Marine battalion will be supported by squadrons of reconnaissance and attack UAVs.
                      15. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 51
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        "Brevity is the sister of wit." How?

                        Of course, 50% of the air wing will have to be reserved to deal with possible complications. Which will somewhat reduce the support of the Marine Corps.
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        The appearance of 15-20 enemy attack UAVs in the air will not change the initial plan of action?

                        Of course they will adjust it, but they will not cancel it. By the way, there is an interesting nuance here. Shooting down a military aircraft with a crew is an act of aggression, and shooting down a drone is the loss of expensive property. Just imagine for a moment what would have happened if instead of the Raptor, the P-8A Poseidon had been doused with kerosene at the World Cup, with a fatal outcome? And why would they never have done this?
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Mistress - multifunctionality. The Marine battalion will be supported by squadrons of reconnaissance and attack UAVs.

                        Whose battalion? Chinese? If it comes to clashes on land and diplomats do not resolve the issue "on the shore", first of all all forces will be directed at destroying the KUG. Their MP will be left to themselves for some time. In this composition, the Chinese KUG will indeed provide real resistance, but not at the expense of the UDC drones. The result is variable, but the US will most likely win the battle.
                      16. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 23
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        Quote: Adrey
                        The nuclear forces will go crazy, and then the navy will go crazy
                        And at the same time, the admirals of the potential enemy will begin to feel an irresistible craving for mood stabilizers...

                        By the way! What's the point of stopping halfway then!? Let's then hand over the strategic bombers to the Aerospace Forces? What are they just standing around doing? Should we hand over the PGRKs and silo installations to the Districts? Maybe they'll be good for something else too? Well, why not? laughing
                      17. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 33
                        Quote: Adrey
                        No, but what?

                        You're exaggerating... fellow
                        But the authors here had some sensible thoughts earlier, that it would be nice to continue the SSGN series on the basis of the Borei. The machine has been mastered by industry, they could have introduced into service 10-12 more pennants, externally they are indistinguishable from SSBNs, so let the potential enemy strain himself...
                      18. 0
                        29 January 2025 21: 54
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        You're exaggerating...

                        There is a laughing
                        Quote: Doccor18
                        But the authors here had some sensible thoughts earlier, that it would be nice to continue the SSGN series on the basis of the Borei. The machine has been mastered by industry, they could have introduced into service 10-12 more pennants, externally they are indistinguishable from SSBNs, so let the potential enemy strain himself...

                        Yes, it was, I remember. And the idea was sound for many reasons. But no one even thought about leaving SLBMs on them request
                    2. 0
                      30 January 2025 11: 51
                      Quote: Adrey
                      Which will in no way replace full-fledged aircraft carriers, even if there are 5 to 1 of them.

                      And they do not replace full-fledged aircraft carriers. These are ships for landing and supporting the Marine Corps - so that the Marines have air support even if the Navy is engaged with the enemy.
                      1. 0
                        31 January 2025 17: 03
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        But they do not replace full-fledged AB.

                        In our polemics, the thought slipped through that full-fledged AVs are expensive and take a long time, but these are cheaper-faster-bigger.
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        These are ships for landing and supporting the Marine Corps - so that the Marines have air support even if the Navy is engaged with the enemy.

                        What's the question here? If you're chasing Papuans, you can use simpler drones, like the Bayraktar. They'll do just fine and you don't need a catapult. If you're fighting a strong, high-tech enemy, you can't do it without air superiority, and five or ten heavy, low-visibility drones won't achieve it on their own. And without superiority, they'll blow them out of the sky. You still need an AUG. request
            4. +2
              29 January 2025 15: 45
              Quote: Adrey
              In my opinion, the Chinese have overdone it with this "white elephant"

              Why did they have to overdo it? Take the large landing ship for our marines. The Chinese have one ship that provides comprehensive support for the landing force, and what about us? Apart from naval artillery and a couple of helicopters (if any), nothing else, everything else is on other ships. In shallow water, they will operate at a distance with reduced fire efficiency. There will definitely be no air support, no wide range of UAVs like the Chinese. Who, all other things being equal, will have higher losses?
              1. 0
                29 January 2025 16: 29
                Quote: AlexSam
                Take the landing craft for our marines.

                The large landing ship and the UDC are completely different ships. Although their tasks are similar, they are solved in completely different ways.
                Quote: AlexSam
                There will definitely be no air support, no wide range of UAVs like the Chinese have. Who, all other things being equal, will have higher losses?

                Who in their right mind would conduct an airborne operation without air superiority?
                Well, let's imagine for the sake of example how such a super UDC, supported by a couple of frigates and a destroyer, will conduct a landing near Odessa. Will its UAVs help it much?
                1. 0
                  29 January 2025 16: 36
                  Today, landing troops near Odessa is, in principle, akin to suicide.
                  1. 0
                    29 January 2025 16: 38
                    Quote: AlexSam
                    Today, landing troops near Odessa is, in principle, akin to suicide.

                    That's... what we came to requestThere is a UAV, there is no UAV, but it is still impossibly laughing
                    1. 0
                      29 January 2025 16: 42
                      You have chosen an a priori doomed option) We are discussing the greater effectiveness of the UDC mini-aircraft carrier in landing operations, China is here simply as a living example of a ready-made project.
                      1. 0
                        29 January 2025 16: 43
                        Quote: AlexSam
                        You have chosen an a priori doomed option)

                        Suggest yours). Let's analyze and discuss).
                        Otherwise, it turns out that we are discussing a spherical horse in a vacuum. Ships are for fighting, not for measuring dicks.
                      2. 0
                        29 January 2025 16: 49
                        No desire) In fact, the question lies in the theoretical plane and until there are examples of practical application of such solutions, confirming or refuting their effectiveness, it will remain theoretical. We are waiting for the people's liberation war of the Chinese people against the Taiwanese imperialists supported by the American clique)

                        By the way, if such a vessel had been built here, today there would have been huge battles about it)) but the Chinese... well, the Chinese... they have been on their own wave for thousands of years)
                      3. +1
                        29 January 2025 16: 54
                        Quote: AlexSam
                        In fact, the question lies in the theoretical plane, and until there are examples of practical application of such solutions that confirm or refute their effectiveness, it will remain theoretical.

                        I disagree. To saw a trough for 50kt is not "a ram sneezed". It means that someone sees a practical application for it. But how correct is already a question. And here you can't do without KShU.
                        Quote: AlexSam
                        We are waiting for the people's liberation war of the Chinese people against the Taiwanese imperialists supported by the American clique)

                        No, it's not needed there. I have posts about it here.
          2. +2
            29 January 2025 10: 44
            Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
            "universal landing ship"
            Exactly, exactly! Something like that was spinning in my head, I just forgot the name. Not very good at naval matters wink
        2. +4
          29 January 2025 11: 08
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          some drones, some helicopters

          With a displacement of under 50 kilotons, there's plenty of room for a lot of stuff.
    2. +3
      29 January 2025 11: 06
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      just more advanced?

      Yes, with the ability to launch heavy UAVs and support fighters in the future. UDC at maximum.
  6. 0
    29 January 2025 12: 16
    There is one special feature: it has an electromagnetic catapult that can launch carrier-based aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles.

    A forced decision caused by the lack of VTOL aircraft in China. The catapult eats up space and resources (a very powerful source of electricity for the catapult and fuel for it is also needed) to the detriment of the landing function, plus the aerofinisher, requires a significant increase in the team to service these complex devices.
    The presence of only one catapult does not allow the ship to be used as a full-fledged light aircraft carrier.
    But the Chinese have no choice. They classify ski-jump ships with horizontal take-off aircraft as training ships and do not consider them full-fledged aircraft carriers.
    But they don’t have VTOL aircraft, and they can’t get them anywhere - except for the Americans, no one in the world is currently producing or developing them because of their complexity.
    1. 0
      30 January 2025 03: 36
      Quote from solar
      A forced decision due to China's lack of VTOL aircraft.

      And what is missing in the US? They have had a plane with a VVT for several decades. But they stubbornly build aircraft carriers with catapults :)

      Quote from solar
      The catapult eats up space and resources (you also need a very powerful source of electricity for the catapult and fuel for it) to the detriment of the landing function,


      Yes? And how does a powerful generator interfere with the landing of troops? And why do you think that a landing ship does not need a powerful power source?

      Quote from solar
      The presence of only one catapult does not allow the ship to be used as a full-fledged light aircraft carrier.


      Why? An electromagnetic catapult does not need to accumulate steam. If you have already supplied the ship with a powerful current source, then its productivity will be limited only by the speed of "supply to the input" of the aircraft. For drones, this interval can be extremely short.

      Quote from solar
      But the Chinese have no choice.

      You are captivated by the American-oriented view of the fleet. You are trying to squeeze the original development of the Chinese into the cliche of the American concept. Where did you get the idea that they build "like in the USA" but can't do something? Doesn't it occur to you that the Chinese are building a ship within the framework of THEIR OWN concept? This is NOT an attack aircraft carrier and NOT a trough for transporting landing craft. They need a universal ship to support landing operations. Obviously, they are no dumber than you and me and have calculated what and how much is needed.

      And no, no one in the world relies on aircraft with VVTOLs to support landing operations. Except maybe the British. BUT they have a lot of things in their heads, they even measure the caliber of guns in units of mass. :)
      1. +1
        30 January 2025 10: 32
        And what is missing in the US? They have had a plane with a VVT for several decades. But they stubbornly build aircraft carriers with catapults :)

        Aircraft carriers with 4 catapults are built. UDCs with catapults - no, they are not built.
        Yes? And how does a powerful generator interfere with the landing of troops?

        Not just a powerful generator, but also an engine for it, and a supply of fuel, and the catapult itself and the aerofinishers, and the personnel to service them. All this takes up space and tonnage, taking it away from the available landing force.
        And why do you think that a landing ship does not need a powerful power source?

        A catapult requires a much more powerful source than just a UDC.
        Why? An electromagnetic catapult does not need to accumulate steam.

        It needs to accumulate charge on capacitors. And perform all the same operations for takeoff as on an aircraft carrier. A UAV needs a much weaker catapult than an airplane. And most importantly, one catapult does not provide redundancy. For normal operation, at least two are needed.
        What makes you think that they build "like in the USA" but can't do something?

        In fact, that's exactly how they build. Look at their fleet.
        Obviously, they are no more stupid than you and me and have calculated what and how much is needed.

        Obviously, not stupider. And they understand that they, like the Americans, need their own aviation on the UDC. And this is precisely VTOL. Only they do not have such aircraft. At least, not yet. That is why they are forced to pile up a catapult.
        And no, no one in the world relies on aircraft with runway landings to support landing operations.

        Those who do not have full-fledged strike aircraft carriers try to ensure the use of VTOL aircraft with UDCs or light aircraft carriers, or plan to do so if possible. Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia. The Americans use UDCs with VTOL aircraft as an addition to strike aircraft carriers.
      2. +1
        30 January 2025 11: 58
        Quote: abc_alex
        And no, no one in the world relies on aircraft with runway landings to support landing operations.

        Hmm... why is the USMC buying the F-35B? wink
        It is precisely in supporting the landing on the shore that the Yankees are focusing on the V-8 aircraft: first the AV-35B, now the F-XNUMXB. The reason is simple - the Marine Corps does not rely on the Navy and wants to have its own aviation in the landing zone from the very first hours. Let the Navy ensure general air and sea dominance in the area, and the Marine Corps aviation will handle the tasks of the Marine Corps.
  7. 0
    29 January 2025 15: 32
    The boat is interesting. A trend, however.

    Rezanulo also has a high degree of stealth, which allows it to evade radars when penetrating enemy airspace.

    Evading the radar...
  8. +1
    29 January 2025 16: 43
    The Chinese are great guys and even handsome
  9. -1
    29 January 2025 18: 03
    We can only learn and adopt positive experiences from China.
    The concept of its use itself is secret, like everything in China that has a military component and is still unclear.
    But it is useful and necessary to learn how to build large ships sensibly.
  10. 0
    30 January 2025 12: 56
    We are waiting for this Chinese power to demonstrate its effectiveness in a real battle. And, I hope, not with us.
  11. 0
    30 January 2025 16: 30
    I don't really care whether it's good or bad.
    The main thing is that HE EXISTS.
    Here it is right now, not in the project, new, locally produced.
    Well, respect.
  12. 0
    30 January 2025 21: 40
    Nobody paid attention to the fact that this is a ship for "local use". China does not need "long-range" ships yet. And they will operate under the cover of "local strategic aviation".
  13. kig
    0
    6 March 2025 01: 09
    The drone was shot down by a missile from its own aircraft when control was intercepted by an enemy on the ground.
    Officials everywhere wrote only about loss of control, but Roman, apparently, has his own sources of information. Although the version is quite plausible.