Sichuan is America in a spicy sauce.

25 982 111
Sichuan is America in a spicy sauce.

So, our Chinese neighbors have actually built something worth thinking about. On the one hand, so what? A UDC, well, it's very large, but on the other…

The name is simply delightful: "Sichuan." This is the province whose cuisine is nicknamed "the melting pot," and whose bold flavors and spiciness can make even Mexicans, Indians, and Thais gasp with tears in their eyes.




They really know how to do it. If you don't believe it, visit a place like "New Sichuan" in Moscow, on Sushchevskaya Street. For your money, they'll arrange a truly masterful auto-da-fé, from tongue to natural exit. "Burn in paradise"—that's what Sichuan cuisine is all about.

Okay, China's first Type 076 amphibious assault ship, the Sichuan, has left port for its maiden sea trials. The Type 076 is unlike any other large amphibious assault ship, as it is equipped with an electromagnetic catapult for launching aircraft for its air wing, which is expected to include navalized versions of the GJ-11 stealth unmanned combat aerial vehicle.

But here, to be honest, I would have some doubts. The Chinese are focusing the global expert community's attention too much on this. drones, but there is one small nuance, which we will talk about below.

The Sichuan-class ships are the world's first amphibious assault ships with electromagnetic catapults. According to preliminary expert estimates, each ship will be equipped with a docking chamber, two onboard aircraft elevators, and one catapult.


It's worth noting that this catapult will be longer than the one on the Fujian aircraft carrier—a full 8 meters, in fact. And here's where thoughts begin to wander: what for? Photographs of GJ-11 UAV models, an unmanned helicopter, and several manned helicopter models have been taken near the lead ship under construction. But a catapult longer than the Fujian's (which is a whopping 105 meters long) is frankly unnecessary for this purpose!

The question arises: is such a structure necessary for launching drones?

Oh no, let's not pretend to be simpletons. Many people understand perfectly well that with such a catapult, you can hurl any aircraft into the air, not just a half-ton drone.

So, "America" ​​in Sichuan is, to say the least, interesting. Very spicy and very... original.


The new ships, with their displacement (50,000 tons), will surpass the amphibious assault ship "Amerika," which displaces 45,000 tons. The "Amerika," in turn, can easily and comfortably carry six (and potentially twelve) F-35B aircraft on its deck. Yes, the F-35B is a different beast, but it can do it nonetheless.


It's important to understand that the F-35B lands vertically, and if it takes off with a full load of fuel and weapons, yes, it's a shortened takeoff, but it's still a normal takeoff. A vertical takeoff for a properly equipped F-35B is quite an extreme experience.

Given that the Sichuan is just as large and has a catapult, it's possible to launch conventional aircraft adapted for carrier takeoffs from its deck. Not as quickly as from a carrier, but possible.


The Type 076 Sichuan amphibious assault ship leaves the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard for its maiden sea trials.

"The sea trials will primarily test the reliability and stability of the ship's power, electrical, and other systems," the Chinese Ministry of National Defense said in a statement. Since its launch, the ship has successfully completed mooring trials, equipment installation and debugging, and met the technical requirements for sea trials.

In recent weeks, there have been signs of significant progress in finalizing the Sichuan, including the application of full markings on its flight deck. Another image also showed the red catapult test "truck" on the Sichuan's deck. This, in turn, indicated the start of catapult testing.


Shipbuilders and navies around the world, including the Navy fleet The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) and the US Navy have long used heavy-duty trucks to test catapults on aircraft carriers during their construction or after maintenance.




Testing catapults on the USS Gerald R. Ford using heavy-duty "trucks"

Overall, Sichuan represents a significant achievement for the PLA Navy.

Chinese officials stated that the Type 076 displaces approximately 50,000 metric tons, is 263 meters long, and is nearly 43 meters wide. China's previous Type 075 amphibious assault ships, of which four are currently in service, have a stated displacement of 36,000 metric tons. The Sichuan is also noticeably wider than other large amphibious ships in service worldwide, including the U.S. America-class.

The Sichuan features an unusually wide flight deck, a key design element. Along with the ship's two islands, this makes it clear that the ship is primarily designed for long-duration flight.

For several years now, there have been indications that the naval version of the GJ-11 UCAV, sometimes referred to as the GJ-21, will become a particularly important part of the future Sichuan Air Wing. But conventional aircraft shouldn't be completely forgotten.


A pair of suspected GJ-11 mockups at a test and training facility on Changxing Island in Shanghai, May 2024.

Just this week, Chinese authorities announced that the land-based version of the GJ-11, now officially dubbed "Mysterious Dragon," had entered service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). Any future naval versions of the drone could also find use on other large carriers, including the first aircraft carrier equipped with catapults, the Fujian, which was commissioned last week.


PLAAF GJ-11 "Mysterious Dragon" unmanned aerial vehicle

The Sichuan program will certainly not be limited to GJ-11 variants and will include a variety of other existing and future manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. These could include various helicopters, as well as an as-yet-unnamed manned tiltrotor aircraft currently undergoing flight testing and being developed in China.

The Type 076 design also includes a stern deck for traditional amphibious operations.

The potential value to the fleet of very large amphibious ships capable of conducting large-scale drone operations, as well as traditional amphibious operations, is clear. These ships could be used to launch and recover unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) such as the GJ-11 and other types of drones for a range of missions, from maritime strikes to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). They could be used to provide additional mass in support of larger carrier strike group operations and to free up other carrier air wings for missions for which they are better suited. They could also provide support for naval air support. aviation lower level, which could be used independently.

Simply increasing naval aviation capabilities overall will give the PLA Navy additional flexibility to conduct various operations closer to the mainland, including, for example, defending its extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Type 076 ships can also help project naval and air power further from China's shores, which is another driving factor behind the country's broader carrier ambitions.

It's all very logical. An aircraft carrier is primarily a tool of attack and suppression; it's not capable of conquering and controlling territory. For that, amphibious assault ships are needed, capable of delivering troops and equipment to the attack lines and then facilitating the delivery of reserves.


A view of the Sichuan from the stern as it leaves port for its first sea trials.

The Sichuan reflects the PLA Navy's desire to significantly expand its capabilities and operational potential, including for projecting force far beyond China's borders and to address any regional contingencies. The dramatic expansion of naval aviation has been a key element of this modernization, which began in the 1990s.

All of this is further reinforced by increasingly compelling evidence that the next (and who said just one?) Chinese aircraft carrier will be nuclear-powered. Of course, this will require additional costs in the form of construction of both the Project 076 series of ships and additional ships whose primary mission will be to protect and defend the Sichuan-class carriers.

If we compare it with the America, the Sichuan was clearly planned specifically for orderly escort, since its Defense no weaker than that of the American LDC, but far from being able to reliably protect the ship from all air attacks.


3 Type 1130 CIWS cannons, 11 barrels of 30 mm caliber each, and 3 HHQ-10 SAM short-range air defense missile launchers with 24 missiles each.


America has 3 Mk15 Phalanx 20mm caliber systems, 7 12,7mm caliber machine guns, 2 Mk29 ESSM air defense systems (quite ancient) weapon) 8 missiles each and 2 Mk49 RAM air defense systems with 21 missiles each.

In principle, it is almost parity, although the Chinese ship's design looks somewhat more modern, but both UDCs simply need cover in the form of destroyers and frigates capable of performing air defense and anti-submarine warfare functions.

So, a strike force or a carrier strike group. Aircraft carrier, UDC, destroyers, frigates, submarines. A classic example. A striking force capable of carrying out an offensive operation at a considerable distance from home shores.

Oh no, I'm not talking about Taiwan. That's a very fatty goose; it needs to be marinated long and in a unique way. But the Diaoyu Islands, which the Japanese call Senkaku and around which there have been and will be many disputes, are a no-brainer. There's gas there, which the Chinese are extracting either on their own or jointly with the Japanese, but anything can happen there.


Especially now, when the newly appointed Japanese Prime Minister, the revanchist Sanai Takaichi, is rapidly worsening relations between the two countries. It's really nothing personal, just gas and revanchism on the Japanese side, and anything could happen. At least in the past month, this citizen has caused more mischief than others could manage in their entire lives.

So I see a Chinese AUG near Diaoyu Dao with greater probability than off the coast of Taiwan.

The idea is sound: the aircraft carrier won't be distracted by the launch of drones, which will be handled by the LDC, now operating as an escort carrier. The control centers on the ships' "islands" will be connected into a single network, ensuring seamless control of all aircraft.

But the Sichuan itself, if necessary, if the operation does not involve the use of an aircraft carrier, will be capable of providing air cover during, say, a landing operation on some small archipelago.

The idea that the Americans had already put into practice during World War II in their escort aircraft carriers, which, by the way, carried approximately three times more aircraft than the attack mastodons, and which they implemented in the Iwo Jima-class UDC.


That is, they created large landing ships on the basis of small escort aircraft carriers, which could provide air support in the form of helicopters for the landing forces.

Then came the more serious Wasp-class ships, which carried Harrier vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The tradition was continued by the USS America with the F-35B, and now we have a new generation. Just a Chinese design. A USS America capable of carrying conventional carrier-based aircraft. The same J-15 and J-15D, which even at a scale of 6-10 units would be quite a formidable strike force.

And it's no one's fault that the next page is stories The UDC development plan wasn't written by the trend-setting Americans, but by the Chinese. They simply went a bit further, and they don't have a vertical takeoff/landing aircraft, so adapting the ship to what's available isn't the worst option.

Much better than wasting years and billions trying to imagine something futuristic and unique, and God forbid it all ends with a nuclear destroyer the size of a World War II battleship, because it could be worse. A destroyer made of metal and floating. A destroyer that can't do anything, armed with missiles from the last century, but costs as much as a nuclear aircraft carrier. And such things happen.

Chinese rationalism, coupled with the ability to refine existing concepts, is the recipe for success and the emergence of the Sichuan. Apparently, the technical issues that clearly prevent American catapults from functioning properly have been resolved by Chinese engineers.

All that remains is to learn about the results of the practical tests and wait for the continuation.
111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    30 November 2025 04: 47
    The size is impressive. How much would it cost? I'd guess about three-quarters of an aircraft carrier.
    We definitely don't need this...
    1. +3
      30 November 2025 07: 13
      Quote: Glagol1
      I think like 3/4 of an aircraft carrier.

      The Democrats got about 2/3, but that's still too much. The Chinese will probably get it cheaper. Ideally, 1/3 would be better...
      Quote: Glagol1
      We definitely don't need this...

      Here it is worth distinguishing between now and the future, and what place in the global economy the state will claim...
      1. +2
        30 November 2025 18: 15
        The most important factor for a ship designed to last three decades or more is not the construction cost, but the operating costs, which are largely determined by the crew size and the frequency of missions. Mooring a ship to a pier is very cheap, but if you want a ship with a crew of several thousand (this ship alone carries 1000 Marines) to serve for a long time, launching aircraft daily, etc., you'll end up paying roughly the same amount as the Americans, taking into account the PPP.
        1. +1
          1 December 2025 08: 51
          Quote: overland
          then you will get about the same amount that Americans pay

          It will most likely be from slightly less to significantly less, since the cost of goods and services from our Eastern comrades is lower than that of "all democrats," and the financial appetites of private American companies from the military-industrial complex are limitless...
          Quote: overland
          construction cost, and operating costs

          Which are approximately comparable over the entire life cycle.
          1. +1
            2 December 2025 04: 01
            It will be much lower, approaching the $70,000 bag of screws in the hands of the US congressman, while the same type sells for only 85 RMB on Taobao.
    2. 0
      30 November 2025 09: 44
      This is exactly what is needed.
      UDC as Sichuan.
      And in the same hull, an aircraft carrier with two catapults and a docking chamber adapted for use with unmanned underwater vehicles (ASW reconnaissance). These are needed to protect Bastions and ensure the stability of the submarines' strategic nuclear forces.
      One can dream. It's a shame that all that's left is dreaming.
    3. +4
      30 November 2025 16: 09
      You don't need anything... fool All they do is steal the money offshore, and then let the grass grow
    4. +4
      30 November 2025 17: 43
      Quote: Glagol1
      We definitely don't need this...

      Of course not. We don't need anything more expensive than the Buyan-M, Karakurt, or the 22160 patrol boat. Because they're our everything.
    5. +4
      30 November 2025 19: 10
      We definitely don't need this...
      Are our people even capable of building something like this?
      1. +2
        1 December 2025 12: 57
        How can one not remember how they laughed at the Chinese when they bought the Varyag... now it's not funny at all
        1. +4
          1 December 2025 13: 19
          And even then, it wasn't funny. A normal person understood why they were doing this. During the collapse of the USSR, China grew in every respect. Russia is only going downhill. If it weren't for the legacy of the "bloody Bolsheviks" in the form of a nuclear shield, Russia wouldn't even exist.
      2. +1
        1 December 2025 17: 12
        Quote: AKuzenka
        Are our people even capable of building something like this?

        We have two of these in Kerch since 2020, judging by the size of the VI 45,000 - 50,000 tons. We haven’t heard about a catapult on them, but I wouldn’t be surprised if one appears.
        If they are ever completed.
        The first one is scheduled for completion in 2027, the second one in 2030.
        1. +1
          2 December 2025 10: 34
          The first one is scheduled for completion in 2027, the second one in 2030.
          I'd like to believe in it.
          1. 0
            2 December 2025 13: 21
            Due to the SVO, the deadlines may be pushed back, but they're not too tight as it is. Besides, our VTOL aircraft can be expected closer to 2030. If the aircraft is successful, the carriers for it will already be ready.
      3. +1
        1 December 2025 18: 33
        Quote: AKuzenka
        We definitely don't need this...
        Are our people even capable of building something like this?

        I assure you, they are capable. There's just one problem: officials' millions in salaries, plus astronomical-scale theft, again by officials, and, finally, their southern "brothers" are on the payroll. Where are they going to find the money for a navy?
    6. +2
      1 December 2025 17: 08
      Quote: Glagol1
      We definitely don't need this...

      We have two almost identical ones under construction in Kerch. We haven't heard anything about a catapult on board yet, but their dimensions and estimated payload (based on their size) are around 45,000 tons.
      The Chinese most likely need a catapult for their promising VTOL aircraft, which is already on the way and should be available in the next two or three years. And the launch vehicle has already been built. China has been developing VTOL aircraft since the late 1990s and early 2000s, almost immediately after acquiring a mockup demonstrator of the R-279V-300 engine (18,500/13,000 kgf) at an exhibition, which we were preparing for the Yak-201. Their engine was a long time coming, with its readiness announced several times, only to be postponed again. Similar engines have recently been installed on the J-20, after which it finally delivered the expected performance. This same engine (or a modification of it) is being used for a VTOL aircraft, which will likely externally replicate the features of the J-35, but with a single engine. In other words, it will be practically a clone of the F-35B. So they built a catapult for it, an extended one (for a smoother launch) for takeoff like a regular carrier-based aircraft, without unnecessary fuel consumption, with full tanks and a full combat load. And they landed vertically on the deck, softly, with almost empty tanks and weapons deployed. This was the ideal configuration, ensuring the maximum possible combat radius and protecting the glider from unnecessary G-forces during an arresting gear landing.
      What a gamble from our Chinese comrades. Not only are they currently building two aircraft carriers simultaneously on different slipways, they're also simultaneously building VTOL aircraft carriers and UDCs. With their shipbuilding capacity, they could achieve parity with the US much sooner than expected.
      Price is not really important here.
      Quote: Glagol1
      3/4 of an aircraft carrier.

      I don't think so, 1/2 at most. Or even 1/3. Moreover, at Chinese prices, which are many times lower than American ones.
      Quote: Glagol1
      We definitely don't need this...

      We have nowhere to build something like that today... or base it. Kerch is in Crimea, the Black Sea is blocked for us. Construction is only possible in the Far East, but to do that, we first need to build a corresponding ship-to-ship pipeline and ensure all production cooperation chains. We can only imagine such a thing in a distant and unknown Bright Future. When Russia no longer has a Central Bank or commercial banks, but will have money and the State Bank of Russia.
      1. VlK
        +1
        2 December 2025 16: 37
        Why would we need this, exactly? For what purposes? To provide air cover for convoys to the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka? Nothing else comes to mind.
        1. 0
          2 December 2025 18: 06
          Quote: VlK
          In principle, why do we need this, for what purposes?

          To ensure the combat stability of Fleet formations in the North Atlantic and Atlantic Oceans. To provide air defense for the Navy's surface groups against cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles during World War I beyond the visibility horizon of shipborne radar systems. And to qualitatively strengthen our Fleet formations at key points and trade routes in the World Ocean. In other words, to ensure freedom of navigation for our merchant fleet. Financing the construction of the Ocean Fleet can be achieved, among other things, through the Marine Dues/tax.
          Quote: VlK
          Provide air cover for convoys to the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka? Nothing else comes to mind.

          And this too, but let's not forget that the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is covered with ice for half a year.
          1. VlK
            0
            2 December 2025 18: 14
            And for all this, we need to reserve enough space for 1000 marines, equipment, and supplies? Although a company, at most, would be more than enough for all of the above. What's needed is a proper helicopter carrier with a strong close-in air defense system and the ability to carry VTOL aircraft.
            1. 0
              2 December 2025 19: 58
              Quote: VlK
              and for all this, reserve volumes for 1000 marines with equipment and supplies?

              We don't know what's being reserved there, what volumes of aviation fuel and ASP are involved. No one has seen the project, not even a sketch or the stated performance characteristics, let alone what was shown at the laying of the foundation. The most important thing here is whether we'll get a good VTOL aircraft or not, and on schedule. If we do get it right, anything is possible. We simply don't have the space to build larger aircraft, and nowhere to base them either. But an aircraft carrier is essential as part of the KUG.
              Quote: VlK
              For all of the above, a company at most will be more than enough.

              Well, don't be so modest. The ship is so big, a decent battalion of marines (but by our standards, not American ones) of 400-600 men would be enough to properly service and support the air wing. Or you could simply convert such a ship (or build it from the start) as a VTOL aircraft carrier, and then a reinforced company would truly be enough.
              Quote: VlK
              What's needed here is a normal helicopter carrier with a strong short-range air defense system and the ability to carry VTOL aircraft.

              Well, we're actually building those. A couple of Pantsir-ME modules will be sufficient and provide all-round protection in the near zone, with escort ships and carrier-based aircraft providing the rest. And an EM catapult would be very useful with VTOL aircraft.
              I remember we discussed this 5-7 years ago, and I argued its feasibility. Look, the Chinese have already implemented it; they're testing the catapult.
              1. VlK
                0
                2 December 2025 20: 18
                We don't know what they reserve there, what volumes of aviation fuel and ASP. No one has seen the project, not even a sketch and the stated performance characteristics, and not what was shown at the laying of the foundation.

                The very name "universal landing ship" speaks for itself about its primary purpose, in my opinion. And the idea of ​​bringing a floating airfield within range of anti-ship missiles for landing troops, even over-the-horizon, is perhaps outdated in today's reality. Perhaps that's the reason for the pause in construction—a project revision "due to newly discovered circumstances"? I'd really like to hope so, to be honest. Logically, the role of a landing ship calls for something fast, no larger than medium, to minimize possible losses of troops if the ship is hit. It could quickly approach, land, and then quickly retreat from the kill zone to retrieve the second wave or resupply the landing force, without any air wing support for the landing force. Its air defense isn't up to the task of remaining near the enemy coast for long.
                1. 0
                  2 December 2025 21: 39
                  Quote: VlK
                  the very name of the universal landing ship speaks for itself about its main purpose,

                  They were initially called landing helicopter carriers, but since these ships acquired a docking chamber with over-the-horizon landing equipment (an air-cushion boat capable of transporting and landing on the shores MBTs, other armored vehicles, types of weapons and supplies), they began to be called UDCs.
                  Attack and assault helicopters, as well as cover VTOL aircraft (if available) take off from these first waves to seize, reconnoiter, control, and hold the beachhead until the main forces land. Then comes a wave of marines and special forces in light landing craft (sometimes these go first) and reinforce the helicopter landing force. Then comes the heavy equipment and the main force of the amphibious assault on boats and hovercraft, and the main beachhead is seized, consolidated, and expanded.
                  But this is a classic UDC. But with the advent of VTOL aircraft based on them, or after some requalification, such UDCs become VTOL aircraft. The US even built one or two of these without a docking chamber, but then changed their minds. The "America" ​​can carry up to 20 F-35B VTOL aircraft if necessary. And the US continues to build UDCs, at least until recently.
                  And China has been building them for a while now; they've already commissioned five Type 075s, and now they've enlarged them and made them into VTOL aircraft with catapults and a larger rotor. That's normal—they have the capability, the resources, and the need. They were built in Europe, and in Turkey. And even here, they first ordered them from France and then laid them down themselves. They certainly don't build them or accept them into service without a need and an understanding of their purpose.
                  1. VlK
                    0
                    2 December 2025 22: 03
                    Attack and assault helicopters, as well as cover VTOL aircraft (if available) take off from these first waves to seize, reconnoiter, control, and hold the beachhead until the main forces land. Then comes a wave of marines and special forces in light landing craft (sometimes these go first) and reinforce the helicopter landing force. Then comes the heavy equipment and the main force of the amphibious assault on boats and hovercraft, and the main beachhead is seized, consolidated, and expanded.

                    And all this time, while several waves of troops are embarked and loaded, delivered to the shore, and awaiting the return of the landing craft and air wing, it will remain within range of firepower (heavy MLRS, anti-tank missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles) from the shore, not to mention aircraft and attack UAVs, becoming their number one target. And how difficult it has proven to be to suppress an ordinary, well-constructed stronghold from the air? It seems to me that this is simply another peacetime project, based on the visions of "how things should be" from admirals and analysts who haven't seen combat, and hasn't been tested in combat. It's too versatile, and therefore expensive and unique, to really risk it during a landing.
                    But this is a classic UDC. But with the advent of VTOL aircraft based on them or after some requalification, such UDCs become VTOL aircraft.

                    Just imagine how much more optimally it would have been designed without the initially unnecessary troop-transport component.
                    1. 0
                      2 December 2025 22: 25
                      Quote: VlK
                      It will be within the range of fire weapons (heavy MLRS, missiles and anti-ship missiles) from the shore, not counting aircraft and attack UAVs, being their number one target.

                      The US assumes that all life on the shore has already been suppressed, with aircraft and attack helicopters crashing over the beachhead to protect against trouble (nowadays, reconnaissance and attack drones are also in place). Moreover, such a landing is covered not only by the air wing of a UDC (likely more than one), but also by an aircraft carrier. The US has many ships, both UDCs and attack aircraft.
                      Quote: VlK
                      It seems to me that this is just another peacetime project, based on the ideas of “how it should be” from admirals and analysts who did not fight, n

                      No. This type of ship emerged from the Korean War, when several aircraft carriers took on helicopters (still very small at the time) and used them to land troops behind North Korean lines, establish a beachhead, and attack from the rear. No one expected this, and it was a huge success. The helicopters also carried supplies and carried the wounded in special containers (there was no room inside). The US admirals liked all this so much that they decided to commission a specialized amphibious assault ship. They then even designed a docking chamber for it. And so, what we all know as the amphibious assault ship was born. They used them often, but usually against weak countries that had no serious counter-attack.
                      Quote: VlK
                      It's too versatile, and therefore expensive and unique, to really risk it when planting.

                      The US has about 20 such ships, so it’s definitely not a one-off.
                      Quote: VlK
                      Just imagine how much more optimally it would have been designed without the initially unnecessary troop-transport component.

                      Well, I'm telling you—after the advent of VTOL aircraft, they also began to be based on UDCs, but as reinforcements to the Marine air wing. Moreover, not all UDCs had VTOL aircraft on mission, but about half. I repeat—they have a lot of such ships.
                      China also builds with the expectation of "large quantities." For example, 10 Type 071 UDCs have been built, and 10 Type 75s are planned, but only 5 have been built so far. Now I don't know whether they'll complete the entire Type 075 series or continue it with the Type 076 series. It could happen either way—they have plenty of money, shipbuilding capacity, and their needs are growing.
                      1. VlK
                        0
                        2 December 2025 22: 48
                        The US assumes that all life on the shore has already been suppressed, with aircraft and attack helicopters crashing over the beachhead to protect against trouble (nowadays, reconnaissance and attack drones are also in place). Moreover, such a landing is covered not only by the air wing of a UDC (likely more than one), but also by an aircraft carrier. The US has many ships, both UDCs and attack aircraft.

                        If the beachhead is to be operated by aircraft carriers (and a smaller one, in my opinion, won't be enough for any serious operation, and no one will expose the landing craft to attack without sufficient support), then why maintain reinforcements in the form of attack aircraft on the UDCs? They will eat up space for regular transport and assault helicopters, which perform the ship's direct task according to its intended purpose?
                        No, I understand the landing idea itself, and perhaps its full universalization for more flexible adaptation of its air group to a specific mission, too. I just don't understand why WE need it in this configuration. I remember, yes, they even wanted to deploy a formation headquarters on the Mistral, making it the fleet flagship, but that was to demonstrate the flag and potential—to intimidate enemies and instill respect in neutrals and allies alike. Do you think we could use it to land troops near Odessa, for example, or capture an anti-ship missile position on Gotland, should the need arise? Or build something there near the Spitsbergen archipelago? Of course, it's possible we could use it now to support the brotherly people of Venezuela, but history knows no subjunctive mood.
                      2. 0
                        2 December 2025 23: 07
                        Quote: VlK
                        Why do WE need him in this form?

                        If we get a VTOL aircraft, we'll need it for something completely different: not for landings, but as a VTOL aircraft carrier to ensure the combat stability of the combat group in the DM and OZ. That is, with a reduced landing force and primarily VTOL aircraft and AWACS helicopters on board. I didn't draw up the technical specifications for our UDCs, and their appearance is kept more carefully under wraps than the space program. The original declared VI has long been exceeded by one and a half times. Judging by the size (satellite photo), its VI fluctuates between 45,000 and 50,000, i.e., almost identical to the Type 076. But there's complete silence about it. The same goes for VTOL aircraft, but we'll have our own VTOL aircraft sometime around 2030, and if it works out as planned, it'll be much better than the Lightning, as the engine is more powerful and the layout is more rational. The engine is undergoing testing and refinement, but has already demonstrated a rig-based torque of 24,000 kgf instead of the 23,000 kgf specified. The maximum non-afterburning torque, according to the specifications, is 14,000 kgf. That's significantly more than the Lightning, so we can expect a very good result. If they also add an EM catapult... fellow It will be just a song. But that's if the plane works out and it works out on time.
                        And if not, then there will simply be a large UDC, which is also needed in the Far East.
                        And I repeat - if there will be VTOL aircraft, then we need such ships as VTOL aircraft carriers, and not UDCs.
                      3. VlK
                        0
                        2 December 2025 23: 18
                        And if not, then there will simply be a large UDC, which is also needed in the Far East.
                        And I repeat - if there is a VTOL, then we need ships like VTOL aircraft carriers, and not UDCs.

                        So it seems like we don't even have any transport or assault helicopters for it right now, only Alligators for fire support?
                        Well, it’s clear, judging by the entire past track of events - “not in this life”, but we’ll see.
                      4. 0
                        3 December 2025 02: 28
                        Quote: VlK
                        So it seems like we don't even have any transport or assault helicopters for it right now, only Alligators for fire support?

                        We were planning on the Ka-60/62 amphibious assault helicopters for the Mistrates, but if absolutely necessary, we could replicate the Ka-29. We haven't lost the expertise, as the Ka-32, though still in slow production, is a civilian version of the Ka-27, which has the same propeller and engine combination. But the Ka-52 and Ka-62 pair (their engines should be certified next year) are quite sufficient and faster than the previous ones. And if something new doesn't appear on the anti-submarine aircraft (the Ka-90 was promised, but most likely won't), we'll resume the Ka-27M in a more advanced version with more powerful engines.
                        Quote: VlK
                        Judging by the entire past track of events - "not in this life", but we'll see.

                        It's up to the SVO to decide what happens next. If the former Soviet Union capitulates, and Europe doesn't go completely nuts, we'll see our UDCs and VTOL vessels get built. Such UDCs and VTOL vessels can be built relatively quickly and in large numbers. Kerch has four slipways and a suitable dock for them. Similar ones could be built in the Far East if the Zvezda [unclear name for a ship] is expanded, or in St. Petersburg, where icebreakers are currently being built. But that's only if ambition suddenly flares up and you want to become the "Queen of the Sea."
                        In the meantime, we have a war on land.
  2. +4
    30 November 2025 05: 01
    With such a catapult, you can throw any aircraft into the air, not just a drone weighing half a ton.

    The GJ-11 Sharp Sword UAV in question has an empty weight of 6300 kg and a maximum takeoff weight of 12500 kg.
    For example, the F35A, according to Wikipedia, has an empty weight of 13,290 kg and a maximum takeoff weight of 22,471 kg.
    1. +7
      30 November 2025 05: 08
      This catapult will be longer than the one on the aircraft carrier Fujian—by a full 8 meters.

      It's worth noting (Google AI) that fighters taking off from an aircraft carrier use afterburners during catapult takeoff to increase the thrust needed for rapid acceleration and climb in confined spaces and a short takeoff run. The GJ-11 UAV uses a WS-13E engine without an afterburner, and therefore requires a longer catapult. This makes sense.
      1. +5
        30 November 2025 08: 44
        And the speed of a Chinese amphibious assault ship against the wind is probably half that of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier...
        1. 0
          2 December 2025 04: 11
          It's unlikely. This ship has 110,000 horsepower, while the LHA-6, with a similar tonnage, only has 70,000 horsepower. Its speed should be around 25 knots.
      2. +3
        30 November 2025 08: 45
        Quote: smart fellow
        that's why a longer catapult is needed

        That's all true, but why is there no landing gear? Are they going to use mitts to catch it?
        1. +4
          30 November 2025 09: 52
          They write that there is.
          The UDC is equipped with three arresting gear and two large lifts.

          https://flotprom.ru/2025/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B927/

          As a new generation landing ship of the PLA Navy, the Sichuan LDC is equipped with innovative electromagnetic catapult and arresting gear technologies.

          https://ydyl.gansu.gov.cn/rusgsydyl/news/topnews/202511/t20251114_31737.html
      3. 0
        1 December 2025 13: 34
        Fighters taking off from the deck of an aircraft carrier turn on afterburners when launching from a catapult to increase thrust

        The American ones don't. The catapult gives enough acceleration. The Chinese ones—I don't know.
        1. 0
          1 December 2025 15: 41
          American ones do not include them.

          I wouldn't say so.
          No, engaging afterburners is not required for every catapult launch, but they are often used, especially when an aircraft is heavily loaded, to ensure a higher margin of safety. The decision to use them depends on factors like aircraft weight, fuel levels, weather, and the specific aircraft type.
          Chinese - I don't know.

          They use it when there is a need.
          Meanwhile, we've also got a much better view of the J-15T single-seat carrier-based fighter launching and recovering aboard Fujian, having previously seen it in position for a catapult launch with its afterburners engaged.
          https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-aircraft-carrier-capability-just-made-a-stunning-leap-forward
          1. 0
            1 December 2025 16: 24
            They use it when there is a need.

            More precisely, the Chinese simply use them.
            having previously seen it in position for a catapult launch with its afterburners engaged
            I wouldn't say so.

            And it can be confirmed. The plane is generally weighed before takeoff, and the catapult's operation is adjusted according to the plane's actual weight.
            No, engaging afterburners is not required for every catapult launch
            Maybe it was used as an additional option for some particularly loaded F-14s. I've never seen a video with afterburners.
            https://youtu.be/6qahWEhrDfg
            1. +1
              2 December 2025 02: 34
              More precisely, the Chinese simply use them.

              It depends on the specific aircraft type. So, you're just making a wild guess here, jumping to conclusions without knowing why the J-15T uses afterburners. Perhaps it's fully loaded, or maybe it's a test, and afterburners are used for safety. Moreover, the J-15T isn't China's only carrier-based aircraft. There's also the J-35.
              I've never seen a video with Afterburner.

              Here the readers did not see the arresting gear on the UDC, but they are there.
              You seem to think that American laws of physics are different from Chinese ones.
  3. 0
    30 November 2025 05: 35
    All that remains is to find out the results of practical tests
    And what about practical tests, is this already a landing in Taiwan? wink
  4. +5
    30 November 2025 06: 59
    There's a catapult, but there are no aerial fishermen on the UDC deck. Where and how will the GJ-11 and other fixed-wing UAVs land?
    The Chinese will likely soon roll out their own short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, similar to the F-35B or Yak-141.
    1. 0
      30 November 2025 09: 58
      Or maybe they've come up with a clever way to catch planes with an EM catapult.
      Which is logical in principle.
    2. 0
      30 November 2025 21: 54
      Most likely not installed, it is unlikely that such a ship with an EM catapult would be made without finishers.
    3. -1
      1 December 2025 07: 18
      Quote: Cympak
      There's a catapult, but there are no aerial fishermen on the UDC deck. Where and how will the GJ-11 and other fixed-wing UAVs land?

      There is
      Quote: smart fellow
      They write that there is.
      The UDC is equipped with three arresting gear and two large lifts.

      https://flotprom.ru/2025/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B927/

      As a new generation landing ship of the PLA Navy, the Sichuan LDC equipped with innovative technologies of electromagnetic catapult and arresting gear

      https://ydyl.gansu.gov.cn/rusgsydyl/news/topnews/202511/t20251114_31737.html
  5. +1
    30 November 2025 06: 59
    I liked and was simultaneously saddened by the story about someone with a nuclear destroyer.
    The Chinese are great, but we, "Forgive us, Yura..."
    It's a shame about our state of affairs; from laying down to sea trials, it takes two years (according to open data). In what year were our two ships laid down and what happened to them?
    That's why it's offensive...
  6. +5
    30 November 2025 07: 22
    Communist China is giving us a hard time. But a bunch of entitled X-farts are telling us that aircraft carriers are unnecessary, useless, and even harmful. And the epitome of the Russian Navy is the unsinkable sloop Turboyak, the brainchild of the great navigator Fyodor Konyukhov!
  7. +4
    30 November 2025 08: 06
    I'm reading the comments and I see that everyone has a -1. The posts are from different users, on different topics, but everyone has the same -1 rating. It seems like some gay person is logging into the comments and indiscriminately giving everyone a negative rating.
    I understand that statistically such people exist in any society; how can you escape these homosexuals? But the editorial board of VO could do something about this phenomenon, either so that the heroes are recognized by sight or limit the number of negative ratings over a period of time.
    1. LMN
      +3
      30 November 2025 08: 29
      Quote from: mad-max78
      I'm reading the comments and I see that everyone has a -1. The posts are from different users, on different topics, but everyone has the same -1 rating. It seems like some gay person is logging into the comments and indiscriminately giving everyone a negative rating.
      I understand that statistically such people exist in any society; how can you escape these homosexuals? But the editorial board of VO could do something about this phenomenon, either so that the heroes are recognized by sight or limit the number of negative ratings over a period of time.

      Just give the opportunity to see who gives you a + or -
      1. -1
        1 December 2025 07: 23
        Quote: LMN
        Quote from: mad-max78
        I'm reading the comments and I see that everyone has a -1. The posts are from different users, on different topics, but everyone has the same -1 rating. It seems like some gay person is logging into the comments and indiscriminately giving everyone a negative rating.
        I understand that statistically such people exist in any society; how can you escape these homosexuals? But the editorial board of VO could do something about this phenomenon, either so that the heroes are recognized by sight or limit the number of negative ratings over a period of time.

        Just give the opportunity to see who gives you a + or -

        What will this change? Two weirdos are following me and slapping two downvotes on every post, including offensive and neutral ones, for ideological reasons. If it's open, there will be two, two, or three offended people.
        Let only supporters remain for a month - the generalissimos...
        There's nothing left to read or discuss on the forum anyway: and the comments will be the same anyway...
      2. 0
        1 December 2025 13: 42
        A war of minuses will begin, simply out of a sense of revenge.
    2. +6
      30 November 2025 08: 48
      Quote from: mad-max78
      indiscriminately gives negative assessments

      I don't care about grades. If it's important to you, keep the plus one in mind.
    3. 0
      1 December 2025 13: 41
      The site rules prohibit downvoting everyone.
  8. -7
    30 November 2025 08: 08
    A ship is no good for war as a target. The first missile strikes, and they're gone. These ships are only good in peacetime against tribes with bows and arrows. The time of giants is over. The time of robots has come, underwater and in space.
    1. +6
      30 November 2025 08: 56
      The first missile strikes and they are gone.

      You are no strategist, sir! hi Russia currently has more missiles than any other country in the world, but a nuclear power plant has been operating on the outskirts for four years, and we haven't been able to clear the DPR for four years, despite having our entire arsenal of weapons. We need to attack not ships (or drones), but the industry that produces them! Yes
      1. 0
        30 November 2025 11: 32
        You apparently don't understand what radiation is if you want to turn Ukraine into a radioactive wasteland. Why Ukraine hasn't been bombarded with missiles yet? That's a question for the commander-in-chief. Your arguments about me being a bad strategist are like old ladies talking on a bench in America. The president is black, that's why snow is white in Russia. If I were Russian, I wouldn't be drinking kefir, I'd be drinking kissel.
        1. +5
          30 November 2025 14: 51
          Quote: Dmitry worker
          You apparently don't understand what radiation is.

          You clearly don't understand what a large ship is, or how difficult it is to hit one with missiles. And it's equally obvious that you overestimate the role of robotic technology.
          1. -6
            30 November 2025 17: 23
            You're talking about something you've never seen or done at sea for firing practice. Your knowledge is zero. Any cruise missile is a robotic system; it flies by following the terrain (machine vision and an intelligent calculation system will automatically choose which side to fly around a mountain). If several missiles are flying, one can act as the lead missile, while the others are wingmen. If it's shot down, the next one in line takes its place. As the missiles approach a group of targets, they identify targets among themselves; they have a communication channel between them. You can give them a command, and they will refocus on another target while moving, ignoring the previous one.
            And speaking of a ship, it's so vulnerable that even a 30mm anti-aircraft shell can hit its side. The side is penetrated and causes so much damage that the ship ceases to function. And when a ship is as big as a football field, it's even easier to injure it with the same shell.
            You apparently served in the First Cavalry under Budyonny and can't get off your horse. Wake up, people are already flying into space.
            1. +8
              30 November 2025 19: 10
              Quote: Dmitry worker
              Zero knowledge.

              Dmitry, you have now, with remarkable aplomb, put forward a number of theses, some of which are false.
              and some of it is banal.
              Quote: Dmitry worker
              It flies along the terrain (machine vision + intelligent calculation system will choose which side to fly around the mountain).

              It doesn't work that way, but that's not the point - there are no mountains in the sea
              Quote: Dmitry worker
              If several missiles are flying, one of them can act as the lead missile and the rest as followers.

              Not all missiles can do this. In fact, most anti-ship missiles don't work this way.
              Quote: Dmitry worker
              When approaching a group of targets, the missiles pick out the targets among themselves; they have a communication channel between themselves.

              Not everyone can do this either. In fact, the vast majority of modern anti-ship missiles don't operate in swarms; they operate individually.
              So, first, ships at sea, whether large or small, are very difficult to detect. Second, if they are detected, it's very difficult to provide targeting information so that missiles fired at them can actually reach their targets. Essentially, this can only be accomplished by AWACS aircraft or specialized satellites (the latter with significant limitations).
              Simply put, you have missiles, but detecting a target, classifying it, and determining its parameters so that those missiles can be used is a very difficult task. That's why, for example, our Navy can't handle the destruction of large enemy formations like the AUG—we have missiles, but the means to detect enemy ships are meager.
              That's the first point, but there's also the second: the ships have very powerful electronic warfare systems, which are clearly superior to the missile seekers. Therefore, even if the missiles are guided to the target, a hit cannot be guaranteed.
              And finally, third, escorts of large ships have very good capabilities for the physical destruction of anti-ship missiles. In fact, the only missiles against which firepower is practically useless are our Tsirkon missiles, but electronic warfare works against them as well.
              Quote: Dmitry worker
              And speaking of the ship, it's so vulnerable that even a 30mm anti-aircraft shell can penetrate its side and cause so much damage that the ship ceases to function.

              Soviet admirals, who were somewhat more knowledgeable about destroying large ships than you, believed that hits from even a few Granit missiles would not guarantee the destruction of an aircraft carrier. American admirals believed that at least seven anti-ship missiles would be required to disable Soviet Kyiv-class heavy aircraft carriers.
              1. -6
                30 November 2025 21: 25
                It doesn't work that way, but that's not the point - there are no mountains in the sea. lol lol You said so.
                I see you are a programmer, writing or taking from the library.
                Maybe you're designing cruise missiles or anti-ship missiles, but judging by your work, you don't understand the difference, yet you continue to speculate. You don't know how it works either, otherwise what would you explain?
                As you said, most anti-ship missile systems don't work like that. I conclude that a smaller number work as I said, and I'll add modern ones. The crux of the argument was: you overestimate the role of automated technology, you said. The whole world is betting on robotics, and even you simply don't know what a robot is. In your mind, it's a piece of metal with a head and body resembling a human's; children always perceive the world through toys.
                Well, and then you got carried away.
                From the meaning of your texts, I understood that you acknowledged that a missile is the only weapon capable of destroying or damaging a ship, and that a missile is a robot, which you also acknowledged.
                You started saying that a rocket is not the only means; a robot (aka a satellite) is also needed in space. You didn't say that a person is needed who flies in space, takes pictures and calculates coordinates.
                They also installed electronic warfare systems without knowing the principles of their operation.
                The whole world, including Russia, is fighting electronic warfare by introducing AI into missiles. I can tell you, AI is a robot.
                Regarding the ship and its survivability.
                We have the Admiral Kuznetsov, a steamship, a steamship with a steam engine. There was a fire on it from a welder's spark, and now they want to write it off as a wreck.
                All this speaks about the quality of your knowledge and life experience.
                You didn't immediately admit that any ship can be rendered inoperable using an anti-ship missile (a robot), and for that, you need another robot in space—a satellite, or better yet, many of them. And to engage and destroy any submarines, you need many different robots in the deep sea.
                The time of giants is over, the time of robots has come. bully
                bully
                1. +2
                  1 December 2025 07: 05
                  Quote: Dmitry worker
                  You don't know how it works either, otherwise you wouldn't tell me.

                  Quote: Dmitry worker
                  The whole world, including Russia, is fighting electronic warfare by introducing AI into missiles. I can tell you, AI is a robot.

                  I see:)))) So you have no idea how rockets work, but you blame me for it:)))))
                  I'm sorry to disappoint you: missiles don't make decisions like "whether I'll go around this or that mountain." That's done by a human, who determines the missile's route, and the missile only knows how to follow that route, using its inertial guidance system and navigating the terrain.
                  Otherwise, unfortunately, your theses are just as far from reality.
                  1. -1
                    1 December 2025 09: 51
                    If you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. bully bully
                    Read the literature on the Internet and other sources. Here are excerpts from an article that describes how a rocket changes its route, and other points, as you say.
                    "Granite" are doing something incredible:
                    Independently distribute targets in a group of 10-20 missiles
                    Change the route if connection with the operator is lost.
                    Determine priorities according to pre-defined algorithms
                    Coordinate attacks in real time through a mesh network
                    "It's like a swarm of bees, where each individual knows its role, but the swarm is controlled by a collective mind," explains military analyst Dmitry Korneev.
                    How a rocket's "brain" works
                    The system is based on the Grom-2M neural network, which processes data from 14 sensor types. In just one second, it:
                    Analyzes 2400 flight parameters
                    Compares 1500 reference target samples
                    Predicts the development of the situation 8 steps ahead
                    In March 2024, something happened during an exercise that made even veterans of the Strategic Missile Forces gasp. A group of 16 missiles was tasked with destroying:

                    3 anti-aircraft systems
                    2 command posts
                    5 clusters of equipment
                    Upon approach, it was discovered that one of the command posts had already been destroyed by artillery. The AI ​​redistributed the missiles in real time, directing the freed warheads to the newly detected radar station. 98% of the targets were hit with an accuracy of 1,5 meters.
                    1. +1
                      1 December 2025 13: 51
                      In March 2024, something happened during an exercise that made even veterans of the Strategic Missile Forces gasp. A group of 16 missiles was tasked with destroying:
                      3 anti-aircraft systems
                      2 command posts
                      5 clusters of equipment
                      Upon approach, it was discovered that one of the command posts had already been destroyed by artillery. The AI ​​redistributed the missiles in real time, directing the freed warheads to the newly detected radar station. 98% of the targets were hit with an accuracy of 1,5 meters.

                      Please provide a link where I can read about this. You can't even imagine what a unique event you've described here. It's not often that the Strategic Missile Forces fire at anti-aircraft systems and concentrations of equipment.
                      "Granite" are doing something incredible:

                      What does Granit have to do with the Strategic Missile Forces?
                      1. -1
                        1 December 2025 14: 11
                        Copy whatever interests you from my post and paste it into the search bar. Then click "Find."
                        And the vastness of the internet will show you everything they've found. You can search using AI. It will also find this quote online.
                      2. 0
                        1 December 2025 14: 20
                        From my post, copy what interests you and paste it into the search bar.

                        I followed your advice. I copied it and pasted it into the search bar. There was only a link to your post.
                        Now it's your turn to try to give me a link.
                        Besides, the question remains
                        What does Granit have to do with the Strategic Missile Forces?
                        Reply
                      3. -1
                        1 December 2025 15: 39
                        https://dzen.ru/a/aD4CMWgYIDFEYFQM?ysclid=min1k8v1as35669865
                      4. +1
                        1 December 2025 16: 33
                        Excuse me, I wish you would have given a link to a collection of jokes :((
                        hi
                      5. -1
                        1 December 2025 15: 50
                        https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2022818143-i2sYY.html?ysclid=min5ahj8us927905334
                      6. -2
                        1 December 2025 15: 53
                        Missile swarm: how artificial intelligence controls target destruction https://news.rambler.ru/troops/46001017-raketnyy-roy-kak-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-upravlyaet-porazheniem-tseli/?utm_source=washaring&utm_medium=social
                      7. +1
                        1 December 2025 16: 31
                        In March 2024, something happened during an exercise that made even veterans of the Strategic Missile Forces gasp. A group of 16 missiles was tasked with destroying

                        Your link.
                        https://news.rambler.ru/troops/46001017-raketnyy-roy-kak-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-upravlyaet-porazheniem-tseli/?utm_source=washaring&utm_medium=social

                        We're watching.
                        Research laboratory United States Air Force reported that it had successfully tested the Golden Horde semi-autonomous precision-guided weapon. Four GBU-39/B bombs were dropped from an F-16D Viper fighter jet and simultaneously hit their designated targets.
                      8. -2
                        1 December 2025 17: 53
                        I showed you what the internet gave me for the first three articles. Well, try turning the Zen article back to the original source and asking me what lectures I should give you now. About AI.
                      9. +1
                        1 December 2025 17: 59
                        I showed you what the internet gave me for the first three articles.
                        The first article isn't really an article, it's just a rant. The third article has nothing to do with the topic.
                        Well, try referring to the original source from the Zen article.

                        There is no "original source" there...
                      10. 0
                        1 December 2025 18: 25
                        What's the second article about? You only mentioned the first and third.
                    2. +1
                      1 December 2025 15: 50
                      The AI ​​redistributed the missiles in real time, directing the freed warheads toward the newly detected radar station. 98% of targets were hit with an accuracy of 1,5 meters.

                      There were 10 targets: 3 anti-aircraft systems, 1 command post, 1 newly discovered radar station, and 5 equipment concentrations. The missiles hit 98% of them. Purely mathematically, 9 targets were completely destroyed, and one target was 80% destroyed? Is that correct? Or is the key phrase here: "...with an accuracy of up to 1,5 meters."? So 2% of the targets were hit with a different accuracy? But how then was the accuracy of "...up to 1,5 meters" determined for targets like "equipment concentrations"?
                      I'm not a rocket scientist or even a military man. I just want to clarify the details with an expert... winked
                      1. -1
                        1 December 2025 15: 56
                        https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2022818143-i2sYY.html?ysclid=min5ahj8us927905334
                        https://dzen.ru/a/aD4CMWgYIDFEYFQM?ysclid=min1k8v1as35669865

                        Missile swarm: how artificial intelligence controls target destruction https://news.rambler.ru/troops/46001017-raketnyy-roy-kak-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-upravlyaet-porazheniem-tseli/?utm_source=washaring&utm_medium=social
                      2. 0
                        2 December 2025 15: 20
                        Dmitry Rabochiy, thanks for the links! I know about the Granit missile system; I've read about it. I can't say for sure, but I think it was a powerful and formidable weapon for its time. These missiles could probably still get on the enemy's nerves. There are questions about the initial target acquisition and target data transmission... But that's not about the capabilities of the Granit missiles.
                        By the way, here: https://news.rambler.ru/troops/46001017-raketnyy-roy-kak-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-upravlyaet-porazheniem-tseli/?utm_source=washaring&utm_medium=social, in the section/chapter "Wolf Laws" there is an interesting paragraph: "..The essence of it is that in Russia they created a "blind" missile. Unlike most of its "classmates", it does not scan space with a radar beam in search of a target, but, like a blind person, perceives the world "by touch". Its homing head works exclusively by receiving radio emissions of the "victim". Because of this, even at subsonic speed, it is very difficult to target the Kh-35. The machine rushes over the water at an altitude of no more than five meters, merging with the waves, actively maneuvers, can bypass obstacles (islands, flooded, but objects rising above the water), go, skirting the contours of the coastline, and are guaranteed to achieve the assigned task." Question: if the rocket is "blind", then it flies along a predetermined route and algorithm?
                      3. 0
                        2 December 2025 21: 30
                        It works like Yandex Maps on a smartphone and receives a signal from GLONASS.
                    3. +1
                      1 December 2025 17: 16
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      If you don't know about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

                      I know. You think you know.
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      Read literature, the Internet, and other sources.

                      I not only read them, but also talked to people who used PCR.
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      Here's how a rocket changes its route.

                      So the first one.
                      You still don't understand the difference between "flying around a mountain" and the swarm you're describing. And yet, the difference is fundamental.
                      A mountain flyby is accomplished like this. The rocket is equipped with an inertial navigation system (INS, essentially a set of commands: after 20 minutes of flight, 30 degrees to the right, after the next 15 minutes, 15 degrees to the left, and so on), a radio altimeter, and/or a special terrain tracking system. A human-defined flight mission is then entered into the system. The rocket flies according to the INS instructions, but since the INS is inaccurate, it constantly checks the terrain it flies over, comparing it to a reference, and adjusts its flight accordingly. If the operator miscalculates the route, the rocket could very well crash into the mountain; it won't be able to fly around it.
                      And here is what you write about
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      "Granite" are doing something incredible:

                      It doesn't work that way at all.
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      Change the route if connection with the operator is lost.

                      If I remember correctly, there's no reliable information at all that Granit has any connection with the operator. They operate on a "fire and forget" principle.
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      Independently distribute targets in a group of 10-20 missiles

                      This is done as follows: the anti-ship missile is guided by the INS, and in the suspected target area, it activates its own AGSN. Once there, having detected the order, the missiles can actually exchange information to assign targets.
                      Unfortunately, if Granit encounters a mountain before it turns on its radar, and the operator didn't factor that mountain into the flight plan, Granit won't be able to fly around it.
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      Determine priorities according to pre-defined algorithms

                      Yes, and this is also key—the algorithms are programmed by humans, they're not generated by the missile itself. So, for example, if the algorithm is "attack the largest target," then the Granit missiles, having identified the target with the highest radar cross-section, will home in on it.
                      And now—the icing on the cake. The internet is still abuzz with debate about whether Granites can do all this or not:)))))))))
                      Quote: Dmitry worker
                      In March 2024, something happened during exercises that made even veterans of the Strategic Missile Forces gasp.

                      Learn to remove the bullshit from your ears. Your "source" is clearly giving you away.
                      By 2026 it is planned:
                      Development of a naval version for submarines

                      while the underwater version of the Kalibrs has been in service for 100 years and the navy regularly fires them at the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
                      In general, if you're going to draw "revelations" from Yandex Zen, at least don't pretend to be an expert.
                      1. 0
                        1 December 2025 19: 17
                        You apparently have no idea how a rocket's brain works. You think there's a programmer sitting on the ship, writing flight instructions in machine language. Have you ever been on a ship? There aren't any. request
                        If you are talking about the P-700 missile, the senior officer of the Central Control Center enters the target location square through the station and that’s it Yes
                        He doesn't describe turning left after 10 minutes and then immediately right, so he'll have to write the assignment all day and the crab has gone off into the darkness like a cockroach.
                        Here is a rough description of how it works after entering the arrival and launch square.
                        Vladimir Nikolaevich Chelomey, a rocket and space technology designer and head of the NPO Mashinostroyeniya military-industrial complex (today part of the Tactical Missiles Corporation), the firm that created the strike potential of our fleet, orbital combat stations, and hypersonic missiles, always looked beyond the horizon and took on seemingly impossible tasks. In the 60s, he created the first cruise missile with folding wings that fit within a "standard" launch tube. Then he proposed the unthinkable: making a flying missile fly not just from point A to point B, but also make decisions independently, change its flight profile, and, most importantly, operate in a group with similar missiles, coordinating actions and coordinating decisions. For the development of technology in the then USSR, this was akin to suicide (technology... a very complex task), but not for the designer Chelomey, who proposed the P-700 "Granit" cruise missile to the fleet, later nicknamed "Shipwreck" in the West.

                        This is a ten-meter, seven-ton "cigar" carrying almost a ton of combat payload. To put this into perspective, the missile's size is comparable to that of a MiG-21 fighter jet. The missile is still part of the armament of Project 1144 Orlan-class nuclear-powered missile cruisers and Project 949 Antey-class attack submarines. The former are the Pyotr Velikiy and Admiral Nakhimov-class ships, while the latter are the Kursk-class submarines, nicknamed "loaves" for their uncharacteristic "flattened" shape. Each ship carries 24 of these missiles.


                        But it wasn't the warhead's size or terrifying destructive power that made the Granit a superweapon. It was the first missile equipped with an artificial intelligence system close to human intelligence. The carrier simply needs to detect the target—a convoy, an aircraft carrier group, or another enemy combat formation—and launch the missiles. Then the spectacle begins. The first of the missiles to emerge from the silo, instead of rushing into battle, will "slow down." It will wait in the air for the last—the 23rd—"accomplice" to emerge, and only then, lined up in a line, will they begin the attack.

                        The missiles themselves "decide" which target in the formation represents the greatest "value," distributing "roles" among themselves—who attacks, who "covers," and who sacrifices themselves for the ship's air defenses. To eliminate errors in maneuver selection and target engagement, the missiles' onboard computers are loaded with electronic "portraits" of all modern classes. This includes not only the dimensions and contours of the superstructure, but also information about electromagnetic and other force fields unique to that particular type of ship. Furthermore, the computer also contains purely tactical information about the formation type, allowing the missile to determine what is in front of it (a convoy, an aircraft carrier, or a landing group) and attack the primary targets.

                        Read more:
                        How dangerous is a drone swarm for the S-400?

                        The Granit's onboard computer contains data on countering enemy electronic warfare systems, the ability to divert missiles from their targets using jamming, and tactical techniques for evading air defense fire. But the most interesting thing is that only one of the machines can detect the target. It is this machine that "tells" the others how best to hit it and "organizes" the subsequent attack. If it fails, the next machine will take over—and so on ad infinitum, until the mission is completed.
                        Read what is written there, it changes the very charm of flight.
                      2. 0
                        1 December 2025 19: 38
                        The P-800 Oniks missile operates in the same way, only its algorithms have become more precise and complex. Unlike other anti-ship missiles, which are "specialized" by launch vehicle, the new system is universal. It can be deployed on various types of submarines, surface ships, and even boats, aircraft, and shore-based launchers.
                      3. 0
                        1 December 2025 19: 48
                        The age of giants is gone and the age of robots has arrived. Yes
                      4. 0
                        1 December 2025 19: 55
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        You apparently have no idea how a rocket's brain works.

                        I'm not even close to the masters of Yandex Zen reading :))))
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        If you are talking about the P-700 missile, the senior officer of the Central Control Center enters the target location square through the station and that’s it

                        You can't even read what I wrote. After all, I wrote it in plain Russian.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is done as follows - The anti-ship missile system is under the control of the INS, and in the intended target area, it turns on its own AGSN.

                        That is to say, I never said anywhere that Granite requires that
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        There is a programmer sitting on the ship and writing the flight assignment in machine language.

                        In general, my advice is to first master at least the basic terminology of the issue so that you understand how an inertial system differs from a correction based on the terrain contour, and then pretend to be an expert.
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        Here is a rough description of her work

                        This was provided by military observer Dmitry Litovkin. Another military observer (me) doubts what he writes.
                      5. 0
                        1 December 2025 20: 24
                        Your words: The rocket is equipped with an inertial navigation system (INS, essentially a set of commands: after 20 minutes of flight, 30 degrees to the right, after the next 15 minutes, 15 to the left, etc.) Yes
                        Unfortunately, if Granit encounters a mountain before it turns on its radar, and the operator didn't factor that mountain into the flight plan, Granit won't be able to fly around it. am
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is done in the following way: the anti-ship missile is controlled by the INS, and in the expected target area it turns on its own AGSN. belay
                        What do you think, the operator on the shore has foreseen that near the island of Okinawa, a ship will be detected by an aircraft carrier group and missiles will be launched, and there will be a gara and how many kilometers will it be to this mountain? Bbbbbbbbb what should I do, Lord, help me, I will never forget. bully
                      6. 0
                        1 December 2025 20: 51
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        What do you think, the operator on the shore has foreseen that an aircraft carrier group will detect a ship near Okinawa Island?

                        I don't need to think anything up - I know:)))))
                        Firstly, the "ship" itself won't detect anything – it has no detection capabilities; someone else has to detect the target for it. And if the "ship" detects, then firing at 40 km doesn't require an INS.
                        Secondly, the INS is designed to allow the operator to easily set the missile's route—no need to sit and program anything on punch cards. It's a fairly automated process. So, yes, if there's an island between the "ship" and the target, the operator will plot the missile's course so it goes around it. Yes, ships have maps, can you imagine? :))))
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                        Oh my god, learn to quote on the forums, it's elementary. Then you can master rocket science. :))))
                      7. 0
                        1 December 2025 21: 14
                        So where does the operator write the flight assignment without punch cards? You still haven't answered what he writes it on. request And apparently he runs to the ship in between to check the map where the mountain is now, to the right, or a word from the ship. As you said, there are no mountains at sea. They apparently respond to him. And he probably brings the flight assignment on paper, since you're not allowed to use the punch card. laughing
                      8. 0
                        1 December 2025 21: 21
                        What heresies you have inflicted:
                        I don't need to think about anything.
                        The ship itself will not detect anything; it has nothing to detect with.
                        The operator plots a course for the rocket.
                        This is a fairly automated process; punch cards are not needed.
                        laughing laughing
                      9. 0
                        2 December 2025 08: 21
                        Quote: Dmitry worker
                        What heresies you have inflicted:

                        Of course, having "studied" military equipment from Yandex Zen publications, you quite sincerely believe so. So what can you say?
                        Go learn the material! Start... Well, at least with "Cruise Missiles of the USSR and Russia" by Markovsky and Prikhodchenko. Once you've started to get a basic understanding of the basics, you'll move on.
                        May be....
                      10. 0
                        2 December 2025 09: 26
                        So you studied them and now you’re telling me how they work.
                        I hasten to inform you that we are communicating with you about modern cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles.
                        And all I can tell you about them is what is posted in the public domain; the rest is classified. stop
                        Your knowledge of electronics and programming has stalled at the level of the 60s. Everything that happened after that simply doesn't fit in your head. request
                        The age of giants is gone and the age of robots has arrived.
              2. 0
                1 December 2025 12: 24
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                American admirals believed that to disable the Soviet Kyiv-class heavy aircraft carriers, at least seven anti-ship missiles would have to hit them.

                7 harpoons. The Granit missile, even without a warhead, inflicts colossal damage to a ship.
                You have to understand the difference in missiles. The Americans estimated the survivability of their aircraft carriers at 7-11 harpoons, while our admirals estimated the survivability of an American Nimitz-class aircraft carrier at 4-5 granites. That is, after that many hits, it would either sink/burn, or be scrapped and cease to exist as a combat unit.
      2. -3
        30 November 2025 13: 05
        Maybe we should go even deeper and hit specific people instead of rocks (concrete). How's our glorious GRU doing? Or are its officers only capable of organizing Helicopter races and squeezing out businesses? What about Nikolai Kuznetsov's experience? What's too weak or... the lives of top officials are untouchable. It happened before... when the Ukrainians were planning to shoot down Air Force One...
      3. -1
        1 December 2025 12: 34
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        Even now, Russia has more missiles than any other country in the world.

        Where did you get that? Do you know how many missiles the US has, and what kind? How many does Iran have? And China? We do have a lot of strategic missiles, but we're roughly on par with the US, and they're not for chasing down Papuans with drones and Kalashnikovs; they're a last-ditch strike that protects us from all-out war. They can't be wasted. As for the other missiles, we have few. They were cut back under Gorbachev and only recently began to be revived. The missile, the caliber that's been so inflated, is similar to the Tomahawk, which the US has had in service for many years and has thousands, if not hundreds, of them in its arsenal. At least they're not particularly stingy in firing 70 missiles from a single ship at Syria.
  9. -1
    30 November 2025 09: 34
    Yes, it seems a bit odd: they managed to create an electromagnetic catapult, but simply "forgot" about arresting gear? The same goes for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The F35B already provides US satellite countries with a semblance of a "carrier" fleet; see the recent exercises between India and Britain. One might assume that China is secretly developing its own VTOL aircraft or drone, and tiltrotor aircraft to boot.
  10. 0
    30 November 2025 10: 52
    Testing a catapult with a "truck" and a full-fledged aircraft are two different things.
    In the case of accelerating the F35V with a takeoff weight of 25 tons, at the end of the catapult acceleration these 25 tons must be placed "on the wing".
  11. +3
    30 November 2025 10: 57
    Testing catapults on the USS Gerald R. Ford using heavy-duty "trucks"

    This is a dynamometer trolley.
  12. +2
    30 November 2025 12: 52
    China's economy depends on sea lanes controlled by the United States.
    Large ships are expensive and have minimal chances of survival in a battle with an equal opponent, even taking into account the massive deployment of escort ships.
    When used in amphibious operations, they become a priority target for coastal missile systems and air defense systems capable of detecting a target long before it reaches the optimal range and launching a preemptive strike.
    Even with the availability of naval bases with all the necessary infrastructure to ensure shipping is protected from the threat of pirate attacks, the use of such a base is still too expensive and unjustified.
    It seems that the only positive is the demonstration of military power.
    1. +2
      30 November 2025 14: 57
      The vast majority of air defense systems, armored vehicles, aircraft, and other assets are also "expensive and have minimal chance of survival in combat with an equal adversary." Shore-based missile systems are generally considered expendable when faced with a navy or carrier-based aircraft. Large ships have many advantages: combat operations in distant countries, combat duty at great distances from home shores, seaworthiness, the ability to launch all sorts of large missiles from the sea, and much more. And yes, an aircraft carrier, unlike a regular airfield, is mobile, and surveillance satellites fly along a specific trajectory with a specific period, and aircraft can't remain in the air 24/7. Therefore, large ships can also avoid detection—and in bad weather, with the use of various decoys, they can even slip right under anyone's nose—their seaworthiness allows for this.
    2. 0
      30 November 2025 18: 19
      The situation around Taiwan is similar to that of World War I and World War II, when the Russian Empire and Nazi Germany wasted a lot of resources on building battleships to the detriment of other branches and arms of the military.
      China regularly deploys its mosquito fishing fleet to practice amphibious operations, and the strait's width allows for this. This option has propaganda, military, and economic advantages.
      The task of surface and submarine ships is
      1. in demonstrating military power and capabilities consistent with the world's largest economy.
      2. Ensuring security against attacks on maritime trade routes vital to China. To this end, China is increasing its naval strength and capabilities. Therefore, China is increasing the size and quality of its navy, building not isolated bases but a network of military bases along the route to the Arabian Gulf. At one point, plans were made to build canals through the Isthmus of Panama.
      3. in the event of US aggression in blocking the approach of US, Japanese, Aukus, Kuada and Nata ships to the island from the east.
  13. +2
    30 November 2025 14: 40
    Quote: Glagol1
    The size is impressive. How much would it cost? I'd guess about three-quarters of an aircraft carrier.
    We definitely don't need this...

    Well, they're not here... what? "Kuznetsov" is like a living corpse.
  14. +1
    30 November 2025 16: 47
    Why don't we have this?
  15. 0
    30 November 2025 23: 19
    They really can do it. If you don't believe me, visit a place like "New Sichuan" in Moscow, on Sushchevskaya Street. For your money, they'll put you through a truly masterful auto-da-fé, from the tongue to the natural exit.
    - Yes, you can read Roma's articles - at least you don't have to pay money. laughing
  16. +1
    1 December 2025 08: 25
    This is who we should have ordered ships from, not from the macaroni.
  17. 0
    1 December 2025 12: 20
    I have a feeling the Sichuan is a British Queen Mary, built with the original design and not trimmed. The ship is probably being built for the Chinese expeditionary force. In general, I envy them—the government supplies them very seriously. The latest technology, a diverse fleet, and aviation—everything a 350-strong group of cutthroats needs.
  18. 0
    1 December 2025 14: 00
    Visit a place like "New Sichuan" in Moscow, on Sushchevskaya Street.

    Advertising? :))
  19. +1
    1 December 2025 14: 11
    The Sichuan-class ships are the world's first amphibious assault ships with electromagnetic catapults.

    And perhaps even the last. The catapult, its power plant, the corresponding fuel supply for the power plant, the arresting gear, and the crews and services required to maintain them take up a lot of space, detrimental to the UDC's primary function. A straight flight deck would pose numerous challenges in ensuring the safe operation of the arresting gear—what if it misses? All of this compromises the primary missions for which ships of this type are built. Undoubtedly, the Chinese have made this decision due to the lack of VTOL aircraft—both fixed-wing and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of this type. A catapult alone won't turn a UDC into an aircraft carrier.
  20. VlK
    +1
    1 December 2025 15: 10
    A shed the size of an aircraft carrier, but with extremely limited carrier capabilities, plus an amphibious component that will ALWAYS interfere with the carrier's capabilities, and vice versa. A questionable decision. The KMK is simply a classic example of how, in the pursuit of expanded functionality, the initially sound idea of ​​giving a landing ship the ability to land troops on an unprepared coast using boats and helicopters was transformed into a transport-like, sub-aircraft-carrier monster. Its intended use would probably only be possible in suppressing a riot on Cocos Island—when, threatened by patrolling aircraft, they would surrender, and the landing force would seize the presidential palace and the National Guard barracks. In all other missions, its capabilities would be simultaneously excessive and insufficient, or so it seems. Clearly, the move toward universalization is primarily driven by budgetary savings, allowing this type of ship to be used for missions beyond amphibious assault and transport roles. From a functional perspective, building separate amphibious ships with over-the-horizon landing capabilities, and separate helicopter carriers with drones, and perhaps VTOL aircraft to support the former and perform other missions without the need for a full-fledged aircraft carrier, seems more logical.
    1. 0
      1 December 2025 16: 49
      A standard UDC has its niche: over-the-horizon amphibious landings, the ability to serve as a "sea control ship," supporting a strike group by augmenting the air component in terms of air defense and anti-submarine warfare (ASW), for example, in targeted, semi-police-like complex operations against a relatively weak adversary, and other situations where the use of a strike group is excessive. However, in this case, the Chinese have designed the UAV flight equipment to the detriment of other functions. Such a ship can only be considered an intermediate stage.
      From a functional standpoint, the construction of separate landing ships...

      Having three general-purpose ships is more cost-effective than three highly specialized ones. Their missions may vary, and as a result, most of the ships will be left idle at the pier as useless cargo.
      1. VlK
        0
        2 December 2025 15: 58
        Having three general-purpose ships is more cost-effective than three highly specialized ones. Their missions may vary, and as a result, most of the ships will be left idle at the pier as useless cargo.

        What about the efficiency of such equipment with inherently conflicting characteristics? This is obviously acceptable in peacetime, but in (pre)war times, when every last bit counts, deploying a dedicated large landing ship on water control missions, for example, is not the optimal solution, in my opinion. Separating the amphibious assault ship and helicopter carrier functions into separate ships would provide a much more flexible tool, although it would be more costly. However, the loss of one of them would not lead to a failure in the other.
        1. 0
          5 December 2025 11: 13
          and in the (pre)war period, when every single one counts for everyone

          ...you could end up with two-thirds of your fleet being useless if all your ships are highly specialized. And there aren't that many ships these days...
          When every last one counts, sending a special large landing ship on a mission to control a water area, for example, is not the optimal solution.

          This is precisely the optimal solution - to free up aircraft carriers for more serious tasks.
          Separating the functions of the UDC and helicopter carrier into separate ships will provide a much more flexible tool, although it will be more expensive.

          If you need to control a water area, you'll have a highly specialized large landing ship (LDC) drying its oars in port, and only one (and a single!) helicopter carrier available. But if you have two UDCs, you'll have two ships for the same purpose. Incidentally, the Americans also take this into account. For example, the first UDC "America" ​​doesn't have a docking chamber and is more suited to serving as a light aircraft carrier (though it can also be used as an amphibious assault ship). Other ships in the project will have docking chambers, but they can also be used as light aircraft carriers. This allows for greater flexibility in deployment depending on the circumstances.
          1. VlK
            0
            5 December 2025 11: 27
            ...you could end up with two-thirds of your fleet being useless if all your ships are highly specialized. And there aren't that many ships these days...
            I wouldn't say that a hypothetical helicopter carrier without amphibious capabilities is all that specialized; in my opinion, it would be a multifunctional aircraft carrier (from the core of an anti-submarine warfare search group to monitoring waters and escorting transports), but within the framework of its aircraft carrier function, without being overly diffused.
            But you're right about the cost of modern ships—for peacetime budgets, maximum possible multifunctionality, even at the expense of the quality of those functions, will generally be a priority. There hasn't been a major modern war at sea for a long time, and there's been no opportunity to test the viability of modern ideas. But for peacetime naval missions (from showing the flag to exerting pressure on potential adversaries), what you're saying is apparently truly optimal.
  21. 0
    3 December 2025 09: 20
    On the one hand, the Project 076 amphibious assault ship represents a new attempt by the Chinese Navy to build a land-based amphibious assault system. As part of an amphibious expeditionary force (one Project 076 amphibious assault ship, one Project 075 universal landing ship, one Project 072 landing ship, one Project 055 guided-missile cruiser, two Project 054B frigates, one AOE-type supply ship, and one SSGN nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine), it provides vertical landings and close-in fire support using helicopters. At the same time, catapult-launched attack aircraft are capable of providing battlefield cover and striking targets deep in the enemy's coastal zone. In addition, a group of unmanned aerial vehicles for joint combat operations is being deployed in the maritime direction, which provide support to the PLAAF's long-range carriers, such as the J-20S and J-16D, in carrying out breakthrough strike operations.

    On the other hand, continuing the tradition of escort aircraft carriers from World War II, the Project 076 ship is part of an escort force (one Project 076 amphibious assault ship, one Project 055 guided-missile cruiser, one Project 054B frigate, one AOE-type supply ship, and one SSN-type attack submarine), which can flexibly deploy to areas vulnerable to blockade. Using attack drones and helicopters, such a force can counter enemy surface groups or submarine "wolf packs" conducting a blockade.
  22. +1
    4 December 2025 23: 50
    It seems the production of these and other large ships is primarily intended to intimidate the enemy, according to Hollywood canons. The Americans are building an aircraft carrier like the invincible Shark from "Jaws." The Japanese are building an equally invincible Godzilla, and the Chinese are telling them: "Here you go, try defeating our Dragon with your puny Sharks and Godzillas!"
    Both experts and analysts and ordinary citizens look at these magnificent parades and admire the invincibility of these monsters, animatedly discussing the advantages of each
    Only the little Houthis in slippers aren't afraid of them, and so these invincible monsters prudently avoid approaching within 200 km of the coast. They lose three planes and a helicopter, spend a billion dollars on their intimidation operation, and after the deterrence, send the slightly crippled Jaws for repairs to Norfolk.
    No, perhaps the Chinese have a plan to ruin the Americans by pumping up their fleet with tonnage, so that they would feverishly rush into an arms race with China, just like the USSR did into an arms race with the USA itself?
    In this case, if China succeeds in their cunning plan, I take my hat off to them.
    1. VlK
      0
      5 December 2025 11: 35
      The navy was created primarily to control the world's oceans, where it has no alternative. Everything else is merely ancillary, completely unnecessary. It's precisely in peacetime that it's used for other purposes, so as not to waste time. That's why the cost of its use ashore is so high—its weapons are designed for entirely different purposes.
      1. 0
        6 December 2025 02: 09
        Tell that to the American carrier groups, which after World War II sharpened themselves for use "along the coast" and did not participate in any other capacity.
        And the coast can no longer be dismissed as a staging area for operations in the "world ocean." Intelligence is already advanced enough to prevent such large targets from getting lost in the mists of the world ocean.