It's just a peaceful pipe carrier!

35 370 123
It's just a peaceful pipe carrier!

The Chinese don't celebrate Christmas; it's just not their holiday. However, they know how to put on something special, with special effects, and it seems to be becoming a fine tradition at Christmas.

Last year, as you may recall, everyone was literally on their ears due to the "accidental" demonstration of footage of two stealth fighter prototypes. Many considered it a successful fake, but after a while everything fell into place: the fighters are "in the metal" and flying, carrying out some unknown test programs.



This year, the neighbors decided to put a strain on the maritime component of their enemies by showing... a certain cargo ship, the cargo of which is modular missile installations. Well, to such a load it was quite logical to add a very modern AESA radar and weapon Defense short range.


The result is a kind of pipe carrier, capable of protecting itself in a difficult situation. And given that difficult situations are emerging all over the world today, from the Caribbean to the Red Sea, not to mention the Baltic, North, and Black Seas, a pipe carrier desperately needs protection. And, apparently, it has it.

It appears the Chinese have acquired at least one such example, a mid-sized cargo ship filled with containerized vertical launch tubes, as well as sensors and self-defense systems. The message is clear: China is signaling that it can and likely will convert ships from its giant commercial fleet. fleet not just into floating launchers, but into arsenal ships.

It's actually very difficult to separate one from the other, but the gist is clear: a large ship with a large number of launchers, protected by frigates or destroyers, can go to any point on the globe and there...

The vessel's deck is equipped with containers used for both weapons storage and deployment, as well as for mounting sensors. In other words, the design is a kind of improvised modification that allows the cargo ship to be transformed into a kind of surface combatant with powerful weapons.

This includes installing a large rotating phased array radar forward of the bridge with additional equipment in three containers, and installing another dome radar or communications system in two containers across the deck from it.


A more detailed view of the radar and CIWS system on the vessel

At the bow of the vessel, high above the two containers, we see a 30mm Type 1130 Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) to defend against incoming threats, especially cruise missiles. 11-barrel artillery The system, with a rate of fire of over 10,000 rounds per minute, is capable of shooting down cruise missiles flying at speeds of up to Mach 4 with a probability of up to 96%.

One container below, on both sides, we see Type 726 decoy launchers mounted on another pair of containers. The large cylindrical containers appear to be emergency life rafts, necessary due to the increased crew complement.


A more detailed view of the radar and CIWS system on the vessel

Then we get to something truly mind-blowing: the deck is literally covered with containers housing vertical launch tubes. Five across and three deep, each containing four large launch tubes—the ship has a total of 60 vertical launch tubes for large missiles. That's two-thirds the number of launchers for Arleigh Burke Flight I or II class missiles.

But it's worth remembering that, unlike a bulk carrier equipped with cranes, a destroyer's crew must expend significantly more effort reloading its launchers, and some missiles (such as Tomahawks) can only be loaded in port. Even if the Chinese ship isn't designed for reloading at sea, the load is already quite substantial: remember, the Arleigh Burke's 96 launchers hold ALL the missiles the destroyer can use in combat missions.

The standard armament set of the destroyers' UVP consists of 74 RIM-66 SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroc anti-submarine missiles in the multi-role version, or 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 34 RIM-66 SM-2 and RUM-139 VL-Asroc missiles in the strike version.

That is, if a pair of such "pipe carriers" were to be covered from all threats by normal military ships, each "pipe carrier" would carry more cruise missiles than the Arleigh Burke in its strike version.

But here, you know, there is something to think about for those who are planning a quick war in the Pacific Ocean.

Judging by its large radar mount, this ship functions more as a specialized vessel than a simple arsenal ship, providing, for example, air defense. But this doesn't mean its container launchers can't be equipped with other weapons. This option could be useful for continuous air defense of a given area, and given that Chinese surface-to-air missiles today perform almost as well as Russian ones, this is something to consider. Indian pilots, who have experienced them firsthand, could offer advice.


The ship from the other side

Be that as it may, it is an amusing spectacle, and there are rumors that China is going down this path in an effort to achieve its main goal - to protect itself from "raids" at sea, since, indeed, the country has many opponents there in different blocs, of which the United States is the main member.

We have already seen Chinese commercial vessels used as makeshift helicopter carriers and ferries converted for island landings during exercises.


It's also worth noting that containerized weapons systems have evolved from a controversial novelty to mainstream over the past decade, an area in which the United States, to put it mildly, lags far behind. While work is underway, China's advantage in terms of spatial and physical capabilities is undeniable.

Let me translate: the Chinese already have ships, but the US continues to “work”.

Of course, information experts like the Americans have launched a maximum attack on China:

The images of a Chinese cargo ship converted into a floating missile base are impressive, but they raise the question: how realistic is this configuration? It looks like it was prepared for these images.
Is this a demonstration model or just a mockup? How robust are the radar and anti-aircraft gun mounts, for example? A closer look at the images reveals that the radar mount appears relatively robust, but it's difficult to draw any conclusions at this point. The radar could be vulnerable due to its close proximity to the ship's aft superstructure, although there are ways to address this. And just because all this can be installed on a commercial vessel doesn't mean it will be able to effectively utilize these sensors and weapons.
What combat information system is installed on the ship to integrate all these systems and use them effectively in combat?
At this point, we just don't know.

No, they're beautiful, that's all there is to it. They're capable, the bastards. But the whole problem is that the raft of questions posed can only be answered under two conditions: either competent experts can examine the "pipe carrier," or the ship unleashes all its weapons on a target.

Both options are incredibly interesting. But until now, all possible uses for such ships have been shrouded in not so much mystery as uncertainty.

This doesn't mean that developing customized weapons configurations for commercial vessels isn't a good strategy. Some might argue that this would "turn every vessel into a target" during a conflict, but the advantage of such a ready-to-use solution is clear. China, with its massive fleet of cargo ships and enormous shipbuilding capacity, could exploit this concept to such an extent that it would pose a huge challenge to the US and its allies. Simply put, there won't be enough missiles on conventional warships.

On the other hand, as we have previously suggested, the US Navy will likely have to follow a similar path, as it is inferior in shipbuilding to the People's Liberation Army Navy of China, and this difference will likely only increase over time.

But it's worth diving into history And remember that at one time, the United States implemented a similar program brilliantly. For those who don't remember, many Americans with a grasp of naval affairs believe that World War II in the Pacific was won not by battleships and attack carriers, but by destroyers and escort carriers. They truly prevailed by sheer numbers, because at almost every point on a hypothetical Pacific front line, there could have been a ship capable of raining down bombs on submarines and shells and torpedoes on surface targets. And the aircraft that took off from escort carriers, while not in the same numbers as from attack carriers, took off and performed their job just as well.

Therefore, there is a certain confidence that the United States will rush to chase China in the area of ​​alternative types of weapons.

We'll be discussing the concept of Chinese armed cargo ships more than once in the coming days. And judging by last year, this may not be the only "unexpected Christmas gift" Beijing will offer in the near future.

The implementation of this idea brought to mind a very old joke from the Soviet era:
TASS message.

Yesterday morning, a Soviet civilian tractor was plowing a control strip near the Chinese border. A passing Chinese border patrol fired a single, unaimed rifle shot in the tractor's direction.

In response, tractor driver Petrov lifted his vehicle into the air, weeded 500 hectares of adjacent territory, then turned on the afterburners and headed back to his base.

In connection with the incident, TASS is authorized to state: if similar provocations are repeated, the Soviet government will send a trainload of mowers, threshers, seeders, winnowing machines, and other agricultural equipment, as well as a batch of mineral fertilizers with nerve agent, to the disposal of the collective farm chairman.

So far, this is the peaceful pipe carrier the Chinese have created. We look forward to more.
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    2 January 2026 04: 10
    Soviet projects for converting civilian ships into carriers of strategic ballistic missiles.
    Project 909 and Project 1111 remained on paper. Shirokorad "Weapons of the Russian Navy".
    1. +2
      2 January 2026 12: 49
      Well, ballistic missile carriers aren't exactly what the photo shows. The photo shows another simplified version—an arsenal ship. Fortunately, China builds a lot, and there are countless Chinese ships at sea. It's hard to tell which one is a regular container ship and which isn't.
  2. +11
    2 January 2026 04: 12
    Our country needs such pipe carriers in the Baltic Sea... NATO countries will soon openly begin seizing our civilian ships there... the scoundrels are growing brazen before our eyes.
    The Chinese are great...they are doing what our leaders in the Kremlin should do...not in words but in deeds.
    1. -4
      2 January 2026 04: 31
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      The Chinese are great...they are doing what our leaders in the Kremlin should do...not in words but in deeds.

      What do you mean? You don't know what else to throw in? China says Taiwan is China, but in reality, they're just wiping their hands. And we didn't say anything, since Crimea and Donbass are already Russian! Not in words, but in deeds, yeah!
      1. +5
        2 January 2026 10: 07
        Quote: Vladislav_V
        China says that Taiwan is China, but in fact they are wiping their hands of it.

        They may be "wiping their hands," but it's worth remembering that both the island and the mainland are populated by Chinese people. China's trade turnover with tiny Taiwan in 2024 exceeded that with enormous Russia by 20%, and dozens (if not hundreds) of TSMC specialists are "miraculously" working for the benefit of mainland China's semiconductor industry, and the fruits of this labor are already visible...
        China will take Taiwan, this is inevitable, but it will do it without air and sea operations, without numerous casualties, and the "democrats of the whole world" will be powerless; sooner or later they will inevitably sell out the "rebellious island", but they will bargain hard...
    2. +4
      2 January 2026 09: 50
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      The Chinese are great...they are doing what our leaders in the Kremlin should do...not in words but in deeds.


      So, in Russia, they tried modularity for the Navy. But nothing happened except sawdust.
      money and damage to the Navy itself, did not work.
      On the other hand, the entry of such vessels into ports of other countries, as per the SABZh, will have to be coordinated at the level of defense ministers.
      1. 0
        4 January 2026 23: 18
        On the other hand, the entry of such vessels into ports of other countries, as per the SABZh, will have to be coordinated at the level of defense ministers.
        Why would such ships call at ports other than Chinese? If they refuel at sea, there's enough space for the rest of their "autonomy" to circle the globe three times and return to their home port.
    3. 0
      2 January 2026 11: 37
      Besides weapons, an order to use them is also needed. In the Baltic, the use of live ammunition against a landing helicopter carrying "ecologists" and marines could trigger World War III.
      The most you can do with such a helicopter in peacetime is shoot it back with slingshots. This has already happened in naval stories, when they were shooting back at the Chinese :)
      1. 0
        2 January 2026 12: 59
        Well, you can create smoke from helicopters, just like you can wash something with a fire hose... And there are so many other things you can come up with. You could install a couple of masts with a vertical electric motor and attach a longer cable to the motor shaft - and let the Marines try to climb down from the helicopter using cables... Something like this could be used elsewhere, in principle. Higher RPMs mean a better chance of shooting down anything falling from above. No one's ever tried that. And I think small arms should be standard issue on civilian vessels - wandering around unarmed is no longer an acceptable form of stupidity.
        1. +3
          2 January 2026 13: 18
          Firearms are NOT ALLOWED on a civilian ship!! The most you can find is a pistol in the captain's safe, and even that's not guaranteed. There are plenty of sailors here who can explain the rules for carrying and using weapons on civilian vessels.
          The rest of the "technical inventions" are from the realm of science fiction, well, except for fire hoses, but even there you can run into resistance.
          1. -1
            4 January 2026 23: 27
            Small arms on a civilian ship are LOW!!
            Who said it's impossible? What kind of UN? Everyone's given up on it for a long time... with the device. They'll grumble a bit and then disperse.
      2. +2
        2 January 2026 14: 25
        No third-world response to the "ecologists" will provoke. It won't even spark a serious regional conflict. They will continue to retreat just as quickly as they did when our aircraft appeared. The Europeans, however, understand that Russia's threshold for unacceptable losses is much higher. And the potential for inflicting such unacceptable losses is also much greater. Yes, the notorious Article 5 of the NATO treaty exists, but in the event of an attack on one of the treaty countries, it doesn't stipulate an immediate military response to the "aggressor" with all the bloc's forces, but merely the beginning of consultations on the matter. The "Musketeer" motto—"one for all and all for one"—is well-established among them, and is reflected in the principle—"an attack on one is considered an attack on all." It's considered..., but the response is merely consultations, because no one really wants to die for the intemperance or stupidity of one. They understand that a war of infantry squares, in which infantry numbers are of great, if not decisive, importance, will not happen. They understand the enormous vulnerability of the civilian infrastructure of some countries. Even without the use of nuclear weapons, several dams could be destroyed, and most of these countries' territory would be flooded with seawater. I'm not even talking about the use of nuclear weapons (even just tactical nuclear weapons). The likelihood of the Americans intervening with their strategic nuclear weapons is truly very low. Firstly, "their own skin is more important" (they are well aware of the capabilities of our strategic nuclear arsenal), and secondly, Europe is one of their economic competitors, and the disappearance of this competitor is advantageous for them. They are already doing everything they can to "deflate" this economic competitor.
      3. 0
        2 January 2026 16: 53
        Quote: Not the fighter
        In the Baltic, the use of live ammunition against a landing helicopter carrying "ecologists" and marines could trigger World War III.

        These are strange fantasies. The issue isn't even in the Baltic, where Russia, despite the overwhelming might of NATO naval groups, has an advantage that could easily be exploited immediately after missiles are launched toward NATO ports. As Putin said, even the sinking of the Defender wouldn't trigger World War III. It's already in full swing. Ukraine, on its own, would only have enough energy for a month.
        In the Baltics, it seems we'll have to resort to brute force sooner or later. And it's highly desirable to do so at maximum settings, without any IAO, but with an announcement.
      4. 0
        3 January 2026 00: 52
        Quote: Not the fighter
        The most you can do with such a helicopter in peacetime is shoot it with slingshots.

        You could use the standard fire hoses to flush the bastards and the helicopter into the sea under the pretext of smoking in an unauthorized area. Luckily, every tanker has such fire hoses.
        Quote: Not the fighter
        This has already happened in sea stories.

        Well, now if they do something like that, they will compose not tales, but epics.
        On the dangers of smoking in unauthorized places during pirate robberies.
      5. 0
        4 January 2026 23: 21
        A helicopter carrying "ecologists" with marines on board could cause World War III.
        And who will start this third world war? Sprat bugs or dates?
    4. +5
      2 January 2026 11: 54
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Our country needs such pipe carriers in the Baltic Sea...

      Absolutely unnecessary.
      1. +1
        2 January 2026 21: 56
        Andrey, why?
        Is Baltika too small for use?
        Given your experience, could you give a detailed answer? It's interesting, isn't it?
        1. +3
          2 January 2026 23: 39
          Quote: Dart
          Andrey, why?

          Vadim, the answer is very simple. What tasks could such an "auxiliary cruiser" accomplish? The answer is practically none.
          There's maritime law, and all these things are spelled out there. Such a ship is legal if it initially flies under the Navy flag. But as a Navy ship, such a marvel is pointless. Warships are almost entirely different from civilian ones. For such a ship to be even remotely functional, it would need powerful surveillance radars, sonars, electronic intelligence systems, electronic warfare systems, a navigation system, an air defense system, a combat information and control system, and a whole bunch of other stuff. And all this equipment requires specially equipped rooms, equipment, and a large crew—and where can you get all this on a container ship, which is essentially a large floating box with a minimal crew?
          Rebuild, adapt? It's easier to build a proper warship that way. Do nothing, say, "It's a missile carrier, and others will cover it?" The "Atlantic Conveyor" waves hello from the seabed.
          Basically, it's not needed as a naval vessel. And if it's not a naval vessel, then it's, excuse me, a pirate—civilian vessels aren't supposed to carry weapons. And as a pirate, it can be captured or sunk by anyone, and anyone would be within their rights. So, you can carry weapons on it as long as no one sees them, but if, God forbid, you use them, that's it, you're outlawed.
          1. 0
            2 January 2026 23: 53
            Well, it's more or less clear... And if it's a "everyone against everyone" brawl, then he's easy prey, without even having time to use his arsenal.
          2. 0
            3 January 2026 10: 06
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            For such a ship to be even remotely functional, it would need powerful surveillance radars, sonars, reconnaissance and intelligence systems, electronic warfare, a targeting system, an air defense system, a combat information and control system, and a whole host of other things. And all this would require specially equipped rooms, equipment, and a large crew.



            Why can't we have all these systems, including power plants, in container form in advance, along with trained personnel (some of whom can be kept remotely on land at all times) on land, and then load them on D-Day according to a pre-developed plan, along with an additional crew of maintenance and repair technicians and a minimum number of operators, onto a pre-determined carrier (perhaps slightly modified in advance to install a specific set of configurations?

            The whole question is about displacement, area and their reserves for modernization and ensuring additional survivability.

            It is clear that specialized is better than non-specialized.

            It is also clear that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and the best is the enemy of the good.
            1. +1
              3 January 2026 10: 44
              Quote: Eng Mech
              Why can't we have all these systems, including power plants, in container form in advance?

              Because not everything will fit into the container - firstly, because you won’t have trained personnel for it
              Quote: Eng Mech
              part of which can be kept on land remotely at all times

              Sure, it's safe to keep him, but why would he need training? A warship is a complex orchestra; the crew needs constant training. The crew is either professionals or conscripts. What are professionals doing on the shore? Where can you find conscripts across the country if something happens?
              Quote: Eng Mech
              and on D-day load according to a pre-developed plan

              The problem is, this isn't D-Day. Assembling everything required into a system takes months, which is exactly what the Americans encountered with their modular ideas.
              In short, the funds for this undertaking will be colossal (not much less than for a warship of comparable power), and the result...
              1. 0
                3 January 2026 11: 17
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                1. Because not everything will fit into the container - once
                2. You will not have trained personnel for it
                3. The crew needs constant training.
                4. What do pros do off the coast?
                5. It takes months to assemble everything that is required into the system
                6. slightly less than a warship of comparable power


                It’s not that I’m arguing, I’ve just been thinking about this topic (I even tried unsuccessfully to publish the product of my thoughts here).

                1. That is, the issue is in the range of standardized containers/blocks of different sizes that can be connected into the system.
                2. Why, if they train him (there's the concept of replacement crews). The question is, are we ready to feed this surplus personnel for peacetime?
                3. Yes, partly in simulators, partly in the form of a rotating crew on permanently operating and operational pre-assembled systems (both onshore and on ships). Who said a system can't be assembled onshore and completely combat-ready as some kind of coastal fort?
                4. See 3 + participate in the development/assembly of the next generation of modular systems.
                5. The question is about the size and degree of readiness of the blocks.
                6. The question is: what's more important for us: maintaining a highly specialized fleet to the maximum extent possible or trying to utilize the existing fleet to the maximum extent possible? (Surely everyone will agree that a "Tiger" or "Vystrel" battleship is much better than a "Bukhanka," but both have their place in service.)

                Thank you.
                1. +1
                  3 January 2026 23: 40
                  Quote: Eng Mech

                  1. That is, the issue is in the range of standardized containers/blocks of different sizes that can be connected into the system.

                  The problem is that they don't want to interface. All these systems are very complex, and the Americans who tried to implement them, if I remember correctly, spent two to three months replacing modules.
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  Why not train them (there's the concept of replacement crews). The question is, are we ready to feed this surplus personnel for peacetime?

                  The question is, why are we doing this at all? What are we trying to achieve? To reduce construction costs? It's not a cost-cutting measure at all – two-thirds of a warship's cost is its combat equipment, and cramming it into a container only makes it more expensive. And container ships prepared to receive them, with extra cabins, cable/communication routes, etc., will cost even more than standard ones.
                  1. 0
                    4 January 2026 05: 12
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                    1. The problem is that they don't want to dock. All these systems are very complex, and the Americans who tried to implement them, if I remember correctly, spent two to three months replacing modules.
                    2. The question is, why are we doing this at all? What do we want? What problem are we solving?


                    2. (Because this is the main question.) I think the problem is solved by quickly increasing the size of the Navy by time M.
                    1. This issue and all others are resolved by the design, layout, serial production of kits, standardization and interchangeability of the fleet of containers of different, but at the same time standardized container sizes, and carriers for them.

                    Of course, this does not mean that it is easy to develop.

                    So, which approach should we choose? What's the minimum possible fragmentation level for a given combat configuration?

                    For example: 2 (a single combat unit/factory-ready platform and a carrier ship (from the picture of an improvised helicopter carrier) docked according to the principle of a lighter - a semi-submersible dock carrier).

                    That is, it is possible to obtain a nearly (and perhaps even more advanced, depending on the size of the proposed and existing) fully-fledged helicopter carrier in just a few hours by loading a fully combat-ready platform (which in peacetime is located near some coastal city in the form of a floating fort) onto a carrier.
            2. 0
              4 January 2026 10: 41
              Quote: Eng Mech
              Why can't we have all these systems, including power plants, in container form in advance, along with trained personnel (some of whom can be kept remotely on land at all times) on land, and then load them on D-Day according to a pre-developed plan, along with an additional crew of maintenance and repair technicians and a minimum number of operators, onto a pre-determined carrier (perhaps slightly modified in advance to install a specific set of configurations?

              The US tried your idea - "modular ships" - and just recently gave up.
              This idea doesn't work.
              1. 0
                4 January 2026 15: 07
                Quote: your1970
                Quote: Eng Mech
                Why can't we have all these systems, including power plants, in container form in advance, along with trained personnel (some of whom can be kept remotely on land at all times) on land, and then load them on D-Day according to a pre-developed plan, along with an additional crew of maintenance and repair technicians and a minimum number of operators, onto a pre-determined carrier (perhaps slightly modified in advance to install a specific set of configurations?

                The US tried your idea - "modular ships" - and just recently gave up.
                This idea doesn't work.


                They thought and designed it poorly before trying it.

                It works on computers.
                Works on lighter carriers.
                It works on trains.
                It works in ISO containers for transportation and even as combat platforms with standard mounts.
                Etc.

                Naturally, everything and everyone cannot be modularized at a certain stage of development of the element base.

                But, as an example, see my conversation with another friend.
                1. +1
                  4 January 2026 15: 12
                  Quote: Eng Mech
                  They thought and designed it poorly before trying it.

                  To build and throw away the idea - we don’t have the same resources as the USA.
                  The US came to the conclusion that the modules were sitting idle for too long without being used, that maintaining several additional crews without use was too expensive, and that the issue of the modules' distance from the ship arose, and so on.
                  There have been several articles here that discuss these issues in the US.
                  1. 0
                    4 January 2026 15: 35
                    Quote: your1970
                    Quote: Eng Mech
                    They thought and designed it poorly before trying it.

                    To build and throw away the idea - we don’t have the same resources as the USA.
                    The US came to the conclusion that the modules were sitting idle for too long without being used, that maintaining several additional crews without use was too expensive, and that the issue of the modules' distance from the ship arose, and so on.
                    There have been several articles here that discuss these issues in the US.


                    We probably don't have it (what are the resources, and who's willing to give up another mansion for this? What are they even for? And does anyone need it other than...?).

                    I told you that they didn’t think it through, including whether they needed it at all, if they could maintain a highly specialized fleet in the composition that they needed.

                    Why should modules be idle, why not have a network of forts in sparsely populated areas?

                    They probably don't have a huge merchant fleet of their own (I'm not aware of this, and I didn't really need to delve into these peculiarities of theirs).

                    I was interested in thinking about the topic of a mobilization cargo fleet, and how it could be adapted from a technical point of view.

                    I do not claim, of course, that I have found a solution, especially understanding that the solution depends on the task at hand, and the resources and time available for it.
                    1. 0
                      4 January 2026 15: 42
                      Quote: Eng Mech
                      how it can be adapted in principle from a technical point of view

                      In principle, no way. To maintain combat readiness, a crew is needed - which must CONSTANTLY be on a specific ship.
                      The maximum armament capacity for such ships without a dedicated crew is a few boxes of MANPADS and KPVTs on a pedestal. But then, it won't be allowed into any port in the world because of the weapons on board.
                      1. 0
                        4 January 2026 16: 01
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        how it can be adapted in principle from a technical point of view

                        In principle, no way. To maintain combat readiness, a crew is needed - which must CONSTANTLY be on a specific ship.
                        The maximum armament capacity for such ships without a dedicated crew is a few boxes of MANPADS and KPVTs on a pedestal. But then, it won't be allowed into any port in the world because of the weapons on board.


                        So be it!

                        Try reading more thoughtfully what I wrote to another friend.

                        It is necessary to separate the tasks of transporting any weapons constantly, especially "illegally" and covertly, from the possibility of quickly installing a full-fledged weapons system on a commercial carrier.

                        For example (exclusively).

                        A destroyer, incapable of independent propulsion, can be loaded ENTIRELY onto a semi-submersible high-speed dock (like the one pictured with the ersatz helicopter carrier). The resulting combination will be functionally close to a destroyer (if not superior in terms of unsinkability and, for example, endurance).

                        Thank you.
                      2. 0
                        4 January 2026 16: 14
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        A destroyer, incapable of independent propulsion, can be loaded ENTIRELY onto a semi-submersible high-speed dock (like the one pictured with the ersatz helicopter carrier). The resulting combination will be functionally close to a destroyer (if not superior in terms of unsinkability and, for example, endurance).

                        The example is incorrect - the word speed is dropped automatically.
                        In addition, due to the high center of gravity, there will be nuances on the wave.

                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        the ability to quickly install a full-fledged weapons system
                        A fully-fledged weapons system requires a foundation—an infrastructure—that would be completely unnecessary on a civilian ship.
                        Who will ensure its operation? Our crew has plenty to do.
                        In addition, the size of the modules limits the usefulness of the weapons.

                        You want something like "Dobroflot" - but even that hasn't really proven itself
                      3. 0
                        4 January 2026 16: 29
                        Quote: your1970
                        A fully-fledged weapons system requires a foundation—an infrastructure—that would be completely unnecessary on a civilian ship.
                        Who will ensure its operation? Our crew has plenty to do.
                        In addition, the size of the modules limits the usefulness of the weapons.

                        You want something like "Dobroflot" - but even that hasn't really proven itself


                        So be it.

                        Try to read more thoughtfully and abstractly what I wrote to another comrade and to you.

                        Let there be a slower analogue of the destroyer in the form of a large lighter, with a “cut off” bow and stern and initially lacking a powerful propulsion system.
                      4. 0
                        4 January 2026 17: 44
                        Quote: Ing Mech
                        Quote: your1970
                        A fully-fledged weapons system requires a foundation—an infrastructure—that would be completely unnecessary on a civilian ship.
                        Who will ensure its operation? Our crew has plenty to do.
                        In addition, the size of the modules limits the usefulness of the weapons.

                        You want something like "Dobroflot" - but even that hasn't really proven itself


                        So be it.

                        Try to read more thoughtfully and abstractly what I wrote to another comrade and to you.

                        Let there be a slower analogue of the destroyer in the form of a large lighter, with a “cut off” bow and stern and initially lacking a powerful propulsion system.

                        So be it. What next?
                        Transporting oversized cargo across the ocean—because these will be naval transport ships? Nonsense.
                        The state alone will have to order equipment with pre-installed provisions for guns, radars, and the like. Businesses have no interest in increasing construction costs due to excesses.
                        The ships will obviously be more expensive than civilian ones.
                        And most importantly - why, what is the purpose of creating such ships?
                        Cruising? Nonsense.
                        Transport troops? They won't let me.
                        In case of a surprise attack, arm yourself? 2 months belay , what the hell is so sudden here...

                        What is the purpose of their construction?
                      5. 0
                        4 January 2026 20: 07
                        Quote: your1970

                        In case of a surprise attack, arm yourself? 2 months belay , what the hell is so sudden here...

                        What is the purpose of their construction?


                        You failed to read the direction of my thought more thoughtfully and abstractly, although, it is highly likely that you know more about engineering than I do.
                      6. 0
                        5 January 2026 13: 21
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        abstractly

                        Abstract It's not suitable for shipbuilding. It's too expensive...
                      7. 0
                        7 January 2026 11: 03
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        abstractly

                        Abstract It's not suitable for shipbuilding. It's too expensive...


                        What was meant was try to read without taking into account the specific examples given.

                        That is, consider the proposed principle and approach to solving the technical problem of using the existing cargo fleet for military purposes.

                        This implies that the task of rapidly increasing the naval force is being solved using the existing cargo fleet, and the answer to all other questions about the feasibility study of the idea as such is already positive (i.e., all that remains is to choose how exactly this task will be solved for different types of cargo ships).

                        For example, you probably know how a complete drilling platform can be transported, complete with personnel.

                        What fundamentally prevents us from having a pre-fabricated combat platform and loading it onto such a vessel entirely, along with the crew?

                        This is one of the possible uses of such semi-submersible transport vessels.

                        For other types of vessels, there may be a different type of fully combat-ready platform and a different loading method.
                      8. 0
                        7 January 2026 12: 10
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What fundamentally prevents us from having a pre-fabricated combat platform and loading it onto such a vessel entirely, along with the crew?

                        The fundamental obstacle is that this platform will sit on the shore, and its crew will be engaged in IBD
                        In anticipation of "maybe someday...", at which point a civilian ship might end up on the other side of the globe
                      9. 0
                        7 January 2026 12: 15
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What fundamentally prevents us from having a pre-fabricated combat platform and loading it onto such a vessel entirely, along with the crew?

                        The fundamental obstacle is that this platform will sit on the shore, and its crew will be engaged in IBD
                        In anticipation of "maybe someday...", at which point a civilian ship might end up on the other side of the globe


                        I didn't just mention floating drilling platforms.

                        Let it protect the economic zone, trade routes and straits near the Kuril and other islands in the form of a floating fort.

                        This implies the presence of a sufficiently large fleet of cargo ships and moving ships, including along the routes that protect these platforms.
                      10. 0
                        7 January 2026 12: 17
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        This implies the presence of a sufficiently large fleet of cargo ships and

                        Why? If government ships are under sanctions? Besides, there aren't enough cargo volumes to transport them.
                      11. +1
                        4 January 2026 23: 46
                        And most importantly - why, what is the purpose of creating such ships?

                        For China? Enter the A2/AD zone and establish a naval and air blockade of Taiwan. They won't need to visit any foreign ports to do this.
                      12. 0
                        5 January 2026 13: 22
                        Quote: Saturn VII
                        For China?

                        The opponent and I were talking about of Russia fool and this is clearly evident from the discussion
                      13. 0
                        7 January 2026 11: 05
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Saturn VII
                        For China?

                        The opponent and I were talking about of Russia fool and this is clearly evident from the discussion


                        It doesn't matter for whom.
                        Russia could purchase a fleet of the necessary ships, build them in China, and use them for dual purposes.
                      14. 0
                        7 January 2026 12: 13
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        use for dual purposes.

                        Fork - or. "given to the damned oligarchs at the state budget!!!!!!" (c) or they will be laid up - state ships are under sanctions.
                        Both options are extremely crap.
                      15. 0
                        7 January 2026 12: 17
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        use for dual purposes.

                        Fork - or. "given to the damned oligarchs at the state budget!!!!!!" (c) or they will be laid up - state ships are under sanctions.
                        Both options are extremely crap.


                        You and I are engaged in opposite activities.

                        I'm thinking out loud about how this can be done.

                        You're asking why it's not possible
                      16. 0
                        7 January 2026 13: 59
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm thinking out loud about how this can be done.

                        "Sometimes, looking from the porch at the courtyard and the pond, he would talk about how nice it would be if suddenly an underground passage were built from the house or a stone bridge were built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed by the peasants" (c)

                        It's the same with you - if we suddenly had some merchant ships lying around (free of charge), then we could load them with military modules (free of charge) with crews (free of charge) already prepared (free of charge), and with modules that could dock with different ships (free of charge).
                        Replacing everything "for free" on real cost - It turned out that this would cost approximately 1,8 times more than building a military ship - which the USA brilliantly demonstrated.

                        The idea is good - but not for real life.
                      17. 0
                        8 January 2026 04: 38
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm thinking out loud about how this can be done.

                        "Sometimes, looking from the porch at the courtyard and the pond, he would talk about how nice it would be if suddenly an underground passage were built from the house or a stone bridge were built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed by the peasants" (c)

                        It's the same with you - if we suddenly had some merchant ships lying around (free of charge), then we could load them with military modules (free of charge) with crews (free of charge) already prepared (free of charge), and with modules that could dock with different ships (free of charge).
                        Replacing everything "for free" on real cost - It turned out that this would cost approximately 1,8 times more than building a military ship - which the USA brilliantly demonstrated.

                        The idea is good - but not for real life.


                        There is no solution at all in your approach other than to wrap yourself in a white sheet and crawl towards the nearest cemetery.

                        Money is not a value, it is a means.
                        Price is the amount of someone's profit.
                        I'm not interested in hypothetically discussing the economy and the specifics of embezzlement and kickbacks in different parts of the world.

                        Thank you for the brief economic education in discussing a purely technical approach.
                      18. 0
                        8 January 2026 07: 43
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm not interested in discussing the economy with you hypothetically.

                        See the quote from Oblomov - he loved hypothetically...
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        the peculiarities of embezzlement and kickbacks in different parts of the world.

                        In the list of expenses I provided - NOT Kickbacks and embezzlements are taken into account—only expenses. The size of kickbacks and embezzlements is unpredictable.
                        Let me repeat - the idea is beautiful, but expensive and not particularly effective when implemented.
                      19. 0
                        8 January 2026 09: 05
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm not interested in discussing the economy with you hypothetically.

                        See the quote from Oblomov - he loved hypothetically...
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        the peculiarities of embezzlement and kickbacks in different parts of the world.

                        In the list of expenses I provided - NOT Kickbacks and embezzlements are taken into account—only expenses. The size of kickbacks and embezzlements is unpredictable.
                        Let me repeat - the idea is beautiful, but expensive and not particularly effective when implemented.


                        I almost sincerely continue to believe that you are honestly mistaken and are conducting a hypothetical dialogue with an imaginary opponent.

                        What specifically do you consider economically ineffective in this idea and why (on what basis)?

                        Have you seen the estimate for the production of this system consisting of a platform and a cargo carrier?

                        The idea is expensive compared to what?

                        From what point of view is it ineffective (compared to what)?

                        What exactly did the US demonstrate so brilliantly?

                        What (which thesis/theses of mine) are you arguing with? Try not to replace them.

                        Thank you.
                      20. 0
                        8 January 2026 09: 39
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I almost sincerely continue to believe that you are honestly mistaken and are conducting a hypothetical dialogue with an imaginary opponent.

                        I will not conduct economic research to satisfy your imagination.
                        If you like the idea, build ships, make modules, recruit crews and train them, and go forth to guard the motherland (to kick the can down the drain)....
                        But Oblomov's dreams of something sublime but meaningless are far from me.
                      21. 0
                        8 January 2026 10: 18
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I almost sincerely continue to believe that you are honestly mistaken and are conducting a hypothetical dialogue with an imaginary opponent.

                        I will not conduct economic research to satisfy your imagination.
                        If you like the idea, build ships, make modules, recruit crews and train them, and go forth to guard the motherland (to kick the can down the drain)....
                        But Oblomov's dreams of something sublime but meaningless are far from me.


                        Well, thank God!

                        Please do me a favor, if you think there is not enough/no money, then have a good mood and hang in there!
                      22. 0
                        8 January 2026 10: 22
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Please do me a favor, if you think there is not enough/no money, then have a good mood and hang in there!

                        Well, if you have the money to build a thousand modules and maintain their calculations - for even distribution across the ports - go ahead, go for it, I believe in you!!!!
                      23. 0
                        9 January 2026 04: 01
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Please do me a favor, if you think there is not enough/no money, then have a good mood and hang in there!

                        Well, if you have the money to build a thousand modules and maintain their calculations - for even distribution across the ports - go ahead, go for it, I believe in you!!!!


                        Did you know that you can create any amount of non-cash funds with the click of a button?
                        The question is that the workers have something to buy with it (i.e. in the commodity-money balance), and that its intended use can be controlled.

                        Well, in general, we are again moving into hypothetical economic conversations that are absolutely uninteresting.
                      24. 0
                        9 January 2026 05: 07
                        Quote: your1970

                        Let me repeat - the idea is beautiful, but expensive and not particularly effective when implemented.


                        Speaking of its lackluster effectiveness (expensiveness in the navy is a given. Thanks for the beauty, but I'm aware of it and I'm delighted with it myself).

                        The effectiveness of the proposed idea has long been confirmed in land vehicles, through families of vehicles on a basic unified chassis.

                        Striking examples are (naturally implying the use of the principle of "unified chassis + payload"):
                        1. Conventional 8x8 and 6x6 wheeled army trucks with various payloads, including, for example, container ship versions and Pantsyr versions (the difference in the proposed idea is the self-loading function of a fully combat-ready module onto a carrier ship === chassis)
                        2. Boxer-type combat chassis with options for installing weapons units and other useful modules.
                        3. Numerous retrofitting of MTLB with various weapons systems, both homemade and factory-made.

                        This is the penultimate attempt to explain to you the meaning of the approach and discuss with you (or someone else) issues regarding the technical essence of the idea and possible technical problems.

                        Thank you.
                      25. 0
                        9 January 2026 11: 49
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        The effectiveness of the proposed idea has long been confirmed in land vehicles, through families of vehicles on a basic unified chassis.

                        1) You are forgetting a trivial nuance - all your examples use standardized chassis once and for all - and you are suggesting to transport potatoes/manure on them all over the world. to the world(!!!) and then bam and hang a "Pantsir" on them - and at the moment of "D" the chassis should gallop from, say, Australia to St. Petersburg.
                        By the time it arrives, the war will be over.
                        2) in St. Petersburg - when the chassis starts to roll - a combat-ready crew trained to work on it should be standing near the module specific Chassis type. Because this isn't a production vehicle—you can't just tinker with a million-plus production run. Every ship is different, which means all firing crews must be trained on a specific ship. You can't train a crew on a tugboat and then assign them a supertanker.
                      26. 0
                        9 January 2026 12: 46
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        The effectiveness of the proposed idea has long been confirmed in land vehicles, through families of vehicles on a basic unified chassis.

                        1) You are forgetting a trivial nuance - all your examples use standardized chassis once and for all - and you are suggesting to transport potatoes/manure on them all over the world. to the world(!!!) and then bam and hang a "Pantsir" on them - and at the moment of "D" the chassis should gallop from, say, Australia to St. Petersburg.
                        By the time it arrives, the war will be over.
                        2) in St. Petersburg - when the chassis starts to roll - a combat-ready crew trained to work on it should be standing near the module specific Chassis type. Because this isn't a production vehicle—you can't just tinker with a million-plus production run. Every ship is different, which means all firing crews must be trained on a specific ship. You can't train a crew on a tugboat and then assign them a supertanker.


                        You again do not understand.

                        You can't seem to get over the self-defeating nature of the Russian economy. Let's put that aside for a moment. If this isn't practical for someone, I don't care at all. The question is, what are their goals?

                        Summary
                        A unified chassis (as we probably understand, this means several standard chassis with different displacements and maximum and cruising speeds) means relatively mass-produced (which is possible and even necessary to unify and build with China and North Korea, and perhaps with Iran (there is an article on the topic of China itself)).

                        The chassis and the platform crew are different crews (like the driver, mechanic, and operators of the Pantsyr, who are physically located in different compartments on the Pantsyr).

                        If a fully inhabited and equipped platform is accepted as part of the system, then the only question is the timely issuance of the loading order, taking into account the arrival time of the nearest available suitable chassis (of course, after the construction of the elements of this system and the training of the crew).

                        War doesn't start suddenly, you just have to give orders on time.
                      27. 0
                        9 January 2026 13: 30
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        A unified chassis (as we probably understand, this means several standard chassis with different displacements and maximum and cruising speeds) means it is relatively widespread.

                        - relatively widespread in shipbuilding - 20-30 ships.
                        You are trying to approach the fleet by land standards - where everything is piece.



                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        (which is possible and even necessary to unify and build with China and North Korea and with Iran is possible
                        Unify merchant ships with 3 countries - each with its own requirements, GOST standards, insurers, maritime regulations, etc.???
                        It's much easier to persuade them to send 1 million soldiers to fight in Ukraine. more realistic.

                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        The chassis and the platform crew are different crews (like the driver, mechanic, and operators of the Pantsyr, who are physically located in different compartments on the Pantsyr).

                        Different - only the calculation must know the connection diagrams to the on-board network All ships, and the crew All ships - how about this? drawer to swim on board.
                        Yes, by the way, the life-saving equipment is designed for the crew, and maintaining extra equipment is problematic.

                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        the only question is the timely issuance of the loading order, taking into account the arrival time of the nearest available suitable chassis

                        And again, everything comes down to the series of carrier ships and its size.

                        Your proposal requires 63 seaports * 10 (minimum) modules per port = 630 ships
                        Considering that the nearest ship must be close to the port, the series must be at least 2 times larger = 1,300 ships.
                        Next, we take into account the workload and attractiveness of the ports and understand that in Ust-Luga there may be 50 ships at a time, and in Dudinka only 1 - which means there should be not 10, but 50 modules there.
                        It is impossible to stack them like containers - they must be accessible for settlements, which means storage space and delivery routes to ports (located in densely populated areas) will be needed.
                        And then they will be clearly visible from the air - "The modules have been dragged!!! War!!! (C).

                        The US tried and found that some modules were not in demand or were too far away.

                        China has the largest merchant fleet in the world (if you exclude 5 spacers like Liberia), we have 19, the USA has 21

                        Your idea is feasible for land, but for the sea, it's stillborn. However, if you build a Liberty series, let me know, and I'll publicly apologize and eat my cap.
                      28. 0
                        9 January 2026 13: 09
                        Quote: your1970
                        All ships are different, which means all firing crews must be trained on a specific ship. You can't train a crew on a tugboat and then assign them a supertanker.


                        The Poatform is a fully combat-ready autonomous module with a crew inside.

                        Pantsir operators (I am deeply convinced) do not care what type of chassis they are currently on, whether as a stationary weapons station on the ground or on a ship.

                        Well, maybe some amendments need to be made to the fire control system.
                      29. 0
                        9 January 2026 13: 44
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Pantsir operators (I am deeply convinced) do not care what type of chassis they are currently on, whether as a stationary weapons station on the ground or on a ship.

                        Well, yes, well, yes - you apparently don't know that land under Pantsir at an angle of 30' when firing can only stand if it is hit by an FAB, and on sea It's like a storm at any moment, like 2 fingers on a fence!
                        6% hit rate in the navy is "Wow, we made a colander out of him", and on land "They don't even know how to shoot!! 6 shells out of 100!!!!"

                        Z. Y.
                        And the vomited calculation will be lying around - from lack of habit.
                      30. 0
                        9 January 2026 14: 02
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Pantsir operators (I am deeply convinced) do not care what type of chassis they are currently on, whether as a stationary weapons station on the ground or on a ship.

                        Well, yes, well, yes - you apparently don't know that land under Pantsir at an angle of 30' when firing can only stand if it is hit by an FAB, and on sea It's like a storm at any moment, like 2 fingers on a fence!
                        6% hit rate in the navy is "Wow, we made a colander out of him", and on land "They don't even know how to shoot!! 6 shells out of 100!!!!"

                        Z. Y.
                        And the vomited calculation will be lying around - from lack of habit.

                        I already said that you and I are engaged in different activities here.
                      31. 0
                        9 January 2026 16: 05
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I already said that you and I are engaged in different activities here.

                        Of course it's different - you make it up technical Oblomovism: "But if we build 1000 ships and 1000 modules and 1000 crews, we'll immediately capture the American scoundrels and villains.", and I'll explain to you why this is technically impossible
                      32. 0
                        9 January 2026 17: 12
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I already said that you and I are engaged in different activities here.

                        Of course it's different - you make it up technical Oblomovism: "But if we build 1000 ships and 1000 modules and 1000 crews, we'll immediately capture the American scoundrels and villains.", and I'll explain to you why this is technically impossible


                        You are substituting your opponent's theses.

                        Anything new begins with an idea with an imaginary ideal end result, i.e. "Oblomovism" in your interpretation.

                        This is what makes us different in our activities, as I wrote earlier.

                        From now on I will try to ignore you.
                      33. 0
                        10 January 2026 02: 02
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        From now on I will try to ignore you.

                        I repeat
                        Quote: your1970
                        If you build a Liberty series, let me know and I'll publicly apologize and eat my cap.



                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Anything new begins with an idea with an imaginary ideal end result, i.e. "Oblomovism" in your interpretation.

                        You are misinterpreting the concept of "Oblomovism" - no new endeavor has ever set out to achieve anything that is clearly unachievable or impractical.

                        You are proposing to create a supercomputer in the 19th century, where it will have no purely technological application.
                      34. 0
                        10 January 2026 04: 02
                        Quote: your1970

                        You are misinterpreting the concept of "Oblomovism" - no new endeavor has ever set out to achieve anything that is clearly unachievable or impractical.

                        You are proposing to create a supercomputer in the 19th century, where it will have no purely technological application.


                        Your concept of Oblomovism is even interesting.

                        Since you are clearly confused:
                        1. You are confusing Oblomovism with Manilovism.
                        2. In your opinion, it is easier to assemble a three-million-strong army of China, North Korea, and Iran than to develop an interstate standard like the one that regulates ISO containers.
                        3. You are confusing and identifying a fully combat-ready autonomous floating platform with its power plant and a separate module somewhere on the shore in the USA from some modular system you have not named.
                        4. etc. etc.

                        I assume that the image of my idea that has formed in your imagination is indeed inherently unattainable.

                        Probably the last question for you:

                        What kind of system is this in the USA and on what basis did you make a statement about some element of it that is too distant?

                        Can I get from you links to sources of information for your applications under this US system such as the article or drawing (except for the OBS).

                        Thank you
                      35. 0
                        10 January 2026 11: 46
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Can I get from you links to sources of information for your applications under this US system such as the article or drawing (except for the OBS).

                        Can.
                        Open the "VO" search and search - there were many articles about the American modular system.
                        If you can't find it, open Yandex and search - there were tons of articles.

                        Do not thank.
                      36. 0
                        10 January 2026 12: 34
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Can I get from you links to sources of information for your applications under this US system such as the article or drawing (except for the OBS).

                        Can.
                        Open the "VO" search and search - there were many articles about the American modular system.
                        If you can't find it, open Yandex and search - there were tons of articles.

                        Do not thank.



                        That is, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                        Do you know the name of this system, and which of its modules/elements turned out to be “far away” from your point of view?

                        Thank you in advance
                      37. 0
                        10 January 2026 12: 42
                        Quote: Ing Mech
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Can I get from you links to sources of information for your applications under this US system such as the article or drawing (except for the OBS).

                        Can.
                        Open the "VO" search and search - there were many articles about the American modular system.
                        If you can't find it, open Yandex and search - there were tons of articles.

                        Do not thank.



                        That is, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                        Do you know the name of this system, and which of its modules/elements turned out to be “far away” from your point of view?

                        Thank you in advance

                        hi
                      38. 0
                        10 January 2026 12: 44
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Ing Mech
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Can I get from you links to sources of information for your applications under this US system such as the article or drawing (except for the OBS).

                        Can.
                        Open the "VO" search and search - there were many articles about the American modular system.
                        If you can't find it, open Yandex and search - there were tons of articles.

                        Do not thank.



                        That is, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                        Do you know the name of this system, and which of its modules/elements turned out to be “far away” from your point of view?

                        Thank you in advance

                        hi


                        Well, yes... our own people are strange these days!
                      39. 0
                        10 January 2026 12: 53
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Well, yes... our own people are strange these days!

                        I'm tired of discussing perpetual motion machines and other science fiction projects that offer pure ideas without taking economics into account.
                        Sorry for entering into a discussion with you without any links or military justification for your wishes.
                      40. 0
                        10 January 2026 12: 58
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Well, yes... our own people are strange these days!

                        I'm tired of discussing perpetual motion machines and other science fiction projects that offer pure ideas without taking economics into account.
                        Sorry for entering into a discussion with you without any links or military justification for your wishes.



                        Oh well.

                        It happens.

                        Hold on there!

                        And in the last explanation, what could be obviously unattainable and inappropriate, from the point of view of adapting the cargo fleet to the Navy reserve (i.e. the purpose of the project)

                        Except for money, which can be printed in any quantity.
                      41. 0
                        10 January 2026 13: 34
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        And in the last explanation, what could be obviously unattainable and inappropriate, from the point of view of adapting the cargo fleet to the Navy reserve (i.e. the purpose of the project)

                        I have analyzed and substantiated the unattainability of your ideas.
                        If you have the opportunity to build a single fleet for the Russian Federation, China, North Korea and Iran in large series, go ahead and build it, those who are against it.
                        The flag (state for the Register) is in your hands and go ahead.......
                      42. 0
                        11 January 2026 05: 01
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        And in the last explanation, what could be obviously unattainable and inappropriate, from the point of view of adapting the cargo fleet to the Navy reserve (i.e. the purpose of the project)

                        I have analyzed and substantiated the unattainability of your ideas.
                        If you have the opportunity to build a single fleet for the Russian Federation, China, North Korea and Iran in large series, go ahead and build it, those who are against it.
                        The flag (state for the Register) is in your hands and go ahead.......


                        Well, okay,
                        Hold on there!
                        Thank you (as requested) for your attention.

                        I would like to thank you in advance for the name of the failed US system that has brilliantly demonstrated this to you (as requested).

                        But this might discourage me from posting any obviously unrealistic ideas here and concentrate on choosing the size and shade of the sheet for my further "creep" to the nearest cemetery.
                      43. 0
                        11 January 2026 19: 22
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        But this might discourage me from posting here.

                        Whether you post ideas here or not is of absolutely no importance for the construction of a fleet (any!!!).
                        If you had a couple of trillion rubles, the question would be different: how best to use these funds to build a fleet. As it is, your ideas about modules for building a merchant fleet jointly with China, North Korea, and Iran have no money to implement.
                        The economy, unfortunately, rules...
                      44. 0
                        12 January 2026 06: 47
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        But this might discourage me from posting here.

                        Whether you post ideas here or not is of absolutely no importance for the construction of a fleet (any!!!).
                        If you had a couple of trillion rubles, the question would be different: how best to use these funds to build a fleet. As it is, your ideas about modules for building a merchant fleet jointly with China, North Korea, and Iran have no money to implement.
                        The economy, unfortunately, rules...


                        Well, that is, reindustrialization in Russia is obviously unrealistic, not the proposed idea.

                        And for China and North Korea it is certainly feasible!?
                      45. 0
                        11 January 2026 06: 56
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Well, yes... our own people are strange these days!

                        I'm tired of discussing perpetual motion machines and other science fiction projects that offer pure ideas without taking economics into account.
                        Sorry for entering into a discussion with you without any links or military justification for your wishes.


                        It even became unexpectedly interesting to study the flight of your thoughts!

                        Are you really suffering from Oblomovism, or do you have a clearly feasible idea (since building a cargo fleet is impossible) for a relatively quick conversion if, for example, tankers and dry cargo ships suddenly appear in stock!?

                        Or is the whole idea of ​​converting the cargo fleet for military purposes obviously unrealistic and completely unnecessary!?

                        Thank you in advance for your detailed answer and real-life examples.
                      46. 0
                        11 January 2026 19: 16
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        SUDDENLY (!!!) UNEXPECTEDLY (!!!) For example, tankers and dry cargo ships will be available!?
                        -
                        Hmm, I repeat-
                        Quote: your1970
                        Your proposal requires 63 seaports * 10 (minimum) modules per port = 630 ships
                        Considering that the nearest ship must be close to the port, the series must be at least 2 times larger = 1,300 ships.

                        Quote: your1970
                        However, if you build a Liberty series, let me know and I will publicly apologize and eat my cap.
                      47. 0
                        12 January 2026 07: 01
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        SUDDENLY (!!!) UNEXPECTEDLY (!!!) For example, tankers and dry cargo ships will be available!?
                        -
                        Hmm, I repeat-
                        Quote: your1970
                        Your proposal requires 63 seaports * 10 (minimum) modules per port = 630 ships
                        Considering that the nearest ship must be close to the port, the series must be at least 2 times larger = 1,300 ships.

                        Quote: your1970
                        However, if you build a Liberty series, let me know and I will publicly apologize and eat my cap.


                        Let's leave aside for now the discussion of such precise numbers like why not 62.5 ports but 63, why exactly 10 and not 10 ±5, and why two ships for each floating platform if it is already afloat (i.e., don't bother answering my stupid questions for now)

                        Are you aware of the current composition of the Russian cargo fleet? (Are there any tankers and dry cargo ships already?)
                        In this regard, can there be any feasible solutions to prepare at least 10% of the largest of them as a reserve for the navy (or any solutions at all in light of the increasing frequency of ship seizures).

                        But the most interesting question for me now is the following:
                        Let's say you find yourself in the ideal world of Oblomov's childhood (in which you don't have to think about anything, everything technically possible is feasible, someone built the Liberty series for you, the economy is sound, etc., except for the impossibility of building specialized combat ships in the quantities you need (otherwise, there's no point in having a naval reserve made up of cargo ships)).

                        What would you do with this series and what characteristics do you consider the most important (quantity, displacement, dimensions, carrying capacity, etc.)?

                        What do you need it for and what will you do with it?
                      48. 0
                        12 January 2026 11: 03
                        1)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Let's leave aside for now the discussion of such precise numbers like why not 62.5 ports but 63

                        63 seaports in the Russian Federation - not 62.5.

                        2)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Why two ships for each floating platform if it is already afloat (i.e. don't bother answering my stupid questions for now)
                        - I'm embarrassed to ask - if she's already sailing with a crew and payroll, then why does she need a dry cargo ship?!!!!!
                        3)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        We will eliminate the impossibility of building specialized warships in the quantities you need (otherwise, there is no point in having a naval reserve made up of cargo ships).
                        Why do you need a reserve if, according to paragraph 2, it is already sailing, has a crew and weapons crews?
                        4)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        but (due to which savings are expected on the initial construction compared to (a full-fledged combat ship):
                        1. a full-fledged propulsion system, while a maneuvering propulsion system is available.
                        - You've already sent them swimming - WITHOUT a fully functioning propulsion system. Until the first storm...
                      49. 0
                        12 January 2026 16: 13
                        Quote: your1970
                        1)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Let's leave aside for now the discussion of such precise numbers like why not 62.5 ports but 63

                        63 seaports in the Russian Federation - not 62.5.

                        2)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Why two ships for each floating platform if it is already afloat (i.e. don't bother answering my stupid questions for now)
                        - I'm embarrassed to ask - if she's already sailing with a crew and payroll, then why does she need a dry cargo ship?!!!!!
                        3)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        We will eliminate the impossibility of building specialized warships in the quantities you need (otherwise, there is no point in having a naval reserve made up of cargo ships).
                        Why do you need a reserve if, according to paragraph 2, it is already sailing, has a crew and weapons crews?
                        4)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        but (due to which savings are expected on the initial construction compared to (a full-fledged combat ship):
                        1. a full-fledged propulsion system, while a maneuvering propulsion system is available.
                        - You've already sent them swimming - WITHOUT a fully functioning propulsion system. Until the first storm...



                        You seem to have provided all the quotes, but you still haven’t understood the meaning or don’t want to understand it.

                        Well, to hell with my obviously unrealistic idea.

                        What are you going to do with Liberty and in what form do you need it?
                      50. 0
                        14 January 2026 06: 49
                        Quote: your1970
                        1)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Let's leave aside for now the discussion of such precise numbers like why not 62.5 ports but 63

                        63 seaports in the Russian Federation - not 62.5.

                        2)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        Why two ships for each floating platform if it is already afloat (i.e. don't bother answering my stupid questions for now)
                        - I'm embarrassed to ask - if she's already sailing with a crew and payroll, then why does she need a dry cargo ship?!!!!!
                        3)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        We will eliminate the impossibility of building specialized warships in the quantities you need (otherwise, there is no point in having a naval reserve made up of cargo ships).
                        Why do you need a reserve if, according to paragraph 2, it is already sailing, has a crew and weapons crews?
                        4)
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        but (due to which savings are expected on the initial construction compared to (a full-fledged combat ship):
                        1. a full-fledged propulsion system, while a maneuvering propulsion system is available.
                        - You've already sent them swimming - WITHOUT a fully functioning propulsion system. Until the first storm...


                        Yeah
                        What kind of alien lololology do we have these days?

                        What will you do with the Liberty when you already have your own tankers, attacked by drones and captured by partners, after all, dry cargo ships and gas carriers will follow, a stranger among "friends", "friend" among strangers, you are ours!

                        No thanks, as agreed.
                      51. 0
                        14 January 2026 08: 19
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What kind of alien lololology do we have these days?

                        Well, I can't compare to yours - modular construction.
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What will you do with the Liberty when you already have your own tankers, attacked by drones and captured by partners, after all, dry cargo ships and gas carriers will follow, a stranger among "friends", "friend" among strangers, you are ours!

                        What about you - with your modules without a propulsion system?

                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        No thanks, as agreed.
                        - and may you stay healthy
                      52. 0
                        14 January 2026 08: 58
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What kind of alien lololology do we have these days?

                        Well, I can't compare to yours - modular construction.
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        What will you do with the Liberty when you already have your own tankers, attacked by drones and captured by partners, after all, dry cargo ships and gas carriers will follow, a stranger among "friends", "friend" among strangers, you are ours!

                        What about you - with your modules without a propulsion system?

                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        No thanks, as agreed.
                        - and may you stay healthy



                        I would even say that there is an allololological lololololology among "our own" today, and a complete disregard for understanding and writing ideas in the analysis of the ideas they criticize and the proposal of counter-ideas.

                        Have you read anything about oil drilling platforms, large floating plants like "Arctic LNG", which are formally some kind of barges/lighters, only very large?

                        How are issues with transportation, independent movement, behavior in storms, and so on, resolved there? And if you're interested in further exploring this "obviously unrealistic idea," please take the time to examine all your questions for me using these platforms as an example.

                        Then you can, if you want, tell me what you understood from this and how you would build a floating combat platform and solve all your questions (in summary).

                        For example, you know that the Americans are about to demonstrate a super-powerful radar based on an oil platform. How are they supposed to solve your problems there?

                        This naturally contradicts the spirit of Oblomovism, but if you are interested, then you will have to criticize constructively, otherwise I will ignore your recurring questions in one form or another, which have already been resolved (without my relatively “unrealizable idea”)

                        But again, I'm interested in what you will do to counter the existing threats to tankers, gas carriers, bulk carriers, etc.

                        I'm ungrateful (as agreed)
                      53. 0
                        10 January 2026 05: 29
                        Quote: your1970

                        Let me repeat - the idea is beautiful, but expensive and not particularly effective when implemented.


                        The last attempt to explain (not so much to you, but to someone else who will read it with an unbiased mind).

                        The essence of the idea:
                        To be able to quickly and fully arm the existing cargo fleet and those planned for construction. Ultimately, to have a nearly complete mobilization reserve for the Navy.

                        To achieve this, fully autonomous, combat-ready floating platforms compatible (in terms of dimensions, weight, and fasteners) with the existing and planned cargo fleet are built in advance, fully armed, and staffed.

                        These platforms have all the characteristics of a combat ship (they can be highly specialized or universal depending on the displacement), except (due to which savings in initial construction are expected compared to a full-fledged combat ship):
                        1. a full-fledged propulsion system, while a maneuvering propulsion system is available.
                        2. Hull lines and elements optimized for high-speed movement (since the initial plan is to use a carrier ship), but optimized for installation on a corresponding carrier ship.

                        They could be called combat autonomous barges, floating platforms/blocks/modules for carrier ships (which would still be built for civilian use, but why not using dual-use technologies).

                        In peacetime, they are "placed on the map from the point of view of protecting/guarding their own territories and their own trade routes.

                        In wartime, they can either continue their protective function at the originally assigned point, or be loaded onto a suitable carrier and continue operating as part of a naval group in another location.

                        Point.

                        If no one needs it, having a cargo fleet, then no one needs it and it doesn’t bother me at all.

                        Point.

                        Thank you.
                      54. 0
                        9 January 2026 17: 26
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm thinking out loud about how this can be done.

                        "Sometimes, looking from the porch at the courtyard and the pond, he would talk about how nice it would be if suddenly an underground passage were built from the house or a stone bridge were built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed by the peasants" (c)

                        It's the same with you - if we suddenly had some merchant ships lying around (free of charge), then we could load them with military modules (free of charge) with crews (free of charge) already prepared (free of charge), and with modules that could dock with different ships (free of charge).
                        Replacing everything "for free" on real cost - It turned out that this would cost approximately 1,8 times more than building a military ship - which the USA brilliantly demonstrated.

                        The idea is good - but not for real life.


                        By the way, I completely forgot:

                        You confuse

                        Oblomovism (this applies more to you in all interpretations of this concept and even the character's surname)

                        With Manilovism, to which I can be attributed (naturally with some strain of the owl on the globe and substitution of my theses and the concepts discussed).

                        Thank you
                      55. 0
                        10 January 2026 02: 03
                        hi
                        Quote: Ing Mech
                        Quote: your1970
                        Quote: Eng Mech
                        I'm thinking out loud about how this can be done.

                        "Sometimes, looking from the porch at the courtyard and the pond, he would talk about how nice it would be if suddenly an underground passage were built from the house or a stone bridge were built across the pond, on which there would be shops on both sides, and merchants would sit in them and sell various small goods needed by the peasants" (c)

                        It's the same with you - if we suddenly had some merchant ships lying around (free of charge), then we could load them with military modules (free of charge) with crews (free of charge) already prepared (free of charge), and with modules that could dock with different ships (free of charge).
                        Replacing everything "for free" on real cost - It turned out that this would cost approximately 1,8 times more than building a military ship - which the USA brilliantly demonstrated.

                        The idea is good - but not for real life.


                        By the way, I completely forgot:

                        You confuse

                        Oblomovism (this applies more to you in all interpretations of this concept and even the character's surname)

                        With Manilovism, to which I can be attributed (naturally with some strain of the owl on the globe and substitution of my theses and the concepts discussed).

                        Thank you

                        Please.
          3. 0
            4 January 2026 23: 33
            That is, you can carry a weapon on it as long as no one sees it, but if, God forbid, you use it - that’s it, you’re outside the law.
            Outside of what law, international? Hasn't everyone already given up on it? China certainly couldn't care less about such trivialities. No one would start World War III with China over an armed civilian vessel.
            1. +2
              5 January 2026 11: 23
              Quote: Saturn VII
              No one will start a third world war with China because of an armed civilian vessel.

              Of course. They'll just sink this "auxiliary cruiser" along with its crew, but why declare war?
              1. 0
                5 January 2026 11: 28
                Of course. They'll just sink this "auxiliary cruiser" along with its crew, but why declare war?
                What if there are nuclear weapons there, and the captain doesn't want to die for nothing? He'll just go and hit Taiwan, at least? He won't care anymore.
                But yeah, why declare war? Everything's fine, just a minor "incident."
                1. +1
                  6 January 2026 10: 38
                  Quote: Saturn VII
                  What if there are nuclear weapons there, and the captain doesn’t want to die for nothing?

                  No one will think about it, since China doesn't look suicidal. Can you imagine the consequences of using nuclear weapons in such a situation? I don't really.
  3. 0
    2 January 2026 04: 45
    Quote: Vladislav_V
    What do you mean? That you don't know what else to throw in?

    I know... that's why I'm throwing it in.
    Everything has its time...China will achieve its goal, and Russia too...these are objective processes related to our survival.
    Crimea is ours... We still have to fight for Donbass, Slavyansk and Kramatorsk are still in enemy hands.
    And it’s not by chance that I focused on the Baltic Sea... NATO is preparing many surprises for us there... it’s time for you to understand this. hi
    1. +7
      2 January 2026 06: 21
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      It's about time you understood this.

      This rattle is not for the seas, where everything is shot through from top to bottom by missiles and back-up missiles, but for the ocean.
  4. +6
    2 January 2026 05: 04
    The anecdote told by Skomorokhov now evokes not laughter, but nostalgia...
    And I was a young girl
    I don’t remember when ...

    Happy New Year everyone!
  5. Owl
    +5
    2 January 2026 05: 57
    In the 1980s, the USSR conducted real-world experiments with mounting Yak-38 vertical takeoff and landing aircraft on container ships. A steel takeoff and landing platform was laid on the containers, placed end-to-end. The containers housed the air group's control equipment, maintenance and refueling systems, and two containers for 30mm six-barreled self-defense guns (mounted in BK containers on top). Today, something similar, with a pair of Ka-29 helicopters, would be effective in protecting ships from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
    1. +6
      2 January 2026 11: 50
      Quote: Eagle Owl
      In the 80s, real experiments were conducted in the USSR to place Yak-38 vertical takeoff aircraft on container ships.
      The military looked at this and said, "Go ahead. But keep in mind that our ship requirements remain." The industry recalculated the container ship to meet the military's requirements, and the resulting displacement was the same as the Krechet (1143). The idea was pointless.
    2. +5
      2 January 2026 12: 25
      The British used the container ship Atlantic Conveyor as a carrier for Harriers during the Falklands War. But only one Exocet was completely destroyed by fire and sank.
  6. +2
    2 January 2026 06: 19
    If you've put it together, then just keep quiet about using it. Otherwise, you're putting civilians at risk. Although, for the Anglo-Saxons, it doesn't matter. They've preferred to hit civilians throughout their history. What bastards! P.S. Would it be okay to convert ambulances into self-propelled anti-aircraft guns? sad
  7. +3
    2 January 2026 06: 25
    Quote: Vladislav_V
    This rattle is not for the seas, where everything is shot through from top to bottom by missiles and back-up missiles, but for the ocean.

    Well, it wouldn't hurt to scare the pirates...at least like the Somali bandits.
    Impunity with the detention and sinking of tankers and bulk carriers will lead to NATO countries being able to do whatever they want...this must be nipped in the bud.
    1. -8
      2 January 2026 06: 32
      I understand everything about you. Are you drunk or something? Oh, come on. Yes
  8. +4
    2 January 2026 06: 37
    Quote: Vladislav_V
    I understand everything about you. Are you drunk or something? Oh, come on. Yes

    I'm a total teetotaler, not a drop of alcohol on New Year's... so your conclusions are wrong here too... sad... you have no intuition smile
  9. +2
    2 January 2026 08: 57
    Naturally, this is a demonstration and an experiment. The sailing power and seaworthiness of this vessel preclude its actual use. A real combat dry cargo ship should have holds deeper than the launchers, so that they don't protrude above. Alternatively, the launchers would lie on the bottom of the holds and be raised vertically before combat.
    The draft of a combat dry cargo ship should be 10-12 meters, respectively. Launch containers should be housed in isolated compartments, for example, in pipes from the northern flow, positioned on end and covering the entire area of ​​the holds. The pipes should be welded together to form a honeycomb structure. Damage or even an explosion in one pipe should not interfere with the operation of adjacent pipes. The compartments, forming a single unsinkability system, should be as self-contained as possible.

    Overall, based on the price ratio of missiles to bulk carriers, as well as their invulnerability and survivability... such ships would have space for 3-5 missiles, but only a dozen or so would actually be installed. And let the Americans guess where? The main objective would be to lure American anti-ship missiles, which would be unable to inflict a fatal blow due to the bulk carriers' size and the numerous empty, sealed compartments in their holds.
    .
    The core of such a vessel could be a completely unattended launcher. For combat use, a reliability of 90% is quite sufficient. Even a 10% failure of the missiles is easily compensated for by the lack of a crew to maintain them.
  10. 0
    2 January 2026 09: 28
    China – WELL DONE! The project has a right to exist and be used. By improving stability and adding stabilizers in the holds, it's possible to further stabilize such a platform. And I agree that it's an open-sea (ocean) raider, but not a Baltic or Black Sea one.
  11. +3
    2 January 2026 09: 29
    Great joke! Happy New Year everyone!
  12. -1
    2 January 2026 09: 35
    A question for military experts from an amateur:
    "Can we... do THIS?"
    Or they'll say - nain, verbotten!
    1. +1
      2 January 2026 22: 06
      It was possible...It was...
      There was a "Club-K container" and a system for its use... But it was "successfully" wrapped up during the time of, I think, Serdyukov... or someone like him, I don't remember...
  13. 0
    2 January 2026 09: 40
    The Chinese, in addition to their one and a half billion human capital, have gained powerful economic potential, thanks to the USSR and the USA. And now the Chinese can realize their dreams in various fields. And other countries will have to watch from the sidelines to see what else the dark Chinese genius will come up with. Even the USA.
    But taking the best into account is a plus in the position of observers.
    And always be ready to play your trump cards.
  14. 0
    2 January 2026 09: 50
    I see. But the question is, won't such containers get lost somewhere in the port while unloading a container ship? What if the cargo is seized, or even after that, some ports will refuse to accept Chinese-flagged ships? Another question: who will decide whether to use weapons from a container—the captain, the trading company, or the PLA headquarters? Each container will have to be monitored; surely the logistics aren't making mistakes? This miracle will definitely be able to travel by rail, but what should we do? It will have to be stored separately from the cargo and not moved outside the country... Ultimately, I think many will refuse to accept such ships with missiles, and logistics will suffer. After all, they have their own fleet capable of protecting trade routes.
    1. 0
      3 January 2026 03: 01
      The questions are contrived and assume that the weapons are being deployed on civilian vessels. However, from the moment a vessel is armed, it ceases to be a civilian vessel and becomes a military vessel, and all questions raised are resolved as if they were military vessels.
      .
      Overall, the idea is sound. In peacetime, a dry cargo ship earns its own income, and in pre-war times, it is converted for military purposes. For our country, the idea is essentially uncontested, as we are unable to maintain four fleets.
      Since 2007, I've been promoting the idea of ​​building ten sea ferries in the Baltic, Black, and Far East Seas, each serving Kaliningrad, Turkey, and Sakhalin Island with Japan. When war threatens, missile systems can be rolled onto their decks, and supplies stored in unsinkable containers can be stored in their holds. Plus, there's a savings on weapons—you can have one set instead of four, transferring them from fleet to fleet...
  15. 0
    2 January 2026 10: 35
    The evolution of our "unique" peers' opinions on China:
    1- Yes, what can this China do? They were recently wearing padded jackets and smelting iron in their yards - pathetic... But we are cooler than the rest of the planet, we have "no analogues in the world"...
    2- Yes, what China can build and make itself, all Western companies supply and make it... And we have everything of our own - "having no analogues in the world"...
    3- Yes, what China is doing is simply breathtaking - it's outdated and constantly breaking down... But everything we make is "super reliable" and "unparalleled in the world."
    4. What China does is copied from us and others around the world. China doesn't have its own developments... But we have everything that is ours and "has no analogues in the world"...
    5. We also need to look at what China is actually doing. All the technical specifications of their equipment and weapons are likely unrealistic and untested. But everything we have is tested, confirmed in military conflicts, and "has no analogues anywhere in the world."
    6-yes, why look at what China produces? They have money to burn, they employ technical espionage around the world and Western technology... but still, ours is better and "has no analogues in the world"...
    7 - What can I say, the Chinese have achieved something, but we still don't believe in the effectiveness of Chinese weapons and technology, or in the achievements of Chinese science and its defense industry - this simply cannot be... our technology remains the best and "unparalleled in the world"...
    8 - Well, yes - the Chinese are great, they produce weapons and equipment in series, en masse, and sell it all around the world, but ours is still better and "has no analogues in the world"...
    9 - what China has developed from new is controversial and untested, but ours still "has no analogues in the world"...
    10. China has made great strides in developing weapons and military equipment. The achievements of Chinese science are surprising and astounding, but this is all nonsense compared to our "unparalleled in the world"...
    Epilogue: "We are still cooler than China, cooler than everyone else, because we have something that has no analogues in the world!"
  16. +1
    2 January 2026 11: 43
    The result was a kind of pipe carrier, capable of protecting itself in a difficult situation.

    If there is no echeloning, namely the presence of a close air defense line, then it will have a hard time under attack from stealthy and high-speed drones. what sad
    1. -1
      3 January 2026 03: 05
      In a real-world confrontation, light drones won't cause any damage, other than maybe some smoke on the paint. Heavy drones, however, will be destroyed by air defenses, similar to aircraft.

      Only traitors and stupid people They might allow drones to strike warships. What thieves they are, embezzling all the money for drone defense...
  17. +1
    2 January 2026 11: 46
    "A peacefully plowing Chinese tractor."
  18. +2
    2 January 2026 11: 56
    and into arsenal ships.
    does not beat with
    The ship has 60 vertical launchers for large missiles.
    : the ship-arsenal has an order of magnitude more missiles.
    You can consult with Indian pilots who have experienced them themselves.
    Maybe Pakistani?
    And the planes that took off from escort carriers, although not in the same numbers as from attack carriers, took off and did their job no worse.
    Much worse. To the point that the aircraft wasn't even supposed to land; the pilot was simply pulled out of the water (yes, if a ship was carrying aircraft, it was an aircraft carrier, even if it was a transport). It's no wonder all this triviality was thrown into disuse immediately after the war, while heavy aircraft carriers continued to serve for a long time. Another issue is that the aircraft being lifted were supposed to spot a submarine, not sink an enemy carrier-borne strike group, and they were quite capable of that.
    1. +3
      2 January 2026 13: 30
      To the point that the plane's landing was not planned, the pilot was simply pulled out of the water (yes, if the ship was carrying planes, then it was an aircraft carrier, even if it was a transport).

      You're confusing two types of aircraft carriers. Yes, at the beginning of 1942, there were such "aircraft carriers" with disposable aircraft. They simply had a catapult and that was it; the pilot would pull them to shore or land on the water or parachute. But then, around 1943, they started making escort carriers out of merchant ships, carrying 10-15 aircraft with normal landing capabilities; the aircraft on them were no longer disposable.
  19. 0
    2 January 2026 12: 36
    On the other hand, as we have previously assumed, the US Navy will most likely have to go through a similar path.
    Is it just the US? Sooner or later, we'll have to too—investing in a series of "trade protectors" is expensive—the new Kotov-class ships aren't cheap. But building 12-15 such ships (even like the ones in the article) based on a civilian design to cover the "shadow fleet" is entirely possible.
  20. +1
    2 January 2026 13: 12
    China isn't simply arming itself aggressively. China is investing in products that will generate profits and solve the problems they identify in the future. This simply means that these weapons must fulfill their intended purpose. Therefore, within the limits of the weapons' viability and the interplay of many aspects of the economy, the international situation, and the evolution of China's power, it's worth considering when these weapons will be used for their intended purpose.
  21. 0
    2 January 2026 16: 37
    More than ten years ago, I published an article highlighting the missile defense systems installed on our nuclear icebreakers. Then, there were reports of containers being installed on their decks. Maybe something is being done. But the new series of icebreakers require such protection. UAVs have truly become more dangerous to ships. While we're still dealing with the "flowers," NATO countries have launched the "berries" of maritime drones into production.
    1. 0
      3 January 2026 15: 38
      Nothing is being done. Rest assured.
  22. +1
    3 January 2026 09: 32
    We see the 30mm Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) Type 1130


    And there is some kind of unpleasant deflection of the platform underneath it, as if indicating that the platform is not rigid enough.

    And what would that be for?
  23. -1
    3 January 2026 15: 38
    Our bureaucrats and generals have been talking about this for almost 20 years now. There's even a display model.
    And the Chinese just go and do it. And it's the same with everything.
    And export orders, again, will be made from them, with working, running models.
    And we have a club-k. And also in a blue container. But only for exhibitions – there's no need for something like that in a combat fleet. It's supposedly a combat fleet, after all.
    It's just infuriating. And yet, a bunch of idiots are defending the current bottom.
  24. 0
    4 January 2026 13: 04
    Judging by the air conditioning boxes on the superstructure, the steamer is old. Perfect for testing.
  25. 0
    5 January 2026 10: 39
    A peaceful pipe carrier was sailing across the sea, but instead of pipes it was carrying missiles.
  26. 0
    7 January 2026 03: 05
    Quote: Not the fighter
    The use of live ammunition against a landing helicopter carrying "ecologists" and marines could trigger World War III.

    So, it's better to lose the entire merchant fleet, supposedly in peacetime, than to try to somehow protect it so that the Spirit of Anchorage lives on. Are you, by any chance, an advisor to the president?
  27. 0
    9 January 2026 11: 47
    There's a lot to copy from the Chinese, like the use of pods to create electronic warfare and anti-submarine aircraft, which we desperately need. We've covered all of that here on this resource.
  28. 0
    22 January 2026 10: 43
    a very old joke from the Soviet era:

    The first thought that came to my mind winkWell, this is further confirmation of the thesis that life is a joke, and first the joke happens, and only then does life take shape from it.
    Seriously speaking, with passive defense systems becoming a thing of the past and the significant reduction in the maximum speed of combat vessels, the idea of ​​a dual-purpose vessel is becoming more and more relevant.