China is pushing into the World Ocean

14 736 31
China is pushing into the World Ocean

Yes, ambition is a great thing and requires great expenditure. When a state sets itself the goal of establishing a presence in the world's oceans not just in words but in deeds, it raises numerous problems, the solutions to which determine how things will look.

You must admit, it's one thing to fly a cruiser (even a nuclear one) to another continent every five years to show off a flag there (which those to whom it was shown will happily forget about in a month), and quite another to fully provide for the everyday life of a group of ships, especially those not using nuclear propulsion.




In such cases, we usually look at photos of US carrier strike groups. True, there's an aircraft carrier, cruisers, and destroyers in the foreground, but in the background are the humble toilers of water, diesel fuel, and frozen meat, without whom everyone would be very sad. Sipping water from desalination plants isn't much fun, even in our technologically advanced age. It's supposed to be H2O, but not quite right.

A recently released image from a Chinese state-owned shipyard has sparked speculation that Beijing is preparing to launch the world's largest naval support ship. fleet.


In some ways, this is reminiscent of the Soviet epic of Admiral Gorshkov's fleet entering the world's oceans. Considering that the USSR had no bases or allies at the time, this was a difficult task. Bases later appeared in Syria and Vietnam, but at first, all the base had was a mooring buoy somewhere on the outskirts of the Mediterranean and a support vessel, on which everything depended, from the completion of the combat mission to a successful return to base.

But they returned, having sucked the blood of American naval groups. Surface ships were no slouch, but when Soviet diesel-electric submarine crews chased the AUGs...

In short, it's clear: heroism is often the result of omissions. Are the lack of bases an omission? In principle, yes. And the heroic supply officers, no less heroic than their charges, went to the designated point because they knew it had to be done. And they were expected there.


In short, the exploits of naval supply ships from the time of the First World War, when humble colliers began the baton, until very recently, are quite an epic. But if it weren't for the steely comrades, gentlemen and ladies of the Arctic Convoys of World War II, perhaps no one would have even mentioned their exploits. But it was worth it.

But we have China. So, what about China? China also wants to be the Master of the Seas. And that's a perfectly normal desire. But desires sometimes lag behind capabilities. And capabilities are as follows: the PRC, like the USSR, is better off than Russia, but not as well as it would like, namely:

- Djibouti Base. The PLA's first and only official naval base abroad, opened in August 2017 on the shores of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Following expansion in 2020, the base is capable of accommodating large ships, including aircraft carriers.

- Ream Base in Cambodia. A joint Cambodian-Chinese naval base in the Gulf of Thailand, the modernization of which was completed by 2025. According to media reports, part of the base has been allocated for use by the Chinese Navy, but there is no evidence to support this claim.

- The Port of Gwadar in Pakistan. A deepwater port on the Gulf of Oman, built with joint funding from China. It is envisioned as a multifunctional support base capable of accommodating warships. That is, in theory.

So, in reality, the Chinese navy has one official base, one unofficial base, and one theoretical reserve base. So, in the ultimate scenario, we're writing down two bases and assuming one is in reserve.

Not much? That's not the word.

However, the Chinese are generally persistent and used to solving problems as effectively as possible. No basis, and the Foreign Ministry is still dawdling in negotiations? No problem, let's approach it from a different angle.

A recently published photo from a major Chinese state-owned shipyard has sparked rumors that China may be developing a new massive naval support vessel. The report details a new large naval support ship at the Chinese CSSC shipyard.


A photo posted on social media by the China National Shipbuilding Corporation to mark the traditional Chinese festival celebrating the Sun shows the gigantic hull of a ship in dry dock in the background. Military analysts and internet users immediately began speculating whether this vessel could be a new-generation auxiliary ship designed to expand the logistics capabilities of the People's Liberation Army Navy.

Judging by the visible parts of the ship, including the almost completely assembled upper deck and superstructure, it can be assumed that construction has already progressed well and that the vessel will soon begin its final fitting-out and preparation for sailing.

The limited number of foreign bases (if two bases can be called that) increases the need for support ships. Undoubtedly, the vessel under construction could easily turn out to be what Western media portrays it to be.

China's growing focus on long-range naval operations has fueled theories that the recently spotted vessel may be a large supply ship designed to support extended operations far from home waters. As the People's Liberation Army Navy expands its presence in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, analysts note that Beijing is increasingly relying on large support vessels to support its fleet at sea.

Unlike the US, China has only a limited number of overseas military bases, so logistics ships play a vital role in transporting fuel, ammunition, food, water, and other supplies needed for long-term operations at sea, the South China Morning Post reports.

China's carrier strike groups currently rely on a small fleet of fast combat support ships, including two 45,000-ton Type 901 Fuyu ships and smaller, slower Type 903 Fuchi supply ships, to support operations at sea.

Incidentally, story The history of the PLA Navy's refueling tankers is not much different from the history of aircraft carriers.

It all began with the purchase of an unfinished (or, more accurately, 78% complete) Komandarm Fedko-class tanker from Ukraine in 1992 and its independent completion. In 1996, the ship entered service with the Southern Fleet, initially under the name Nanqiang, and was later renamed Qinghaihu.


Naturally, along with the ship, China received a full package of technical documentation and assistance from Kherson shipbuilders. All for $10 million. Those bastards sure knew how to get things done, you can't deny that.

The former "Komandarm Fedko" reliably carried 9360 tons of fuel at a speed of 14 knots, and continues to do so. This ship became the third refueling tanker in the PLA Navy.

Over time, having mastered the technical documentation, Chinese shipbuilders built the Type 903 refueling tankers. They were smaller than the Soviet tanker, with a displacement of 23,000 tons compared to the Fedko's 37,000 tons. At the same speed of 14 knots, the Type 903 could sail 10,000 miles (compared to the Fedko's 18,000) and carried 10,500 tons of fuel oil, 250 tons of fresh water, and 680 tons of cargo and ammunition.


In general, everything is a little worse than with the Soviet tanker, but, as the Chinese themselves say, “don’t be afraid to grow slowly, be afraid to stop.”

The next step was the Type 901. This ship was already being developed to meet the needs of Chinese aircraft carriers. The Varyag/Liaoning (which is where work began) wasn't a fast ship, that's well known. A top speed of 32 knots is impressive; a ship's normal speed is 18-20 knots. But for PLA Navy tankers, this was too much. A truly faster ship, capable of keeping up with an aircraft carrier, was needed.


The Type 901 could reach a maximum speed of 25 knots, which, considering its displacement of 45,000 tons, was quite impressive. Its cruising range was not announced, but was certainly no less than 10,000 miles.

The loading is also impressive:

- Marine fuel (fuel oil/diesel): 10,000–14,000 t.
- Aviation kerosene: 4,000–6,000 t.
- Dry cargo and ammunition: 2,000–3,000 tons.
- Fresh water: 1,000–1,500 t.

Total payload: 17,000–24,000 t. The figures vary due to different sources providing different data, but extrapolating from what is available, this is the set we get.

Overall, it's quite good. The ship can escort a strike group and resupply both the carrier's aircraft and the carrier itself and its escort ships with fuel en route.


However, Djibouti, home to the PLA Navy's only base, is almost 12,000 km away. This isn't a hint; it's a statement of fact: if China truly wants to control the Indian Ocean, where the Persian Gulf is essentially the most important, then its navy must have full transit capabilities, with all that entails.

But here we turn again to aircraft carriers. More precisely, to rumors that Beijing is developing a new "supercarrier," going beyond the Fujian. These rumors have significantly fueled speculation that the People's Liberation Army Navy will require next-generation supply ships capable of performing more complex missions over long distances. Analysts believe such vessels will become a crucial logistical link for China's future naval operations in distant waters.

And now a photo has appeared. Is it a new-generation Chinese supply ship or something else?

Last month, new details about the mysterious vessel emerged after defense intelligence company Janes analyzed commercial satellite images taken in March. According to the report, the ship is being built at the Longxue shipyard in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou.

Analysts estimate the vessel to be approximately 290 meters long and approximately 40 meters wide, significantly larger than most existing naval supply ships. Janes experts believe the vessel's design could well support carrier strike groups by transporting fuel, ammunition, and other critical cargo during long-range operations.

Based on the ship's stated dimensions, military analysts believe it could displace between 60,000 and 65,000 tons, potentially making it larger than the US Navy's decommissioned Sacramento-class fast combat support ships, which displaced around 53,000 tons.


Satellite images taken in March show the vessel's superstructure missing, indicating that the main sections were installed in just the last two months. Observers believe this rapid construction pace demonstrates the speed of China's naval shipbuilding program.

They say "a big ship needs a big torpedo," but in this case, "a big fleet needs big support ships." Much can be made of the advantages and disadvantages of a single 60,000-ton supply ship over three 20,000-ton vessels, but one thing is clear: China is seriously considering operations involving large naval groups, which will naturally require all the necessary equipment to conduct operations at significant distances from shore bases.


Here's another point: it's quite possible to place full-fledged weapons on such a ship, at least DefenseThe Komandarm Fedko and the Project 905 ships were completely unarmed tankers. The Project 901 already carried four H/PJ-13 gun mounts, essentially the Chinese version of our AK-630. They were already capable of fending off minor air threats.

The new ship could receive a full complement of weapons capable of eliminating threats from UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and anti-ship missiles. Why not?

Naturally, in typical Chinese fashion, the Chinese are keeping quiet about what kind of ship it is. But I think it's just a matter of time. Sooner or later, everything will come to light. In any case, nothing is done in China without reason. Especially not such a massive ship.
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ayk
    +6
    29 May 2026 05: 06
    China has over 50% of the world's shipbuilding capacity, while the US has only 0,1-0,5%, depending on how you count. The difference is 100-500 times. By 2030, China will have nine strike groups.
    1. +6
      29 May 2026 05: 58
      I had the chance to work on the products of these very same Chinese shipbuilding facilities, and our sailors came to the conclusion that the Chinese are not only narrow-minded, but also clumsy.
      1. ayk
        + 11
        29 May 2026 06: 18
        Compare cars 10 years ago and now, and what they'll be like in 10 years. It's the same everywhere, in all industries. They learn very quickly.
        1. + 17
          29 May 2026 08: 28
          Quote: Ayk
          They learn very quickly.
          In the mid-90s, Chinese shoppers stocked up on stoves and electric kettles in our stores; by the 00s, they were no longer interested. Now, our entire "import substitution" has shifted primarily to Chinese goods; even those notorious "galoshes" are now from China, literally and figuratively. Incidentally, after World War II, "Made in Japan" meant a crappy product for many, but that all changed, and the label became a benchmark for quality. China, too, hasn't stood still in this development, and the Chinese are getting better at it. We'll probably be accused of clumsiness, after the industrial collapse under the bourgeoisie and the exodus of retirees from manufacturing. For example, our stainless steel supply has become tight, and imports of cold-rolled and hot-rolled flat products have increased. Our companies strive to purchase imported products, primarily Chinese ones. They are better than domestic ones, require less processing, are uniform, inexpensive, and, finally, meet the specifications. Russian products do not have this.
          What can we say about the navy? We don't need aircraft carriers, we don't need a distant maritime zone. We're a "land power," after all, with which the Black Sea Fleet hides from Bandera's kamikaze boats, instead of dominating the Black Sea. Poor "Kuzya," our only aircraft carrier, will likely be finished off by traders... Under this "land power," it's even reached the point, during this bizarre military operation, that "well-wishers" have started arguing that we don't even need tanks. The crowning achievement, in a positional stalemate, is to overcome the "kill zone" on a moped, or to deck out a "loaf" with iron. No, guys, we need to look, even if not to China, at least to Belarus. They criticize our father for spinning his wheels, but we need a president who would do good for Russia as a president, and not a "top manager" of the overfed Russian fat cats, who would sell raw materials to them and move assets abroad.
          1. ayk
            -8
            29 May 2026 10: 22
            I agree with you on many things. I disagree with the idea of ​​a positional stalemate. It simply doesn't exist; it's a myth. For certain reasons, Russia isn't fighting at full force and is stalling for time. The fighting is deliberately limited to the Donbas. But this strategy has run its course. Everything will change soon.
            1. + 10
              29 May 2026 10: 40
              Quote: Ayk
              Everything will change soon.
              I'd like to believe it. Not fighting "at full force," laying down men for each village "piecemeal," is like using one finger instead of a fist, breaking them one by one. So, "we haven't even started yet" is precisely what created these absurd self-restraints, which are the reason the "operation" has entered its fifth year. Meanwhile, not only has Donbas not been liberated or secured, but our cities beyond the Urals are already in the affected area. The "certain reasons" are obviously the self-interests of our fat cats, and the secret pockets in offshore zones that, it seems, hold our formidable commanders tightly in their grip.
              1. ayk
                0
                29 May 2026 11: 05
                There may have been self-interest, I don't deny, but it's more likely that Russia didn't want to run afoul of a united West in Ukraine. Russia was waiting for the US to switch to China. And that's what happened. The US is leaving Europe. They don't have the strength to fight on two fronts.
                1. + 10
                  29 May 2026 12: 00
                  Quote: Ayk
                  but rather Russia did not want to run into a united West in Ukraine.
                  An interesting question: Have you ever wondered why the president requested authority to deploy troops, and received such authority in 2014? Troops were amassed at the border, beyond which we were expected throughout southeastern Ukraine. Yanukovych also officially requested the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent, which was registered with the UN. What was illegal? What could the West do, given that Europe was also dependent on Russian gas and couldn't immediately withdraw? Alas, what did Didier Burkhalter say privately to Putin in Moscow? The putschists were immediately recognized, the troops withdrew, and Donbas was advised not to hold referendums. So, they recognized the Banderites as the "choice of the Ukrainian people," even recognizing the integrity of Ukraine, but they did not recognize the choice of the people of Donbas (the "self-proclaimed republics"). For eight years, Russians were killed in Donbas, pro-Russian "Russian Spring" forces were purged, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were indoctrinated, and the population was brainwashed. And now, here comes the SVO, which, after recognizing Ukraine's integrity, was automatically classified as aggression. Perhaps they were well prepared for the SVO, so well that they didn't even need to seriously consider it? Alas, it seems they did everything they could, stupidly and harmfully. How can this be explained with the new "we were deceived" in Istanbul? What does the US and two fronts have to do with it? At first, the West was afraid to even supply helmets and body armor. It's been five years, and we still haven't started, turning what could have strengthened Russia into cemeteries and ruins. History will probably add Malevich's "Black Square" to the SVO's masterpiece, "Red Line." I really want to be optimistic, but things will likely change for the better only without the bourgeoisie. I sincerely hope that our army and people will prevail.
                  1. ayk
                    +1
                    29 May 2026 12: 16
                    In 2014, Yanukovych withdrew his consent to the deployment of troops. Without him, our forces wouldn't have risked it. Do you think Russia would have withstood the sanctions in 2014 and similar ones in 2022? Probably yes, but it was very difficult. Understand, the 2014 coup in Ukraine was not a coincidence. Russia and China weren't ready for a direct confrontation with the West. We could have occupied all of Ukraine in 2014 and fought in western Ukraine, but then the economic situation would have been very difficult. Putin decided to drag it out. The Central Military District launched the Second World War, mistakenly expecting to quickly capture Kyiv. When that didn't work out, they decided to drag it out again. The result: the US is leaving Europe, but we can't wait any longer; in two or three years, Europe will be ready for war.
                    1. +9
                      29 May 2026 12: 39
                      Quote: Ayk
                      Bottom line: The US is leaving Europe, but we can't wait any longer; in two or three years, Europe will be ready for war.
                      Europe will be ready for war, and we'll be left with empty warehouses, depleted arsenals, and worn-out equipment. Over the next two or three years, our factories and oil storage facilities will continue to be a nightmare, as long-range missiles are just a matter of time for Zelenskyy.
                      Are you justifying this? It seems like, if not sabotage and subversion, then unforgivable stupidity, unfit for driving a "machine."
                      Whether Yanukovych withdrew his appeal or not, exposing Russia to "aggression" in 2022 with a strengthened Bandera regime and a prepared Ukrainian Armed Forces is the worst option. The disaster of shutting down SWIFT in 2014, the blackmail, and the freezing of Russian investments in American securities, totaling $100 billion, are child's play. Our banks were still subject to sanctions, and the squandered $300 billion is far worse. Maybe that was the plan. Well, you have to admit, why did they destroy the Soviet Union and feed the West's turncoats? Was it really so that Russia would become stronger than the USSR? It seems that what remains of that great country is a great thorn in the side of the West, the United States: our strategic nuclear forces. Thanks to the Soviet legacy, the Soviet reserve of strength. To this day, Russia is the only country in the world that can destroy the United States. If things get pushed to the brink, with Europe mobilized, and unable to even cope with Ukraine, what will all these newly-minted "masters of life" do? We'll go to heaven, and they (the West) will simply croak? After all that's been said and not done, it's highly doubtful the ultimatum won't be accepted, and Russia will finally become a mere colony from which they will continue to pump out raw materials and semi-finished goods, and transfer assets to foreign banks and foreign currencies. Otherwise, we need socialism and people's power with real communists. Time will tell, as the chatterbox Gorbachev said, "Who's who?"
                      1. ayk
                        +1
                        29 May 2026 13: 05
                        Therefore, we need to finish with Ukraine in two years at most.
          2. -2
            29 May 2026 11: 53
            What can we say about the navy? We don't need aircraft carriers, we don't need a distant maritime zone. We are a "land power" where the Black Sea Fleet hides from Bandera's kamikaze boats.
            Not only are aircraft carriers no longer needed, but also all those expensive toys like surface ships and submarines. A single unmanned nuclear warhead carrier, or the installation of a nuclear warhead on unmanned naval and aerial systems, is relatively easy and can destroy an entire strike group without much effort. It's better to spend the money on spaceships.
            1. +6
              29 May 2026 12: 16
              Quote: torbas41
              One BEK with TNW, the installation of a nuclear charge on unmanned sea and air systems is not particularly difficult, and can destroy an entire AUG without much effort.
              Dear Alexander, it's a shame the Chinese don't know this, just like everyone else who isn't going to give up a strong navy. If you compare it that way, a cheap bullet kills a well-equipped, armed, and trained soldier, so what's the point?
            2. +1
              29 May 2026 17: 42
              Intercepting a BEF isn't a big problem with established aerial reconnaissance. And the Chinese need a navy to prevent a blockade of their trade. Until they have confidence in their navy, there will be no return of Taiwan or serious clinching with the US for influence in South Korea. There will be no Philippine navy for Indonesia.
          3. +2
            29 May 2026 18: 00
            Quote: Per se.
            Our companies try to buy imported products, primarily Chinese ones, because they are better than domestic ones.

            Things are even worse now—their materials science is in poor shape. But in 10-15 years...
          4. -2
            29 May 2026 20: 30
            Zipso again. Our cold and hot rolling mills are the best in the world. The additive technology hasn't been sold, thank God. Only a piece of crap can talk about the backwardness of our foundry.
            1. +2
              30 May 2026 18: 39
              Quote: ex_paragon
              Cipso again.
              What does "tsipso" have to do with it, given that our metallurgical industry is experiencing one of the most severe crises in modern history? Besides sanctions, the Central Bank's key rate and the problems being created by China, which is increasing its supplies to Russia, are also to thank for this.
              When comparing Russian and Chinese rolled metal products, parity is observed in basic standards, but in high-tech and specialized segments, assessments often favor China. Chinese products are superior in price and geometry, while domestic products are valued for their strength in harsh climatic conditions.
              Our foundry, like so much else, is a credit to the Soviet reserve of strength, and to the "pieces of substance" who, in the bourgeoisie, developed primarily only the raw materials sector of the economy, for the sale of raw materials and semi-finished products.
      2. +5
        29 May 2026 08: 06
        Before WWII, the service life of T-34 and KV diesel engines didn't exceed 50 engine hours, but that lifespan was gradually increased—engineering training and the level of technical discipline in production don't just appear out of nowhere, like a rabbit out of a magician's hat; it's built up gradually.
      3. 0
        29 May 2026 16: 05
        This does take place.
        But practice allows us to eliminate this in 3-5-7 years...
        So if you giggle today, you'll have to cry tomorrow (c)
    2. +3
      29 May 2026 06: 00
      Quote: Ayk
      By 2030, China will have 9 AUGs.

      Will they fight with the States, or will they divide the world between themselves?
      1. ayk
        0
        29 May 2026 06: 18
        2/3 are in favor of there being a big war.
      2. +1
        29 May 2026 11: 20
        Will they fight with the States, or will they divide the world between themselves?

        It is definitely impossible to reach an agreement; the countries have too great ambitions and enormous resources have been put into play.
        1. 0
          29 May 2026 20: 56
          Quote: Energetik39
          It is definitely impossible to reach an agreement; the countries have too great ambitions and enormous resources have been put into play.

          And what exactly, and not “world greatness,” will be at stake for them that will cause a fight that will cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives (if without nuclear weapons)?
  2. +7
    29 May 2026 09: 13
    Logical.
    They are growing, and by many indicators they are first in the world (metals, energy, population, etc.)
    But we have Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov, Abramovich and a bunch of elite children abroad...
    1. 0
      29 May 2026 09: 35
      Well, in terms of population, India is now the first in the world.
      1. 0
        29 May 2026 19: 00
        It happens.
        The main thing is not to become like the blonde (country) who thinks that everything revolves around her...
  3. 0
    29 May 2026 15: 41
    Once the Chinese Navy reaches at least 40% of the US Navy's power, things will get interesting.
    1. 0
      29 May 2026 17: 44
      In terms of fleet composition, there is already parity in the form of destroyers, corvettes and submarines, but it remains to catch up in aircraft carriers.
      1. 0
        2 June 2026 13: 37
        as an option, build slightly different aircraft carriers from the start
        with a covered deck for launching aircraft with at least 4 launch positions + hangar
        and the upper deck is not slanted, but straight landing deck with arresting gear + 2 more launch positions
        This is all + to the lower hangar deck
        At least 150 aircraft will be able to be based on such an aircraft
  4. 0
    29 May 2026 20: 39
    There is one more point here: it is quite possible to place full-fledged weapons, at least air defense, on such a ship.
    Our neighbors are such bastards that we need to build supply cruisers, not supply ships, armed as well as frigates. Yes, it's expensive. But they'll be able to fight back if necessary.
  5. 0
    1 June 2026 12: 31
    Until China matches the US in quantity and quality ("Stealth is everything in submarine warfare") of its nuclear submarines, the large surface ships of the Chinese Navy, including aircraft carriers, will be in great danger in the oceans in the event of hostilities, despite the enormous successes of modern China in the construction of combat surface ships and missile weapons for these ships and coastal and carrier-based aviation.