The Fujian Aircraft Carrier: Its Path to Perfection

11 753 68
The Fujian Aircraft Carrier: Its Path to Perfection

The Chinese continue to surprise, not so much—no, you're no longer surprised, but rather taken for granted: their neighbors are willing to bend over backwards to force the world to take them seriously at every level. Not only in terms of industrial capabilities, but also militarily. It's a fact, but many foreign experts dismissively say that, yes, China has the largest army in the world, but it's of little use: it has zero combat experience, and how it would fare in a normal conflict is a question mark.

We won't discuss that issue today; it's a separate topic. Today, we're discussing the latest upgrade of the Fujian, which makes the Chinese aircraft carrier a hotbed for innovation.



According to the South China Morning Post, the recently commissioned Chinese aircraft carrier Fujian is now equipped with a six-tube, 324mm anti-torpedo defense system designed to intercept incoming submarine-launched munitions. This marks the first time an active carrier has used a dedicated anti-torpedo defense system to protect its hull from heavy submarine-launched torpedoes. This tactical configuration eliminates vulnerabilities in its close-in maritime defense system, shifting the carrier's primary line of defense from passive electronic countermeasures and wide-area depth charges to direct physical interception.


The Fujian Type 003 aircraft carrier, an 80,000-ton vessel commissioned by the People's Liberation Army Navy in November 2025, is equipped not with the outdated 12-tube depth charge launchers, but with specialized rotating six-tube launchers on the port and starboard sides. The 324-mm torpedo interceptors, powered by a waterjet, accelerate to speeds of 50 to 60 knots in three seconds, then execute active or passive guidance maneuvers.

If the ATT (Anti-Torpedo Torpedo) system is operational, Fujian will become the world's first aircraft carrier capable of physically intercepting and destroying incoming torpedoes, providing an unprecedented level of underwater defense.

The Fujian, commissioned in November 2025 after its first sea trials in May 2024, replaces the outdated 12-tube depth charge launchers of the Liaoning and Shandong with more advanced underwater interceptors. Thus, the carrier's last line of defense shifts from conventional, relatively untargeted, wide-area detonations to the direct engagement of incoming torpedoes.

The Fujian is a larger and more powerful aircraft carrier than the two previous Chinese ships, and the anti-torpedo system should be considered in the context of broader changes in carrier design. The Type 003 is approximately 316 meters long, 76 meters wide, and has a full-load displacement of approximately 80,000 tons, compared to the Liaoning's displacement of approximately 60,000 tons and the Shandong's 66,000 tons.


The aircraft launch system also differs from others: instead of the STOBAR ski-jump system used on the first two Chinese aircraft carriers, the Fujian uses a CATOBAR system with electromagnetic catapults, allowing it to launch aircraft with greater fuel capacity, heavier weapons, and a greater payload. The proposed air wing of 50-60 fixed-wing aircraft could include carrier-based J-15T and J-35 fighters, stealth fighters, and KJ-600 airborne early warning aircraft, expanding the ship's capabilities compared to earlier Chinese carriers.


Type 1130


HQ-10

The Fujian's defensive armament already includes at least four artillery Type 1130 close combat systems and four systems Defense The HQ-10 (FL-3000N) and its new anti-torpedo system provide an additional layer of underwater protection, preventing one of the few threats that can disable an aircraft carrier with a single successful hit.

Based on available photographs, the aircraft carrier's anti-torpedo system consists of two rotating six-tube launchers mounted on the port and starboard sides below the flight deck. Although the launcher resembles a standard 324-mm light torpedo launcher, its intended purpose is likely unrelated to traditional anti-submarine warfare.

The aircraft carrier will clearly not waste its short-range torpedoes hunting submarines, as this task is assigned to escort ships, helicopters, maritime patrol aircraft, and deck Aviation, sonobuoys, onboard sonars, towed arrays, and other means of detecting and destroying an aircraft carrier strike group. Therefore, according to the SCMP, the torpedoes are most likely used for self-defense against torpedoes that have already passed through the escort screen and are approaching the aircraft carrier.

In this role, the anti-torpedo defense system acts as the underwater equivalent of an anti-ship weapon system, not by destroying the submarine itself, but by attempting to intercept the approaching threat during the final stages of the attack. Indeed, the threat that necessitated such a system is heavy submarine-launched torpedoes, not the lightweight torpedoes used by helicopters or escort ships to combat submarines.


Heavy torpedoes can strike below the waterline and damage the keel, underwater hull, shafts, rudders, steering gear, engine rooms, or adjacent compartments. Their impact can be more severe than that of a surface strike. missiles, as water transmits shock waves much more effectively than air, causing structural deformation, flooding, and impact loads on equipment over a larger area. Anti-ship missiles are quite capable of disabling ship machinery or even detonating ammunition, while torpedoes add the additional threat of flooding.

Modern ships are highly energy-dependent. A case in point is the fate of the American destroyer Henley, torpedoed on October 3, 1943, by the Japanese submarine Ro-108. A single torpedo struck the destroyer, but it was so unfortunate for the Americans, knocking out power to the entire ship that, without electric pumps, the Henley sank within two hours. A torpedo with a large warhead can greatly complicate the life of an aircraft carrier. As, indeed, it can be for any modern ship, which is frankly vulnerable to attacks below the waterline.

Wire-guided torpedoes allow a submarine to adjust its weapon During an attack. Acoustic homing torpedoes can conduct passive or active searches, and after a miss, they can re-attack. Homing torpedoes can follow disturbances in the water behind the ship, rather than its acoustic wake. These guidance modes are especially dangerous for large aircraft carriers, as acoustic decoys, jammers, bubble screens, and towed countermeasures cannot always distract a torpedo from its true target. A potential engagement with torpedo defenses would begin with the carrier's sonar or associated torpedo detection sensors detecting a high-speed underwater object. The combat system would have to classify the object in seconds, filtering out sea traffic noise, the ship's own noise, tracking noise, decoys, thermal layer effects, reverberation, and bottom clutter.

After calculating the bearing, depth, speed, and estimated interception point, a 324-mm interceptor torpedo will be launched from a six-tube launcher in the direction of the threat. Upon entering the water, the interceptor will activate its own broadband sonar, mounted in the bow, to begin searching for the incoming torpedo and adjust its course during homing.


This is, admittedly, a Russian "Answer." The Chinese are in no hurry to share beautiful photos.

The destruction mechanism may include remote detonation, underwater explosive pressure, shaped charge effects, or direct damage to the attack torpedo's hull, seeker, control surfaces, or propulsion system with the practical purpose of disrupting control, causing a miss, prematurely detonating the munition, or physically destroying it before impact.

According to the South China Morning Post, the Fujian carrier's interceptor torpedo reaches speeds of 50-60 knots approximately three seconds after launch. It uses a small rocket booster for initial launch and a waterjet propulsion system for underwater propulsion.

A broadband hydroacoustic antenna array in the bow will allow the interceptor to distinguish real torpedoes from decoys at long ranges, up to several thousand meters, and a two-way underwater acoustic communication link will allow the carrier to update the interceptor's data after launch.

If multiple interceptors can cooperate with each other, the system will be able to assign targets during a salvo attack, reduce the number of repeat shots, and improve the efficiency of limited ammunition. The "hard" kill system does not replace the Fujian's "soft" kill, tracking, or anti-submarine warfare capabilities, but it does improve the final layer of defense.


On many warships, electronic countermeasure systems such as acoustic decoys, jammers, bubble screens, towed decoys, and wake disruptors remain useful because they can deceive multiple torpedoes without expending ammunition. Their drawback is that they rely on deception, and modern torpedoes are increasingly equipped with systems that can ignore decoys, follow a wake, utilize multiple target acquisition modes, and perform a second attack maneuver after losing the target.

An ATT with a physical kill function attempts to neutralize the weapon, which is especially important when the torpedo has already entered the inner defense zone and there is no time to maneuver or deceive/jam. Limitations remain significant: the target is small, fast, and submerged, the ATT launch window is short, the acoustic environment can be overloaded, and the six-tube launcher has a limited number of ready-to-launch projectiles in the event of a possible multiple-torpedo salvo.

However, the Fujian's defensive system could play a significant role if the ATT system actually works. In the 2010s, the US Navy tested concepts for the Anti-Torpedo Defense System (ATTDS) and Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT) system, including carrier integration trials, but did not deploy the system. navy.

The system consisted of a sonar system, interceptor torpedoes, and AN/SLQ-25 Nixie acoustic decoys. ATTDS prototypes were installed on three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers: the George Bush, the Harry S. Truman, and the Nimitz.

However, American military experts concluded the system was ineffective and decided to cancel the project. Tests revealed that ATTDS was unable to always detect enemy torpedoes and also occasionally generated false alarms, mistaking extraneous noise for torpedoes.

However, in 2025, information was released that the US Navy was planning to resume development of ATTDS and install it on more than 165 different surface ships.

The European SeaSpider and PESCO Anti-Torpedo Torpedo projects are aimed at developing a qualified interceptor, validating the launcher concept, integrating the strike element with combat control systems, and testing the entire detection-to-detonation chain during sea trials. However, these projects are still at the design and prototype stage, and while they are even worse than the American ones, they are more promising, as they also take into account the negative experiences of their allies.


Russian Paket systems already employ anti-torpedo interceptors on surface warships, but these installations are designed for frigates and smaller warships, not aircraft carriers. Overall, however, Russia has advanced somewhat further than other countries in developing anti-torpedo intercept systems. The fact that the Russian Navy does not install Paket on aircraft carriers is solely due to the lack of such carriers. However, many of the newest frigates and corvettes do carry this system.

In addition, the Paket-NK operates not only AT interceptor torpedoes, but also MTT anti-submarine torpedoes, which are capable of destroying submarines themselves.


For China, the presence of an operational anti-missile system will significantly increase the survivability of the Fujian aircraft carrier, which, like any aircraft carrier, relies on escorts, aircraft, and anti-submarine networks, and will allow China's most modern aircraft carrier to defend itself against air, missile, and submarine threats.

As the Chinese themselves say, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step," and the creation of their own weapons systems, which, as upgrades, enhance the offensive and defensive potential of existing ships, is truly a major step forward.

However, China constantly takes such steps, and there is nothing particularly surprising about this.
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    18 July 2026 02: 42
    A merchant will never become a warrior, no matter how much he puffs out his cheeks.
    1. + 13
      18 July 2026 08: 23
      Quote: Hagakure
      A merchant will never become a warrior

      No wonder the English have been beating everyone at sea for so long.
      1. +3
        18 July 2026 08: 29
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No wonder the English have been beating everyone at sea for so long.

        Before they learned to bend, they were bent, how many wars there were, how many victims and time...
        China has it both easier and harder in this regard. It's harder because it has zero experience, but easier because it doesn't have to struggle to forge maritime dominance through bloody torments.
        1. +6
          18 July 2026 08: 32
          Quote: Doccor18
          Before they learned to bend, they were bent, how many wars there were, how many victims and time...

          How many?:)))
          1. +8
            18 July 2026 08: 43
            The Dutch have "taught" them more than once...
            1. + 12
              18 July 2026 08: 50
              Just like they do with the Dutch. Their struggle with the Dutch is a series of victories and defeats. Incidentally, the Dutch are also traders.
      2. +1
        18 July 2026 12: 08
        It seems that the French fleet wasn't destroyed by the British (the Mediterranean squadron was destroyed, but that was one lost battle). Otherwise, Napoleon was crushing all the merchants.
        1. +4
          18 July 2026 12: 53
          Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
          It seems that the French fleet was not destroyed by the British.

          And who? :)))) The British defeated the French at Aboukir, which ultimately forced Napoleon to abandon his army in Egypt, and at Trafalgar, which put an end to Napoleon's plans for a landing in England.
          1. -3
            18 July 2026 13: 51
            I believe that the French fleet was destroyed by revolutionary sailors; I myself served as such a sailor from the first half of 1989 to 1992.
            During the second half of 1789, unrest erupted in all the coastal cities: Gannet, Cherbourg, Brest... City authorities everywhere interfered in the affairs of the port admiralties and the navy, and disgruntled sailors and soldiers stormed town halls to complain about their officers. The latter, receiving no support from Paris, continually gave in, and naturally, things grew worse and worse.
            Alfred Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire
            1. 0
              18 July 2026 14: 21
              Shrugging
              It was to be expected in the era we are describing that mutinies and revolts would occur in the English fleet, given the mixed nature of its crews discussed above, and the severe and severe trials they were subjected to in the first years of the war. These did indeed occur, rivaling those occurring in the French fleet, if not surpassing them in scale.
              1. -3
                18 July 2026 14: 41
                I'm not talking about riots, after Louis XVI France had no time for the navy, there was lawlessness, anarchy, an officer could either be hanged by the sailors, or the authorities could execute him without any investigation, and if they put him in prison - then he was lucky
                1. 0
                  18 July 2026 14: 47
                  Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
                  I'm not talking about rebellions; after Louis XVI, France had no time for the navy.

                  I don't argue, but anarchy is a fleeting thing, and the French army survived that period quite well. What makes the navy so special?
                  1. -1
                    18 July 2026 15: 22
                    Firstly, the fleet was sailing, and the captains of merchant ships were not suitable for military commanders, because they were used to giving in to everyone in their path, and their crews were small, while a military squadron is a single organism, and even a sailing one, there is a different trigonometry.
                    1. 0
                      18 July 2026 22: 25
                      Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
                      for the military, a squadron is a single organism,

                      The army is a single organism, and reorganization maneuvers under fire are no joke.
                      Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
                      and the captains of merchant ships were not fit to be military commanders, since they were used to giving in to everyone in their path

                      Well, not really. Not really, actually :)))) A merchant captain goes on long voyages - there he is king and god, and doesn't bend his back to anyone, there are no laws, might is the law.
                      1. +1
                        19 July 2026 02: 20
                        Might is the law

                        I haven't noticed anything like that, even pirates have laws, division of spoils, prohibition of alcohol, no one would dare to violate anyone's rights, no matter how weak a person is,
                        the army is a single organism
                        Mahan's book, mentioned above, covers everything well, and I rely on it. Mahan describes the state of the French navy and the reasons for its decline, and any arguments are easily countered if desired.
                        Rebuilding under fire is no joke
                        You can invite military specialists to the army, but that won't work in the navy.
                        And an army is built before the battle: whoever occupies the most advantageous position wins, like Tamerlane. Whoever is late loses, like Napoleon at Waterloo.
                        Likewise, in Aboukir, the construction of the French fleet was unprofitable
                      2. 0
                        19 July 2026 09: 07
                        Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
                        And the army is built before the battle

                        This is not at all true - infantry often attacks in columns, and when they get close, they deploy into a chain, and when threatened by a cavalry attack, into a square. It depends.
                        Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
                        I haven't noticed anything like that, even pirates have laws.

                        Pirates have their own laws, but the presence of a pirate ship at sea is the absence of laws:))))
                        The French trade with the Levant was a dangerous undertaking. Piracy was rampant, and captured ships were treated with utmost respect. Important captives could expect ransom, but often the crews of captured vessels were simply slaughtered.
                      3. +1
                        19 July 2026 02: 36
                        And yes, Peter the Great invited military specialists to the navy.
                      4. 0
                        19 July 2026 07: 12
                        There is no ship's commander without a gunner, and there is no gunner without a commander

                        Our first commander, Makarenko, was an artilleryman; we fired a lot, not just once every six months, as planned, but much more frequently, unscheduled. Makarenko knew how to position a ship for maximum advantage and never missed a good opportunity. With him, we almost always hit our targets. That's what an artilleryman is. I knew my next commander, Voytov, for about a year, and with him, we had a string of failures; he wasn't a skilled artilleryman. But Voytov was lucky: during his crucial firing exercises (we'd fire again immediately after a failure), the S-300 missed, and the AK-130 hit its target with a second shell.
                        I was also so lucky. After my military service, I got into the Far Eastern State University's Sinology Department on my first try, without any benefits, and in the only available state-funded spot out of five, in the most privileged group of philologists, where only locals (the locals are the most privileged) got in, and where the admissions process was extremely competitive. And on top of that, I mumbled my way through all the exams. So far, I've been lucky; Vladivostok is teeming with translators, and I've never been to China, even though I've visited there three times for a couple of days. But I don't travel anywhere on my own dime. If I manage to pass the Chinese exam, I'll be the first to do so without an internship in China, and after that, I'll be able to compete with AI.
      3. +1
        19 July 2026 01: 09
        So the English were islanders conquered by the Vikings, the main maritime conquerors, so their combat training was initially quite good. But starting with trade right away—that's Venice, 9th-century Novgorod, and Carthage.
    2. +5
      18 July 2026 08: 41
      A merchant will never become a warrior, no matter how much he puffs out his cheeks.


      So how did Israel manage to build such an army?
      How did Azerbaijan manage to dislodge the Armenians, who controlled all the fortified heights of Karabakh?

      I can give many more examples from history when hypothetical traders carried out real warriors
      1. +4
        18 July 2026 10: 56
        You have some kind of distorted concept of traders. There are traders all around Israel. Armenians are traders themselves, they were just supplanted in Russia by the Azerbaijanis. And Armenians were never great warriors. Just like the Georgians (Lermontov).
    3. +5
      18 July 2026 10: 39
      A strange statement, considering that leading an army and conducting trade are different people. And in modern warfare, the key role in combat lies not in the hands of infantry, but rather depends on technical equipment and the development of techniques for using precision weapons and controlling airspace.
    4. +1
      18 July 2026 22: 29
      Quote: Hagakure
      A merchant will never become a warrior, no matter how much he puffs out his cheeks.
      Tell the Prague merchants who, during the Hussite Wars, smashed the knights so hard their feathers flew. They crushed four crusades before they started fighting among themselves.
  2. -1
    18 July 2026 03: 40
    I wonder where they intend to use it...
    1. -3
      18 July 2026 08: 37
      There was an Indian Ocean, and there will be a Chinese one.
    2. +2
      18 July 2026 19: 37
      The Pacific Ocean. But first, four of these would need to be built. The current plan is two like this and two nuclear ones. But it looks like there will be more nuclear ones.
      In the meantime, God bless the Chinese and help them hold on to the South China Sea. That's exactly the task they're currently working on.
      1. +2
        19 July 2026 02: 29
        The Pacific Ocean is an inland sea for the United States; the Americans declared it so when they settled in Hawaii. But the USSR, lacking bases, competed in the Pacific. Submarine crews were changed right at sea. These were diesel-powered submarines.
  3. -3
    18 July 2026 03: 56
    Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
    I wonder where they intend to use it...
    As a large target for enemy cruise missiles and drones 🎯
    1. -3
      18 July 2026 08: 45
      He will be lost in the ocean.
      Submarine crews were training in Kamchatka, and not a single submarine was able to find the entire cruiser, the enormous "Chervona Ukraina"
      1. -3
        18 July 2026 11: 35
        Navy haters are giving downvotes, I participated myself, as a result they built it on the helipad and announced it, and then they built it like that several times and reminded everyone
        1. -3
          18 July 2026 14: 48
          Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
          Navy haters are giving downvotes

          We'll fix it:))))
        2. 0
          18 July 2026 22: 26
          Quote: Sokolov_Vladimir
          Navy haters are giving downvotes
          To ignore real facts is insane.
      2. +1
        19 July 2026 01: 16
        China still has to reach the ocean; it's surrounded by relatively small islands and peninsulas. And its enemies will have more satellites. China will have to work hard to break through this barrier.
  4. -2
    18 July 2026 08: 37
    In my opinion, the time for large ships is over. In today's reality, such ships could easily become mass graves. Even at the height of the Cold War, the USSR and the US developed mines that could lie on the seabed for a very long time, biding their time.
    Half a century has passed. I have no doubt that such mines have now advanced far beyond what they once were.
    1. -4
      18 July 2026 09: 43
      Could Iran, with its massive missile and mine inventory, sink an American aircraft carrier? So don't talk nonsense!
      1. +3
        18 July 2026 14: 28
        Well, they're always running away from the theater of military operations, either to the laundry room or the latrine... laughing
    2. 0
      18 July 2026 11: 37
      Neither China nor India want to fight, they are building aircraft carriers
    3. -3
      18 July 2026 21: 03
      Quote: esoterica
      The time for big ships has passed.

      Then please explain why the great naval powers continue to build aircraft carriers (Cllr. J. Ford, the US is ordering battleships from Cllr. Trump), while China continues to build aircraft carriers, including aircraft carriers? The stagnating small-time Brits have two carriers, while France has laid down a new 100-kilometer aircraft carrier to replace the Charles de Gaulle.
      mines that could lie on the seabed for a very long time, waiting for their moment.
      These are bottom mines or mine-torpedo systems, like the Captor Mk-60... But the sea depth for their installation is no more than 1600 meters (Mk-60), and what about in the OCEAN, where the bottom is 3-4-5 km away? So, no one is canceling maintenance, they're just improving it.
  5. +5
    18 July 2026 09: 41
    The Chinese carrier is impressive and almost on par with the American Ford-class carriers! That's what hard work and creativity are all about, not theft and cheap show-offs...
    1. +2
      18 July 2026 14: 30
      Eh, if only we could get at least a third of their population and remove the speculators from power.
  6. -1
    18 July 2026 11: 47
    The Indian Ocean is China's backdoor. It was closed to China during World War II, which is why China failed, the government changed, and conclusions were drawn. Aircraft carriers provide naval bases and influence in the ocean.
    1. 0
      18 July 2026 14: 37
      Their power has been constantly changing for the past five thousand years (according to their calculations). And they're constantly getting beat up, too. And anything too big, in today's reality, would quickly come crashing down. Another revolution has occurred in military affairs. No one will let a drone survive. No matter how many systems you put on it, they'll crush you with sheer weight.
      1. +1
        18 July 2026 14: 49
        The same thing was said about destroyers at one time.
        1. +1
          20 July 2026 11: 36
          There's absolutely no comparison. The human factor is absent. The loss of any number of cheap plastic-and-plywood drones is absolutely not critical for the attackers; they won't let them reload if they run out of ammunition. A controlled swarm is tomorrow. If single drones can break through, what can we say about a cloud of drones attacking from all directions?
          1. 0
            20 July 2026 11: 58
            Quote: Essex62
            Totally incomparable.

            It seems so to you.
            Quote: Essex62
            If single ones break through

            Where are they breaking through to?:)))
            In theory, if you position an aircraft carrier in a specific location and deploy a large swarm of drones toward it, the swarm could cause trouble for the carrier. They wouldn't be able to sink it under any circumstances, but they could damage it.
            The destroyers could have sunk them. But the problem was how to get the drones into the aircraft carrier's attack range—the destroyers had the same problem.
            1. 0
              20 July 2026 21: 39
              Wherever you go, towards the targets being attacked, including ships. They sank one just the other day. Sooner or later, such a vessel, actively conducting combat operations, will definitely be detected. No matter how you maneuver, you can't leave the theater of operations. Under constant attack, the aircraft loses the ability to launch and receive aircraft, and it's only a matter of time before unmanned aircraft carriers poke holes in its hull, including below the waterline. They're already trying to equip those same large unmanned aircraft carriers with torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.
              1. +1
                20 July 2026 22: 37
                Quote: Essex62
                Where to, to the attacked objects, including ships

                And how many broke through?
                Quote: Essex62
                Sooner or later, such a trough, actively conducting a database, will definitely be discovered.

                Or not. If AV sticks to its once-standard hit-and-run tactics.
                Quote: Essex62
                Being under constant influence of Avik

                There's nowhere to come from. UAVs fly slowly, so detecting and evading a swarm isn't that difficult. The aircraft dodged supersonic missile carriers.
                1. +1
                  21 July 2026 07: 34
                  They regularly break through to stationary targets. They smash moving targets, even buggies, into dust in the forward area. The junta, which has no navy, is terrorizing the Black Sea Fleet, driving it into ports. Yes, the aircraft is large and resilient, but everything depends on the number of UAVs and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that reach it. I repeat, they'll definitely detect it sooner or later. They'll bombard the theater with buoys, using those same drones, and that's it. It'll be as clear as day. Or, well, run as far as you can.
                  And there are already some that fly fast.
                  1. +1
                    21 July 2026 07: 51
                    Quote: Essex62
                    They break through to stationary objects regularly.

                    The only thing left to do is to convince the AV to become a stationary object.
                    Quote: Essex62
                    At the front, moving targets, even buggies, are blown to dust.

                    That's exactly what's happening at the front—UAVs are launched 10-30 km from the target. That's unrealistic at sea.
                    1. -1
                      21 July 2026 09: 37
                      Why isn't it realistic? Those same drones would destroy all fighter air cover and gradually overwhelm the escort. It's just a matter of time and the amount of resources involved.
                      1. 0
                        21 July 2026 09: 44
                        Quote: Essex62
                        Why is it not real?

                        Because drones can't do that.
                        Quote: Essex62
                        The same drones will knock out all fighter air cover.

                        How many multirole fighters have been shot down by drones in the SVO?
                        Quote: Essex62
                        and gradually melt down the escort.

                        To do this, you need to convince the AUS to be a stationary target.
                      2. -1
                        21 July 2026 09: 58
                        They don't know how to do that yet. Soon they'll start taking down dozens of these huge, manned fools. The armor's already been shoved under that ugly "shed" and into the caponier. So, let's shoot some artillery?
                        An air-to-air drone equipped with a glider can maneuver to the limits of its airframe's design capabilities, something a pilot simply can't do.
                      3. +1
                        21 July 2026 10: 04
                        Quote: Essex62
                        They don't know how to do that yet. Soon they'll start bringing down huge, manned monsters by the dozens.

                        When they start, then we'll talk.
                        Quote: Essex62
                        An air-to-air drone equipped with a glider can maneuver to the limits of its airframe's design capabilities, something a pilot simply can't do.

                        Air-to-air missiles and surface-to-air missiles are also capable. And manned aircraft fight just fine.
                      4. 0
                        22 July 2026 09: 48
                        When they start, it will be too late for us, as always. They will have both, but we only have multifunctional flying machines and that's it.
                      5. -1
                        21 July 2026 09: 52
                        It's technically possible to seed a theater of operations with platforms, just like reconnaissance buoys with waiting drones. They spot the escort, launch on command, form a swarm, and attack. Okay, maybe they won't be able to sink the aircraft, but the escort will just gurgle away. And a spotted aircraft can be wooed with ballistics. When the Turks... Azerbaijanis The Armenians were ironed, everyone laughed. What has all this grown into? We fight in threes, in loaves of bread, without armor for breakthroughs.
                        Have you read "The Invincible" by S. Lem? That's exactly what will happen soon.
                      6. +1
                        21 July 2026 10: 04
                        Quote: Essex62
                        It is technically possible to seed the theater of operations with platforms, along with reconnaissance buoys with waiting drones.

                        Yeah. True, it would be cheaper to build an AUG.
                      7. -1
                        22 July 2026 09: 33
                        Absolutely not, plus active use is very expensive. Reconnaissance buoys are scattered across the ocean. A sealed launch site for two or three BEK UAVs is certainly possible. And let them drift along the waves on a reel. Aircraft operate close to shore, and their range is limited. Chasing them across the ocean makes no sense. Taiwan, for example, could prepare such a trick for the turncoats.
                      8. +1
                        22 July 2026 09: 43
                        Quote: Essex62
                        In no case

                        You just don't bother to count:))))
                      9. 0
                        22 July 2026 19: 58
                        Is a plastic container with simple electronics more expensive than an Avitsk and his flock? What's the point?
      2. -3
        18 July 2026 16: 40
        all five (according to their calculations) thousand years
        I opened the Chronological Tables of Chinese History in the reference volume of Oshanin's 4-volume dictionary. The first was the Xia Dynasty of the 21st-16th centuries BC. This is the great Yu, the flood pacifier. The 21st century BC. The fifth millennium is touched upon, and even earlier were the mythical times of the five emperors. As a certified orientalist, I confirm 5,000 years of Chinese history.
        1. +2
          18 July 2026 19: 32
          As a certified orientalist, I confirm 5 thousand years of Chinese history
          - continue observation.
  7. -6
    18 July 2026 12: 03
    Quote: Hagakure
    A merchant will never become a warrior, no matter how much he puffs out his cheeks.

    How adorable, how stupid40k... Simply adorable! Manga is bad for children, let alone adults...
  8. +5
    18 July 2026 13: 01
    Your article is essentially a translation of this material with the addition of some information about similar Russian weapons: https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2026/china-fujian-aircraft-carrier-anti-torpedo-system

    If you'd translated the original Chinese source, that would be acceptable, but copying secondary or even tertiary information from a Western website is going too far. And by the way: if your article is mostly a translation, wouldn't it be a good idea to cite its source?
    1. -1
      18 July 2026 21: 33
      Quote: Seaflanker
      Your article is essentially a translation of this material with the addition of some information about similar Russian weapons.

      Colleague, it's hard to disagree with you! Roma isn't an expert on naval matters. That's why he makes mistakes when captioning the photo of a T-55 shot from a 4TTA with a 533mm T-55 (possibly 53-65K?).
      This is true, Russian "Answer". The Chinese are in no hurry to share beautiful photos.
      Without even suspecting that the "Otvet" is a 91R missile-torpedo, and its launcher is typically a vertical or universal launcher of the 3S-14 type. And the 91R carries a small-sized T-DU MPT-1 324mm caliber warhead...
      AHA.
  9. -1
    18 July 2026 18: 18
    The most powerful fleet, and indeed the entire armed forces of the country, are not at all for war, first and foremost, and they did not dare to think about preventing this war!
  10. 0
    18 July 2026 22: 30
    It is equipped not with the outdated 12-tube launchers for depth charges, but with specialized rotating six-tube installations on the left and right sides.
    One wouldn't interfere with the other. Especially given the development of BEC and other near-surface debris.
  11. -2
    18 July 2026 23: 28
    The PLA may not have combat experience, but the PMCs have plenty.
    They hold all of Africa, protecting the interests of the country.
    And in Latin America these guys feel right at home.
    They do their work quietly, without fanfare. They never take anyone prisoner.
    1. +2
      20 July 2026 21: 45
      Could you clarify, was it a Chinese PMC or a Russian one? And where have the Chinese distinguished themselves in Latin America?