How to effectively conquer the sea

7 333 36
How to effectively conquer the sea

Another batch of interesting News from the Middle Kingdom. There, work began on upgrading older destroyers to carry hypersonic missiles. missiles YJ-20. Previously available only to Type 055 destroyers, these missiles are now also installed on the more numerous Type 052D destroyers.

What does this primarily indicate?



Firstly, Beijing takes very seriously the claims from the other side of the Pacific that war is inevitable. No one is outraged that the "aggressor" and "victim" are separated by 11,000 kilometers of water, and that the "victim" is preparing to swim across those thousands of kilometers to repel the "aggressor."


It certainly sounds like a scenario written in a madhouse, but what can you do: it's the US that's going to "reassure" China. And, given the recent antics in Venezuela and Iran, it's highly doubtful China will sit back and wait for the American flag to flap in its coastal waters.

And we must not forget that some truly idiotic cries are coming from Japan about the need to protect its territories.


Interestingly, China hasn't attacked anyone, hasn't indicated any intentions, but, labeled as an aggressor, it constantly finds itself in the sights of not only the media, but also the military cliques of various anti-Chinese blocs that the US churns out with enviable regularity.

It is clear that in these blocs not all countries have capabilities comparable to those of Japan, whose success in building a new naval fleet They're simply undeniable, but surely there must be some "cannon fodder"? Who will attack from the front, absorbing everything that comes flying from China?

The principle isn't new; it's probably a couple of thousand years old. What's least valuable goes forward, and the most effective fighters are left behind. This is how the ancient Greeks fought on land, but little has changed in this regard today.

China is boosting its navy's firepower by equipping an old destroyer with the YJ-20 hypersonic missile.


Western media outlets are filled with headlines like these. Yes, China has published the first official video of a Type 052D destroyer launching a YJ-20 hypersonic anti-ship missile, but that's no reason to shout like a character from a famous Soviet cartoon.


The move suggests Beijing is expanding its long-range strike capabilities to encompass a much larger force, rather than just a few modern ships.

And this is more than logical.

Here's where I'd immediately like to ask: why did the Type 052D destroyers suddenly become obsolete? No matter what anyone says, the concrete block has been thrown into the American garden: if anything can be considered junk, it's the American Ticonderogas, and you can even look at the Arleigh Burkes in the same way... After all, their construction began in the 1990s, and the first two series entered service with the US Navy in the 20th century. And yet, they're still serving to this day.


Here, the Chinese Type 052D destroyers, which entered service with the PLA Navy in 2014, don't look old at all. Twenty years, no matter how you count it, is a considerable amount of time, and it compares favorably with the American ships.

There have been many comparisons between the Chinese Type 052D and the American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, but they generally boil down to one thing: they are very similar ships of the same class, with roughly the same armament and undergone roughly similar modernization.


Following the completion of the 052DL destroyers, production began on a series of 10 modernized ships in the 052DM variant. However, there are reports that the series was expanded to 13 ships.

The Type 364 surface-surface radar located atop the foremast was replaced with a new dual-sided AESA radar. The ships received an updated vertical launch system to launch a wider range of missile types.

It's unclear which missiles are being discussed, but several new ship-launched missiles, namely the YJ-17 and YJ-20, were spotted at a military parade in Beijing. The YJ-17 is a ballistic missile with a hypersonic glide vehicle, while the YJ-20 is a two-stage ballistic missile with a maneuvering reentry vehicle. Parades traditionally display equipment already in service, so it can be concluded that these missiles have not only been accepted into service, but are also in serial production.

What they write in the West, saying that China is arming itself with the latest weapons The statement that the ships are old is somewhat misleading. The 052D destroyers are not at all old, and it would be wrong to follow the lead of those who portray modernizing these ships as something approaching desperation.

China has 33 Type 052D destroyers, making the Western Pacific more controllable for China, as a destroyer armed with 20 hypersonic missiles is a true maritime control weapon. Adding 10 Type 055 ships to these 33 Type 052D destroyers yields a total of 43 naval missile launch platforms.

There are doubts that the US Navy could simultaneously muster that many destroyers across all its bases. However, recently released footage confirms that the missiles are only integrated onto one Type 052D destroyer, not the entire fleet. But war isn't tomorrow for China either.

To understand how old the Type 052D ships are and how destined they are to be the "initiators" of the conflict, it doesn't take much studying their performance characteristics. They will operate close to their own shores, at a certain distance from them. Therefore, speed, range, and endurance are a particular concern for the Arleigh Burkes, which will have to navigate the seas beyond the range of Chinese weapons, especially unmanned ones. So, we're interested in their armament.

The armament of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers varies significantly. The primary weapon of all 53 active ships of this class is two Mark 41 VLS vertical launch systems (VLS).


The standard set of weapons for the UVP destroyers of the first two series consists of:
- 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles;
- 8 anti-submarine missiles RUM-139 VL-Asroc;
- 74 RIM-66 SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles.

There is also a shock variation, when the cells are loaded with:
- 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles;
- 26 RIM-66 SM-2 missiles;
- 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroс.

There is no doubt that some of the destroyers will go to the shores of China in the strike version (Tomahawks cannot be reloaded at sea, this is done only at bases), and some will cover them, playing the role of ships Defense.

The Arleigh Burke-class ships of the subsequent series are equipped with roughly the same configuration, only the number of missiles has increased from 90 to 96. Thus, the destroyer's 64 slots are loaded with a universal configuration:

- 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles;
- 8 anti-submarine guided missiles RUM-139 VL-Asroc;
- 74 RIM-66 SM-2 missiles;
- 24 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, 4 missiles per cell.


The 052D destroyers are the first ships in the Chinese Navy to be equipped with GJB-5860-2006 modular-cell vertical launch systems (VLS) instead of the previously used revolver-type systems. Each VLS cell, like those on American destroyers, can accommodate one or four missiles, depending on the type and size.

Four UVP modules, each with eight cells, are located in the bow of the ship, forward of the superstructure, and the other four are in the aft superstructure, forward of the helicopter hangar, for a total of 64 cells, the same as the Arleigh Burke. However, there is a slight difference: the Chinese UVP is designed for three types of transport and launch containers: 9–9,9 m, 7 m, and 3,3 m high, with a uniform width of 0,85 m. In terms of capacity, the Chinese UVP exceeds its American counterparts, the Mk.41 and Mk.57.


Moreover, the range of missiles loaded into the 052D destroyer's vertical launch system is significantly broader than that of the American class. This is both a plus and a minus. The minus is logistics and the need to produce a larger number of different types, while the plus is that it allows for more flexible configuration of the ship's weapons systems for a specific combat mission.

Type 052D destroyers can load into their UVP:

- CJ-10 cruise missile, designed to strike ground targets at a distance of 1500 km;
- YJ-18 anti-ship missile with a firing range of 540 km;
- Anti-submarine missile-torpedo "Changying-5" (CY-5) or Yu-8 with a firing range of up to 50 km;
- SAM from the Hongqi-9 (HHQ-9B) complex with a firing range of up to 260 km;
- DK-10A SAM, a naval version of the PL-12 air-to-air missile with an ARL-homing head. Range - 50 km;
- FM-3000N SAM, 4 missiles per cell. Designed to intercept high-speed, small-size targets. Strike range: 45 km. Active radar homing head.

In addition to the VLS missiles, the Chinese destroyers are also armed with HHQ-10 short-range air defense systems with a 24-missile launcher located on the roof of the helicopter hangar. The TY-90 missile has a firing range of up to 9 km. The launcher is similar in design to the American RAM launcher.

Artillery We're not taking close-combat capabilities into account; they haven't proven particularly effective in NATO naval missions in the Middle East. But both countries' ships have them, and the Chinese are arguably more modern.

And now, YJ-20 can be loaded into cells 052D.


Everyone understands perfectly well that this isn't just a matter of shoving a missile into a launcher. This is preceded by extensive work to adapt the missile to the ship's combat information and control system, training the guidance and control systems to work with the missile's "brains."

The YJ-20 is a hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile with a biconical aerodynamic shape. This shape allows for maneuverable re-entry after an initial ballistic launch. The missile's estimated range is 1500–2000 km, and its speed ranges from Mach 6 to Mach 10 (7500–12000 km/h).

It's clear that the numbers are a bit limited, but everyone should be used to the fact that the PLA doesn't spoil the details about its new weapons.

The YJ-20 is considered one of the most significant additions to China's anti-ship missile arsenal, as it significantly increases the striking power of the People's Liberation Army Navy.


The YJ-20's compact design allows it to fit into standard vertical launch tubes used on modern Chinese destroyers, allowing more warships to carry the weapon without major modifications.

The missile was previously only spotted on the Type 055 destroyer, but recent news confirms that it can also be launched from the Type 052D destroyer. Both warships use the same universal vertical launch system and are armed with virtually the same array of missiles, including the HHQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile, the YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile, and the YJ-100 land-attack cruise missile.

According to American sources, the launch system had to be modified to accommodate the YJ-20, as the missile uses a cold-launch system due to its large size. Compressed gas propels the missile out of the vertical launcher before its main engine ignites above the ship. This method reduces heat and stress on the launch system, allowing larger missiles to be safely launched from standard vertical launchers.

The PLA Navy's deployment of the YJ-20 hypersonic anti-ship missile not only on its largest Type 055 destroyers but also on its more numerous Type 052D ships, increasing the number of warships capable of carrying this weapon, makes Chinese waters less welcoming to outsiders. Analysts believe this strengthens Beijing's anti-access and anti-maneuver strategy, making it more difficult for rivals to operate near the Chinese coast. The more ships equipped with these missiles that can operate, the easier it is to close off all approaches to Chinese waters.

The Type 055 destroyer has 112 universal vertical launch tubes, while the smaller Type 052D has fewer (64), but nevertheless, if, following the example of American destroyers, each Chinese destroyer were equipped in the standard version with, say, the same 8 YJ-20 missiles, this would give a salvo of 344 missiles in total.


344 missiles that are significantly more modern than the Tomahawk cruise missiles, and are also much more difficult to intercept (if they are intercepted at all) – this is truly serious.

Even a limited deployment, not all 43 Chinese ships versus 53 American ones, complicates military planning for potential adversaries, as they have to determine which ships carry the missiles and track their movements over large areas.

Moreover, 43 to 53 is a fantastical scenario; the US simply can't afford to deploy that many Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Some of these destroyers are serving in the Atlantic and at military bases around the world, while others are in transit for repairs and from repairs. So, if you think about it, a serious figure is no more than 30 Arleigh Burkes.

China is in a similar situation, but if necessary, it would be easier for them to deploy roughly the same number of ships as the US Navy, or slightly more. And then the issue will be resolved based on better training and less fatigued crews. You know, a 10,000-kilometer voyage isn't the best for the crew. It's not a circumnavigation, of course, but the prospects at the end of such a voyage aren't very pleasant.

So even 30 ships with YJ-20 missiles as a counterattack force is a significant amount. Especially since the 055-series ships can load more YJ-20 missiles into their 112 slots than the 052-series destroyers' 64 slots.

Chinese authorities do not disclose how many YJ-20 missiles have entered service or how widely they are deployed, but Western analysts should assume that the Chinese will equip every destroyer capable of carrying them with YJ-20 missiles. The question, of course, is solely one of availability.

However, some believe that China would have no difficulty securing a full complement (or perhaps even more) of YJ-20 missiles for its destroyers within one to two years. This means that the situation would be different if US Navy ships were to approach, say, Taiwan to provide assistance, including military support. Let's say, it would not be entirely favorable for the Americans.

Three and a half hundred ballistic missiles with maneuverable hypersonic strike pods is a lot. Assembled into a single fist, that's a lot. But even destroyers with such missiles dispersed along China's maritime borders could significantly complicate any military operation by the US fleets. Simply by preventing them from getting close.


The only thing that would be ideal for this is a spectacular demonstration, and the destruction of a maneuvering target ship with such a missile. A decommissioned corvette would do, the main thing is to blow it to smithereens. With a hint.

This is how you can make any Chinese sea seem un-American. Quite simply, without much effort.
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    5 August 2026 05: 15
    Interestingly, China has not attacked anyone, has not indicated its intentions, but, being listed as an aggressor

    China is in a similar situation, but if necessary, it will be easier for them to deploy approximately the same number of ships as the American fleet, or a few more.
    And China protects its home from the aggressor.
  2. +7
    5 August 2026 05: 35
    Here's an interesting ratio: how many destroyer-frigate and above-class surface ships has China built in thirty years, compared to Russia? For example, I know that the USSR, exhausted by the Second World War and with its shipyards devastated by the war, built a whole series of then-modern Project 68 bis cruisers in the fifteen years following that terrible catastrophe, not to mention a ton of anti-ship missile ships and destroyers, and began churning out large anti-submarine ships like sausages. By the 30th anniversary of Victory Day, a truly powerful and modern Navy was built in just 30 years!
    1. +7
      5 August 2026 05: 47
      Quote: north 2
      By the 30th anniversary of the Victory, in 30 years, a truly powerful and modern Navy was built!

      Back then, it would have been socialism, with everyone working for the country. But now, capitalists work for themselves and keep their money in Western banks. It's good that they build corvettes, but not frigates, in six months (or maybe even a year).
    2. -6
      5 August 2026 11: 11
      In terms of surface combatants, China has undoubtedly surpassed Russia. However, Russia has recently produced more nuclear submarines, in terms of tonnage. This is understandable, as the sea-based portion of the nuclear triad is comprised of SSBNs, not surface ships. So, the bias toward the submarine component is understandable. It's also clear that surface ship production in Russia isn't a high priority. Russia is a land power, and its interests lie, in the vast majority of cases, close to its borders. It has no plans to project them overseas. China, however, will have to do so if it wants to play the role of the new hegemon.
      1. 0
        6 August 2026 02: 36
        How are you planning to defend the naval portion of the nuclear triad from NATO anti-submarine forces in their patrol areas? The current state of the Russian fleet in the Pacific Ocean is such that the US could secure air superiority over the Russian naval bases and sink them all right at their piers with a single strike. The Northern Fleet is slightly better off, but there's no talk of any survivability of Russian submarines beyond the effective range of the Su-30 coastal defense aircraft. Nor is there any possibility of the Russian fleet defending its bases from dagger strikes by Western submarines with ballistic missiles, which have an approach time of less than five minutes. Everything would be sunk in minutes. Perhaps the Northern Fleet might hold out a bit longer and some submarines might have time to fire back.

        The Chinese Navy is now fully capable of accomplishing both of these tasks. Any US Navy ship that crosses the Japan-Philippines-Singapore line immediately becomes a suicide bomber, as it can be destroyed by the Chinese Navy at any moment. The same applies to US submarines. A disarming strike by US submarines with ballistic missiles from offshore against China is fundamentally impossible.
        1. 0
          6 August 2026 13: 33
          Let's start with the fact that no one intends to fire ballistic missiles from SSBNs "from under the coast." Let me remind you that the range of ICBMs starts at about 8,000 km or more. Therefore, SSBN deployment areas are located close to their coasts to ensure the combat stability of the fleet's forces. Even with the forces currently available to the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, this task is entirely feasible.
          "The current state of the Russian fleet is such that in the Pacific Ocean, the US can secure air superiority over the Russian naval bases and destroy them all right at their piers with a single blow."
          Naval bases, my dear sir, protect not only naval ships but also air and missile defense systems, and Russia, as the Air Defense Forces demonstrate, has more or less everything in order. I understand that you intend to ensure the Americans' air superiority over our naval bases precisely within the S-400's effective range? Good luck to the American pilots and their widows, especially considering that a massive influx of enemy aircraft will be detected by over-the-horizon radars and early warning systems long before they reach air-to-surface range.
          And our pilots on the Su-30 and Su-35 will not be dozing off at airfields located next to the naval base.
          And another important question. How will you ensure NATO air superiority near Russian bases? The northern tip of Japan, say, from Vilyuchinsk, is 1800 km. The F-35's combat radius is 1140 km. This means that, even taking off from any Japanese base, the most modern American aircraft won't be able to get even within air-to-ground missile launch range of the Russian Federation's main anti-ship missile base. The only solution is to send a strike group. And perhaps more than one. But now it's time to remember the bastions. The Oniks anti-ship missile's launch range is 800 km, while the Zircon missile's range is 1000 km. Therefore, for any strike group to approach closer than 1000 km from the Russian Federation's shores is mortally risky. And if we also consider the MiG-31K and its daggers with a range of 1500-2000 km... or the Tu-22M3 with the same weapon on board... well, to put it mildly... the F-18 Super Hornets, with their 1000 km combat radius, have no chance of ever engaging Russian naval bases, let alone even getting within weapons range, without posing a mortal threat to their own aircraft. And to themselves, of course. Moreover, consider that an air wing on a single aircraft carrier consists of about 90 aircraft of various types. About 60 are strike aircraft. Two AUGs will provide 120 strike F-18s. Not long ago, for example, the Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command was created, comprising about 300 aircraft of various types. Including the Su-30 and Su-35. There's definitely a network of airfields in the Far East, near the main Russian Navy bases, where there would certainly be more aircraft to counter the scenario you described than two carrier strike groups. My point is that the NATO air wing would have to operate in conditions where the enemy would be numerically superior in the air. And what kind of air superiority are you planning to ensure there?
          "Dagger strikes against Western submarines with ballistic missiles with an approach time of less than 5 minutes." Thanks for making me laugh. Considering that the US has ancient Trident missiles in service for "dagger strikes"))) On combat duty since the 80s))) and the equally ancient Minuteman, if we're talking about land-based missiles. Therefore, the approach time to silos located near the Ural Mountains, for example, would take 30-40 minutes. But certainly not 5. In 5 minutes, Russia would likely be able to strike an American naval base with a Zircon missile from its multipurpose submarine, located 300 miles away. A US multipurpose submarine wouldn't be able to do even that. Because the speed of a Tomahawk is like the speed of a passenger airliner. That is, 8 times slower than a Zircon missile.
          The only possible threat here is if US multipurpose nuclear submarines were to wait for Russian SSBNs right at the base's exit. But then again, SSBNs could fire directly from Pierce, if necessary. And even today, the Pacific Fleet's fleet complement is sufficient to handle deployment needs. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the Pacific Fleet's fleet complement.
    3. +1
      5 August 2026 13: 30
      But our oligarchs distinguished themselves!
      Over the past 30 years, such a fleet of yachts has been built, the largest and most expensive in the world, that the funds spent on these toys would probably be enough for more than one division of frigates of the "improved Gorshkov" type (for example)!
      But... somehow it didn’t work out, so we have the fourth year of the SVO with a constant increase in rates.
      So, a fleet, even if not the largest, is definitely needed, consisting of modern ships of the first and second rank!
  3. +2
    5 August 2026 05: 53
    Why do the Chinese need weapons? Their economy is growing by leaps and bounds, and so are their incomes. The Chinese will simply buy up all of Southeast Asia, just like they bought up Africa. laughing
    1. +7
      5 August 2026 06: 17
      Until you have a weapon, all your money is just something you're allowed to play with. What was yours is now ours. Rostov-Papa and Odessa-Mama were well aware of this long before the revolution, and 300 yards of greenery only confirm this fundamental principle of a world governed by rules (concepts).
      1. +5
        5 August 2026 07: 31
        Quote: Victor Leningradets
        Until you have a weapon, all your money is just something you're allowed to play with.

        We have weapons, but 300 billion have been stolen from us. And what do weapons have to do with it? Our ships (coming from our ports) are arrested and searched by anyone and everyone... You also have to have the will to use your weapons. For example, an armed weakling (who can only threaten, but do nothing) might be attacked by thugs and robbed. And he'll just be surprised: "How could this happen? I was so armed!!"
        1. +2
          5 August 2026 07: 45
          If the knife is not free from the sheath
          It's less dangerous than a needle.
          Here I am - saddled and hobbled,
          My mouth is torn by the bit.

          V.Vysotsky
        2. KCA
          0
          7 August 2026 05: 16
          And how many ships sailing under the white-blue-red flag have they captured? To save money, they register ships under the flag of some dwarf island with a population of 100, and then they're surprised when they seize a tanker? What should they do? Officially, Russia has nothing to do with these ships; an attempt to protect our Navy could become a casus belli.
    2. -2
      5 August 2026 06: 36
      Quote: Schneeberg
      Why do the Chinese need weapons?

      It’s easier for them to land a troop of migrants (a couple of million) in the US and that’s it.
      1. +1
        5 August 2026 08: 38
        There are between 5,4 and 5,6 million people of Chinese descent living in the United States. This includes people born in China as well as U.S. citizens with Chinese ancestry.
        The population of the United States is approximately 349 million people (2026 estimate).
        1. KCA
          0
          7 August 2026 05: 20
          If 5 million Chinese residents of the United States start to rebel, and other legal and illegal immigrants come to their aid, the United States will be screwed.
          1. 0
            7 August 2026 07: 08
            A highly unlikely scenario. The Chinese don't have the mentality to riot. It was African Americans and Latinos who staged riots and pogroms in the US. Although the motive was white violence, they attacked Asian shopkeepers because they weren't protected by the police (the police protected white neighborhoods, leaving the "slums" to the mercy of the mobs), as in the famous riots in Los Angeles.
            At the core of the Chinese national character is a desire for internal harmony, compromise, and stability, which has historically been shaped by Confucianism. Relationships are built on respect for hierarchy, avoiding direct conflict, and seeking balanced solutions.
            Moreover, the social base is not conducive to this. Chinese Americans in the United States are employed in high technology, science, medicine, finance, education, as well as small business and the service sector. Household incomes of Chinese Americans are often higher than the average for both whites and the general US population.
            If you have a decent job and a high salary, why bother? This is for those who have nothing to lose, i.e., African Americans and Latinos.
    3. +5
      5 August 2026 11: 28
      A thousand years ago, during the Song Dynasty, China was guided by exactly the same logic: they believed they could ensure peace by paying tribute to the Khitans, Jurchens, and Mongols. But money doesn't guarantee long-term peace—and the Song Dynasty inevitably collapsed. And in the late Qing Dynasty, things reached a glaring absurdity: rulers used naval funds intended for the purchase of ships and ammunition to build imperial parks.
      The lesson of history is clear: possessing significant resources but failing to invest them in the development of science and productive forces, improving the well-being of the people, and strengthening defense capability is a direct path to repeating the tragedies of the past.
  4. +5
    5 August 2026 06: 33
    If we had maintained the Soviet navy and army at the size they were, no one would have attacked us, even under our current capitalist system. With a powerful army and navy, despite all the US efforts, China would live in peace, not like us, where all sorts of riff-raff threaten us and launch drones and missiles at us. soldier
    1. +2
      5 August 2026 12: 40
      Even if the navy had remained at the level of the Soviet-Polish one, how would that have reduced the number of missile launches on our territory? We still possess weapons capable of reaching anyone and anywhere. It's just that in five years, the Air Defense Forces haven't bothered to target those who produce and assemble weapons in Ukraine. That's the difference with the USSR.
  5. 0
    5 August 2026 06: 41
    A boorish article from a man who firmly believes in China's good, peaceful intentions. This double-edged sword is in vain, and the closest one is Russia, with which China has territorial claims, and no one has forgotten them.
    1. 0
      5 August 2026 10: 46
      While the Chinese are building their navy, every yuan invested in destroyers and aircraft carriers is worth another yuan invested in tanks and amphibious forces. They certainly don't plan to conquer Siberia with its "countless treasures" in the next 30-40 years, as no one has even seen those treasures (Russia itself buys bauxite and ilmenite from Guinea and Vietnam). So until China achieves superiority over the US in the Pacific and secures its raw material supplies from Africa and Latin America, there's little reason to worry.
    2. -1
      5 August 2026 11: 14
      No one has forgotten how many times Europe has invaded Russia. Has China ever done so?
  6. -3
    5 August 2026 07: 33
    Why turn your ships into missile carriers? A destroyer's primary mission is to protect aircraft carriers, landing craft, and transport ships, while strike missions are handled by aircraft.
  7. +2
    5 August 2026 08: 57
    Where are our destroyers and corvettes with hypersonic missiles?
    1. 0
      5 August 2026 12: 35
      Well, there are corvettes with hypersonic Zircon missiles—Projects 20385 and 20386. As for destroyers, we'll have to make do with frigates for now. The choice is between Borei-class, Yars-class, and Sarmat-class destroyers, or destroyers. Which is more important? The answer, in my opinion, is obvious.
      1. +1
        5 August 2026 16: 03
        Quote: Leontrotsky
        Well, there are corvettes with hypersonic Zircons - these are projects 20385 and 20386.
        ahahaha lol super good
        especially about 20386!! lol

        Quote: smart fellow
        As always, when China is mentioned, there are hysterical cries from provocateurs like "Nora 777" about how "China is not our friend" and "China wants to take over Siberia and the Far East."
        friend. friend of course. smile As long as there is oil at a huge discount...
        And there is no point in even making an effort to “seize Siberia and the Far East”... Near Damansky, the islands have already been given away and part of the territory has been ceded. Yes Regarding the provision "special economic zones" The Chinese, I think, also enjoy a completely favorable regime there. More so than the residents of Chita and the surrounding region, I suppose...?! winked
        We still know little about how many concessions to Chinese companies for the extraction of (rare earths, for example) the great collector of Russian lands has ceded to firms and enterprises with Chinese capital, in exchange for shares.his close associates, entrepreneurs"...
        As the KVN players sang in the parody, alluding to them, "... the guys from our yard, la-la-la la-la-la... " smile
        wink
        1. -1
          5 August 2026 23: 27
          "ahahaha l
          especially about 20386"
          Well, super or not super, but they can use hypersonic.
          And for Arleigh Burke, it makes no difference where the hypersonic anti-ship missile comes from - from a corvette or from a destroyer.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        6 August 2026 16: 57
        20386 - only "Derzkiy" was built. Current status - additional equipment.
        And so there are only 8 Calibers or 8 Onyxes.
        1. 0
          6 August 2026 22: 23
          Or 8 zircons. Which isn't so bad for a corvette.
          1. 0
            7 August 2026 12: 56
            This is in the future, I hope in the near future.
            1. 0
              7 August 2026 13: 46
              On July 1, 2024, Izvestia reported on the latest work on the Gremyashchy and its new capabilities, as well as the prospects for the 20385 series of corvettes. Citing sources in the Ministry of Defense, it was reported that the lead ship had undergone a modernization of its 3S14 missile system, enabling it to use 3M22 hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
              Well, it seems like the prospect became reality back in 24.
  8. 0
    5 August 2026 09: 06
    As always, when China is mentioned, there are hysterical cries from provocateurs like "Nora 777" about how "China is not our friend" and "China wants to take over Siberia and the Far East."
  9. +2
    5 August 2026 10: 40
    I don't get it. Who should our navy envy in terms of naval power, China or the United States? lol
    1. 0
      5 August 2026 18: 36
      I don't get it either))) China has one and a half billion people, its own closed market, and enormous export potential. But that's their country, not mine. My country is Russia, and I know its strengths and weaknesses quite well.
  10. +1
    5 August 2026 15: 15
    And Russian oligarchs with foreign citizenship have been buying themselves yachts for 30 years! Glory to the great Helmsman...
  11. 0
    5 August 2026 19: 59
    At first glance, the article seems interesting. But the author avoids
    Some of the questions are not at all minor. For example, there are
    Does China (as a nation) have experience in waging a major war?
    sea. Does China have well-trained and brave
    sailors in sufficient numbers. Are there any good ones?
    captains. Do they have their own Ushakovs and Nelsons? Well, here it is.
    The Anglo-Saxons have such experience. And quite a bit. So the force
    the fleet must be assessed not only by quantity and technical
    not only to the characteristics of the ships, but also to many others
    factors.