Recent images from Chinese social media show a standard commercial cargo vessel refitted with sensors, defensive weapons and containerised launchers.
The conversion looks experimental, yet it suggests a pathway for turning ordinary merchant tonnage into armed auxiliaries.
Instead of cargo, the deck is stacked with containers that act as mounting platforms. Some support radar arrays or other sensor enclosures near the bridge. The layout looks improvised but deliberate, as if intended to give the ship more situational awareness than a simple missile barge. The systems visible are consistent with air search and guidance tasks, although their level of integration is unclear.
A gun-based close-in weapon system is positioned near the bow with decoy launchers nearby. These installations indicate an expectation that the vessel could be targeted and would need some measure of last-ditch protection. Most striking is the field of containerised launch modules arranged across the deck. Each container appears to house multiple tubes, creating a significant battery in aggregate. Comparable warships rely on purpose-built vertical launch systems, so the idea of approximating that capacity with commercial fittings is strategically unsettling. Exactly what munitions these containers could hold is unknown.
The overall configuration implies a role beyond simply ferrying weapons to a shore installation. The addition of sensors points towards a picket or screening function on the edge of a defended area, offering extra coverage or extra launch capacity without committing a major combatant. The broader takeaway here is that China continues to explore how its massive commercial fleet could augment naval power in a crisis.
Look Trump, theres sanctioned oil on that ship!!
Looks impressive, but no ASW(?), so a subs dream.
😆
Thing is if you build those VLS in between a container stack and have the radar on erector hydraulics also in the middle of the stack then it looks like a cargo ship.
If from the top you put blow off panels in place over the VLS how do you know what it is from overflight?
Having missiles in container on a ship is all Russian gangster bling and completely useless.
Any modern armed merchant cruiser need only embark a helicopter. This gives them stand off anti ship missile range, ASW capabilities as well as the ability to board and capture other commercial vessels.
Given the tiny size of all modern navy’s (even China) in any global conflict such ships would rapidly become the norm for trade interdiction missions.
Well weight of firepower is a thing and landing a very large number of missiles on a target – say UK base Crete – would change the local calculus.
This is a calculation about being able to get 3-4 of these things in place and then plastering a target with munitions from all points of the compass to overwhelm local defences.
At some point leakers will get through and if they are targeted at the defensive system then the next wave will be catastrophic.
Like China could care once they have 50 or more of them. They apply the same logic as Ivan, everything and everyone is expendable because there are loads more in the box.
Yep people just cannot seem to accept the massive level of maritime overmatch that China has developed..
And here we are barely arming the RN.
True, though from what I have just read the early US naval cutter inspired frigates are going to be armed little better than the actual cutters, built for but not with any real weaponry. Now where have I heard that before.
Well not even built for, there ain’t room for VLS
From what I’ve read they may be getting 16 VLS in between the bridge and 57mm gun. Still a lot less that the Constellations were going to have.
First batch at least will have none
So less capable than if they’d just taken FREMM as is?
Way way less.. you are looking at a ship with a 57mm gun, RAM launcher and 8-16 NSM. Essentially it has minimal self protection against air attack and no ASW… where as FREMMS are pretty well armed ( an Italian Frem has a 5inch gun, 76mm with DART guided rounds, 2 25mms, 16 ASTER 15 and 40, 8 Strike missiles, light weight torpedoes and 2 ASW rotors. )
It’s worth remembering than the Royal navy is the only navy to fight a high seas battle since 1945 and it has always counted deck launch anti ship weapons as a secondary or even tertiary capability.
That last place you ever want to be with your very expensive surface combatants is close enough to an enemy to fire missiles and as we seen with the Moskva, deck mounted rockets can be a massive fire hazard posing as much if not more danger to the ship than the initial missile hit.
Almost any modern warship hit by a missile has faced fire as the main threat and the main risk of the fire is detonating the ships own missiles.
I also hate to think about damage control on that. A modern warship hit by, for example a spear 3 might at best MK a modern surface combatant. A spear 3 hitting a cargoship that’s been stuffed full of VLS cells? That’s going to be a very big boom at some point.
Good point
That presupposes that you care about that and that the containers around it are not just stuffed with low density blast and shrapnel absorbing materials.
I imagine you want your arsenal ship to actually fire it’s arsenal and not turn into a fireball because a passing F-35 lobbed a low cost lightweight antishipping missile at you.
We dont have any stand off missiles on our F53Bs do we. We need to demand the codes from Trump and Lockheed like they have given the Israelis. I can be done.
We also need the USA to stop looking at Defence through the prism of an opportunity to scam your friends. I know people have taken advantage of them for too long but the British Empire never charged for Pax Britannica did they? In the Napoleonic wars we never did, nor in WW1 or WW2 or maintaining world peace between times. They were all done on the basis of ‘To whom much is given much is required’. OK its true, we did have Empire Preference which the USA assiduously dismantled after 1945. We shot ourselves in the foot by joining the EU and pssng off CanOz. Stupid stuff.
I was specifically referencing Spear 3 which is currently in trials on Eurofighter and due to be intigrated onto F-35. Spear 3 is an annoyance to most major warships, something they have to waste an interceptor on to avoid an MK, but unlikely to sink a ship, but perfectly capable of detonating a Merchant ship with a load of heavy weight anti-shipping missiles in containers.
We absolutely charged for Pax Britania, we just did it through the expectation of gaining colonies, since the prevailing economic thought at the time was Mercantile self-sufficiency with Colonies, not wealth generation through international trade.
I suppose you would need to build armour lining for the shipping containers with missiles.. if your dealing with a bulk carrier you could use whole banks of shipping containers as blast and fire brakes.. you could play clever with your stacks as well.. essentially you could work it so you magazines are essentially isolated within the stack using containers full of Argon or other inert gases.
So in other words start spending warship level amounts on damage control.
Is a container full of inert gas expensive.. nope it’s cheap as chips..so damage to the stack is not really the issue.. the main issue is it’s a merchant hull and it 1 hit in the machine space and it’s done.. so you would not even go near the stack.
Why this is a problem is that china builds 70% of the worlds container ships and 99% of the worlds shipping containers..so it can churn these like T34 on the eastern front.. and they are easy to hide…this would mean the USN would not be able to concentrate in the western pacific without leaving the US and world-wide US assets open to attack. So either the USN deals with these essentially attritional assets and fights with only a fraction of its force in the western pacific ( and it will loss that force if it does ) or it concentrates and suffers blows from these ships…
China as the only world power that now thinks in a maritime way understands a fundamental of maritime conflict.. numbers matter.. and the side with the greatest numbers wins the maritime war.. because the sea is vast and there are huge numbers of strategic points that need cover or can be attacked.. in the end the RN become the preeminent world navy.. not because it had the best ships or was infact the best crewed and lead navy.. it was numbers.
I respectfully suggest that the RN which was generally outnumbered at each of the important battles of the Napoleonic Wars was, in fact, by far the best led and the best manned Navy.
I would note that the RN was the biggest navy in the Napoleonic wars and essentially used its numbers to bottle in and contain the navies of France and Spain.. the reason the RN became the best lead and most experienced was that it had the numbers to be everywhere and have the freedom of movement to practice and be the best.. the far smaller french navy spent its entire time bottled up in port not able to practice..
The RN did not become the best lead and most experienced navy through luck .. it was that way because it had more ships in more places.. it vastly outnumbered its enemies..
In 1812 the RN had 120ish ship of the line, about 200+ frigates and other smaller vessels making a fleet of about 600-900, France on the otherhand had about 80 ship of the line, 100 frigates and couple of hundred smaller vessels.. even in 1812 the RN was bigger in size of any two enemy navies.
But at the Same time the RN had the most ships, with crews and officers free to train.. they had inferior ships..French ships were better designed than British ships, we did not even have the biggest battleships infact our ships of the line were generally smaller than the French and Spanish.. with the Océan-class at 5000 tons on the French side and the Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad on the Spanish side.. all carry around 130-140:guns.. the large RN first rate ships like victory had about 104 guns.
Finally I specifically said wars..not battles sometimes smaller numbers can win battles.. but navies with far smaller numbers do not win wars against larger navies ( of the 29 largest naval conflicts the largest navy has has won on 27 occasions)… because the final arbiter of maritime conflict is mass.. HMS massive can win the battle it’s in.. but it’s the enemy ships in 100 other places , hitting your shipping lanes, ports etc that stifling the lifeblood of trade that ends the war.
A container full of inert gas will not stop a fire. The fire burns the container, the gas dissapates, and the fire continues, because it doesn’t have the damage control to undo a fire, and then bang goes the magazine. Even a small surface hit, as long as it starts a fire that a small merchant crew can’t fight, is enough to total a container ship carrying explosives.
There’s a reason Naval resupply ships aren’t just container ships with inert gas and missiles in containers.
But in the end the Lords and masters of the PLAN don’t actually really give a shit.. they can build a container ship in 6-8 weeks have many many hundreds of them and could replace the entire fleet of Chinese owned containers ships in 6 months to a year.. and they would most definitely not give even half a shit for the crew… being able to survive a hit would be nice but if you can replace it in 6 weeks and it’s one of about 800 you own…..
…is all a pointless waste if your container ships keep detonating before launching their missiles because something breathed on it.
Yep but if you actually want the USN running around shooting these things and not concentrating in the western pacific.. then it’s a win.. if the USN has to send out surface vessels and SSNs to kills these it gives the PLAN space to do what it wants.. the CPP would quite happily send these off knowing they will die if it means they can gain sea control in the first Island chain.
I don’t think so seem to grasp that the USN will be out to sink Chinese Merchant ships *ANYWAY*
The other containers would be filled with junk bought and paid for by the US. I wonder if a container filled with American bought rice or toys would provide enough ballistic protection around the VLS containers?
Like the point GB made a couple of years ago about the Chinese amphibious ship on fire with clouds of black smoke.Royal Navy would have use low smoke insolation on the cabling.Chinese, probably not
In reality this is probably are far more useful development than Trumps golden fleet of battleships. Potentially stealth in plain sight if further developed, which I would have doubted had it not been for the abilities of Russia and indeed others rogue shadow fleet to operate without significant eyes on them, even in the Baltic it seems. But that’s probably not the prime function of this development, potentially it gives a massive uptick in strike and defensive capabilities that can be generated in immense numbers quickly. Unlike a USS Defiant they would not as such be a significant loss either and just distinguishing them as targets could be a nightmare. Of course they are anything but aesthetic so it’s not an idea that the US might consider even on its captured tankers no doubt though to my squinting objective eye it has all the aesthetics of a horizontal Trump Tower… just with red rust rather than gold tackiness.
I suspect Trumps ‘battleship’ design started out as a large destroyer to replace the Ticonderoga class cruisers that are nearing retirement. The two 5” guns were probably added because Trump wanted more guns and to placate him over the railgun (which he’d probably otherwise reject in the same way he hates EMALS). Wonder whether they’ll resume work on their own railgun or simply buy the Japanese one.
I suspect the USN will delay construction until after Trump is prised from the White House.
I mean, lay down is 2030 anyway. I don’t think it’ll happen
Sensors are probably going to have less than ideal positioning due to the fact that they weren’t considered in the design, particularly with regards to blind spots due to the superstructure. But if used as an arsenal ship, it could receiving targeting data from a warship. Of course the Chinese government might stipulate that future commercial builds might have to follow specific design rules that make sensor-fits easier.
TWZ calculated around 60 launch tubes which gives it 2/3rds of an Arleigh Burke for a fraction of the cost.
It’s one way to quickly add mass to fleet, given warships take years to build. Wonder how many VLS containers could be loaded onto a Point Class.
I mean, this could hardly operate as a warship does, but if you need to do a planned strike or want distributed defenses this works
Agreed it could only really operate
(a) for a sneak attack, but it would be a suicide mission
(b) in concert with a warship for land-attacks, ie arsenal ship
(c) in concert with a warship for convoy duty, using its VLS for air-defence missiles
I’ve seen speculation it could be for air defence of landing beaches, which justifies the cheap hull a lot more given the sheer number of any ships that would be required.
That giant blind spot doesn’t look helpful given RN experience at San Carlos water, though.
Is that how Taiwan would defend against Chinese forces landing on its beaches though? I would expect the Taiwanese air-force to focus on Chinese vessels far from shore, and leave the vessels in the shallows to shore-based anti-ship missiles, and ground forces dealing with any Chinese that made the beach.
If it was having to use its air-force so near the beach, then things would be looking pretty grim for them…
Terrain following missiles are a thing much more than they were at the Falklands, and any manually guided suicide drones will have similar trajectories to manned fighters.
Huh?
Sorry, that wasn’t very coherent.
I was trying to say that the sort of low-level air defence where the opposition (Taiwan) are using the surrounding terrain to try to attack ships very close to shore would still happen, given China’s apparent focus on landing ships unloading directly onto the beaches.
That said, the west of Taiwan is where most of the flat plains are, so it wouldn’t be quite the same as the Falklands.
Cool thanks for expanding on that.
They could place them in their Belt of Ports before any outbreak of war making them very hard to attack. We should take all this seriously and start defending the homeland and Overseas Territories. A dangerous signal.
Or distributed threat which is what I suspect this is… have 100 of these across the globe mixed in with the 800 ish owned Chinese container ships and you have created a real head spinner for the USN
I’m sure Felixstowe and Rotterdam will look forward to welcoming the Chinese navy on a regular basis 🤔
This looks “wrong”. Open lifeboats? Weird location of dome housing, presumably, electronics, so that it is blanked by the superstructure. No sign of consideration having been given to survivability. And an elderly bulk carrier, which is what this must have been, has an elderly bulk carrier’s one compartment watertight integrity with no counter-flooding, an elderly bulk carrier’s fire-fighting ability and an elderly bulk carrier’s speed of fourteen knots in a moderate sea state.
This is a joke.
It isn’t a joke when it has crept up, electronically dark with its cargo ship AIS on, on somewhere and loosed off its full VLS load and flattened it.
The fact it has achieved its aim is all that matters and then gets sunk isn’t a factor at all.
If the load-out could be better disguised with the VLS tubes between container stacks then it would be very stealthy and had to distinguish particularly if the radar and comms could be hydraulically erected from within the container stack.
I think I seen that in a bond film once 😀
The problem with such vessels is that missiles and VLS are very expensive. Missiles will run out in the first few days of any conflict and sticking a bunch of them un protected on a cargo ship and hoping to sail up close to an enemy fleet with them seems like a sure fire way to loose them.
Where is the ship getting the targeting data from? Any ship in a war zone with its AIS transponder turned off is likely to be a massive target. If the idea is to for instance target the US fleet in port with a sneak attack that’s a good way to get your country glassed and a submarine cruise missiles strike is much more likely to be successful.
If you want to shower your enemy with cruise missiles much better to kick them out the back of a cargo plane or fired them from a submarine.
Also the idea that a Chinese Merchant ship with AIS on wouldn’t be a target is a bit optimistic. If I’m a NATO Admiral, and I see Merchant Ship heading my way with it’s AIS on, the first thing that’s happening is I’m dispatching either some fast air to take a look at it, or a helicopter with Marines on board with the orders to seize it, and it’s cargo.
The Chinese have already flown drones broadcasting as RAF Typhoons, so I imagine these ships will broadcast as if a third country, and given the number of cargo ships coming close to the US it would be impossible to check them all. For a suicide mission the crews might not even know, might not be a Chinese vessel. Just ensure containers loaded on top, and fire all missile when near target, like spiderweb. Bad day for the crew.
Not really. Missiles aren’t quad copters and require a bit more than just “put container on ship.” Especially if you want them to hit anything of value. And why is “near the US” relevant here? This is an arsenal ship to provide extra missiles for the navy to target naval ships. Simply do what the UK did, declare an exclusion zone and state that any ships sailing through it are targets.
The point is, it sails up, and let loose with all the missiles, BEFORE the war has begun.
Alternatively, it accompanies a warship as an arsenal ship. The issue there is that it reduces the speed of the warship considerably.
The container ship could preposition close to the target, and then wait for the warships to speed in, provide anti air and launch land attacked missile. Of course if the warships have to retreat suddenly the cargo ship will be in trouble.
At Donald Trump’s expense, I think. Looking at the plans for Legend frigates and ‘golden’ battle cruisers I’d say the Chinese have got the US rattled.
Don’t think this passes for a container ship and if ‘unloading’ at a port it would also be obvious.
It would pass without the sensors and deck gun, and with the launch-tubes stowed in the horizontal position. Question is how long does it take to raise them to vertical position before firing?…
Are the Editors really sure that this low quality image is not “generated by A.I.”?
Who puts a gun mounting on a container stack? The recoil would demolish it instantly, and how is the ammunition supplied?
Why are the liferaft cases two boxes up from the weather deck?
What does the load line mark actually say?
I think the Editors are pulling their readers’ legs.
I mean I doubt those containers are regular containers, could well be far heavier and solid
The ship is in ballast. Look at the waterline. Anything much heavier than an empty regular ISO container (tare weight 3.6 tons) in that position is going to have an interesting effect on her stability. And how is it secured? Regular twist locks and lashing rods?
It’s a spoof. Well done, the Editor, and lets see what you come up with on the first of April.
Not a spoof, it’s been reported and verified on various other websites.
Yup, looks really fake to me too. The sort of fake pic often seen on Youtube.
I really fear for the future with so much AI fake stuff everywhere.
Naval News confirm it is real and visible on commercially public satellite images, so it looks legit.
Cool, that’s good to know but It still looks fake to my eyes, just goes to show how easy it is to confuse reality with AI nowadays. Just Imagine If we used AI during the D Day build up.
For full transparency, it’s emerged that the translated text on the sides of the containers reads ‘Containerised weapon module development kit’ so it’s more likely to be a mockup or a publicity stunt by a defence contractor than a fully deployable weapon system, like a really extreme version of XV Patrick Blackett.
The principle is still there and the ship definitely exists, but it may not even be owned by the PLAN.
From xcom/DavidWangPLA/status/2004556760846307775
I think you have put your finger on it! Well done!
Incidentally, the view ahead from the wheelhouse leaves a lot to be desired😉
Nice bit of advertising!
Most of the development ships are not owned by the PLAN.. remember this is a communists state essentially the government owns and controls everything.. the shipbuilding companies build whatever the CCP tell them to..
And just like that you’re completely and utterly wrong, yet again.
Are you OK Hun ?
Are you completely and utterly sure I’m wrong ?
🤔😎
It’s appeared on a lot of US Military social media analysts, I wouldn’t be hasty to dismiss as a spoof and UKDJ is not known for such. Naval News has the same story and the vessel is apparently visible on commercial satellites.
As for gun recoil, ISO twist locks are required to be able to resist 15 tonnes equivalent of lateral force, with four per container. They’re pretty strong.
👍🏻
Ahh, Weapons of mass destruction vibes again then !
Having the launch tubes means the containers will have to be stacked differently, it will look noticeably different and it will be ship which doesn’t visits ports. The tubes are also exposed and not within the hold of the ship.
Yup, I’m thinking It’s looking more like a delivery of equipment for one or two new builds. I have found a few much better pictures that are Hi-res so can be viewed in close up detail. Virtually everything on show Is currently being fitted to the 076, 055 and 054 ships that China Is building In good numbers.
But WTF do I know ? 🤔😁
This is a ship that can be build in 6-8 weeks and many hundreds in a year.. if your planning a long attritional war.. what better platform to keep a widely distributed threat going… because this is the ultimate attrition surface strike vessel.. able to lay down a devastating attack.. but utterly replaceable…
Does that mean open season on Chinese cargo ships? since now they need to be considered naval warships. you can’t have it both ways.
Previously discussed here on ukdj that loading an arsenal ship with expensive missiles is putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Is this the china message that merchant shipping is to be weaponised during’ peacetime’ ? More obvious threat is drone release from these ships in a western waters / port.
Who needs water-tight bulheads and armour when the CCP thinks you are disposable.
A modern take on a ‘Q’ Ship 🙄.
What about damage control?
What about warship standard CBRN and hardening.
These things would be mincemeat if hit, surely?
Well based on the Chinese attacks on the Glorious Gloucesters at the Battle of Imjin River, China doesn’t have a problem with its people becoming mincemeat if the objective is achieved.
I wonder If things might be different 75 years later ? 🤔🙄🤦♂️
I think Spocks point was, they’ve over a billion people, they care not about casualties!
My point on the vessel itself is valid, but again, if China can churn them out.
Total war. Where are our versions and how much would be spaff converting them.
Crew less of course!
Yup, I got his point and added another angle. China has moved on staggeringly since 1951 and even more so in the last 20 years. I’m guessing they might just have seen the light since those days. Hence their Incredible Military build-up and technical advances we see daily.
Add to that the 1 Billion plus “Meat Grinder” bodies and it all adds up to a total nightmare should we ever have to go to war.
Nope… this is a nation that considers suffering to be a actual positive.. Mao killed about 20 million of them and they love him like a saint.
Hmmm, fair point regards the crews. Not the distant example, but now. They’ve the people to use even more than Russia has.
In my personal experience, Chinese merchant seafarers working for the big companies are much like any other merchant seafarers, but rather better paid (in the case of the officers, much better paid). Of course, one could assemble a crew of fanatics in any country, and the “volunteer Coastguard” does seem to consist of nutters, but they play with fishing boats, not deep sea ships.
Years ago, in the Seventies, Cosco ships sailed from PRC ports with a Bofors gun on each bridge wing; these were for defence against Chiang KaiShek’s air force and were struck below and concealed before arrival at the first non-Chinese port. This was incredibly unpopular with the crews and the officers, who were only too glad to see the back of them, much as the British officers of Hong Kong ships were glad to dump their anti-piracy revolvers and rifles in 1967, on the grounds that they were never going to shoot a crew member, but they could not be quite so sure about what a crew member who got hold of a firearm might do with it.
Much more recently the crew’s and the officers’ reactions to the idea of merchant seafarers being armed against Somali pirates was just the same aboard Western and Chinese ships – “absolutely no way!” and the armed guard companies stepped into the breach employing ex servicemen.
Hi Andrew.
Thanks for that.
Sadly the entire Chinese merchant marine is an extension of the Chinese communist party as such all Chinese shipping companies are built into war planning and must participate by law.. as do all the merchant seafarers..there was a great old report about it..
The report states that unlike the U.S. Merchant Marine model, where government officers and crews take control of leased ships, regular crews of civilian ships are inducted as militiamen and required to attend military training under the direction of the China’s National Transportation War Preparedness Office. Training includes the following topics:
marshaling, assembly, and sailing in formation;
use of military communications equipment and procedures;
self-defense and mutual defense; rescue and first aid;
military loading and unloading techniques;
basic knowledge of the operating environment from a military perspective;
operation of equipment particular to their assigned support tasks;
knowledge about their supported unit and their role in that unit’s mission;
knowledge about enemy threats they will face; and topics such as “dockless unloading”
Essentially they are a pre prepared war asset.. as is everyone in China.. it’s a communist country they are all first and foremost essentially assets of the CCP.
Mate they can build these in 6-8 weeks and have the capability to build about 1700 large cargo vessels a year.. they can build more of these than the US has torpedos..I’m not joking either.. the US has a stock of about 1000 Mk48s and builds about 70 a year.. I really don’t think sometimes it’s easy to actually picture the maritime industrial overmatch that China has achieved..but yep China can build more of these than the US can build torpedoes to sink them….
Assuming everything can keep working, without Weston spare parts of course
Let’s be honest what this is – it’s a perfectly disguised arsenal ship.
Naval vessels are easily recognisable. When China eventually goes for Taiwan, the USN and Taiwanese Navy now have to not just focus on the limited number of easily identifiable Chinese Navy ships, but any cargo ship in the area (and you can bet there will be plenty) now has to be considered as a potential combatant.
You can guarantee that those missiles/launchers/onboard CMS can all me linked to their naval ships and launched remotely.
This way, China can saturate the area and a large percentage of their offensive capacity is distributed, disguised, and lost in the mass of commercial shipping.
It enables them to dictate the strategic picture.
💯%
It isn’t though. Dr Alexander Clarke spoke about this last night, his estimation is that a Container ship with a CIWIS and Radar, as well as riding very high in the water with very few containers is going to stand out on any naval radar, and it only has 60 missiles, which is not much of an arsenal ship.
Better than no ship
Arguably not.
And as of October 2025 China had on its order books 74% of all container ships being build…
Trumps HMS massive is going to have to somehow be in hundreds of places at the same time.
China is innovating to fight a global maritime conflict.. I’m not sure how many more red flags are needed.
If China was really looking at this as a serious capability for war fighting do you think there would be pictures all over the internet.
Every time someone sticks containerised missiles on a ship they come back thinking it was a bad idea.
This is just a propaganda piece.
If China wants to lunch a massive missile barrage at Taiwan it can do it from trucks in mainland China.
If you go back a year this was the period that China shocked the West with photos of not one, but two, tailless sixth generation aircraft performing test flights.
Hi Jim when it comes to military capabilities china does not really do propaganda pieces.because they are not much looking to deter a war, they are very much of the belief you hide your strength and simply us every means to win it. They will put out the odd official piece on a major obvious national asset they cannot really hide and can be considered inspirational.. but for most of it they don’t report and they don’t tell… they have ships the west only knows about from satellite pictures..this was from a picture taken by a private citizen enthusiast.
This is not about a direct attack on Taiwan.. they have plenty of missiles to essentially flatten anything they want to in the first island chain, this is about them exploding how you overwhelmed the USNs ability to manage threats across the globe so they can attack US assets and undertake a long war to strategic and political exhaustion.. when you know what the Chinese paradigm of the protracted war is, you can see how these will fit in.. they can keep sending them anywhere at little cost to attack the US anywhere..
Consider the Atlantic. It will be a nightmare, if any container ship can be a maritime or land strike asset it negates the USNs SSN force ability to manage the threat in the Atlantic as the SSN would have to race around physically looking at each container ship..it becomes even worse in the pacific and Indian ocean.. as it is the USN would need to concentrate almost all its assets in the western pacific to win that campaign.. china is presently building its capabilities ( SSNs, carriers, light carriers, large amphibious vessels, large surface action groups) to force the USN to spread its limited assets across the globe..china knows that it cannot put a carrier battle group in the Atlantic and expect it to live long enough to be a threat that changes the strategic field of play.. but if it’s hiding serous strike capabilities in 50 container ships in the Atlantic..or slipping then into the Atlantic is normal shipping routes.. the USN will need to put considerable assets into the Atlantic that are no longer fighting the PLAN.. honestly this fits hand and glove into Maoist warfighting paradigms.. in actual more concerned about these as a red flag than the carrier.. because these only have a single purpose ( attacking the US).
Red flags or no, spoof or real container VLS barge.. none of the really matters.
The main problem we have in the West is simple, since our covid spending spree to keep us all paid, our various countries have gone into extreme deficit.
Any future enemy only need do something to unsettle the markets on a big scale, and our economies pan.
We have all read the history all the countries that try to fight a war with no money.
Sadly our issue is not to just buy more tanks, planes ships… it is to get rid of as much of our debt as possible before the next confrontation.
Most of our governments are quietly try to do just that.
In the meantime STUFT is not new, we did just the same to augment the RN in the past.
This vessel is most probably real, and most probably has a few extras added to make it look like something it isn’t; It’s not a picket, it is a potential VLS barge (one of many) for launching a massive off axis strike on military infrastructure within Tawain. It will no doubt receive targeting data via a similar system to out Link 16.
We are not in a good place, and our global supplier of products (China) is a few years away from showing us just what place we are in.
Anyway… so for the downer, happy boxing day, and wish you all a super New Year.
Apologies for the spelling mistakes… and no I’m not trying sell China on you… just think our governments can’t seem to see the wood for the trees.
Here’s hoping I’m wrong.. way way wrong.
Except the USA which is increasing its debt…
I would say it’s even worse.. this is about massive off axis strikes on the only enemy that can really fight china anymore and that is the U.S…. This is about creating threats across the globe against the U.S.
Missiles on container cargo ship is rather silly. And not likely workable, maybe only 15 or so, small missiles– a waste of effort. If it works, they stole the idea from Ukraine who hid drones in transport trucks to wipe out Russian bombers.
In a shooting war every one of China’s Merchant ships would become a target”Just in case “.
Not much it could do against a heavyweight torpedo from 30+ miles away as its hardly an ASW ship. It’s a way of getting VLS tubes to sea but fighting it on its lonesome in a shooting war? Not practicable.
Gun that is about 30% of the entire worlds deep water merchant fleet.. and that is today.. china can build 250 million tonnes of deep water shipping a year.. and while the USN is a off across the globe killing a merchant fleet china can replace in a year.. what is the PLAN doing to the 10-20% of the USN that’s left in the western pacific.. so the U.S. shuts down world trade and in exchange gets its fleet decimated in the western pacific.. the PLAN want the USN spread..its now the U.S. that is the smaller force in numbers, moving forward the only option for the US is to consolidate all it’s available carrier battle groups and SSNs and draw the PLAN out into a second island chain bloodbath.. hoping its experience and doctrine wins out, because in a decade it’s going to be half the navy the PLAN is and it’s the PLAN that are at present the innovators in shipbuilding and design with the USN building a 40-45 year old design as its main surface combatant.
The US subs are going to decimate China’s surface ships and subs.
QEs deployment to the Far East a few years ago showed how far beind China’s sub fleet is compared to Allied forces.
UK T23 and Merlin where holding China’s best subs at considerable range. S2087 performance is one of the major reasons the USN binned their in house VDS development and will buy CAPTAS/S 2087.
They can build quick yes but it will be sunk as quickly.
If it all happens now or within the next five years I would completely agree with you.. but the picture post 2030 is looking very different as their are pressures on both ends that are going against the USN and they don’t seem to be able to get out of them
1) the LA crisis.. the USN by 2035 will have lost all its LA class and the LA class make up just under half its fleet.. in that timeframe the USN will be very very luck if it gets 10 new Virginia class boats.. so by 2035 the USN sub surface fleet will be about 34-37 Virginia class and 3 sea Wolf.. with its present maintenance infrastructure has about 37% of its boats awaiting maintenance and without dive certs.. so by 2035 the USN is looking at having maybe 21 boats available for worldwide deployment… if it’s deploying 6 carrier battle groups and 6 amphibious groups into the pacific.. that’s it it’s used its entire SSN fleet..as part of screens for its most important major surface combatants ( its carriers and amphibious vessels).. to fight a pacific war the USN doctrine requires a fleet of 66 SSNs with only about 25% out for maintenance giving it about 40 available boats.. it’s down about 20 SSN deployments to fight the war.
2) the Chinese SSN fleet technical skills , long rightfully described as a joke.. by 2035 it will not be.. infact their a chance it will go toe to toe with the USN SSN fleet.. why because that last class was all about iteration of specific technology it had stolen from the UK and purchased from Russian and a number of western nations..as well as a step change in its CNC capabilities.. they have now started serial production of their last poor SSN and because the have now perfected tilling, rafting and propulsion it’s considered that the type 093B to be a standard to a flight 2 LA class ( that is a threat).. but and this is the big one due to hull size it could not have a full deck raft and due to power density issues with Chinese reactors it needed a dual reactor design.. now just consider that.. it’s an SSN with shit bones ( duel reactor and no deck raft).. but it’s still up to the standard of a flight 2 LA, that essentially means china has everything else right, its individual equipment rafting, it’s tilling, it’s precision engineering and its pump jet propulsion all must work to get a sub that works while have shitte fundamental building blocks..and the final nail in the coffin is that 8 years ago Russia sold china the plans for a marine nuclear reactor with a power density of 150mw so they can now build a large hulled SSN with a single reactor and they have started building that class already the 095.. now this is a large design, so it can have the full deck raft and it’s a single reactor design.. because china has everything else down to pat, most agree this will be if not a full peer of preset build western SSNs close enough that it will not matter.
3) industrial capacity.. china was for 30 years happy building SSNs at about the same rate as the UK builds them.. in a 4 bay facility in about 2018 they build what is essentially a nuclear submarine mega factory.. they added small module factory ( building about 6-8 modules at a time) a large module factory ( again building 6-8 modules at a time), a 2 chamber reactor fueling facility, 12 SSN bays, 8 SSBN bays.. for the ability to lay down 24 nuclear submarines at a time.. they are now building another set of bays ( probably around 12 SSN bays ) so now they are building 24 nuclear boats at anyone time and soon it may be up to 36.. they will have launched 12 Type 93B between late 22 and probably the end of 26.. its estimated that they will now have the capability to launch up to 8 nuclear boats a year moving forward and that the first couple of type 095s will be launched by 2030.. its very possible that beyond 2035 they USN will face.. 6 bits of crap, 12 boats that are flight 2 LA analogs and 12+ peers SSNs as well as the AIP fleet of 30+ and the 20 older standard electric boats… that will be 30 nuclear boats and 50-60 conventional boats v about 40 nuclear boats and the longer after 2035 it gets the more peer SSNs china will have..
For me it’s not the war today.. if the U.S. decided to pre-empt WW3 I think they would win now.. by 2030 I think it would be a flip of the coin on who out suffers the other and which collapses in strategic exhaustion first.. beyond 2035 I think the USN will stand little chance against an navy that will in most areas be double its size…. Name me a maritime war ( not battle) in which the side that was outnumbers 100% won ?
Hello Jonathan, regarding all the comments and apparent “Verrified” pictures on other sites regarding this armed cargo ship, I’ve been having a little look around and i’m still not convinced.
In some pictures (not shown here) you can see a 076 very closely behind. It’s the latest assault ship with the rather distinctive features. Could It be that this cargo ship Is actually just delivering a mixed load of Radars, Missile launchers and VLS Tubes for various other ships in build ?
I mean why are all these parts painted PLAN Grey If they are trying to deceive and disguise /
I know you have a wealth of Interest and knowledge so thought I’d run It past you !
I don’t think so I would say they are testing the concept of turning a merchant into a viable surface combatant..if they were just delivering it would not be set up as a viable set of systems.. the radar and sensors up high, the CIWS on the bow and the soft kill in deployable positions.. this is looking at levering their overwhelming numbers of merchant ships, merchant shipbuilding capabilities… when you consider china has probably around 800 owned container ships…but it can build large container ships in 6-8 weeks from keel to to launch..it generally knocks out about 100-200 container ships a year depending on orders.. but has the capability to build about 1700 mixed ships a year .. it could knock out a lot of these.
Well It was just a thought.
It was a good one and we can hope 👍
The crew of these cargo ships, are they motivated and paid enough to go to war or would they skip ship at the next port? Are china ships all crewed by Chinese nationals currently?
Well as for motivation.. yes they are, the Chinese love their nation as much as the crews of the British merchant marine did in WW2 and during the battle of the Atlantic.. as for crewing china has 2 million registered merchant seaman and the ships in its state owned shipping companies generally run on all Chinese crews. Infact in the Red Sea ships have now started putting “ ALL CHINESE CREW” in their identification systems to potentially deter attacks.
In a shooting war every one of China’s merchant ships would become a target because the West would rather see good going to the bottom of the sea than feeding the chinese warmachine anyway.