Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Q-Ships | Can Containerships Be Missile Carriers? | Club-K Carriers?" video.

  1. Containerized TEL are cheap enough they don't need to be magnificent, just plentiful. The US is fond of fielding small numbers of highly effective systems, but those systems cannot be in two places at once. Chinese ships can dispatch from Chinese ports and not enter foreign ports at all if the missiles are to be used. Chinese ships do not need to hide their missiles to be a threat, and NOT hiding them makes a credible deterrent! Chinese ships do not need to be "Q" ships though the idea excites normies. They need only be disposable missile platforms good for one launch at the beginning of conflict. The "Q" nonsense is a media distraction. As both TEL and missiles are developed the angle of launch will cease to matter. Power is easily provided by containers fitted with gensets. Fuel is easily provided by flat rack tank containers and common hose and fittings. Power and plumbing quick disconnects are long solved problems. Second-layer containers could be fitted with passageways, power raceways, piping and gasketed connections between containers like the diaphraghms between railway passenger cars but with positive mechanical connections (ideally flanged QDs but bolts work fine).. They do NOT need to remain at sea at all times which would be a maintenance nightmare. Damage control doesn't matter because no one is more expendable to Beijing than its own troops. As with Russia there is a tradition of blithely expending manpower (see Mao's comments on nuclear war and take my word for nothing). Sinkings have little domestic visibility and even less in the bloodbath of an invasion. Crew survival doesn't matter because people lost at sea can be written off as heroes. The ships could be expended during an initial launch at Taiwan and supporting targets. They are easily replaceable over time.
    1