Rumoured Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Deino said:

Hmm ... from this angle it does not look like an angled deck?!!

(via @鹿角胁立兜)

View attachment 129361

PS: regarding the still undecided discussion on an angled flight deck or not for the Type 076, at least from this view it does not look like an angled deck?!! I slowly get the gut-feeling, we maybe will see something like the RN QE2 class with a wide deck but without the ramp.

View attachment 129362

Click to expand...

At this stage I don't think we would be able to tell if there is an angled deck or not.

What we are seeing at present is still not at the flight deck level.


As for the QE class, the difference between the flight deck geometry for that class of carrier having an angled deck or not can be very small -- merely a matter of the bow port flight deck being slightly angled, protruding, is enough.

076 might have dual catapult?

Frederik_Chopin said:

076 might have dual catapult?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1788850965195718658

Click to expand...

Why should a single slot hint towards a dual catapult?

Deino said:

Why should a single slot hint towards a dual catapult?

Click to expand...

It looks like: it is the end section of the right catapult.

sequ said:

So they are building 1 LHD, 3 FFG's and 2 other ships simultaneously in one dry-dock?

Click to expand...

At present stage, I'm not sure whether those modules located at the bottom right corner of the drydock belong to any of the 3 FFG hulls currently being assembled, or belong to separate new hulls that are just starting to be assembled.

Though, judging by the estimated dimension of the drydock from EO (~440 meters x ~90 meters), they could theoretically fit an additional 1 or 2 FFG-sized hull(s) inside that drydock. Not that I'm already claiming that to be the actual case here, though.

Blitzo said:

At this stage I don't think we would be able to tell if there is an angled deck or not.

What we are seeing at present is still not at the flight deck level.


As for the QE class, the difference between the flight deck geometry for that class of carrier having an angled deck or not can be very small -- merely a matter of the bow port flight deck being slightly angled, protruding, is enough.


View attachment 129365

Click to expand...

I recall reading that the QE class was designed for an eventual angled deck after several rounds of study. In fact, even during the build there were debates on whether they should make them CATOBAR until the final decision to go with a STOVL (and a small STOBAR-type ramp.) There are even now plans in place to convert the QE2 class to CATOBAR if funding were available.

In the end, the British left off the angled deck because they had a VTOL option for its fixed-wing aircraft and during the QE's design they did not envision launching heavy drones.

With 076, China does not have a VTOL option and heavy drones have arrived as a defining weapon of the coming age. Recovering either would better served by an angled deck.

But nothing is for certain yet -- except that the construction of the 076 right now looks far more carrier (a very wide deck) in planform than the usual LHD/A.

A.Man said:

It looks like: it is the end section of the right catapult.

Click to expand...

Great catch! Ideally, there should be one with the bevel on the other side for the port catapult.

This thing is more exciting than the Type 003! LOL

GiantPanda said:

Great catch! Ideally, there should be one with the bevel on the other side for the port catapult.

This thing is more exciting than the Type 003! LOL

Click to expand...

On a second look, this might be the port (ship's left) side cat since the closed part of the trench is on the other end. The catapult trench as seen on the Type 003 is closed off before it reached the tip of the deck. Since the side facing the reader is open, the module would need to be turned around for installation and that would place on the port side. We need to look for a starboard side module to determine a pair of forward facing cats.

GiantPanda said:

On a second look, this might be the port (ship's left) side cat since the closed part of the trench is on the other end. The catapult trench as seen on the Type 003 is closed off before it reached the tip of the deck. Since the side facing the reader is open, the module would need to be turned around for installation and that would place on the port side. We need to look for a starboard side module to determine a pair of forward facing cats.

View attachment 129377

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if a up tempo operations' doctrine would make sense for a ship like this, where the primary mandate is still to perform and support amphibious operations. Every other such ship in the world, including all of the American LHAs that are outfitted as "harrier/lightning carriers" would need more than one launch position for fixed wing aircraft. Even full sized carriers like the QE sometimes have a single launch position.

So unless this is in fact not an LHA at all, but a medium carrier in doctrine and practice from the ground up, aka a non-nuclear CdG, I would have a very hard time believing that it needs multiple catapults. Whether unmanned or manned fixed wing does not really matter. So I would take any evidence with multiple catapults with a massive grain of salt, unless incontrovertible evidence exists somewhere.

HardBall said:

I'm not sure if a up tempo operations' doctrine would make sense for a ship like this, where the primary mandate is still to perform and support amphibious operations. Every other such ship in the world, including all of the American LHAs that are outfitted as "harrier/lightning carriers" would need more than one launch position for fixed wing aircraft. Even full sized carriers like the QE sometimes have a single launch position.

So unless this is in fact not an LHA at all, but a medium carrier in doctrine and practice from the ground up, aka a non-nuclear CdG, I would have a very hard time believing that it needs multiple catapults. Whether unmanned or manned fixed wing does not really matter. So I would take any evidence with multiple catapults with a massive grain of salt, unless incontrovertible evidence exists somewhere.

Click to expand...

Even if you never operate at a tempo that requires two catapults, it is still nice to have two catapults so that a fault or damage to one catapult does not prevent the ship from performing one of its primary functions.