Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

[iewgnem]

I know its probably not Type 076's primary concept of operations, at least right now.
But from a purely geometrical perspective, simply pairing two Type 076 together will immediately yield a combined carrier with two EMAL, the ability to takeoff and land at the same time, and total deck space larger than a single Type 003. Only difference is you can't transfer aircraft from one to the other, which can be made into a non-issue with proper logistic planning.

 

[no_name]

STOVL is for landing not takeoff, 076 does not have the angled deck and heavy duty arresting gear for safe manned ops

Not necessarily need to be manned. We've seen 2 types of unmanned combat aircraft during the 3rd of September parade. They are smaller and lighter than F-35 or J-35, but without the weight and complexity of a large lift fan and support needed for pilots it's not inconceivable that they will have similar range to F-35B or even exceeds it. They will also be lighter still after returning from missions.

 

[Blitzo]

Hypothetical 076 layouts

Notably, it appears the ship may be able to launch aircraft while simultaneously moving airframes from the forward deck to the rear. This is substantial for deck ops

I want to clarify that the skepticism/lack of value of putting fixed wing manned fighters 076 has not been about their ability to launch aircraft cyclically.

What those drawings depict are fairly reasonable flight deck dispositions for aircraft in a launch cycle, and not too different to what you'd see on a full size aircraft carrier. You have aircraft lined up behind catapults all ready to launch multiple aircraft successively one by one. Aircraft would be spotted on the rear flight deck, an on the waist/landing strip as normal, lined up to launch one by one.
(Simultaneous launch and recovery isn't a thing)

An 076 will be able to do that no problem.

The reason why 076 being a light carrier with tactical fighter aircraft is a poor idea is more due to the relatively small airwing it can embark, the likely lack of aviation spaces to maintain aircraft and their requisite munitions and fuel in useful amounts, all of which will limit effective sortie rates.

==

Also lol the drawing of GJ-21 is odd, they seemed to have made its trailing edge completely straight.

 

[kwaigonegin]

not true. it really depends on PLAN.

if you actually visit V/STOL thread then you can find many evidence. like the Lift fan, clutch, swivel nozzle and engine all tested and build. but most likely for research purpose and technology demonstrator.

China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

A patent on an inlet design for a contra-rotating lift fan filed by the China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center.

www.sinodefenceforum.com

Not sure what's not true .. I said '15 yrs if ever' meaning there is no active development of an actual naval stovl aircraft though there may be some prototyping or development on independent stovl subsystems and components.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Not necessarily need to be manned. We've seen 2 types of unmanned combat aircraft during the 3rd of September parade. They are smaller and lighter than F-35 or J-35, but without the weight and complexity of a large lift fan and support needed for pilots it's not inconceivable that they will have similar range to F-35B or even exceeds it. They will also be lighter still after returning from missions.

Not sure if you read other posts but the entire premise of the subject was about manned aircraft.
Yes, we all are in agreement that there will be ucavs operating off the 076!

 

[Syrida2887]

Not sure if you read other posts but the entire premise of the subject was about manned aircraft.
Yes, we all are in agreement that there will be ucavs operating off the 076!

In fact, the discussion on this issue is of little value, because we still haven't found similar landing aid equipment on the aircraft carrier on Sichuan, which is almost unacceptable for manned aircraft.

 

[mack8]

I'm sorry but this post is so ill informed that it's wasted like 3-4 pages of discussion.

No, it would not make sense to operate J-35 from Sichuan, for the same reason it doesn't make sense for F-35Bs to operate from American LHAs.
The lack of a high performance VSTOL combat aircraft is a wise decision by the PLA, and the existence of the F-35B (and the overall entire VSTOL endeavor by the USMC) is arguably a deadweight and compromise for the overall JSF program.


At this stage there is no reason to think 076 should operate anything other than UCAVs/UAVs as part of its regular/routine fixed wing complement.
Dreams/hopes of 076 operating manned tactical fighters (whether it's J-35, or some hypothetical "future high performance VSTOL aircraft") is making the mistake of viewing US LHA+F-35Bs as if they are a desirable capability for the PLA to emulate.




No it is not.
The short range, limited payload of F-35Bs means that US LHAs operating them in a high intensity conflict would be unable to operate at useful distances in a high intensity westpac conflict.

If you are bullying a nation without much of an air force or in an area where the enemy has no long range anti-ship/surface capabilities, or where the rest of the joint force is able to suppress the enemy to allow your LHAs to get in relatively close during war time, then sure F-35Bs will be able to outfight the enemy.

But such a capability for the US in a high intensity conflict against China is arguably a waste of finite developmental/industry resources -- and for China in a high intensity conflict against the US, such an equivalent type of platform is also a waste of resources not to mention a waste of an 076's deck space.




More relevant than "overwhelming numerical disparity" is the "relevant numerical disparity in context of geostrategic parameters".

If your VSTOL 5th generation fighter from a LHA lacks the range to operate with useful endurance and payload when operating at distances outside of an opfor's expected anti-surface and ISR capability, then what use does your LHA have?

If your 076 is operating J-35s as part of its airwing but it can barely generate a fraction of the sortie rate of a proper carrier, then why even bother giving it J-35s and why not use its fixed wing airwing to operate a type of aircraft where sortie rate is less demanding and less important -- something like UCAVs/UAVs, where they are still able to be useful despite lower sortie rates due to having greater endurance than manned aircraft while still possessing useful range?


My advice to you is to work with the underlying statement: "076 from the beginning was said to accommodate UCAVs/UAVs as its primary fixed wing complement" -- and then work your way backwards to try to reverse engineer out the idea for why manned tactical aircraft like J-35 are not part if its primary fixed wing complement.
If you accept that "J-35/notional VSTOL fighter on 076 as part of primary airwing complement" is a terrible idea to start with, then you will gradually come up with reasons for why it actually genuinely doesn't make sense.

You have your opinion and i have mine, and i think it should be wise not to believe ones opinion is inherently superior hence all others are to be disparaged. Pro and co argumentation is of course welcomed and in fact necessary on a defence forum, because that's what's discussed on such places mostly, military strategy.

Having said that, my opinion might be" ill-informed", but probably better to aim such characterization first at the services and navies that are or will operate F-35Bs from various ships, many smaller than the 076 or even 075s. Despite it's inherent limitations in payload and range, VTOL fighters are obviously seen as necessary to be had rather than not by who has the tech and who can afford it, giving a great tactical boost to ships that otherwise could only carry helos (except the brits, they were obviously drunk when they designed the QEs). The AESA radars and A-A/A-G missiles on a VTOL are just as advanced as land-based counterparts hence practically as lethal, while bringing their capabilities to the operational area that otherwise would not be possible by just helo-equipped LHAs or are too many for conventional CVs to cover. Not to mention of course the air defence capability provided.

Now, what J-35 would offer on Sichuan in comparison is an inherently superior platform compared to F-35B because it does not compromise for the VTOL requirement, so more range, more payload, more performance. This would also be another way for PLAN to having a superior fighter platform compared to the opponent flying from the respective LHAs.

Anyway, i think what PLAN will do with Sichuan in the next few years will clearly show what they chose, so it will be wise to wait until then before passing judgement on the undesirability of J-35 or even notional VTOL fighter on PLAN's LHAs (actually, come to think of it, i think PLAN needs both, but i'll address that in the 075 topic at some point).

 

[gelgoog]

VTOL manned fighters are a stupid idea period.
The requirement started in the late Cold War as a way to have some kind of operating air force in case airfields were nuked by the other side. The Brits, Germans, and French had such programs.
But if you want to do that a STOL aircraft which can operate from regular highways is much more effective. Like the Swedes ended up doing. Or the Soviets for that matter. Check the Saab Viggen and MiG-29.

The UK used the Harrier in their carriers because they had no other modern aircraft after having sank all their fighter development resources in the Harrier. The Soviets used the Flogger because they wanted air cover for their existing Kiev class carriers without catapults.

For Chinese carriers VTOL fighters are just a dumb idea when they can put EMALS even in the smaller flattops.

 

[Blitzo]

You have your opinion and i have mine, and i think it should be wise not to believe ones opinion is inherently superior hence all others are to be disparaged. Pro and co argumentation is of course welcomed and in fact necessary on a defence forum, because that's what's discussed on such places mostly, military strategy.

Having said that, my opinion might be" ill-informed", but probably better to aim such characterization first at the services and navies that are or will operate F-35Bs from various ships, many smaller than the 076 or even 075s. Despite it's inherent limitations in payload and range, VTOL fighters are obviously seen as necessary to be had rather than not by who has the tech and who can afford it, giving a great tactical boost to ships that otherwise could only carry helos (except the brits, they were obviously drunk when they designed the QEs). The AESA radars and A-A/A-G missiles on a VTOL are just as advanced as land-based counterparts hence practically as lethal, while bringing their capabilities to the operational area that otherwise would not be possible by just helo-equipped LHAs or are too many for conventional CVs to cover. Not to mention of course the air defence capability provided.

Now, what J-35 would offer on Sichuan in comparison is an inherently superior platform compared to F-35B because it does not compromise for the VTOL requirement, so more range, more payload, more performance. This would also be another way for PLAN to having a superior fighter platform compared to the opponent flying from the respective LHAs.

Anyway, i think what PLAN will do with Sichuan in the next few years will clearly show what they chose, so it will be wise to wait until then before passing judgement on the undesirability of J-35 or even notional VTOL fighter on PLAN's LHAs (actually, come to think of it, i think PLAN needs both, but i'll address that in the 075 topic at some point).

I am tired of having this topic relitigated and causing thread derailment because people think the idea of fighter equipped LHA/LHDs is a good one. for the PLA.

Navies which operate F-35Bs from small ships are not well equipped for fighting high intensity conflicts in the western pacific.
PLA fixed wing naval aviation requirements are different to those of Italy, the UK or Japan, not to mention the USMC because they all operate under differing conditions of joint/multi-domain support, and vastly differing conflict scenarios. The counter to LHA/LHD based F-35Bs is not J-35s -- the counter is long range anti-ship/anti-surface capabilities and superior joint air power implementation (both land based and sea based). There is no situation where a PLAN 076 should be combating a USN LHA/D on its own in a case where their respective fixed wing complements are launching raids against one another.

On the other hand if the PLA was intending to conduct a low intensity bombing campaign against some third rate military force, then sure using a 076 to field a J-35 heavy airwing is fine even though they lack they will lack the sortie generation.. If they are fighting a high end conflict, you are better off using your 076 more wisely.

 

[Gloire_bb]

On the other hand if the PLA was intending to conduct a low intensity bombing campaign against some third rate military force, then sure using a 076 to field a J-35 heavy airwing is fine even though they lack they will lack the sortie generation.. If they are fighting a high end conflict, you are better off using your 076 more wisely.

To be fair, for a side with desperate shortage of flattops, it may indeed be wise and normal.
Not every part of high end conflict is high intensity; great Japanese invasion of 12.1941 was supported not by kido butai(at least initially), but by second-third grade decks here and there.
And even in case of wise guys, sometimes taffy fought unwise desperate battles, when world wonder'd about wtf "true" carriers and fast battleships were even doing.

For Chinese carriers VTOL fighters are just a dumb idea when they can put EMALS even in the smaller flattops.

We should remember that we're in PLA watching, not PLA conjuring or guiding.
I.e. re: Shenyang VTOL thread, it isn't up to us.