I think in that case a rather large asterix/qualifier would be useful if not mandatory when talking about such a role, given how much the high intensity westpac conflict scenario ultimately dominates PLA discussions (as it rightly should).
Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
I think in that case a rather large asterix/qualifier would be useful if not mandatory when talking about such a role, given how much the high intensity westpac conflict scenario ultimately dominates PLA discussions (as it rightly should).
You don't see people defending the ski ramp vs the catapult. But for whatever reason VTOL must be awesome because it looks awesome.
Well, to add the VTOL capability you need to add extra weight to the aircraft which subtracts from the payload. And if you use VTOL instead of horizontal takeoff you will cut down on payload even more. It is just plain physics. VTOL is just retarded. It is worse than the ski ramp.
The Brits ended up adding ski ramps to the Invincible class carriers so the Harrier mission payload would be less miserable. The USMC made their Harriers out of composites to cut down airframe weight and have a little more payload. But it was still trash.
The F-35B uses more modern technology so the payload is less miserable, but compared with the naval F-35C it is still trash. The F-35B has trash payload, trash range, trash G-limits, etc.
The Type 076 is a brilliant idea. With drones you can expand the operational horizon of the flat top and using less space or expensive pilots than a regular carrier would.
Well, to add the VTOL capability you need to add extra weight to the aircraft which subtracts from the payload. And if you use VTOL instead of horizontal takeoff you will cut down on payload even more. It is just plain physics. VTOL is just retarded. It is worse than the ski ramp.
The Brits ended up adding ski ramps to the Invincible class carriers so the Harrier mission payload would be less miserable. The USMC made their Harriers out of composites to cut down airframe weight and have a little more payload. But it was still trash.
The F-35B uses more modern technology so the payload is less miserable, but compared with the naval F-35C it is still trash. The F-35B has trash payload, trash range, trash G-limits, etc.
The Type 076 is a brilliant idea. With drones you can expand the operational horizon of the flat top and using less space or expensive pilots than a regular carrier would.
Last edited:
The Type 076 is a 两栖攻击舰, an amphibious assault ship. In a Taiwan contingency and Westpac HIC, there may be numerous islands that need to be neutralized. Consider these as prime examples of potential ops for the 076; they are still within the reach of land based manned aircraft.
This is not to say manned jets on the 076 wouldn't bring benefits, but they come with such significant compromises that they're unlikely to be desirable for the ship's primary purpose - again, to neutralize such islands.
This is not to say manned jets on the 076 wouldn't bring benefits, but they come with such significant compromises that they're unlikely to be desirable for the ship's primary purpose - again, to neutralize such islands.
Just think about it. Two drones or a single fighter. Which would you rather have especially on a small ship? And you will likely need less pilots, which will remain in the flattops away from the combat zone. One pilot or controller can control multiple drones with the proper software.
The only issues are what if you get comms jammed and possibly high latency. Both of which can be mitigated with autonomy.
The only issues are what if you get comms jammed and possibly high latency. Both of which can be mitigated with autonomy.
Is it needed?
There are more ski ramp carriers in existence than there are catapult ones.
Not having to work with landing strip is often less retarded, though. For example, when you establish forward presense.
A bit harsh on arguably best and most succesful modern attack aircraft out there (no, not A-10).
Harrier consistently operates through its life with higher payloads than Ukraine/Gulf average(high intensity scenarios), and more than 5th gen fighters tend to work with.
I.e. it lifts quite alright, probably more than normal for its weight class(~6 empty/14 mtow).
Are drones LW or dumbies? Because former will benefit from a control node, and latter are...so-so capable.
Also, drones are still fixed wing aircraft. All take off and especially landing concerns valid for straight deck carriers are fully applicable to them.
Last edited:
On which takeoff mode? Probably not the VTOL mode.
Does it matter? vertical takeoff isn't biblical obligation, it's capability. Just as vertical landing. Especially in case of 076, where you can EMALS that VTOL into the air with any payload you want.
It's some sort of religious dispute tbh, when people are "for" or "against" just because they like or dislike the notion.
If you are secure about your decks/landing strips and don't plan to go off them - you don't build or own VTOL.
If you want to establish forward air presense in conditions, where airstrips may or not be available - you design VTOL.
If you can't afford good deck - you look for VTOL.
Simple as it is.
If you don't use the VTOL mode then why waste resources in it in the first place?
IMHO there is no good reason why such missions could not have have been done with a STOL like a MiG-29 instead of a Harrier.
I suspect the Chinese TVC 6th gens like the J-50 will also have fairly good STOL capabilities.
IMHO there is no good reason why such missions could not have have been done with a STOL like a MiG-29 instead of a Harrier.
I suspect the Chinese TVC 6th gens like the J-50 will also have fairly good STOL capabilities.
Well, VTOL was always more about landing rather than take off in the first place. As such, there is no much contradiction.
You use vertical take off only when you truly need it (emergency take off, short range initercept/CAS from highly restricted pads).
It isn't difficult to apply it to 076 and chinese doctrine in general. When you don't need vertical take off part - just don't use it; EMALS lets you launch with more or less same launch weights, and performance difference between modern VTOL and CTOL jets is marginal and is away from their actual combat capabilities(radar, electronics); you land much easier though.
And in cases you actually need it (contested beachhead, where it's better to land air power and move ships out of threat range ASAP) - you use 100% of it. The latter is classic scenario, ambushing fleets tied down to landing zones is classic WW2 thing.
Or, when ships were forced away for other reason, before having actual airfields to "drop" airpower - and as a result, landed forces suffered massively.
Mig-29 requires actual identifiable landing strip(or full angled deck for carrier use).
Last edited:
Easy to accomodate, no opportunity cost, merely being bigger cost almost nothing.
Sensible change regardless of launching fixed wings. Seems like every ship class is going somewhere similar.
Little extra to add that does not get in the way. All supporting system is included for other reasons regardless of EMAL, so may as well just add the EMAL.
Too early to tell. It is completely normal for old ship class being built long after the first successor is being completed.
Personally I do see 076 as an successor to 075, even if they are different. 075 is focused around deliver a large amount of landing force efficiently, under heavy protection. This reflects the old mindset of PLAN securing peripheral regions. 076 is a mobile global operation base that is relatively independent. The shifting priority of the country will lean more and more to latter.