071 LPD thread

delft

Brigadier
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Well Ukriane could barely make Zubrs using existing blueprints, and look how badly delayed this relatively straight forward task ended up being.

Even if integrating new engines is within the technical ability of the company making the Zubrs, one really shudders at the likely delays that would have entailed.

We need to remember the time and circumstances under which the original deal was struck, and at that time, a war to retake Taiwan was a very real and almost imminent prospect. The PLA would have wanted the Zubrs delivered and operational ASAP.

Besides, as we have established, the Zubrs are short range assault platforms ill suited to long range deployments. In that respect, how much of a meaningful improvement would lighter and more fuel efficient engines have made? Especially if that came at the expense of raw thrust and maybe speed (if the weight savings are not enough to offset the lower thrust)?
The Zubr was designed in the Soviet Union where both engine types were available. Why was this choise made then? I wonder if anyone of us knows but it is still an intriguing question.
 

MwRYum

Major
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

You read like a propaganda piece for the PLA, while I have absolutely no doubt you have no backup or personal experience whatsoever for what you are posting here. Please stop with the unsubstantiated patriotic chest-thumping and turning every little thing into "Chinese characteristics".

Perhaps posting on an English site yield more than the usual 5-cent he got paid at Chinese-language site...?
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Let's turn from such pointless posturing about endurance and the art of war and get back on topic before the fat pilot sees cause to step in, I have no wish to see this thread locked.

Considering the original Zubr armament I imagine Chinese produced AK 630 or type 730 and multi role rocket/decoy MLRS launcher will be on the cards. Zubr is really an interesting ship to fit weapons upon because it's big enough to fit a few good CIWS on but really it should never be deployed in a situation where such advanced ciws are necessary to be used in the first place, and I imagine most weapons would be for basic fire support, minimal AA (which AK 630 or type 730 can fill, although I think the latter's sensor positioning may mean AK 630 is a better choice), and breaching/clearing weapons which the multi role MLRS is good for.

Good point that Zubrs should ideally never find themselves in a situation where they would need CIWS, but in war, it is best to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

With that in mind, I think that the PLAN Zubrs will be fitted with at least one hard kill CIWS, in which case, it would be a toss up between the Chinese AK630 clone, and Type 730/1030.

Personally, I prefer the '1030 because of the added benefit of radar+thermal targeting it offers, which could prove invaluable in complicated coastal areas which might pose challenges and problems for radar alone as would be the case with the AK.

The bigger cal of the 1030 should also make it a superior direct fire support weapon compared to both the AK and 730.

The 730/1030 would also bring the added benefit that only one would more than suffice, thus freeing the other mounting for other equipment.

A decoy launcher and/or MLRS or even FL3000 launcher would all be good choices, but I personally feel a quad HJ8/9 ATGM launcher with automated reloads as seen fitted to various Chinese APCs would be more useful. Such a load out would allow the Zubr to provide very potent fire support to landing troops and allow the Zubr itself to directly engage any target it might come across, be it air, sea, infantry or even heavy armor.

Such flexibility would be of particular interest to the likes of the PLA, who are only just fielding a dedicated attack helo and who might find itself with only modest fixed wing CAS even once the Liaoning and her air wing becomes fully operational.

With HJ8/9s, the Zubr itself would be able to effectively deal with any enemy armor that might have managed to hide themselves from the opening air and naval bombardment as well as any bunkers or strong points their disembarking troops might encounter.

Having said all that, I do fear it likely that the PLAN will just slap a few AK clones on their Zubrs and call it a day.

These are potent assets, and even though it was not that long since they were ordered, today, the PLAN finds itself in a different era, and the Zubr does not neatly fit into their new plans and visions of where the PLAN wants to be in the future.

With new FFGs, DDGs, LPDs, SSKs, SSNs, SSBNs and talk of carriers and LHDs, there is a good chance the Zubr will find itself very low on the PLAN's list of priorities, and as such, there might not be all that much interest or appetite to develop the type beyond what it is already.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

On the topic of CIWS, why did the PLAN reject the Kashtan CIWS included on the later Sovremenny destroyers delivered to China in the early 2000s? Surely two 30mm gatling guns are better than one, especially when paired with anti-aircraft missiles. China could've its electronics as much as it liked.

77547735.jpg

Article13i.jpg

11-003_Kashtan.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 77547735.jpg
    77547735.jpg
    11 KB · Views: 3

MwRYum

Major
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

On the topic of CIWS, why did the PLAN reject the Kashtan CIWS included on the later Sovremenny destroyers delivered to China in the early 2000s? Surely two 30mm gatling guns are better than one, especially when paired with anti-aircraft missiles. China could've its electronics as much as it liked.

77547735.jpg

Article13i.jpg

11-003_Kashtan.jpg

Think it has to do with the size and weight issue of such a unit, when you consider the principle surface combatants in the PLAN are quite...er, small. Even for 054A class FFG and 052C/D class DDG the "Chinese goalkeeper" got just about enough space.
 

Lion

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Think it has to do with the size and weight issue of such a unit, when you consider the principle surface combatants in the PLAN are quite...er, small. Even for 054A class FFG and 052C/D class DDG the "Chinese goalkeeper" got just about enough space.

Or probably it's sensor is inferior than type730?

No point having even 4 guns when it's gun can't lock on the target right?
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Or probably it's sensor is inferior than type730?

No point having even 4 guns when it's gun can't lock on the target right?

Well... That may be the case, but what if the electronic or sensor used in that system was the Chinese own Type 730? Then it will have the best of both world. I would buy into it that the main issue here was because of space constraint as pointed out by MWrYUM
 
Last edited:

Lion

Senior Member
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Well... That may be the case, but what if the electronic or sensor used in that system was the Chinese own Type 730? Then it will have the best of both world. I would buy into it that the main issue here was because of space constraint as pointed out by MWrYUM

But the problem is, it's not. When it is then we talk about it.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

But the problem is, it's not. When it is then we talk about it.

Maybe I didn't express myself clear enough, that is my mistake. Sorry.

What I mean to say was that China could install the Type 730 into that system if they wanted... however if there is a space constraint for this type of system to be mounted, then there is no point getting the Type 730 into the system.
 

MwRYum

Major
re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

The PLAN is no stranger to Kashtan CIWS, they've them on the Project 956-EM Sovremenny class DDG. The fact that the Kashtan CIWS was not copied, or its design characteristics were not emulated in local designs, whereas the "goalkeeper" and "RAM" were accepted speak volume to which way the PLAN is heading.
 
Top