071 LPD thread

[Blitzo]

For instance, 022 is powered by two diesels (four waterjets) rated at over 5000 kw total

The British LCU Mk 10 at 240 tons full displacement with two diesels for 800 kw total, max speed 10 knots, length 29.9m, max beam 7.4m, and is able to carry an MBT, or four AFVs or 120 troops. AKA 70 tons

The 071's well deck can accommodate a 16 m beam LCAC, so can accommodate a pair of Mk 10 sized LCUs in the space of one LCAC no problem, and can accommodate 8 LCUs in the space of 4 LCACs...

If they can develop an LCU within those dimensions with a 20+ knot operational speed using 022 propulsion... then they could have a winner of a ship to shore connector for blue water, and for shore to shore operations in TW scenarios. The small size means if a good design is settled on, they can produce it at many smaller shipyards simultaneously like 022 and 056, for a rapid build up of flexible amphibious assault capability.

The challenges are obviously whether propulsion can be held by what is a relatively small hull, and also whether they can design a hull shape of those dimensions and sufficient carrying capacity to be a worthwhile design. (Waterplaning or a more exotic catamaran design like the BMT FLC?) But I think it warrants investigating..


The LCM-1E is also a good design, albeit with a smaller displacement and lower operational speed than would be liked.

 

[shen]

For instance, 022 is powered by two diesels (four waterjets) rated at over 5000 kw total

The British LCU Mk 10 at 240 tons full displacement with two diesels for 800 kw total, max speed 10 knots, length 29.9m, max beam 7.4m, and is able to carry an MBT, or four AFVs or 120 troops. AKA 70 tons

The 071's well deck can accommodate a 16 m beam LCAC, so can accommodate a pair of Mk 10 sized LCUs in the space of one LCAC no problem, and can accommodate 8 LCUs in the space of 4 LCACs...

If they can develop an LCU within those dimensions with a 20+ knot operational speed using 022 propulsion... then they could have a winner of a ship to shore connector for blue water, and for shore to shore operations in TW scenarios. The small size means if a good design is settled on, they can produce it at many smaller shipyards simultaneously like 022 and 056, for a rapid build up of flexible amphibious assault capability.

The challenges are obviously whether propulsion can be held by what is a relatively small hull, and also whether they can design a hull shape of those dimensions and sufficient carrying capacity to be a worthwhile design. (Waterplaning or a more exotic catamaran design like the BMT FLC?) But I think it warrants investigating..


The LCM-1E is also a good design, albeit with a smaller displacement and lower operational speed than would be liked.

Don't forge the hundreds of small to medium LCU owned by PLA rather than PLAN.

for example

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

Those vessels are not sized appropriately to make the best use of 071's welldeck and also lack front + rear ramps which are preferred for well deck loading, and while they are useful in any cross strait scenario, they are a little bit too slow and vulnerable at 10-12 knots maximum.

I would like to see all the other older LCUs replaced with a newer standardized landing craft at 240+ tons max displacement that can be embarked upon LPDs and LHDs or operate from shore bases, with endurance and range that approaches that of the UK Mk 10 LCU (14 day endurance and 600nmi range).

022s have replaced older PLAN FACs on a competitive basis, and the new 056s will likely replace obsolete 037s, torpedo boats and jianghus in a green water patrol and ASW role. I think the next step is to overhaul the small landing craft fleet with a modern, nimble, and multirole equivalent.

In a TW scenario, I can envisage multiple landing forces made up of LCU squadrons each carrying an MBT or multiple IFVs, escorted by small draft 056s in formation, with frigate or destroyer air defence and helicopter gunship overhead, in support of larger LPD and LST assault groups, for a continual 20-30 knot approach from bases to shores.

Distributing landing forces among many high speed LCUs also mean you can make each individual tank or IFV less vulnerable to anti ship missiles or helicopter gunships simply through the sheer quantity of individual targets.

 

[shen]

Those vessels are not sized appropriately to make the best use of 071's welldeck and also lack front + rear ramps which are preferred for well deck loading, and while they are useful in any cross strait scenario, they are a little bit too slow and vulnerable at 10-12 knots maximum.

I would like to see all the other older LCUs replaced with a newer standardized landing craft at 240+ tons max displacement that can be embarked upon LPDs and LHDs or operate from shore bases, with endurance and range that approaches that of the UK Mk 10 LCU (14 day endurance and 600nmi range).

022s have replaced older PLAN FACs on a competitive basis, and the new 056s will likely replace obsolete 037s, torpedo boats and jianghus in a green water patrol and ASW role. I think the next step is to overhaul the small landing craft fleet with a modern, nimble, and multirole equivalent.

In a TW scenario, I can envisage multiple landing forces made up of LCU squadrons each carrying an MBT or multiple IFVs, escorted by small draft 056s in formation, with frigate or destroyer air defence and helicopter gunship overhead, in support of larger LPD and LST assault groups, for a continual 20-30 knot approach from bases to shores.

Distributing landing forces among many high speed LCUs also mean you can make each individual tank or IFV less vulnerable to anti ship missiles or helicopter gunships simply through the sheer quantity of individual targets.

IMO constraining PLA LCU with the dimension of 071's well deck dimension would be the same type of mistake as insisting on C-130 transportability for US army armored vehicles. Too much trade off. The benefit of commonality mainly comes from shared parts, not in the external dimensions. Better to have one class of LCU optimized for 071, another for land based purpose. I also don't think 071's LCU need to be particularly fast. No sense in wasting the existing investment in LCAC, let's perfect that machine. 071's LCU can be slow, but reliable, cheap to operate and has larger load capacity. Don't complicate it with fancy hull form, just reliable workhorse.

 

[Blitzo]

IMO constraining PLA LCU with the dimension of 071's well deck dimension would be the same type of mistake as insisting on C-130 transportability for US army armored vehicles. Too much trade off. The benefit of commonality mainly comes from shared parts, not in the external dimensions. Better to have one class of LCU optimized for 071, another for land based purpose. I also don't think 071's LCU need to be particularly fast. No sense in wasting the existing investment in LCAC, let's perfect that machine. 071's LCU can be slow, but reliable, cheap to operate and has larger load capacity. Don't complicate it with fancy hull form, just reliable workhorse.

I think the benefit LCAC brings is being able to transport vehicles and cargo through terrain that LCUs and other landing craft cannot access (i.e.: anything other than a beach) rather than only having high speed.

There are a number of high speed LCU-esque designs that have been proposed and developed of late leveraging new technology, I think the PLAN would do well to follow that trend.

The point of investing in a high speed LCU is exactly because it should be simpler and cheaper to develop and build than LCACs. Hull form should not exacerbate costs -- 022 was a very unique hull form for FACs a decade ago, but it was still produced en masse and at cost. Similarly, using proven propulsion can also make such an LCU affordable to operate and build.

LCUs won't be able to access unconventional landing sites, but there's no reason they cannot have higher transit speed than legacy LCUs.
I've never liked the idea of fielding LCACs as a primary ship to shore connector. They have high speed, and can open up a potentially wider number of landing areas, but their beam is too great, and can only carry the same cargo as one LCU where as two LCUs can fit in the space of one LCAC. Not to mention cost and maintenance issues.

---

As for constraining LCU dimensions for a well deck, I think that depends on what kind of LCU we want to field and what kind of cargo it can haul. If it can match or exceed an LCAC's capacity while meeting speed requirements, and have dimensions that allow twice the number of LCUs to be fielded for one LCAC, then I think "constraining" its size so two can sit side by side in the well deck makes sense.
If a size constrained LCU can barely haul an MBT, then obviously such a design should be rejected and alternatives should be sought, or the requirements should be trashed altogether.

The point I'm making is that LCUs of the kind of payload and dimensions I'm talking about do exist, and high speed versions of such landing craft are being developed, and PLAN should look into it as an alternative for LCACs and also as a replacement for legacy small landing craft.
It is good to have reliable workhorses, and the PLAN should seek to develop a newer workhorse with improved capability (namely speed and flexibility). Nothing too ambitious about that; no more ambitious than replacing older missile boat workhorses with stealthy, datalinked and fast 022s or replacing 037s with higher endurance, multirole, and better equipped 056s.

 

[shen]

I think the benefit LCAC brings is being able to transport vehicles and cargo through terrain that LCUs and other landing craft cannot access (i.e.: anything other than a beach) rather than only having high speed.

There are a number of high speed LCU-esque designs that have been proposed and developed of late leveraging new technology, I think the PLAN would do well to follow that trend.

The point of investing in a high speed LCU is exactly because it should be simpler and cheaper to develop and build than LCACs. Hull form should not exacerbate costs -- 022 was a very unique hull form for FACs a decade ago, but it was still produced en masse and at cost. Similarly, using proven propulsion can also make such an LCU affordable to operate and build.

LCUs won't be able to access unconventional landing sites, but there's no reason they cannot have higher transit speed than legacy LCUs.
I've never liked the idea of fielding LCACs as a primary ship to shore connector. They have high speed, and can open up a potentially wider number of landing areas, but their beam is too great, and can only carry the same cargo as one LCU where as two LCUs can fit in the space of one LCAC. Not to mention cost and maintenance issues.

---

As for constraining LCU dimensions for a well deck, I think that depends on what kind of LCU we want to field and what kind of cargo it can haul. If it can match or exceed an LCAC's capacity while meeting speed requirements, and have dimensions that allow twice the number of LCUs to be fielded for one LCAC, then I think "constraining" its size so two can sit side by side in the well deck makes sense.
If a size constrained LCU can barely haul an MBT, then obviously such a design should be rejected and alternatives should be sought, or the requirements should be trashed altogether.

The point I'm making is that LCUs of the kind of payload and dimensions I'm talking about do exist, and high speed versions of such landing craft are being developed, and PLAN should look into it as an alternative for LCACs and also as a replacement for legacy small landing craft.
It is good to have reliable workhorses, and the PLAN should seek to develop a newer workhorse with improved capability (namely speed and flexibility). Nothing too ambitious about that; no more ambitious than replacing older missile boat workhorses with stealthy, datalinked and fast 022s or replacing 037s with higher endurance, multirole, and better equipped 056s.

I'll try to address the points separately. sorry, don't have patience to write long post

The countries which are building fast LCU don't have LCAC. The faster speed is necessary for launching assault landing further from defended beach. Since China already have LCAC for OTH beach assault, I don't think the complication for slightly faster LCU is worth the trouble. I see LCU as useful to logistics after the initial assault wave, and probably more likely for humanitarian soft power missions to locations without suitable port facilities. Neither of which requires faster speed.

 

[Blitzo]

Well a big reason for PLAN to invest in high speed LCUs IMO is entirely because they can potentially be built cheaper in greater numbers, with other reasons like carrying more load than a LCAC and also more can be held in a well deck.

I'm not entirely convinced of the need to be able to conduct landings in all kind of terrain like what LCAC provides, especially for PLAN missions. That said, even if PLAN buys enough LCACs to equip all it's LPDs, there will still be situations where LCACs won't be necessary and where a more conventional beach assault using LCUs will be useful — and of course, PLAN probably won't be able to buy enough LCACs to replace all it's smaller LCU and landing craft. An affordable next generation capability in alternative to LCAC should be prudent.

The biggest draw for a high speed LCU in the end IMO, is its relative cheapness and lower technology versus LCAC, and the likelihood of being produced by multiple smaller shipyards meaning greater proliferation of new capability.
I'm not saying LCACs shouldn't also be produced, but I think there is rationale for both a high speed LCU designed for beaches and a high speed LCAC designed for other landing environments, with the former being cheaper and more proliferative than the latter.

 

[Lethe]

If China were looking to expand her amphibious deployment capabilities as rapidly as possible, then I could certainly see the advantages of LCU. However, if we acknowledge that LCAC has any role to play in China's future, then it seems to me that today's modest requirements for deployed capability square quite well with the relatively expensive, R&D-heavy nature of LCAC -- paving the way for the future, as it were, rather than seeking to maximise capability in the present.

 

[asif iqbal]

The only problem with LCU is that it can't be used for a over the horizon landing like LCAC

LCU just does not have the operational flexibility of a LCAC which can land armour deep on a enemy beechhead

Landing infantry on a enemy beech under fire would mean suicide for a amphibious landing force you will need armour

I think going for LCAC was a very wise decision for China

4 x LCAC inside a single Type 071 LPD is a pretty big load they could easily also hold 15-18 IFV in the forward compartments too plus 4 x Z8 helos that a serious force

A dozen such LPD would carry a large brigade of marines with plenty of speed

 

[Blitzo]

The only problem with LCU is that it can't be used for a over the horizon landing like LCAC

LCU just does not have the operational flexibility of a LCAC which can land armour deep on a enemy beechhead

Landing infantry on a enemy beech under fire would mean suicide for a amphibious landing force you will need armour

I think going for LCAC was a very wise decision for China

4 x LCAC inside a single Type 071 LPD is a pretty big load they could easily also hold 15-18 IFV in the forward compartments too plus 4 x Z8 helos that a serious force

A dozen such LPD would carry a large brigade of marines with plenty of speed

What I am suggesting is a high speed LCU, which will allow for OTH landings. However, the whole value of OTH landings are in question because most countries would have land based ashms with range well in excess of 100km anyway.

However I do think having faster landing craft whether they are LCU or LCAC, is of value, if only to shorten travel time.

The problem I see with LCAC is that an 071 LPD can only carry four of them. That means in one wave, then can only bring four MBTs or twelve IFVs maximum. I think to properly storm a beach, you need to bring in as much armour as you can per wave.
A high speed LCU that can carry the same load as an LCAC but with half the beam, means you can potentially double the armour you can launch onto a beach per wave

The only limitation of an LCU compared to an LCAC is that LCUs won't be able to assault non accessible zones beyond the beach that an air cushion craft can access. But I believe there will still be many amphibious assault missions the PLAN will face which revolves around attacking accessible beaches.

If China were looking to expand her amphibious deployment capabilities as rapidly as possible, then I could certainly see the advantages of LCU. However, if we acknowledge that LCAC has any role to play in China's future, then it seems to me that today's modest requirements for deployed capability square quite well with the relatively expensive, R&D-heavy nature of LCAC -- paving the way for the future, as it were, rather than seeking to maximise capability in the present.

Sure, I agree with that.

However I do not think all of the legacy smaller landing craft will be replaced by LCACs, and nor do I think PLANs LPDs should only have LCACs at their disposal given some missions will likely require launching more units per wave at an accessible zone (where a high speed LCU will be superior) versus launching less units per wave at a less accessible zone (where an air cushion craft will be superior)

What I'm saying is not that one should be rejected over the other, but rather that a fleet of both LCAC and high speed LCU can complement each other.