071 LPD thread

[asif iqbal]

No that will just won't work

The speed and mobility of a LCAC is it's greatest strength, why make a LCU faster? Why not just use LCAC

It's like me saying I will tune my saloon car to make it more powerful so I can go off road why not just stick to a 4x4??

LCAC holds many advantages over LCU numbers are not always the answer you can always add in another LPD to make up for numbers

LCAC can go beyond just the shoreline, the Type 726 has bow and steam ramps makes reloading quicker and easier, the Type 726 does not need to ballast and deballast it can efficiently can be inserted and turned around, the LCAC can access a much wider range of beeches than a LCU can handle and a LCAC can manoeuvre inland to its primary objective

The whole purpose of being far away from the shore is so you minimise the threat of mines and anti ship missiles you won't eliminate the threat but you will reduce it and reducing a threat is enough in time of war to make all the difference this is why speed, mobility and over the horizon amphibious assault is cornerstone of MEU, China has done a fantastic job with Type 726 shows they are heading in the right direction

 

[Blitzo]

No that will just won't work

The speed and mobility of a LCAC is it's greatest strength, why make a LCU faster? Why not just use LCAC

I'll list the reasons for, some of which are unique to PLAN:
-they can potentially hold more LCUs in well decks than LPDs meaning they can launch more armour in a single wave than if they only used LCACs, potentially twice as more
-LCACs will likely be more expensive and harder to maintain than LCUs
-they will have many small landing craft left to replace and LCACs won't be able to replace all of them

I'm not saying PLAN shouldn't have LCACs, I'm saying they should have both, because a high speed LCU can still provide advantages in many scenarios and they can also potentially be cheaper and more easily produced by smaller shipyards meaning a faster increase in capability.

It's like me saying I will tune my saloon car to make it more powerful so I can go off road why not just stick to a 4x4??

LCAC holds many advantages over LCU numbers are not always the answer you can always add in another LPD to make up for numbers

LCAC can go beyond just the shoreline, the Type 726 has bow and steam ramps makes reloading quicker and easier, the Type 726 does not need to ballast and deballast it can efficiently can be inserted and turned around, the LCAC can access a much wider range of beeches than a LCU can handle and a LCAC can manoeuvre inland to its primary objective

The whole purpose of being far away from the shore is so you minimise the threat of mines and anti ship missiles you won't eliminate the threat but you will reduce it and reducing a threat is enough in time of war to make all the difference this is why speed, mobility and over the horizon amphibious assault is cornerstone of MEU, China has done a fantastic job with Type 726 shows they are heading in the right direction

If they can develop an LCAC that is as small as an LCU, as cheap, as easily produce able, while retaining all the current advantages then by all means they should only build LCACs.

Other advantages like speed, having stern and bow ramps, and having ability to manoeuvre (which is also related to speed) can also be present on a modern high speed LCU. Stern and bow ramps are even present on old LCUs so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

And OTH assaults are entirely based on speed. A high speed LCU with similar speed to an LCAC will be just as capable in the OTH assault role.
The only real advantage and LCAC has is for assaulting less accessible beaches. That is useful in some missions, but in other missions you might be more interested in simply dropping off as much armour in a wave as possible.

Asif, you make it sound like I am saying PLAN should only go for LCUs instead of LCACs, when I'm saying they should really have both.

 

[asif iqbal]

As of now the flexibility and scope of operations a LCAC does is more suited to what PLAN wants to do

We need to remember that PLAN is still in the early stages of amphibious operations they have not mastered this type of operation so the more flexible assets they bring and use the easier and more flexible they will be

The further you are from the shore the longer LCU take to reach destination, at 50 miles out 4 x LCAC take around 20 mins to reach target whereas 4 x LCU would take something like 35 mins as stand off distance increases the LCU becomes obsolete

LCU is a limited platform when compared with LCAC and as a result has more to offer PLAN

LCU is something they could add at a later date but we would probably be talking a long time from now as LCAC is the right tool for the job it would be way to ambitious to start mixing and matching LCAC and LCU most likely counter productive

 

[Blitzo]

As of now the flexibility and scope of operations a LCAC does is more suited to what PLAN wants to do

We need to remember that PLAN is still in the early stages of amphibious operations they have not mastered this type of operation so the more flexible assets they bring and use the easier and more flexible they will be

The further you are from the shore the longer LCU take to reach destination, at 50 miles out 4 x LCAC take around 20 mins to reach target whereas 4 x LCU would take something like 35 mins as stand off distance increases the LCU becomes obsolete

LCU is a limited platform when compared with LCAC and as a result has more to offer PLAN

LCU is something they could add at a later date but we would probably be talking a long time from now as LCAC is the right tool for the job it would be way to ambitious to start mixing and matching LCAC and LCU

I'm just going to highlight the part in bold, because you obviously haven't heard what I've been saying

My entire point has been that twice the number of high speed LCUs can potentially be held in the space of a well deck compared to LCACs, and that high speed LCUs should have LCAC or near LCAC transit speeds.

So if you can send 4 LCACs in one wave that takes about 20 minutes, you can send 8 LCUs in one wave that takes a similar amount of time or a little longer (say 25 minutes) — but you make up for it by having twice the number of armour in a single wave!

LCACs are good for deploying a smaller number of assets in a less accessible assault zone, but high speed LCUs can deploy more assets in a more accessible assault zone. The latter IMO is as important as the former especially for a Taiwan scenario where the PLA will have to attack both heavily defended beaches (where you want to send in as many pieces of armour on land in one wave as possible to overwhelm defences) and lightly defended harder to access areas (where a smaller number of armour is made up for by greater mobility and tactical surprise)

So I maintain my position that the PLAN should seek to produce both LCACs and high speed LCUs. Also, like I said in the last few posts, LCUs are potentially much easier to build, cheaper and easier to maintain meaning more can be acquired to replace older smaller landing craft.

 

[asif iqbal]

Reference

Department of the navy office of the chief of naval operations

Employment of LCAC US Navy and US Marine Corps

 

[asif iqbal]

So if you can send 4 LCACs in one wave that takes about 20 minutes, you can send 8 LCUs in one wave that takes a similar amount of time or a little longer (say 25 minutes) — but you make up for it by having twice the number of armour in a single wave!

.

See above graph it would take a very very long time to deploy that many LCU while a smaller number of LCAC can be turned around much quicker I think you are missing the point that LCU needs more than 30 handlers and petty officers whereas LCAC require only well deck master with ramp Marshalls

 

[Blitzo]

Reference

Department of the navy office of the chief of naval operations

Employment of LCAC US Navy and US Marine Corps

Yes -- and they are using LEGACY LCUs.

Not HIGH SPEED LCUs.

Here is my original post, note the part in bold

Develop a high speed LCU using the same water jets as 022, to give it a 30-40 knot speed (or at least faster than the 10-12 knots of most LCUs today).

The entire point of my last few posts is that the PLAN should look to invest in incorporating modern, proven propulsion and a modern hull form to develop a high speed LCU with near LCAC speeds!
I'm not saying this is achievable or that they should ONLY build high speed LCUs, but rather there are lots of potential advantages to a high speed LCU (which I've mentioned to exhaustion) and could potentially complement LCACs greatly in the differing situations PLAN may face.

 

[asif iqbal]

I do not know why you would want to reinvent the wheel and as a result I think we are going around in circles too good day

 

[Blitzo]

See above graph it would take a very very long time to deploy that many LCU while a smaller number of LCAC can be turned around much quicker I think you are missing the point that LCU needs more than 30 handlers and petty officers whereas LCAC require only well deck master with ramp Marshalls

Nowhere on the graph does it say that LCU needs 30 handlers and petty officers and that LCAC only requires one deck master and ramp marshalls.

I see the graph as only showing the time necessary for various different LCAC or LCU numbers to transit a distance -- in other words, SPEED. And as I said, this graph uses legacy LCUs with SLOW SPEED, therefore it is invalid with my proposal which is of a HIGH SPEED LCU.

 

[Blitzo]

I do not know why you would want to reinvent the wheel and as a result I think we are going around in circles too good day

It's not called reinventing the wheel, it's called making the wheel spin faster, more efficiently.

LCACs are expensive -- high speed LCUs are potentially cheaper
LCACs won't be procured in large numbers to replace current small landing crafts -- high speed LCUs can be procured in large numbers
LCACs are complex air cushion platforms -- high speed LCUs are potentially much simpler meaning more can be built by small and less advanced shipyards (like 022 was built by many small shipyards)
LCACs are larger and less can be stored in a well deck -- high speed LCUs with similar transit speeds can be stored in twice the number as LCACs
LCACs are able to carry a payload to a less accessible drop zone -- LCUs are limited to accessible beaches
LCACs are a little less vulnerable to sea mines -- LCUs are a little more vulnerable to sea mines


Out of all of these, only the last two points do LCACs have advantages on. That doesn't mean the PLAN shouldn't build LCACs or that LCUs are therefore better than LCACs overall, but it does mean the PLAN should consider doing research and testing some high speed LCUs.