071 LPD thread

[Jeff Head]

The attempt to introduce new "connectors" is a desperate attempt to whitewash that downgrade of USMC amphibious capability.

No, it most definitely is not.

The connectors are not a desperate attempt to whitewash anything associated with the AAV, You simple are mistaken in this. The LCACs need to be replaced with or without new AAVs. That's what the connectors are for...a replacement for the LCAC.

The Chinese have their own LCACs and I believe some day will field a successful design.

The Chinese already have a strong capability with the amphibious armored vehicles...each of their IFV versions carry very few soldiers. US doctrine is for the AAVs to carry a lot more troops and to protect them in to and immediately on shore,. Using them in an urban environment as an IFV was not their intended function and they are not designed for that role. It is a mistake, IMHO, to use them like that. But that us beside the point and not a part of this discussion.

My point in bringing up the three ways the US transports troops to shore amphibiously is simply to show that the Chinese are already working on two of those methods with their own amphibious program. I also believe they would be wise to develop an LCU capability...particularly with their current slow development of the LCAC.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

The main aim of the Connectors is the same as the existing connectors mission to transport for the Marines this vehicles and equipment not suited to full amphibious use. Case in point the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, medium tactical trucks, PAC3 batteries, Humvees, tank recovery vehicles, LAV25s. Platforms for whom if you tried to float them in on a beach landing, you would end up with a very very expensive artificial coral reef. EFV and AAV are now and have always been intended to be a armored landing ship. Intended to get Marine infantry to the fight on the beach ASAP. As conflicts have changed however the AAV has lagged in fire power. When AAV entered service its main threats were infantry so a Ma Duce and a Mk19 were enough. Today the threats are bigger so the EFV modeled a 30mm bushmaster cannon.

PLA and US doctrine are very different when I comes to operations. The PLA model has emphasized moving forward from the sea to shore with little transition. Its armor is light, its fire power heavy. It aims less I see at holding more I think at fast raiding. There small infantry loads, heavy firepower fast speed shows a lightning strike beach attack backed by slower reinforcement.

 

[Blitzo]

The main aim of the Connectors is the same as the existing connectors mission to transport for the Marines this vehicles and equipment not suited to full amphibious use. Case in point the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, medium tactical trucks, PAC3 batteries, Humvees, tank recovery vehicles, LAV25s. Platforms for whom if you tried to float them in on a beach landing, you would end up with a very very expensive artificial coral reef. EFV and AAV are now and have always been intended to be a armored landing ship. Intended to get Marine infantry to the fight on the beach ASAP. As conflicts have changed however the AAV has lagged in fire power. When AAV entered service its main threats were infantry so a Ma Duce and a Mk19 were enough. Today the threats are bigger so the EFV modeled a 30mm bushmaster cannon.

I think the key point we should acknowledge is that the USMC is abandoning the ridiculous idea of having an assault vehicle meant to travel to the beach from OTH distances on its own. That was never going to be achievable, you'll need a 40 knot water speed for that.
The new doctrine of using LCACs/Ship to shore connectors is basically their way to achieve the desired OTH assault strategy. Of course, they can already do this via existing LCACs, but they're going to make it more formal now.

PLA and US doctrine are very different when I comes to operations. The PLA model has emphasized moving forward from the sea to shore with little transition. Its armor is light, its fire power heavy. It aims less I see at holding more I think at fast raiding. There small infantry loads, heavy firepower fast speed shows a lightning strike beach attack backed by slower reinforcement.

At this stage PLAMC is still evolving, I think, and I think it is technology which is limiting doctrine rather than the other way around. That said, I agree that PLAMC is more focused on assaulting and securing beach heads and fighting on islands rather than acting as the main spear in an assault force into the inland regions of a country like USMC.
Instead, once a beachhead is secured, sealift will bring regular PLA in with the cavalry.

Whether PLAMC will have its own MBTs in future, and whether they integrate LCACs into a primary method of ship to shore transportation ala USMC is another matter.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I think the key point we should acknowledge is that the USMC is abandoning the ridiculous idea of having an assault vehicle meant to travel to the beach from OTH distances on its own. That was never going to be achievable, you'll need a 40 knot water speed for that.
The new doctrine of using LCACs/Ship to shore connectors is basically their way to achieve the desired OTH assault strategy. Of course, they can already do this via existing LCACs, but they're going to make it more formal now.

no they haven't, they have postponed it due to budget. The Requirements have been graphed into a phase 2 Amphibious Combat Vehicle. With Phase one being a replacement for the LAV25 based on the existing work for the MPC to use connectors. Phase 2 would emerge some time in the 2020s possibly being a EFV re dux or something else entirely.

At this stage PLAMC is still evolving, I think, and I think it is technology which is limiting doctrine rather than the other way around. That said, I agree that PLAMC is more focused on assaulting and securing beach heads and fighting on islands rather than acting as the main spear in an assault force into the inland regions of a country like USMC.
Instead, once a beachhead is secured, sealift will bring regular PLA in with the cavalry.

Whether PLAMC will have its own MBTs in future, and whether they integrate LCACs into a primary method of ship to shore transportation ala USMC is another matter.

That is agreed. As is today the I would say that the PLANMC is more Naval Infantry then Marines. The whole of the PLA is still deep in transition from a soviet model to a more independent Chinese. That being said there choices of landing craft show a preference of ground vehicles over air power. And seem to show a closer range emphasis. Which is logical as the PRC's interests are routed at there own sea lanes but indicates that they would be strongly reliant on being close to friendly mainland.

 

[asif iqbal]

Does anyone know if the Type 071 LPD can be used a hospital ship I mean do they have operation theatres etc?

 

[Blitzo]

I would be surprised if a ship of its size didn't have at least medium sized accommodation and operating theatres.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Does anyone know if the Type 071 LPD can be used a hospital ship I mean do they have operation theatres etc?

There were many photos of the operating room on the 071 posted earlier.

 

[asif iqbal]

There were many photos of the operating room on the 071 posted earlier.

Really can you repost ?

 

[asif iqbal]

999 looking good

 

[Deino]