071 LPD thread

[ZTZ99]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

So, basically you wasted an entire paragraph attempting to say that you were arguing for something different, when you really weren't.
At least we can agree on less than 2 rows and 55t being failure.

It's rather humorous how you being unable to understand what I'm saying has somehow been turned into me wasting a paragraph.

That was my point. If they have amphibious armour vehicles (tanks and IFVs) that do not need LCAC, what additional values does something that cannot carry MBT bring to the table? Why would they need to get LCACs to carry a few ZBD-03 to the shore, when ZBD-05 and ZTS-04 can get on the shore without it?

You seem to have a very unnecessarily narrow focus on MBT's. If the USN LCAC could not load an M1, it would still have a massive capability in lifting multiple items of just about everything else. Multiple LAV's, Humvees, trucks, troops, cranes, crates, etc. to shores unreachable by any other delivery system. If the PLAN LCAC does not have the ability to load an MBT, it STILL has this revolutionary force multiplier of a delivery system.

Also, a beach assault is all about delivering as many forces onto a given beach as fast as possible and sustain it as long as possible until you push back the defenses from the beach. You don't plan on only vehicles deliverable by LCAC or only vehicles that can swim to shore by themselves. The 071 will very likely carry a mix of limited (or non-) amphibious vehicles to be delivered by LCAC and fully amphibious (EFV-type) vehicles to independently arrive at shore at the same time as the LCAC's for a massive assault force. This force would be multiplied over several 071's and 081's, each delivering their forces from 40-50km out to sea for an OTH attack. This means your ZBD-03's, ZBD-05's, ZTS-04's all at the same time, and MBT's if the LCAC is capable.

btw, this is from a Chinese military magazine (modern ships) comparing the Chinese to American one. It shows the Chinese one been longer and wider than the American counterpart. You can make your own assessments based on these overhead diagrams. Not sure if it's dimensions are accurate, but it's powerplant figures should be. Looks like the Chinese ones have higher thrust and should be able to carry the same payload as American ones.

I'm also not sure if its dimensions are accurate. Maybe, maybe not. Same for the engine. On this point, we will just have to see.

the 3320 did have 30m+ in length. your guys can check via GE. but for width, I think it is not very accruate.

I don't think it's that long. The well deck is no more than 120m. If it can load 4 LCAC's like the official diagrams suggest, it should be less than 30m in length.

 

[ZTZ99]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

BTW, judge for yourself if your diagram sounds reasonable, with a 16.8m width for the PLAN LCAC and a 13.3m width for the USMC LCAC:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW, notice the midline mooring line holes on the deck of the USMC LCAC that are absent on the PLAN's version, a fatal point which you have ignored. Notice the inconveniently placed vent structures. Notice the narrow front ramp.

 

[yanyan25]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

length

 

[Lion]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

BTW, judge for yourself if your diagram sounds reasonable, with a 16.8m width for the PLAN LCAC and a 13.3m width for the USMC LCAC:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BTW, notice the midline mooring line holes on the deck of the USMC LCAC that are absent on the PLAN's version, a fatal point which you have ignored. Notice the inconveniently placed vent structures. Notice the narrow front ramp.

Nice clear pictures, this picture more or less confirm my belieft PLAN LCAC can squeeze 2 humvees abreast.

Yes.. USMC one can squeeze 3 humvee abreast but PLAN LCAC is much longer, Meaning PLAN intend to load 2 MBT on one LCAC but that will makes a loading ton of at least 90tons... unless is 2 Type59 MBT. But that will be not much of tactical value.

 

[ZTZ99]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Nice clear pictures, this picture more or less confirm my belieft PLAN LCAC can squeeze 2 humvees abreast.

Yes.. USMC one can squeeze 3 humvee abreast but PLAN LCAC is much longer, Meaning PLAN intend to load 2 MBT on one LCAC but that will makes a loading ton of at least 90tons... unless is 2 Type59 MBT. But that will be not much of tactical value.

Oh good. You have not heard a thing I said.

Even the USN LCAC cannot load two MBT's, whether they are M1's or type 59's. Regardless, you have failed to provide a reason why there are no midline mooring line holes (do you understand what these are for?). It's fatal to your desires and so obviously must be ignored if you wish to continue believing in this fantasy. I don't doubt that at certain points on the deck the PLAN LCAC can "squeeze" in two Humvees side by side, but that is not the issue at hand. Your posts up to now clearly reinforce the fact that you are missing the point.

 

[terrorhunter]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Oh good. You have not heard a thing I said.

Even the USN LCAC cannot load two MBT's, whether they are M1's or type 59's. Regardless, you have failed to provide a reason why there are no midline mooring line holes (do you understand what these are for?). It's fatal to your desires and so obviously must be ignored if you wish to continue believing in this fantasy. I don't doubt that at certain points on the deck the PLAN LCAC can "squeeze" in two Humvees side by side, but that is not the issue at hand. Your posts up to now clearly reinforce the fact that you are missing the point.

true but thats assuming the PLAN plan to anchor their vehicles the same way the USMC does. from the picture there's these 2 lines with holes studded in them. maybe the pla vehicles are anchored front and back and not the sides? i mean its just a speculation but its definitely possible. that way there's no problem loading 2 vehicles side by side without needing an anchor rail down the middle

 

[tphuang]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

It's rather humorous how you being unable to understand what I'm saying has somehow been turned into me wasting a paragraph.

you seem to be writing a lot more than me, just a thought.

You seem to have a very unnecessarily narrow focus on MBT's. If the USN LCAC could not load an M1, it would still have a massive capability in lifting multiple items of just about everything else. Multiple LAV's, Humvees, trucks, troops, cranes, crates, etc. to shores unreachable by any other delivery system. If the PLAN LCAC does not have the ability to load an MBT, it STILL has this revolutionary force multiplier of a delivery system.

Also, a beach assault is all about delivering as many forces onto a given beach as fast as possible and sustain it as long as possible until you push back the defenses from the beach. You don't plan on only vehicles deliverable by LCAC or only vehicles that can swim to shore by themselves. The 071 will very likely carry a mix of limited (or non-) amphibious vehicles to be delivered by LCAC and fully amphibious (EFV-type) vehicles to independently arrive at shore at the same time as the LCAC's for a massive assault force. This force would be multiplied over several 071's and 081's, each delivering their forces from 40-50km out to sea for an OTH attack. This means your ZBD-03's, ZBD-05's, ZTS-04's all at the same time, and MBT's if the LCAC is capable.

how many vehicles do you think can be delivered by 1 or 2 LCAC and how many amphibious assault vehicles do you think they are going to put in 071, 072s and 079s? They didn't built all those other landing ships for no reason? The amount of delivery by LCAC of light tanks and IFVs will be minimal compared to those that can get on the shore by themselves. So, you'd want them to deliver assets that are hard to deliver otherwise, which are the MBTs. You can air drop the cranes, trucks, humvees. They are going to use commercial ships and air transport to be able to get troops over.

I'm also not sure if its dimensions are accurate. Maybe, maybe not. Same for the engine. On this point, we will just have to see.

I've had it all allow that they've been using QC-70 for LCAC. I agree that dimensions could be inaccurate.

I don't think it's that long. The well deck is no more than 120m. If it can load 4 LCAC's like the official diagrams suggest, it should be less than 30m in length.

I don't know how long the well deck is. Until we get official figures, it's just your word vs my.

true but thats assuming the PLAN plan to anchor their vehicles the same way the USMC does. from the picture there's these 2 lines with holes studded in them. maybe the pla vehicles are anchored front and back and not the sides? i mean its just a speculation but its definitely possible. that way there's no problem loading 2 vehicles side by side without needing an anchor rail down the middle

they are still learning I guess, it's really hard to say. We will know with more photos coming out.

 

[ZTZ99]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

true but thats assuming the PLAN plan to anchor their vehicles the same way the USMC does. from the picture there's these 2 lines with holes studded in them. maybe the pla vehicles are anchored front and back and not the sides? i mean its just a speculation but its definitely possible. that way there's no problem loading 2 vehicles side by side without needing an anchor rail down the middle

I was hoping somebody would bring that up. Yes, those are probably mooring line holes laid inside the track lines. BTW the fact that there are track lines in the first place IMO goes along with my assertion of single row only arrangement. Anyway, the problem with that placement is that nobody believes you can arrange anything in three rows with the PLAN LCAC, leaving the question of what are they for in those positions. This placement almost certainly favors my interpretation of the intended vehicle arrangement of a single row only, as they are likely to be for vehicles, crates, or items which are too narrow to be chained to the outside mooring line holes (the ones right at the edges of the crew compartments, engines, etc.) These holes would not be used to anchor two rows of vehicles because they are placed very poorly for such an arrangement. Also, anchoring them front and back wastes alot of real estate and does nothing to reduce side to side swaying/shifting of vehicles in rough seas.

how many vehicles do you think can be delivered by 1 or 2 LCAC and how many amphibious assault vehicles do you think they are going to put in 071, 072s and 079s? They didn't built all those other landing ships for no reason? The amount of delivery by LCAC of light tanks and IFVs will be minimal compared to those that can get on the shore by themselves. So, you'd want them to deliver assets that are hard to deliver otherwise, which are the MBTs. You can air drop the cranes, trucks, humvees. They are going to use commercial ships and air transport to be able to get troops over.

There is a reason the 071 is shown carrying 4 LCAC's rather than the standard two of the USN LPD's. If the LCAC can deliver 3 IFV's instead of 1 MBT, this may be more preferable in many circumstances. I could just as easily say that anti-tank duties are to be fulfilled by attack helos rather than MBT's, or even by light tanks, since the Taiwanese military operates nothing better than M-60's. If commercial ships and air transports are to be discussed, I could just as easily place the MBT's on those. The fact is that landing MBT's on a beach is not absolutely necessary to success, nor are their roles irreplaceable, nor is the LCAC the only means to do so, nor can you make an argument for why 1 MBT is necesesarily always or even often better than 2 or 3 IFV's that otherwise would not be able to make it to shore. BTW, Google "LCAC" and look at all the various loads the USMC LCAC is used for. I see a single photo of an M1. I see hundreds of photos of LCAC's loading everything else, from Humvees, to trucks, to LAV's, to cranes, to boxes, to artillery, you name it. It seems the USMC is not as fixated on loading only MBT's onto their LCAC's. To claim that the LCAC is only good for loading MBT's or else it fails is to completely miss the potential of this hovercraft. And if the PLAN were as fixated on loading only MBT's, this hovercraft would not look the way it does now.

I've had it all allow that they've been using QC-70 for LCAC. I agree that dimensions could be inaccurate.

I'm not sure I agree with the QC-70 x2 either. I'm under the impression that the PLAN LCAC, like the USMC LCAC, uses 4 engines, which are visible as the two cylindrical objects on each side of the LCAC. The part connecting these engines to the drive fan is the transmission compartment for that fan. The part forward of the engines is another transmission compartment for the lift fan, which blows air down to inflate the skirt and provide the hovering action. I may be wrong, but that's the assumption I've always been under. The USMC LCAC uses 4 engines for redundancy (either engine on each side can power the lift fan or the drive fan or both). I would think the PLAN LCAC would try to achieve similar redundancy.

I don't know how long the well deck is. Until we get official figures, it's just your word vs my.

This estimate is obtained by measuring the distance from the rear of the ship to the side loading ramps and represents an absolute maximum, since these loading ramps clearly do not have any direct connection to the well deck, as we have seen clear videos of the inside of the well deck at this point.

 

[tphuang]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

Again, to your more specific arguments on why it's arrangement can't support multiple rows, those are all things that could be modified on the next iteration or fixed on the current unit once they've tested it out. It's hard to imagine adding mooring lines on the deck would be cost prohibitive. I think they are still busy testing the performance of it in deep water while carrying that weight in the middle.

There is a reason the 071 is shown carrying 4 LCAC's rather than the standard two of the USN LPD's. If the LCAC can deliver 3 IFV's instead of 1 MBT, this may be more preferable in many circumstances. I could just as easily say that anti-tank duties are to be fulfilled by attack helos rather than MBT's, or even by light tanks, since the Taiwanese military operates nothing better than M-60's. If commercial ships and air transports are to be discussed, I could just as easily place the MBT's on those. The fact is that landing MBT's on a beach is not absolutely necessary to success, nor are their roles irreplaceable, nor is the LCAC the only means to do so, nor can you make an argument for why 1 MBT is necesesarily always or even often better than 2 or 3 IFV's that otherwise would not be able to make it to shore. BTW, Google "LCAC" and look at all the various loads the USMC LCAC is used for. I see a single photo of an M1. I see hundreds of photos of LCAC's loading everything else, from Humvees, to trucks, to LAV's, to cranes, to boxes, to artillery, you name it. It seems the USMC is not as fixated on loading only MBT's onto their LCAC's. To claim that the LCAC is only good for loading MBT's or else it fails is to completely miss the potential of this hovercraft. And if the PLAN were as fixated on loading only MBT's, this hovercraft would not look the way it does now.

Imo, it's very unlikely 071 would carry 4 LCACs.
your only argument against PLAN LCAC being able to load a MBT is that you haven't seen the evidence for it. My argument is that it could be used to loading IFVs, humvees and trucks, but if it can't load a MBT, it brings no new capability to the table.

I'm not sure I agree with the QC-70 x2 either. I'm under the impression that the PLAN LCAC, like the USMC LCAC, uses 4 engines, which are visible as the two cylindrical objects on each side of the LCAC. The part connecting these engines to the drive fan is the transmission compartment for that fan. The part forward of the engines is another transmission compartment for the lift fan, which blows air down to inflate the skirt and provide the hovering action. I may be wrong, but that's the assumption I've always been under. The USMC LCAC uses 4 engines for redundancy (either engine on each side can power the lift fan or the drive fan or both). I would think the PLAN LCAC would try to achieve similar redundancy.

you are talking about PLAN here, they have limited gas turbine production capabilities. They only have QC-70, QC-100 and QC-280 that's ready to be produced. We have no evidence that they've imported anything else from Zorya.

This estimate is obtained by measuring the distance from the rear of the ship to the side loading ramps and represents an absolute maximum, since these loading ramps clearly do not have any direct connection to the well deck, as we have seen clear videos of the inside of the well deck at this point.

well, bring out your demonstration. If we use the attached photo as the diagram and it shows the side loading ramp and where it thinks the well deck starts and finish. And if we use the estimated length of 210 m from bow to stern.

Also, consider that the length of 30+m was measured based on GE tools commonly available. If you can find it on google maps, you'd be able to measure all of these.

 

[terrorhunter]

re: PLAN Type 071 LPD & its Landing Craft

well, bring out your demonstration. If we use the attached photo as the diagram and it shows the side loading ramp and where it thinks the well deck starts and finish. And if we use the estimated length of 210 m from bow to stern.


the diagram shows 2 MBTs in the vehicle pool deck. if you ask me that clearly shows the PLAN do intend for these LCAC to be able to deliver at least a ZTZ-96 tank. ZTZ-99s are out of the question simply because they are only available to units in the Beijing MR, who do not participate in operations outside of its zone.