075 LHD thread

[Iron Man]

Or, the HHQ-16 system they had prior was not considered practical for carriers (either due to VLS size or guidance or a combination of them or other factors), and they was a more compact MR SAM capability being developed that was appropriate for integration into a new class of ship being built but wasn't ready for 002 or Liaoning.

This is so much reaching for the stars. "VLS size"??? "Guidance"??? And what does any of this even have to do with a paved-over CV-16 and a completely not-designed-for-VLS CV-17? You consistently fail to account for the fact that CV-17 is clearly and obviously not even designed for VLS anywhere on its decks or its sponsons. There is no room for a VLS anywhere; the equivalent spaces on CV-16 that would have held VLS were quite literally deleted on CV-17 and replaced with additional flight deck space. They aren't waiting for a "compact MR SAM capability", or any MR SAM capability. This much should be quite obvious.

There are a small number of VLS equipped large deck flattops in the form of Hyuga, Charles De Gaulle and one of the San Giorgo ships, which are equipped with VLS.
For the Hyuga the Mk-41 VLS is loaded with ESSM and a VLA weapon; for CdG and San Giorgo the Sylver VLS is of course equipped with Aster.


As for "norm" -- I am talking not only about VLS on LHDs but rather giving large amphibious assault ships an organic long range land attack capability.
That is to say -- it is rather outside the norm for large amphibious assault ships to have their own organic land attack capability.

I see you chose to broaden the scope of discussion to "flattops" instead of LHDs. That is definitely a shifting of the goalposts, since neither the CdG nor the Hyuga conducts amphibious operations and VLS organic land attack wouldn't even remotely be considered in their mission profiles. Speaking of the Hyuga, I see you also failed to mention that the evolution of the Hyuga class to its larger descendant the Izumo class involved actually deleting the Mk 41 VLS and replacing it with SeaRAM.

There is no way for amphibious assault ships to have a long range organic land attack without VLS. Or without fighters. Which, oh wait, US LHDs DO have. China will soon have a Wasp/America equivalent in the form of the 075, but it won't have the VTOL/STOVL fighter capabilities of these ships, which means it is in fact out of the norm for "large amphibious ships", but not in the way you claim. Fighters like the Harrier and F-35B can carry more ordinance and can strike land attacks far faster and more safely than attack helos, which is the reason they are carried in the first place. Where is the Chinese VTOL? Currently in the realm of speculation. Which I suppose makes it a near certainty? Regardless, the 075 without a VLS lacks a cheap and safe way to conduct land attack without a VLS packed with LACMs. I am also not convinced there is a VLS on the 075, but if there is one, it won't be packing MRSAMs and it won't be packing ASCMs, which means it will be packing LACMs (and ASW missiles, when assigned to such a mission).

 

[Equation]

There is no way for amphibious assault ships to have a long range organic land attack without VLS. Or without fighters. Which, oh wait, US LHDs DO have. China will soon have a Wasp/America equivalent in the form of the 075, but it won't have the VTOL/STOVL fighter capabilities of these ships, which means it is in fact out of the norm for "large amphibious ships", but not in the way you claim. Fighters like the Harrier and F-35B can carry more ordinance and can strike land attacks far faster and more safely than attack helos, which is the reason they are carried in the first place. Where is the Chinese VTOL? Currently in the realm of speculation. Which I suppose makes it a near certainty? Regardless, the 075 without a VLS lacks a cheap and safe way to conduct land attack without a VLS packed with LACMs. I am also not convinced there is a VLS on the 075, but if there is one, it won't be packing MRSAMs and it won't be packing ASCMs, which means it will be packing LACMs (and ASW missiles, when assigned to such a mission).

Yeah and VTOL/STOVL type fighters have a very short range as compare to conventional jet fighters. China's advanced missiles and radars and detect and track those harriers on land easily. Meanwhile the F-35B also has a shorter range than today's conventional jets can't do land attack without E-2 Hawkeye type of planes to help them detect enemy planes and incoming missiles. Last I check the E-2 Hawkeye types don't have VTOL capability.

 

[AndrewS]

Or, the HHQ-16 system they had prior was not considered practical for carriers (either due to VLS size or guidance or a combination of them or other factors), and they was a more compact MR SAM capability being developed that was appropriate for integration into a new class of ship being built but wasn't ready for 002 or Liaoning.





There are a small number of VLS equipped large deck flattops in the form of Hyuga, Charles De Gaulle and one of the San Giorgo ships, which are equipped with VLS.
For the Hyuga the Mk-41 VLS is loaded with ESSM and a VLA weapon; for CdG and San Giorgo the Sylver VLS is of course equipped with Aster.


As for "norm" -- I am talking not only about VLS on LHDs but rather giving large amphibious assault ships an organic long range land attack capability.
That is to say -- it is rather outside the norm for large amphibious assault ships to have their own organic land attack capability.

I look at it from a prioritisation point of view.


There are a very limited number of flat-tops (carriers or LHDs).
So it makes sense to maximise the capability of the airwing or amphibious forces

Almost ship can incorporate a VLS with land attack cruise missiles.
And we now see the US testing VLS Tomahawk launches on trucks.

Medium range air defence radars and VLS can also be carried by escort Frigates.

 

[bruceb1959]

The full and deep appearance of at least a couple of these sponsons suggests they may host VLS of some kind.

I think the same and made a similar suggestion on this thread last month. It would seem a logical and plausible use for sponsons of that size.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...
And we now see the US testing VLS Tomahawk launches on trucks.

...

Andy I'm wondering if you meant that circus Aug 19, 2019

like everywhere I go this evening, I hear
US Conducts 1st Ground-Launched Cruise Missile Test After INF Treaty Pullout

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would've thought a TLAM should hit at over 500 km, yes, even if land-launched

or some other "VLS Tomahawk launches on trucks"?

 

[Iron Man]

Yeah and VTOL/STOVL type fighters have a very short range as compare to conventional jet fighters. China's advanced missiles and radars and detect and track those harriers on land easily. Meanwhile the F-35B also has a shorter range than today's conventional jets can't do land attack without E-2 Hawkeye type of planes to help them detect enemy planes and incoming missiles. Last I check the E-2 Hawkeye types don't have VTOL capability.

Let me know when attack helos can launch HARM, JASSM-ER, and PGM's from 10,000m altitude. BTW, China's defenses against American ARG's have nothing to do with China's ARG capabilities or with American ARG capabilities, since neither would attack each other with ARGs before their other air and naval air forces (and literally everything else) had already attacked and pulverized their respective coastlines. Amphibious assault in our current context is not really a discussion of combat between two equals or near equals.

 

[Iron Man]

I think the same and made a similar suggestion on this thread last month. It would seem a logical and plausible use for sponsons of that size.

I have to admit that more recent clearer photos have been making me rethink this, as the more forward deep-looking sponson actually only looks like it's 2 decks deep, possibly not enough for even the 7m UVLS.

 

[Blitzo]

This is so much reaching for the stars. "VLS size"??? "Guidance"??? And what does any of this even have to do with a paved-over CV-16 and a completely not-designed-for-VLS CV-17? You consistently fail to account for the fact that CV-17 is clearly and obviously not even designed for VLS anywhere on its decks or its sponsons. There is no room for a VLS anywhere; the equivalent spaces on CV-16 that would have held VLS were quite literally deleted on CV-17 and replaced with additional flight deck space. They aren't waiting for a "compact MR SAM capability", or any MR SAM capability. This much should be quite obvious.

I think it's not a crazy suggestion that during and before CV-17's construction the existing MR SAM capability in service may not have been compact or practical enough to fit on a carrier, and that in the intervening years a new system may have been developed that is compact and practical enough to be fit on ships with more ease.

I see you chose to broaden the scope of discussion to "flattops" instead of LHDs. That is definitely a shifting of the goalposts, since neither the CdG nor the Hyuga conducts amphibious operations and VLS organic land attack wouldn't even remotely be considered in their mission profiles. Speaking of the Hyuga, I see you also failed to mention that the evolution of the Hyuga class to its larger descendant the Izumo class involved actually deleting the Mk 41 VLS and replacing it with SeaRAM.

Actually in my previous post I wrote: "However I'm not convinced those big sponsons are for VLS yet -- giving VLS to large flattop vessels like LHDs or carriers is not unprecedented, but it is somewhat rare."
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-125#post-568477

For me the entire discussion regarding the possibility of having a VLS and its associated potential payloads was in relation to large flattop vessels and I think I signaled it with that particular post.

There is no way for amphibious assault ships to have a long range organic land attack without VLS. Or without fighters. Which, oh wait, US LHDs DO have. China will soon have a Wasp/America equivalent in the form of the 075, but it won't have the VTOL/STOVL fighter capabilities of these ships, which means it is in fact out of the norm for "large amphibious ships", but not in the way you claim. Fighters like the Harrier and F-35B can carry more ordinance and can strike land attacks far faster and more safely than attack helos, which is the reason they are carried in the first place. Where is the Chinese VTOL? Currently in the realm of speculation. Which I suppose makes it a near certainty? Regardless, the 075 without a VLS lacks a cheap and safe way to conduct land attack without a VLS packed with LACMs. I am also not convinced there is a VLS on the 075, but if there is one, it won't be packing MRSAMs and it won't be packing ASCMs, which means it will be packing LACMs (and ASW missiles, when assigned to such a mission).

So your argument for why you think LACMs are most likely is because China doesn't have STOVL fighters (which US LHDs do), and thus to provide its LHDs with a strike capability they will give it LACMs?
I think that suggestion is not implausible, but we haven't heard anything suggesting that the PLAN would seek their LHDs to have the ability to strike land targets far away (whether it's via an organic shipborne weapon like LACM or via a STOVL fighter which of course the PLAN doesn't have).




I continue to believe that if 075 does have a VLS its most likely payload would be an MR SAM system, followed by a VL ASW weapon, followed then by an LACM.
The fact that CV-16 and CV-17 lack a VLS MR SAM system is not relevant because it could reasonably be explained by having a new system developed that is compact and/or practical to be fit into a flattop ship whereas the previous VLS MR SAM during the overhaul and construction of CV-16 and CV-17 respectively could not do so.

 

[Iron Man]

I think it's not a crazy suggestion that during and before CV-17's construction the existing MR SAM capability in service may not have been compact or practical enough to fit on a carrier, and that in the intervening years a new system may have been developed that is compact and practical enough to be fit on ships with more ease.

Yes, it is in fact a crazy suggestion. There isn't any other VLS launcher except the UVLS (and the HHQ-16 VLS), so if CV-17 had actually wanted a MRSAM but was somehow not satisfied with the 'non-quadpackability' of the HHQ-16, it could simply have installed a UVLS module and waited for the quadpacking MRSAM to finish development. The fact that it did not take this simple step is a gratuitously obvious indication that it had no intention of installing any MRSAM capability. Installing a UVLS and then waiting for an MRSAM development to finish is far more reasonable a plan of action than designing away an obvious VLS space then destroying that same area to rebuild a VLS system back into that same space later on. This should be so obvious that I question why you continue arguing against it.

Actually in my previous post I wrote: "However I'm not convinced those big sponsons are for VLS yet -- giving VLS to large flattop vessels like LHDs or carriers is not unprecedented, but it is somewhat rare."
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-125#post-568477

For me the entire discussion regarding the possibility of having a VLS and its associated potential payloads was in relation to large flattop vessels and I think I signaled it with that particular post.

If we are talking about land attack capability in amphibious warfare, then "flattops" is NOT a reasonable denominator, because as I said neither carriers nor "helicopter destroyers" are amphibious warfare ships, so installing land attack capabilities in these types of ships which have VLS is totally unnecessary and trying to count them as part of your "norm" is nonsensical.

So your argument for why you think LACMs are most likely is because China doesn't have STOVL fighters (which US LHDs do), and thus to provide its LHDs with a strike capability they will give it LACMs?
I think that suggestion is not implausible, but we haven't heard anything suggesting that the PLAN would seek their LHDs to have the ability to strike land targets far away (whether it's via an organic shipborne weapon like LACM or via a STOVL fighter which of course the PLAN doesn't have).

So we need to hear a suggestion before we see it? How many things could we both tick off that nobody speculated about that showed up on various ships, fighters, and other weapons in the Chinese military? I don't need to hear that the PLAN hasn't leaked a specific strategy to use LACMs on LHD VLSs to speculate this possibility.

I continue to believe that if 075 does have a VLS its most likely payload would be an MR SAM system, followed by a VL ASW weapon, followed then by an LACM.
The fact that CV-16 and CV-17 lack a VLS MR SAM system is not relevant because it could reasonably be explained by having a new system developed that is compact and/or practical to be fit into a flattop ship whereas the previous VLS MR SAM during the overhaul and construction of CV-16 and CV-17 respectively could not do so.

Your explanation for why CV-16/17 lack an MRSAM system is not reasonable, as I have already described; I also have no idea what you mean by "practical" in this context.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, it is in fact a crazy suggestion. There isn't any other VLS launcher except the UVLS (and the HHQ-16 VLS), so if CV-17 had actually wanted a MRSAM but was somehow not satisfied with the 'non-quadpackability' of the HHQ-16, it could simply have installed a UVLS module and waited for the quadpacking MRSAM to finish development. The fact that it did not take this simple step is a gratuitously obvious indication that it had no intention of installing any MRSAM capability. Installing a UVLS and then waiting for an MRSAM development to finish is far more reasonable a plan of action than designing away an obvious VLS space then destroying that same area to rebuild a VLS system back into that same space later on. This should be so obvious that I question why you continue arguing against it.

Or, it's a dedicated small footprint VLS for a new MR SAM that is capable of accommodating the weapon in a low footprint size rather than putting in a full VLS module (whether it's the UVLS or the HHQ-16 VLS)?
Edit: ... or, alternatively, the missile was not yet ready when CV-17 was being designed and constructed, and the value vs cost of giving CV-17 the UVLS (if the 075 can carry the UVLS) was judged to be not worth it?

There's any particular choice of reasonable explanations one can come up with for why 075 might be equipped with a new MR SAM and why CV-17 was not.

If we are talking about land attack capability in amphibious warfare, then "flattops" is NOT a reasonable denominator, because as I said neither carriers nor "helicopter destroyers" are amphibious warfare ships, so installing land attack capabilities in these types of ships which have VLS is totally unnecessary and trying to count them as part of your "norm" is nonsensical.

Well I was talking about large flight deck ships having a VLS, for the record.

So we need to hear a suggestion before we see it? How many things could we both tick off that nobody speculated about that showed up on various ships, fighters, and other weapons in the Chinese military? I don't need to hear that the PLAN hasn't leaked a specific strategy to use LACMs on LHD VLSs to speculate this possibility.

Depending on what the suggestion is, yes I think some suggestions need to be heard about before it could be reasonably entertained as a likely possibility.
If the 075 was designed to have the ability to carry LACMs, I consider such a subsystem to be significant enough that we should have heard about it via rumours by now if one wants to make the argument that such a subsystem should be argued as likely rather than possible.

Your explanation for why CV-16/17 lack an MRSAM system is not reasonable, as I have already described; I also have no idea what you mean by "practical" in this context.

Well I'm going to have to agree to disagree because I think my explanation is reasonable.