075 LHD thread

[peterAustralia]

Please excuse my ignorance, I assume the sketches in previous post were just best guesses by an enthusiast and not real.

The sections that can be seen already building, indicate a vehicle storage area, and thus the ship will have a well dock, so that makes it a LHD? Thus the ship is designed to support amphibious operations. I have to admit I assumed they would first build a simpler helicopter carrier, like the Iwo Jima class of the 1960s, support say twenty helicopters to provide anti submarine protection for a fleet of surface vessels, plus optionally a small unmanned drone (like a predator fixed wing drone) but for AEW. Why are they going for an 'aggressive' amphibious support ship, rather than a defensive ship carrying anti submarine helicopters.

I guess the LHD can carry anti submarnine helicopters in addition to its amphibious support role. However it would have to cost quite a bit more. Only make sense if they were intending to make a few of these LHD so that each surface flotilla of ships could have its own LHD to provide anti submarnine protection.

 

[adeptitus]

Please excuse my ignorance, I assume the sketches in previous post were just best guesses by an enthusiast and not real.

It's fan-art.

There is at least one harrier in china. I saw a picture of it somewhere, it is left expose to the element outside, so it is in a very bad condition. No sure if it is just a bare airframe or it is complete with engine. If i remember correctly, uk was keen to sell to china, but china could not afford the price then, so the deal fell through. All these were before the tiananmen incident. I don't think the harrier v/stol control is a secret to china.

The Beijing Aviation Museum has a BAe Harrier GR.3 serial # "XZ965" on display:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Depending on the exhibit event, I think the plane could either be indoors or out-doors.

China and UK were in negotiations to buy up to 200 Harriers in the 1970s-1980s. A variety of factors, including cost and opposition by USSR scrapped the deal long before 1989. China had also negotiated to buy the Type 42 destroyer, then Luda modernization program (including Sea Dart SAM) with UK assistance. However the British wanted too much money.

PRC and UK had a rather interesting relationships in the 20th century. Months after the Amethyst Incident in 1949, when PLA forces fired upon British ships, the UK was the first Western power to officially recognize the PRC government, and negotiated to sell warships to China in 1950. The sale didn't happen due to the Korean war, but again, months after the PLA and UK forces stopped shooting at each other in Korea (Battle of the Hook in May 1953), the British sent a trade mission to China in 1953:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[PanAsian]

It's fan-art.





The Beijing Aviation Museum has a BAe Harrier GR.3 serial # "XZ965" on display:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Depending on the exhibit event, I think the plane could either be indoors or out-doors.

China and UK were in negotiations to buy up to 200 Harriers in the 1970s-1980s. A variety of factors, including cost and opposition by USSR scrapped the deal long before 1989. China had also negotiated to buy the Type 42 destroyer, then Luda modernization program (including Sea Dart SAM) with UK assistance. However the British wanted too much money.

PRC and UK had a rather interesting relationships in the 20th century. Months after the Amethyst Incident in 1949, when PLA forces fired upon British ships, the UK was the first Western power to officially recognize the PRC government, and negotiated to sell warships to China in 1950. The sale didn't happen due to the Korean war, but again, months after the PLA and UK forces stopped shooting at each other in Korea (Battle of the Hook in May 1953), the British sent a trade mission to China in 1953:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The bit about the Harrier is really interesting. I don't think the Chinese aerospace industry at the time would have been capable of reverse engineering it but I wonder about their ability and desire to do so in recent years, with the Harrier, the Blackhawk, or Boeing or Airbus jets for that matter.

 

[adeptitus]

The bit about the Harrier is really interesting. I don't think the Chinese aerospace industry at the time would have been capable of reverse engineering it but I wonder about their ability and desire to do so in recent years, with the Harrier, the Blackhawk, or Boeing or Airbus jets for that matter.

In 1978 China's Vice Premier Wang Chen visited UK and wanted to negotiate an initial batch of 80 Harriers. The Harrier had fly away cost of 10 million pounds (about $22 million), excluding cost of weapon systems. I do not think the UK would have wanted China to domestically assemble the planes, preferring to assemble in UK for export. The Chinese side would have been interested in tech transfers.

If we look at Western assisted AF projects from that period, there were others like K-8, JH-7, Super 7, J-8 Peace Pearl, and possibly J-10 with Israel. The Super 7 project was tailored to China's aviation industry's capability of the time, while the Harrier would have required a lot more work.

If the Chinese aviation industry wanted to reverse engineer the Harrier today, I do not think its beyond their ability to do so. However the era of the Harrier has already came and went.

 

[lcloo]

If China is interested in a Harrier STOVL type aircraft, it will likely be based on technology of Yak-141, since Russia is the only country in the world that is willing to co-operate in developing advance fighter jets with China.

Yak-141 is supersonic and has good range against the sub-sonic and short leg of dated Harrier.

 

[kroko]

If China is interested in a Harrier STOVL type aircraft.

why it should ?

 

[Jeff Head]

why it should ?

Well, if the PLAN could get a reliable STOVL strike aircraft, and build it themselves, it would be a good thing.

Then, they would be able to deploy such aircraft on an LHA and use them to defend the LHA and also for close support of troops that are sent into action from the LHA, either by landing craft (LCAC) or by helicopter.

That would free up the need for any aircraft carrier to support them.

May not seem necessary in the context of operations within air support range of the mainland...but on more distant islands, or particularly should PRC interests be threatened in some place like Africa, it would be a very good thing to have.

 

[delft]

Well, if the PLAN could get a reliable STOVL strike aircraft, and build it themselves, it would be a good thing.

Then, they would be able to deploy such aircraft on an LHA and use them to defend the LHA and also for close support of troops that are sent into action from the LHA, either by landing craft (LCAC) or by helicopter.

That would free up the need for any aircraft carrier to support them.

May not seem necessary in the context of operations within air support range of the mainland...but on more distant islands, or particularly should PRC interests be threatened in some place like Africa, it would be a very good thing to have.

I keep to the old notion: it is better to build the STOL installation into the ship rather than the aircraft. A STOVL aircraft is bound to be less capable than an aircraft that uses cats and traps on a large aircraft carrier. If you are prepared to accept that lesser performance you should use an aircraft that can use a smaller aircraft carrier with less powerful cats and traps. That aircraft is bound to be smaller and cheaper and easier in maintenance than its STOVL counterpart, three things important to any well regulated navy.
It is possible to use a ski ramp instead of cats or even to build cats into a ski ramp thus saving deck real estate.

 

[Jeff Head]

I keep to the old notion: it is better to build the STOL installation into the ship rather than the aircraft. A STOVL aircraft is bound to be less capable than an aircraft that uses cats and traps on a large aircraft carrier. If you are prepared to accept that lesser performance you should use an aircraft that can use a smaller aircraft carrier with less powerful cats and traps. That aircraft is bound to be smaller and cheaper and easier in maintenance than its STOVL counterpart, three things important to any well regulated navy.
It is possible to use a ski ramp instead of cats or even to build cats into a ski ramp thus saving deck real estate.

Just depends on what their requirements are.

Getting a decent STOL aircraft with good ground support, fighter, and in excess of Mach 1 is pretty much impossible for your normal STOL aircraft. That's whay the Harrier came along, why the Russins were designing the Yak-141, and the US is producing the F-35B.

If the PLAN has those requirements, then a jet fighter like the Yak-141 or the F-35B is the answer.

If they want an aircraft like the OV-10A, then that could easily fly off of an LHA without the VTOL/Jet component.

OV-10A Bronco​

 

[plawolf]

VTOL is nice, but comes at a very high cost, and I'm not sure that is just something the PLA is all that interested in.

For traditional fast jet missions and time sentient fire support missions, a traditional fast jet is always going to be better than a VTOL. For persistent fire support missions, like air cover for a beach landing, dedicated attack helicopters would be better than VTOL, and for low intensity high endurance missions, UCAVs are again better. The only other scenario of being able to deploy from roads, parking lots or parks if all your primary airports have been destroyed where VTOL has a distinct advantage over conventional fast jets is not really applicable to China anymore, and even if it did, surely the resources required to develop a world class VTOL would be better spent on far more fast jets and SAMs to prevent such a terrible fate rather than prepare to handle its aftermath.

Unlike the US, China does not have security commitments all over the world that all have to patrolled and protected at the same time. It would be a rare and unusual thing for the PLA to have to deploy to combat operations far from China's coast, and if that were to occur, it would be a singular incident where the PLA can afford to concerntrate the bulk of their power projection capabilities.

The idea of using LHDs as pocket carriers is only attractive when you don't have enough full blooded carriers to go around. That's a global superpower problem, and not really something that will trouble China for maybe another whole generation at least.

So if someone so horrible happens in Africa as to warrant the PLA to deploy in anger over there, it will do so with the bulk of the forces available to them. So think carriers for fast jets and UCAVs and LHDs for attack helicopters. That pretty much has all the niches a VTOL might come in handy covered.