075 LHD thread

[gelgoog]

I read Russian reports that China bought the design for the Soyuz R-79V-300 engine sometime in the late 1990s.



That is the engine the Russians were intending to use in the Yak-141. I even read claims the technology for that engine then ended up in the WS-15 program. This is not that surprising since Russia also sold the design of the swivel engine to Lockheed Martin to use in the X-35.

So it might be that China already has access to much of the technology to develop a similar engine to the F135 in the F-35B with the exception of the lift fan designed by Rolls-Royce. Since the Yak-141 was supposed to use dedicated lift engines.

 

[Jingle Bells]

I have a similar question with respect to tamsen_ikard.

Helicopter carriers/light aircraft carriers often carry F-35B's. See Japan. The F-35B has STVOL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing).

The Type 075 never carries Chinese jets. China appears to lack the technology for STVOL - because of the engine?

How long would it take for China to develop STVOL? Some say it would take a long time? A Type 075 or Type 076 with a STVOL J-35 variant would be a pretty big deal.

I look at things this way:

Regular LHD/helicopter carrier coupled with STVOL aircraft is suitable for only one type of user: those whose demands for fix wing naval aviation power is greater than the quantity they can affordably produces and procure ships for it. Interestingly, the US and most of its major allies all fit in that one category. The USN is stretched thin because it has a global maritime strategy, meaning its navy ships must be able to have more capability per ship than China's. US allies are usually constrained both technologically and financially to build enough ships for the proposed threats they face, because the strategic benefit they gain from allying with the US is so that they can share security burdens with the US, in which they can afford to spend less together.

China, on the other hand, is not in that category, because China can affordably produce more ships than what is demanded for its naval to complete its main tasks. This means that China can build enough 075 cheaply, and compliment them with 076s. 075 will play the amphibious projection/assault role, 076 will fly fix winged aircraft (J35) and large drones. With equal level of configuration and designs, fixed wing CATOBAR jets are better at combat than the same class of STOVL fixed wing jets.

The whole argument that Japan or Australia gaining STVOL F35 heli-carrier can some how have an edge over China is ridiculous, because it would only be true if they can manage to build more ships than China. However, if Japan only has budget to commission 2 STVOL capable heli-carrier, while China easily field 3 or 4 076 on top of the CV16/17 and the large CATOBAR CV18 and onwards, this will mean NOTHING at all.

Of course, if Japan can somehow field 10 Izumi without increasing much of its military budget, than that might be a viable plan. Because this will give Japan a strategic edge: one in which China will need to spend an much greater amount of resources to counter.

So far, I don't see any sign of that happening, nor does it make sense theoretically.

Now, most people who wants China to get STOVL 5th gen fighters, are usually under the mind set that what the USN procures is necessarily the best way to build up a military. That's simply not true, especially for a US near peer that has way too much differences from the US both in geostrategy, politically climate, needs and doctrine.

 

[kriss]

The whole argument that Japan or Australia gaining STVOL F35 heli-carrier can some how have an edge over China is ridiculous

Their logic is they can have F35 on deck and though in limited number, these stealth jet would decimate J-15s on Liaoning and later Shandong and after that entire PLAN fleet. The thesis that a handful of F-35 can defeat the entire air wing of a full fledged carrier nevermention a whole fleet is already not very convincing even before J-35 emerges. It's more copium than a real strategy.

 

[Jingle Bells]

Their logic is they can have F35 on deck and though in limited number, these stealth jet would decimate J-15s on Liaoning and later Shandong and after that entire PLAN fleet. The thesis that a handful of F-35 can defeat the entire air wing of a full fledged carrier nevermention a whole fleet is already not very convincing even before J-35 emerges. It's more copium than a real strategy.

That's what mediocre IQ layman would think what they (the Japanese/Australian government, etc) thinks. All these government has much more detailed intel on when the jets and ship on both side will be commissioned and what they are capable of. These governments are NOT stupid, they have eyes and brains to think and to plan. They know very well that by the time, say, Japanese F-35B's are battle ready, they will be facing at least CV-16, CV-17, and CV-18 all armed with both J-15 and J-35. This is without even having to worry about 076 or subsequent CVN's.

My sincere word of advise: just because brainless 公知恨国党、精神日本人、idiotic uninformed Japanese/Western/Indian brats-on-the-internet like to say outlandishly stupid things that irritates us, it should NOT bring us down to their level of idiocy. Japanese, Australian, Indian governments are all proper governments, they have enough well educated thinktanks and intelligence services to inform their superior on what they need for defense.

 

[Hadoren]

I see Senpai Patchwork laughed at my post, which means I probably have some big misunderstandings of the situation. Any logic on why?

 

[Heliox]

And where are these supposedly highly advanced short range air defenses in the US or its allies in the Pacific? Nowhere.
As for MANPADS, helicopters can be designed to be more resilient against MANPADS attacks. I think it is a matter of time until China starts devoting more attention to things like IR stealth and IR jamming. We already see tentative signs of this in the Z-10ME.


What deep strike? F-35B without catapults is highly limited in amount of payload it can carry and range as well. It can do fleet air defense, but it is a ginormous waste of money. Proposed Type 076 LHD with light catapult for drones makes a lot more sense.


Because it makes sense in its theater of operations in the Pacific?

I'm not gonna reply that troll directly so I'll just crib off of yours Just sharing a perspective on the above

MANPADs vs HELOs
First up, MANPADs, especially uncued MANPADS have issues with engaging very-low NOE flying targets in terms of short engagement windows giving very short target acquisition times leading to no launch and battery/coolant life expiring and making the missile essentially u/s.

You tie it into a IADS and you get a VSHORADS/SHORADS platform which still has a problem. The name itself says it all, "SHORT RANGE" = range ring is very small to small. There is no way you can cover every single sq km with a sufficient density of SHORADS to make it "suicidal" for a heli assault (see antonov airport assault).

The point of a helo assault is not to directly assault the defended objective (ahem also antonov airport assault) but to land where there is no resistance and then create havoc/move to objective. So unless one can cover every sq km, there will always be gaps in coverage that a helo assault can thread to get to where it can make a difference.
Bottomline, even in supposedly dense MANPAD coverage in Ukraine, helo ops still go on successfully (see Mariupol resupply)

LHA/D and Airpower
The primary operator of LHA/LHD with VSTOL jets is the USMC/USN. The root of this is the MAGTF requirement for organic everything within a MEF. If you don't operate fixed wings off LHAs like the USMC, then you generate your air support from other means - not quite as organic but not the end of either.

For everybody else, it is more nuanced. Limited budget but then also non-peer adversaries? It can make sense but just don't expect a LHA/LHD or even a CVL to have anywhere near proportionate capabilities as a full sized CV.

A LHA/LHD surging x qty of fixed wing VSTOL is the worst. There is no way you can recover the space given up for amphib functions and turn it into surge capacity bunkerage/magazines for sustained air ops. So it is really a glorified lily pad/FARP (which can still be useful) but lets not get carried away that it is anywhere near being a "Carrier". A purpose built CV/CVL will always trump amphib platforms moonlighting as fixed wing carriers

CVL/Lightning carriers too are all well and good but are nowhere near the bang for buck that full CVs provide. Why? Simple lack of ability to operate any of the force multipliers like AEW, tanker, EW platforms (all the things that make a complete strike/fleet defense package).

So please, LHA/LHD/CVL are NOT cost effective replacements for CV/CVN. There may be a use-case for a LHA/LHD/CVL for some countries but in all likelihood, it could also very likely be a prestige/political decision.

LHD with 20+ helos
Why build a helo carrier indeed?

Because they make a good ASW centerpiece for a non-CBG?
Because they are required for what they are advertised to be, primarily an Amphib Assault platform and the helos are to support that.
Also, because they (LHA/LHD with lotsa lotsa helos) are really really awesome for HADR response and flying the flag in a meaningful, humanitarian way. No other military ship is as single handedly capable in this regard for coastal or archipelagic HADR.

Think about it ...
i) troop quarters that can handle surge of rescue personel or refugees
ii) enlarged medical facilites (for amphib casualties) that can handle refugees
iii) logistics capability to support marines/troops can instead generate water/food for refugees.
iv) built in cargo space and onboard facilities to move HADR supplies and vehicles
v) built in command suite for C3 given civil infrastructure is down
vi) inhouse expertise and means to deliver anything and everything by air/sea where remote communities are cut off.

For an example of the above, see Operation Flying Eagle, Meulaboh, Indonesia. The experience of the above is influencing the JMMS amphib replacement platform for the RSN.

All said and done, platforms come with different capabilities, advantages and trade-offs. It is pointedly ridiculous to criticise any platform in isolation of the requirements, environment, trade-offs and constraints that they operate within.

 

[Nx4eu]

I see Senpai Patchwork laughed at my post, which means I probably have some big misunderstandings of the situation. Any logic on why?

STOVL aircraft just compromise a lot of capabilities, these light carriers are almost laughable in actual power. China would be fighting in it's backyard, why waste time and resources on developing a convoluted STOVL fighter for use on light carriers when Chinese aircraft will be operating from runways in China, or fully fledged aircraft carriers, it makes zero sense.

 

[Heliox]

Because they are required for what they are advertised to be, primarily an Amphib Assault platform and the helos are to support that.

Too late for edit.

For amphib purpose, why not just Type 71, why bother with Type 75?

Because Type 71s (singularly or in groups) just barely generates the helo-lift requirement for the needs.

3x Type 71 will sealift a Bde- very competently but the helo complement will barely take a Bn-. That is okay in itself if you're happy to deal with the issue of the Bn- being split across 3 helo-pads for the load up which means they probably spent the entire admin move and plan/rehearse phase on separate vessels as well. Not the best. You could have the Bn- organic on 1xType 71 and lift all 12 sticks off that 1 helo-pad but I suggest you go count the number of spots on that pad and do the fuel burn/time math it would take to generate a wave ... A Type 75 + 2 or 3 Type 71s very nicely rounds off a Bde landing force with enough helo assets and launch spots to generate a credible air assault threat quickly and efficiently.

Type 75s can also operate heavy lift helos more comfortably than a Type 71 could, which allows you to bring a lot more bang to fight.

 

[Atomicfrog]

I have a similar question with respect to tamsen_ikard.

The Type 075 never carries Chinese jets. China appears to lack the technology for STVOL - because of the engine?

How long would it take for China to develop STVOL?

I think China have all what it takes to design and build one beside having no interest in fighter that take a lot of logistics, lot of place in a LHD, are inefficient and full of bad compromises.

 

[MarKoz81]

I see Senpai Patchwork laughed at my post, which means I probably have some big misunderstandings of the situation. Any logic on why?

I can't speak for @PatchworkChimera but I suppose it's likely because your question is informed by naive assumptions about warfare and armchair general or military enthusiast view of military procurement. In consequence you approach the problem with backwards logic and assume that everything you see is a tactical requirement instead of being just a consequence of tactical requirement and evolution of doctrine with all its institutional creep.

Let's see if I can straighten this a bit. I can see you've read this:

Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

4 these kind of birds they should have angled deck Wouldn't that make the 076 essentially a medium CV instead of an LHA/LHD?

www.sinodefenceforum.com

but you probably have missed parts 2 and 3:

Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Requirements for electrically deployed internal fire curtains, to be used as a reference during the bidding process. Curtain dimensions are in the red box: Do we know when was the bidding process? In the meantime, this Tweeter claimed that the construction for the first 076 LHD has already...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Requirements for electrically deployed internal fire curtains, to be used as a reference during the bidding process. Curtain dimensions are in the red box: Do we know when was the bidding process? In the meantime, this Tweeter claimed that the construction for the first 076 LHD has already...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

These should help to orient you in the right direction.

Shipborne STOVL was not something that navies aim for - it was a consequence of having STOVL for ground forces.

Until F-35B there was only a single navy that operated STOVL aircraft designed expressly as a shipborne asset - the Soviet navy.

Here's the rule of thumb: if Soviets do something with their navy, you don't want to do it and may want to consider doing the exact opposite.

Soviets/Russians don't have a naval culture. They never understood how to design working ships because they don't understand ships. For them a ship is just a very big tank that floats on water. A submarine is a bomber or a fighter that flies underwater. Yak-38 came from that mindset. It's best to forget it.

That leaves Harrier/AV-8

F-35B exists only because of AV-8 which was introduced in USMC service in early 1970s. That's 20 years before JSF and 40 years before introduction when the Corps relied on AV-8 and allowed it to shape its culture and doctrine. USMC uses STOVL because of flexibility of having aircraft that can be based on a ship and on land. ESG transfers aviation assets from ship to land.

AV-8 was developed from Harrier which was developed for the RAF as CAS aircraft supporting British Army in Europe in 1970s. Later it was adopted by Royal Navy as Sea Harrier as both a strike aircraft with the ability to support a landing force and a close fleet defence aircraft and both Harriers and SeaHarriers were very successful in the Falklands war. But SeaHarrier was only adopted because Harrier was successful and Britain saw it as means for reclaiming some naval aviation on the cheap.

Royal Navy has lost its status as world's leading naval power after WW2 and scrapped most of its carriers in the 50s leaving just six, one of which was scrapped in 1972 and two of which were converted to helicopter assault ships leaving RN with just HMS Ark Royal and HMS Hermes. Britain was broke after WW2, kept on life support via Bretton Woods while it pitifully attempted to play world power. Then in 1972 with Bretton Woods finished, it entered a major economic crisis with Pound plummeting. It couldn't afford proper carriers but it had the Harrier which was a great reliable design. So it navalised it and built three small light carriers of Invincible class.


The notion of a STOVL light carrier came earlier in 1970s with USN's Elmo Zumwalts (really stupid) idea of a "sea control ship" e.g. Principe de Asturias/Giuseppe Garibaldi design which Spain replaced with Juan Carlos LHD and Italy with Trieste LHD. Italy bought F-35B because it used AV-8. Spain may buy F-35B for the same reason. Both kept AV-8 as a substitute of real carrier aviation as well as an aircraft that can operate both from ship and improvised airfields. Both are Mediterranean amphibious vessels.



Japan considering F-35B is really a consequence of putting two and two together. They already have a helicopter carrier then why not put a STOVL on it? But Japan uses a helicopter carrier as a more efficient design replacing the ASW Haruna-class destroyer which carried three helicopters.



The reason why people want a STOVL is because they want a gadget to show off. But wars are not fashion contests. They are the ultimate contest of ruthless practicality.

For China to develop STOVL aircraft it would require a need for STOVL aircraft for its ground force. Otherwise it's wasting resources on sub-par aircraft for a sub-pr carrier instead of proper carriers with proper aviation or... drones.

A STOVL drone makes more sense just because mass limits performance and unmanned means significantly less mass. The Harrier was a brilliant invention for its time because of what aerial warfare was like in the 1970s and 80s. SARH missiles weren't very effective, most fighters didn't carry many of them - if at all - and Harriers had excellent unorthodox maneuverability for WVR. Harrier GR3 had empty mass of 5,5t. A STOVL drone could cut it in half because no pilot/catapult/instruments/cabin means less mass which means which means lighter engine which means less mass... And that's how we get to the question of - how about vertical take-off/landing similar to that of a rocket. If Musk can land a rocket then why can't we?

The F-35B is probably more trouble than use. It's a "AV-8 but stealthy" which was a product of very early 90s. It's the worst F-35 variant with worst readiness and worst performance. It's best as CTOL. Add V and it limps. It's problematic if not impossible to operate in genuine sparse conditions. Often it seems more of a vanity project at this point than a genuine asset. Sure, it can do certain things but are those things so necessary and irreplaceable in full-spectrum conflict against a peer adversary? Such conflicts have a different logic compared to the logic of asymmetric (numerically and technologically) wars that US has waged since Korea. Plentiful and humble beat few and vain in WW2 and in every war before. F-35B has potent systems - radar, information sharing, weapons and obviously VLO but it only works against weaker opponents where technology can be capitalised in full. Can it be done effectively? I don't know but F-35B hasn't bee used in combat yet. We assume it will deliver because Harrier/AV-8 delivered and that's not the same.

Type 076 with drones will probably mean death of STOVL manned aircraft because the concept feels right on its logic. There might be teething problems but it will deliver and everyone will follow it. That's the future and the further into the future we go the more F-35B will be a burden.

Fundamentally Type 075 is a LHD, not a carrier and the logic of "light carriers" for USN is that light carriers are weaker policing ships so that CVNs are not wasted on smaller problems. USN operates with a given advantage globally. How does that work for China??? USN first built a fleet of supercarriers before it started thinking on light carriers. During WW2 escort carriers were ASW for convoys - that is mostly helicopters now, and drones in the future.

Anyway, that's just my three cents. History is simplified but correct. I may be wrong on expectations of performance. I don't think I'm wrong on the trends though.

• Type 075 is a helicopter LHD - an amphibious assault ship.
• Type 076 is a helicopter & drone LHD - an amphibious assault ship.

Let's stick to those instead to force a light carrier where most likely none is needed. And no, it's not some brilliant revolutionary idea that is overlooked. It's the other way around and I hope I explained sufficiently well so that we don't have to repeat this discussion in the future. And if it happens these posts can be given as a cure for too much creative genius.