It's rather poor argumentation to conjure up a non-existent hypothetical ACV of similar size to the 726 (as much as I'd personally like to see one) to support an argument, especially when the PLAN is obviously ramping up 726 production. We've seen limited photos of 726 deployment, but in order to support your argument we'd have to go several steps further into the unknown to pull out a brand new unheard of ACV out of nowhere that no one has breathed even a whisper of. And what do you mean "multiple" mobile landing platforms??? AFAIK China has only one mobile landing platform (the 868 "Guang Hua Kou"), and that thing is a brand new construction.Just because we don't see another ACV does not mean that China have no plans for another potential replacement or explains why most of the 726 are nearly perpetually tied up in docks and shipyards rather than in the hulls of the Type 071s, more ever it is not just the Type 071s that can utilize the 726s. China also have multiple mobile landing platforms that can also utilize 726s as an assault force.
Except that China IS ramping up production of the 726, especially now that the QC-70 gas turbine is good to go. Regardless, you could have asked this same question of the 072A back in 2003 (why only 15?), or of the 071 back in 2006 (why only one? and why only now?). Or why did China only purchase Zubrs in 2009? Why is China only developing the 075 now and not 5 years ago? Why wasn't the 075 already constructed yesterday? Isn't amphibious capability "very important" to China? Clearly, amphibious capability was not as important to the PLAN as it is now and/or China did not have the money and/or the technical skill to build up its amphibious capability until recently. All good things come to those who wait; the only problem is that some people don't have the patience to wait for it.Now we all know that amphibious capability is a very important aspect that China must have in regards for a particular island of its coast, so why is not China ramping up a key platform if it has no problems at all? Given the flexibility it offers.
The photos we see almost certainly represent the early 726s constructed with the UGT-6000 engine which is known to be problem-plagued and insufficient to allow the 726 to reach its full potential, which is why the PLAN has been putzing around with the same few 726s carrying minimal to no loads. They have of course allowed 726 pilots to train in maneuvering on shore and into/out of 071s; we have seen many photos of exactly this.And finally while that picture does shows a fully loaded 726, it is at this point the only known picture, we have no recent photos of the 726 at full load. Most problems only emerges when things are tested to the extreme after all. If the 726 is fine and all should it not then be used on a regular basis with consistently full load, instead of running on empty or near empty with just a squad of soldiers?
I have dozens of photos of the 726 in action, though only a few with vehicles/barracks in them, so clearly they are not all "perpetually tied up in docks and shipyards". Not only that, the ones that are, are almost certainly new construction, which is why they are seen tied up in the shipyards to begin with. The ones that aren't, are the ones with the old, weaker Ukrainian engine. Again, the latest batch represents the newly-engined, newly-constructed 726s and would not be expected to already be deployed/commissioned. In the next year or two we will certainly see this latest batch integrated into the PLAN and the 071s, and after that, I have no doubt that a flood of the very photos that asif yearns for will start pouring onto the internet.Not every doubt and misgiving is whining as you might depict, but the problem is that the 726's progress has been uptill now remarkably slow. Now if the new batch of 726 continues and that we finally see fresh photos of the 726 with full combat load I will happily retract my statement, but until then I will take forum claims and statements with a pinch of salt.
Last edited: