China's Amphibious Assault IFV/Light tank ZBD 2000

No AAV is designed to make a trip across a waterway as large as the Taiwan strait on their own.

If only a 100 or so of these are fielded, I wonder whether they co-ordinate well, or at all, with the Type 68As and crude amphibious APC mods that must still be the majority of the PLA's amphibious vehicle fleet. I would think there is a significant speed difference which leaves the older vehicles in the 'dust'.

advill said:

Yes, the SAF is for self-defence, and though small, it has also contributed quite considerably to peace keeping efforts as well as aid to Tsunami victims, medical care in East Timor & Afganistan and anti-piracy patrols etc. Anyway, We are all out of point here. The topic is on China's Assault Tank (inc. other advance military equipment) - these will definitely raise the eyebrows of its close neighbours and countries in the region.

Click to expand...

all the so called peacekeeping and Un missions are just sugarcoat to cover the real intent. The LST are in actual fact an amphibious assault ships but playing up this fact will no doubt raise the eyebrows of Singapore's neighbours. The same goes of KC135, why do you need those extended range? To support RSAF detachment in US?

bro come on, give us a break. I used to be from the "Fencer Brigade" (if you know what I mean). You can't smoke me on this.

China needs to make 6-8 Type 071 LPDs and also start making a 20,000 ton helo carriers this will give PLAN very good sea capability

asif iqbal said:

China needs to make 6-8 Type 071 LPDs and also start making a 20,000 ton helo carriers this will give PLAN very good sea capability

Click to expand...

You don't need LPD and helo carriers tto have good sea capability, you would need aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines and frigates to have very good sea capability.

You would need LPD and perhaps LHD to have good Amphibious capability.

asif iqbal said:

China needs to make 6-8 Type 071 LPDs and also start making a 20,000 ton helo carriers this will give PLAN very good sea capability

Click to expand...

no use having transport but nothing to protect it with....submarines, destroyers and frigates should be the priorities

HKSDU said:

no use having transport but nothing to protect it with....submarines, destroyers and frigates should be the priorities

Click to expand...

agreed. It's all too easy for many of us including season veterans to always fall into the trap of a single platform capabilities and acquisition when in modern naval warfare a single platform by itself is essentially useless nevermind C5ISR.
Even a mighty CVN w/o support ships/submarines can fall prey to a couple of submarines in the big vast ocean!
China should concentrate most of their resources and training until they are very very comfortable operating and building destroyers/frigates and maybe cruisers. Amphibious ships etc are great for humanitarian reasons/disaster relief etc ... militarily not so much unless you plan an invasion

Dusting off this old thread by posting this awesome photo:

(2500x1728)

Now that Chinese Marines might deploy far from beachheads, maybe their camouflage would reflect that.

Blackstone said:

Now that Chinese Marines might deploy far from beachheads, maybe their camouflage would reflect that.

Click to expand...

Training is more important than looks. They will eventually get their new desert BDUs later.

Equation said:

Training is more important than looks. They will eventually get their new desert BDUs later.

Click to expand...

Its not the individual uniforms its the vehicles here. Military vehicles are camouflaged much like individual troops but changing a uniform is alot easier then repainting a tank or IFV. The capacity the PLAMC seems aiming for is true Amphibious Blitzkrieg. Rather then landing and establishing a beachhead then expansion to objectives. They intend to land mechanized light armor and assault to objectives with secondary forces following in the wake. The ZBD series is light weight in protection and small in troop capacity but fast in the water and well armed with light tank versions. They seem to offer half the capacity of the USMC's aborted EFV meaning I suspect a shorter amphibious range compared to EFV but longer then AAV7A1, M113, ACV1.2 or BMP series vehicles. They are intended I believe to land and assault as quickly as possible smaller landscapes like islands vs the USMC model which is based more on landing and establishing for larger campaigns across larger landscapes.