heads up: New amphibious ship

MIGleader

Banned Idiot
I do not see a helicopter pad on the new LST. almost all of china's older tanl landing ships had them.

its interesting to see that the 72-III production is still going. I would have thought that if China can build new LSTs, they wouldnt need the ww2 style tank landing ship.

Oh, yeah, anyone have any new information on the Zubr deal china made a a few mos ago?
 

SteelBird

Colonel
bd popeye said:
LHA/LHD or LPH would be great for the PLAN. I think those plans you may have seen for a China National Shipbuilding Co LHD were actually the new USN LHA(R) ship. I saw a pic like this with a diffrent type of aircraft on deck claiming to be PLAN LHD. I can no longer find it.:( This is actually an USN new LHA design.

[qimg]http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHA-R_lg.jpg[/qimg]

Or are you refering to the design in this link below? Actually that ship looks like an LPD to me.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Popeye, may I ask an innocent question: Since the image above shows that the ship can carry aircraft, I wonder what's the difference between and aircraft-carrier and a LHA/LHD/LPH ?
 

chicket9

New Member
Sorry to break some hearts,

the 'new' LST is only in an LSM / LCU class.

Yes it has a huge capacity because of its design, but it falls short of an LST.
No.2...that Yuting II is actually a smaller LSM class, looks quite similar to Yuting but far smaller in size, note no Helicopter deck.
 

planeman

Senior Member
VIP Professional
chicket9 said:
No.2...that Yuting II is actually a smaller LSM class, looks quite similar to Yuting but far smaller in size, note no Helicopter deck.
I agree; it has fewer bridge windows suggesting it is narrower and lacks the vehicle drive-through access under the superstructure. But it sure as hell looks very similar to the Yuting II.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
the bigger vessel is Yudeng-mod class 89m 1550 tons, (so not any urgent need for helo) and the smaller one is the new 62m 3233 class whit side mounted superstructual...(if szecepan can hear this, He can post the corresponding pages of Weyers 2005/7 edition that has good line drawings of both classes)
 

Troika

Junior Member
planeman said:
Sorry that it's old news. is there a page on the Sinodefence main site for this LST?

Bd Popeye, I agree it makes sense from their perspective, although I am unaligned so i won't say it's good or bad. Do you agree that it is probably capable of landing MBTs?


If China can make sufficient LSTs to land enough MBTs to be material in an amphibious assault, this could be a major shift in the strategic balance. Taiwan's tank/anti-tank assets are not particularly good but until now the somewhat lightly armoured Type-63A and old Type-63 amphibious light tanks were all they had to worry about. Now they have to readdress the armored warfare issue, at the cost of other aspects. Buying MBTs to match the Type-96/99s and/or sufficient anti-tank weapons (maybe more attack helicopters) is bound to adversely affect other areas of spending.

What is more, the LSTs will enhance the PLAs ability to land non-amphibious assets including various air-defence and artillery systems. LSTs may look unsexy to the casual observer but they represent a massive increase in amphibious might for the PLA/PLAN.

Apart from a small part of the coastal plains, Taiwan is horrendous tank country. Especially for relatively heavy tanks like the 96/99s. The other problem for them is that the LST'd have to park right up, no loading on hovercrafts or swimming ashore.. which means that the beachead better already be secured. Their use would probably more be in the latter (landing of ancillary systems) than tanks.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Steelbird wants to know...
Popeye, may I ask an innocent question: Since the image above shows that the ship can carry aircraft, I wonder what's the difference between and aircraft-carrier and a LHA/LHD/LPH ?

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner.

LHA/LHD type ships carry transport,attack helos and VSTOL aircraft. They have well decks that carry amphipous landing craft. They also have storage for amphibous troops(Marines) and their assoicated equipment.

USS Wasp LHD-1
LHD12.jpg


An LPH is a helo carrier. Most can handle VSTOL aircraft. Similiar to a LHA/LHD except minus a well deck. They also have limited

Itailan LPH type Guiseppe Garibaldi. I think Italy call this an assault carrier.
c551.jpg


An aircraft carrier has strictly fixed wing attack aircraft and helos for ASW and SAR missions. The confusion in designations arises when diffrent countries call ships by diffrent names. For instance the British call the Invincible class ships aircraft carriers. The USN would call an Invincible class an LPH.

USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
cvn72_19.jpg
 

Sczepan

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Gollevainen said:
the bigger vessel is Yudeng-mod class 89m 1550 tons, (so not any urgent need for helo) and the smaller one is the new 62m 3233 class whit side mounted superstructual...(if szecepan can hear this, He can post the corresponding pages of Weyers 2005/7 edition that has good line drawings of both classes)
Golle is right, but my scanner doesn't work, so I can't assist .....
edit: see more pix at http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1295&page=6

back to the LPH:
I agree, the chinese marines and amphibious fleet need support by transport- and attack-helos and planes for lightweight attack role including various air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons (instead of VSTOL-planes, which China does not have).
In this role the LPH (better: amphibious carrier) need angled deck (for starting and landing the planes) and catapults to serve the planes. So the ship should have dimensions near 20000 ts and a minim. length of >210 m.

I think, chinese naval ingeneers could reproduce ships like this by existing blueprints
 

Attachments

  • Minas_Gerais_Hanger_aft_Aircr_and_heli.jpg
    Minas_Gerais_Hanger_aft_Aircr_and_heli.jpg
    25.5 KB · Views: 15
  • Melbourne Art 2.jpg
    Melbourne Art 2.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 21
  • Melbourne Art 3 rear.jpg
    Melbourne Art 3 rear.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 18
  • Minas_Gerais_Hanger_looking_forward_aircr_heli.jpg
    Minas_Gerais_Hanger_looking_forward_aircr_heli.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 16
  • Minas_Gerais_breefing_room_2b.jpg
    Minas_Gerais_breefing_room_2b.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
Troika said:
Apart from a small part of the coastal plains, Taiwan is horrendous tank country. Especially for relatively heavy tanks like the 96/99s. The other problem for them is that the LST'd have to park right up, no loading on hovercrafts or swimming ashore.. which means that the beachead better already be secured. Their use would probably more be in the latter (landing of ancillary systems) than tanks.

LST is world war II technology when it comes to Amphibious Assault. The reasons are:

1.) LST's require beaches with a nice gradual slope for it to disembark its cargo. Beaches with prevalent shallow reefs, for example, will tear the bottoms of it.

2.) Prevalence of Antiship Missiles. LST's require "within the horizon" amphibious assault. That is, the defender can see you as you approach the beach at around 20 knots. That gives them time to acquire and shoot you with their truck mounted anti-ship missiles. Since you are within the horizon, targeting is very easy.

Those are just some of the reasons why the USN does not use LST's anymore. The USMC relies more on vertical envelopment (Air Assault) to secure the beachead. Followup forces include infantry on Amtracks and tank on smaller LST's or hover craft. Usually these are launched beyond the horizon, minimizing the threat posed by anti-ship missiles.

Popeye, may I ask an innocent question: Since the image above shows that the ship can carry aircraft, I wonder what's the difference between and aircraft-carrier and a LHA/LHD/LPH ?

In addition to Carrier strike groups, the USN also has 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups. An expeditionary strike group could include amphibious ships, a destroyer, cruiser, frigate, attack submarine and a P-3C Orion land-based aircraft. This mix allows Navy and Marine Corps forces to launch Marines and landing craft as warships and submarines strike inland targets with missiles and shells. Currently, each amphibious ready group is made up of an amphibious assault ship, a dock landing ship and an amphibious transport dock. Cruisers and destroyers deploy with carrier battle groups.

The Wasp Class LHD is one of the largest carriers in the world. It displaces 40,000 tons (only the Charles de Gaulle, Kuznetsov, and US carriers are larger). What makes its an LHA instead of a harrier carrier is the way it is employed. Typically its airwing consists of Marine and Navy VStol aircraft is designed to provide air support and airlift its embarked Marine battalion. In addition, it has a docking well at the rear that can housed hovercraft and landing ships. The Wasp Class has a second capability, in case of an emergency, as a "sea control ship". In this role, it is a carrier and employs its Harrier II, soon to be replaced by F-35B's, the way a carrier does. In this role, the Wasp Class is the most powerful "harrier carrier" out there.

lhd-4_050619-n-8146b-005.jpg
 
Last edited:

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
you know, looking at what IDont just posted, I think China would be doing pretty well if it can just somehow assemble a couple of Expedition strike groups. It would be a lot easier to accomplish than a full fledging CVBG. China can get some training with this and it would be a lot smaller jump to go from this to a real carrier group.
 
Top