PLAN Zubr Large Air Cushion Landing Craft

Skye_ZTZ_113 said:

As an add-on I would suggest the possible integration of soft kill AM systems such as an upscaled Shtora equivalent for dealing with ATGMs lest the craft be trying to deal with too many threats at once ala the infamous Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) programme in certain country.

Imo it would be better to leave most of the 'hard kill' capabilities to the Navy and Air Force cover which will be essential to such an operation- they will provide fire support to make sure that the massed ATGM firepower never is delivered. Artillery rockets will be far more dangerous, and in far greater quantities of delivered payload, than what ATGMscould ever provide. Hence the dire need for Navy/Air-Force cover, rather than try to overspecialise what is already a very very heavily armed and defended Assault Craft.

Click to expand...

I would assume soft kill would be added as standard.

Maybe the FL2000 is a bit overkill, but should be a very effective defence against artillery and heavy missiles alike. Even if we forgo that, tank hard kill systems would hardly add much in the way of cost or weight relative to the cost of the vessel and assets they will be carrying.

The navy and air force would probably be able to relatively reliability take out, or at least suppress enemy heavy weapons like heave AShMs and artillery, however, a single man could launch an ATGM, and do so from very close range.

With modern fire and forget versions, a two man team could loose several missiles in very little time, and relocate before your air support could find and target them.

That is where I see the biggest threats coming from.

I recently read ( where? ) that Russia is developing a new version of this beast. I suppose that will be with input from PLAN and that PLAN will order any further vessels with the improvements by the Russian navy in mind.

I expect that the PLAN has made some improvements on their own now that they are building them themselves.

I have no doubt that these vessels carry MANPADS as a matter of course.

Wolf, I too believe the small FL-3000N with eight cells, like they have on the Type 056 corvettes, would be good for this sized vessel...particularly oif they ever intend on them operating individually in the SCS.

I've read somewhere that in a modern war the attacking force can project so much fire power on the beachhead that set up a effective defense line on the beach (like the one germans did in normandy) would be impractical. Instead there will only be recon team/post and limited QRF at anywhere close to beach and the most of defending force would be like at least 5 or 10 km from coastline waiting to launch a counter attack. The whole idea including let the enemy land their boots on the ground and then strike before they can establish a stable supply line. Thus would zubr need counter measures against anything bigger than ATGM？

kriss said:

I've read somewhere that in a modern war the attacking force can project so much fire power on the beachhead that set up a effective defense line on the beach (like the one germans did in normandy) would be impractical. Instead there will only be recon team/post and limited QRF at anywhere close to beach and the most of defending force would be like at least 5 or 10 km from coastline waiting to launch a counter attack. The whole idea including let the enemy land their boots on the ground and then strike before they can establish a stable supply line. Thus would zubr need counter measures against anything bigger than ATGM？

Click to expand...

You don't need to have your AShM batteries right on the beach.

Those missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles now, so for coastal defence, you can probably position your AShM batteries scores of miles from the beach and still be able to fire on landing and support ships out at sea.

Although doing that may require you to reprogram your AShM missile flight paths to avoid ground obstacles, which in turn may make them easier to detect and intercept by the landing forces.

I can see the logic in shifting your main defences further inland to avoid much of the firepower of the assaulting force's naval fleet elements. However, I think this would only work if there are natural, geographical bottlenecks not far from the beach you are giving up. So rather then try to defend a broad beach, you focus your firepower and forces on a bottleneck|(s) the enemy have to pass in order to advance off the beach while shelling the hell out of the beach and anything on it, which you would have carefully range well in advanced to make the bombardment as systematic and effective as possible (you can carefully check and mark obvious areas of cover/shelter and exit routes enemy forces will likely congregate to and use, and focus fire on those grid references. You can also carefully prepare well hidden spotter hides to have people direct the artillery in real time.

The problem with that strategy is that in this day and age, 10s of miles is nothing in terms of weapons range.

You are not going to be avoid much, if any of the enemy's supporting firepower placing your forces a few score miles off the beach.

Unless there are significant geographical features your forces could exploit either as cover for themselves and/or to use to bottleneck enemy forces advancing off the beach, giving up the beach without a fight is going to be a costly mistake. Hell, even then I would not want to give up the beach without making the enemy pay for it in blood.

It's not this or that choice between defending the beach and defending in depth. You could do all of what I mentioned above even if you also defended the beach.

Your enemy landing forces are going to be at their slowest and most vulnerable as they make their way ashore.

Not exploiting that would be a colossal mistake in my view.

Maybe I get the distance wrong but the idea is that beach been nearly impossible to defend against modern weaponry. The coastline used to be a nature entrenchment that can be effectively defend. But just like trench is fading out of battlefield, there are way to many ways to deal with permanent fortifications. It's not about giving up beach or not but stay there would cost too much and gain so little like no one would seriously dig up trench (except for temporary use) today.

Just like in a land battle the defending side would put their bulk force behind their frontline unit ready to reinforce anywhere the enemy attacks. Just in the coast area you put even less assets on the first line (you cannot launch a counter attack into water obviously).

Holding a strong strategic reserve not only makes sense, it is essential.

The key to modern beach defence is going to be concealment, rather than building up fortifications in my view.

There is little point making WWII era hunkers and seaside pill boxes as those are obvious and easy targets for enemy PGMs.

The key to keeping your forces alive and in the fight in the modern age is air power. You need to own the skies, or at the very least deny it to the enemy so they cannot pound you to dust with air power.

If you cannot contest the skies, you are done. You can make it costly for the other side to win, but you cannot mount any sort of effective, organised large scale defence if the enemy has total control of the skies and can bomb your ground forces at will.

Assuming you can at least deny the enemy from owning the skies, your defence would rely upon concealment and mobility.

You want defences on the beach and along the coast, as many men and as much heavy weaponry as you can manage without making them obvious and easy targets.

The sea may not be the same barrier as once was, but there can be no denying that any attacking force is at its most exposed and vulnerable when they are making their way from landing ships to the beachhead.

The primary object of any defender is, as it has always been, to stop the enemy from landing at all. Failing that, you want to keep the enemy pinned on the beach and reduce them with constant bombardment.

A head-on counter attack against enemy forces that have achieved a break out is really a last ditch effort that is almost always doomed to failure as far as the defenders are concerned.

The strategic reserves are supposed to help shore up your defences to stop the enemy establishing a foothold on the beach or to force a break out.

As such, they cannot be based too far from the coast, or else they may not be able to get to the front line in time to stop he break-out.

Three new high-resolution photos of Zubr at exercise...

3325 & 3326

A.Man said:

3325 & 3326
View attachment 22577

View attachment 22578

Click to expand...

Thanks for those pics.

It is GREAT to see the two of them together like that.

One day we will see four of them...and then maybe more!