This has been long explain.. in previous thread. Given the large number of PLAN marine amphibious vehicles. Many of marine asset can float and get to the shore by themselves. 071 has the flexibilities to hold 4 LCAC but that does not mean you will see a fully loaded 071 LPD with LCAC. PLAN marines doctrine is totally different from the USMC.
The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
This has been long explain.. in previous thread. Given the large number of PLAN marine amphibious vehicles. Many of marine asset can float and get to the shore by themselves. 071 has the flexibilities to hold 4 LCAC but that does not mean you will see a fully loaded 071 LPD with LCAC. PLAN marines doctrine is totally different from the USMC.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
For a Over the Horizon amphibious landing LCAC is the only way to land troops and equipment on shore, this is not just USN specific it's specific to anyone who wants to land forces in shore from the sea if they want to contain the element of suprise
And even if what you said was true (which it isnt) it still doesn't explain the pause in the construction of the Type 726 and the reason why 3rd unit still isn't commissioned while 3321 has been operational for a while now not to mention 3320
This is a bit of a bad sign if true but my theory is that the PLAN re-prioritized their projects due to their perceived increased threat level from the US pivot to Asia and tensions with Japan.
The PLAN may have decided that it simply cannot ensure the safety of 3x Type 071s and the CV-16 if it came into conflict with the JMSDF or the USN, not to mention both.
At this point in time the CV-16 is priceless for the PLAN to develop their capabilities but the 071s are probably of limited new knowledge value. The 071 certainly has less potential in combat than the CV, therefore is less applicable to as many conflict scenarios, and if its safety cannot be ensured in combat it also makes a big fat sitting duck basket packed with a lot of eggs.
As such the PLAN put the 071 and associated projects like the LCAC on the back burner while: 1) Zubrs are introduced in the hopes of higher survivability, fewer eggs in one basket, with arguably better application to China's small scale and geographically not too distant amphibious warfare scenarios, 2) Type 056s are churned out for more effective sentry duty to create a coastal naval safe zone together with the PLAAF, while 3) the development of destroyers and subs continue apace, my bet would actually be that the PLAN comes out with a new frigate design with the 052D's same new unviversal VLS and churns that out before we see anything else such as another CV or a LHD.
The PLAN may have decided it only has a slim chance of ensuring the safety of even just the CV, thereby rendering it a lower priority which would explain the seemingly slow pace of activity with it since it was commissioned.
The PLAN may have decided that it simply cannot ensure the safety of 3x Type 071s and the CV-16 if it came into conflict with the JMSDF or the USN, not to mention both.
At this point in time the CV-16 is priceless for the PLAN to develop their capabilities but the 071s are probably of limited new knowledge value. The 071 certainly has less potential in combat than the CV, therefore is less applicable to as many conflict scenarios, and if its safety cannot be ensured in combat it also makes a big fat sitting duck basket packed with a lot of eggs.
As such the PLAN put the 071 and associated projects like the LCAC on the back burner while: 1) Zubrs are introduced in the hopes of higher survivability, fewer eggs in one basket, with arguably better application to China's small scale and geographically not too distant amphibious warfare scenarios, 2) Type 056s are churned out for more effective sentry duty to create a coastal naval safe zone together with the PLAAF, while 3) the development of destroyers and subs continue apace, my bet would actually be that the PLAN comes out with a new frigate design with the 052D's same new unviversal VLS and churns that out before we see anything else such as another CV or a LHD.
The PLAN may have decided it only has a slim chance of ensuring the safety of even just the CV, thereby rendering it a lower priority which would explain the seemingly slow pace of activity with it since it was commissioned.
"Over the horizon" amphibious assault simply aren't far enough from the shore to place a mothership out of the range of modern shore based anti ship missiles.
??? What kind of element of surprise do you want given in modern warfare scenario? And how do Over the Horizon is the only way to land? Unless you are talking about taking some somalia warload in gulf of Eden, I am sure the element of surprises will come handy.
PLAN amphibious assualt emphasize on shallow , small islet beach assault. With or without Over the Horizon, Shore and nearby enemy heavy weapon position needs to be taken out first. With most artillery with rocket assist or MLS or anti ship missile, easily hitting 40km and beyond. How much Over the Horizon is needed for LPD or LHD amphibious assault? 40km? 80km? Or 120km?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think its important to distinguish between missile range and real world effective engagement range.
An AShM might have a 200km effective range, but without off board over the horizon sensor support, that missile isn't going to be effective against anything outside of its own sensor range, which is going to be a small fraction of the missile's effective range.
In a combat scenario, its a lot easier to kill, or at least suppress, enemy long range sensors than it is to systematically hunt down and kill every enemy shore battery. Thus, if you have managed to kill all enemy long range over the horizon sensor capabilities, you can send your LPDs to within the effect range of enemy missiles yet have those high value assets remain relatively safe.
An AShM might have a 200km effective range, but without off board over the horizon sensor support, that missile isn't going to be effective against anything outside of its own sensor range, which is going to be a small fraction of the missile's effective range.
In a combat scenario, its a lot easier to kill, or at least suppress, enemy long range sensors than it is to systematically hunt down and kill every enemy shore battery. Thus, if you have managed to kill all enemy long range over the horizon sensor capabilities, you can send your LPDs to within the effect range of enemy missiles yet have those high value assets remain relatively safe.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
I think you guys are missing the point, I did not say you will be "out of range" you will never be out of range but the whole purpose is to decrease the threat level, this is how it works, you decrease every threat level best you can you take into account as much as you can then anything else well that's just maybe luck
Sometimes people wonder why are the best military's are always so lucky, it's not so much luck you can only be lucky once or twice but after that it comes own to experience, training, tactics, intelligence and survailance etc etc
The better you prepare the better chance you have, first USN Marines used LCAC and helos for over the horizon landing now they shifted to using V-22 Osprey so Wasp and America Class can stay even further out at sea out, V-22 Osprey lifts more, travels faster and can is quicker so they have decreased the time once again which will retain the element of suprise, the further the mother ships are out at sea the better chance they have for survival add in a America Class with F35B and you have freed up a aircraft carrier small things like that win wars and pay the bills make difference
It's constant adjustment it's constant development and constant innovations that keep the best at thier best it's not just about range and guns it's about overall stratedgy, the question first should be what is the overall stratedgy the militray requirements fit around that
Last edited:
franco-russe
Senior Member
But have we ever seen this wonders of tactics and technology used against a defended beach?
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
As the saying goes better to have the capability and never need to use it than not to have it and need to use it
I believe US did amphibious landings in both Iraq wars in 1991 and 2003 and the Turkish Navy during Cyprus invasion in 1974
It's always a branch of warfare that one can use if needed no doubt it will be used again in future
I don't disagree with what you say. The question we should ask, however, is whether those capabilities are something the PLA desires and namely whether it is worth the investment into LCACs at this stage of the PLANs modernization drive.