The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

Lion said:

Is there a Type 96 MBT inside?

Click to expand...

AssassinsMace said:

Haven't seen many pics of a landing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for these pics. Here's one I got from the Type 071 thread. It should also be included on this thread because it is the first one I have seen of the PLAN LCAC carrying combat equipment, in this case a ZTZ96 MBT:

Why does a ZTZ96 not qualify to be a full-sized MBT? Does it have to be a 68-ton monster to satisfy your requirements for a MBT?

All amphibious-capable divisions in Jinan, Nanjing and Guangzhou military regions are equipped with ZTZ96, so the eventuality of using the heavier ZTZ99 for amphibious operations obviously is not part of the PLA’s plans.

franco-russe said:

Why does a ZTZ96 not qualify to be a full-sized MBT? Does it have to be a 68-ton monster to satisfy your requirements for a MBT?

Click to expand...

No...and I stand corrected. I was not familiar with the specs and looking at them I would say it certainly does qualify to be a MBT.

My bad.

At 41+ tons and with a 125mm main gun, I ammend my statement and will fix it in my post too.

The US M-60 was 46 tons and had a 105mm gun and it was certainly considered a MBT too.

Thanks.

The six group armies that are considered amphibious capable between them have 12 ZTZ96 regiments, that is 12x93 = 1,116 MBT’s. That is quite a lot more than the PLA/PLAN lift capacity can handle, but they are no doubt counting on using merchant shipping, too.

why does PLAN prefer LCAC why not just have small landing crafts like watercrafts for the LHDs/LPDs, they would be better armoured carry more heavy loads? plus LCAC are big and bulky can only fit so many in a LPD

the Aussies just ordered 12 small watercraft for thier 2 LHDs

asif iqbal said:

why does PLAN prefer LCAC why not just have small landing crafts like watercrafts for the LHDs/LPDs, they would be better armoured carry more heavy loads? plus LCAC are big and bulky can only fit so many in a LPD

the Aussies just ordered 12 small watercraft for thier 2 LHDs

Click to expand...

How do you send a 50tons MBT onto shore fast and quick if you don't use LCAC???

asif iqbal said:

why does PLAN prefer LCAC why not just have small landing crafts like watercrafts for the LHDs/LPDs, they would be better armoured carry more heavy loads? plus LCAC are big and bulky can only fit so many in a LPD

the Aussies just ordered 12 small watercraft for thier 2 LHDs

Click to expand...

The LCACs are faster, more manuverable and have less draft. Also, they carry quite a bit...including MBTs that most thinner LCVs and such cannot carry. Some larger ones can, but they draw more water and are not as fast or as manuverable.

There are trade offs.

My guess is, like the US, they will use some of both.

The French looked at LCAC for the MISTRAL class and decided these unreliable things were not worth the trouble. Instead they adopted a rather ingenious design for a fast landing craft, named EDA-R, which goes at 25 knots. Each of the four French MISTRAL will carry two of these. So far, 4 orders (of which L9092 delivered) and 2 options (for DIXMUDE).

The Russians have also developed some clever designs for fast (cavitating) landing craft, the SERNA and the larger DYUGON class, which carries three MBT's or five APC'S at 35 knots. They will probably develop an adaptation of the latter for their four MISTRAL's.

I think that the PLAN, when they have thoroughly tested 3320, will also come to the conclusion that this is not the way to go.

PLAN has landing craft. I guess we will just have to wait for more exercises and pictures to see how they intend to use Type 071. Remember, it will also be serving as a command ship imo.

franco-russe said:

The French looked at LCAC for the MISTRAL class and decided these unreliable things were not worth the trouble.

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for the French and what they tested. I cannot speak for the Chinese.

But the US, which arguably has the most amphibious experience of any nation in the world, perhaps more than the other leading nations combined, uses LCACs significantly (91 vessels).

It is certainly not all that the US uses, because the US has three classes of LCUs (57+ vessels) and two clases of smaller LCMs (54 vessels).

The LCACs did have to be SLEP'd to be able to carry the M1A2, but that has proceeded. During the SLEP their service life was increased from 20 to 30 years, which indicates the US Navy and US Marines are happy with and committed to the design...indeed, the design has served the US well.

The Chinese have clearly invested heavily in large LPD designs similar to the San Antonio class which have been built specifically to take advantage of the LCAC design, and we are seeing the Chinese now produce and test LCACs. I will be very surprised if they depart from that given their investment. Though the well deck can carry other craft, it was clearly designed to carry their LCACs and they will maximize the use and capability of the Type 071, IMHO, by doing so.