Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Now didn't you say the width of well deck Type 72 is 16 m?
Now we know where this come from
The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Now didn't you say the width of well deck Type 72 is 16 m?
Now we know where this come from
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Now didn't you say the width of the well deck of type 71 is 16 m
Now we know where is it come from
Or the skirt is not deflated when the ramp is lower
This is picture below is fully inflated Now how can you possibly lower the ramp without deflating the skirt? Because the ramp is behind the skirt.
Now you know where it comes from? Listen technical genius, I already showed you where it came from. From one of the photos that YOU provided, allowing me to make direct measurements of the width of the well deck. BTW, a measurement that you made a 'mistake' on to try and make it look wider than it actually was.
I already told you the front skirt does not have to part of the same compartment as the side skirts, but I guess you would rather just ignore anything that doesn't go along with your narrative. BTW, these photos here are EVEN MORE damning of your laughable claim that your original 726 photo showed deflated side skirts.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
LOL You are the one that that make mistake not me Check this one out and maybe bring a thick eye glass too. You measure the green line which is wrong. The correct one is the red line Because it is perspective picture. Using 16m wide well deck it is impossible for type 726 to get in and out as the beam is 16.8m
Now you change your tune after realizing that you make gross mistake nice! Yes it is deflated sideway because it has to lower the deck and allow the ramp to hit the ground. that is why it is all crumpled up and not taut Now is that clear. See how tall and taut the side skirt is in full inflated condition
Last edited:
The green line is CORRECT because it measures the narrowest part of the well deck. The left end of the green line matches with the right end of the green line because they are at the same part of the well deck. It is NOT a matter of "perspective". You can easily realize this if you drop the green line all the way to the floor keeping everything else the same. I don't know if you are playing the fool on purpose or if you really don't understand what's going on in your own photos. Either way you are just shooting yourself in the foot over and over and over in this thread.
Sorry, how exactly did I "change" my tune? I didn't change my tune just because you apparently don't understand English very well:
Hehehe...mas pridcutions of what? 12 craft?
Sorry, that's a joke.
They have produced only four in over 8 years.
There is obviously something seriously wrogn with their design and they seem unable to fix it.
The Type 071 was clearly designed for a LCAC type craft and the Chinese produced on. Of course the LPD can carry other craft as well, but an OTH attack using LCAC is a critical part of the philosophy of the LPD force.
Each of their LPDs can carry four LCAC. To date, with four LPDs they have only four LCAC.
Ultimately they plan 6 LOPDs and should have a minimum of 24 LCAC to accomodate them...they actually need more for training, repairs, replacements, etc.
If they are now saying they are only going to produce 12 LCAC, then that's a max of two per vessel with no spares for maintenance, breakdowns, loss, etc.
I expect at some point the PLAN will solve its LCAC problem.
When they do, for their six LPDs I expect a force of about 30 LCACs which would give them spares, and replacements, as well as allow for a full surge at any time.
But those are just my thoughts.
I have to say it has been a disappointment to see the LAN l;anguish so much on this LCAC issue.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
The green line is CORRECT because it measures the narrowest part of the well deck. The left end of the green line matches with the right end of the green line because they are at the same part of the well deck. It is NOT a matter of "perspective". You can easily realize this if you drop the green line all the way to the floor keeping everything else the same. I don't know if you are playing the fool on purpose or if you really don't understand what's going on in your own photos. Either way you are just shooting yourself in the foot over and over and over in this thread.
View attachment 36288
Sorry, how exactly did I "change" my tune? I didn't change my tune just because you apparently don't understand English very well:
Just because you are using pixel ruler and using wrong view doesn't make you right or expert unless you have basic in design and drafting which obviously you do not posses. You are using perspective picture to take measurement and wrongly assume point in perspective picture as the shortest distance. Another thing those wrong perspective point is midway of the well height which the skirt will never ever touch another fallacy
And you didn't answer my question how you reconcile the publish 726 beam of 16.8 with your calculated well width of 16 m using your green line I am waiting
I am correct when I use the red line.It result in well width of 17.5m It jive well with the published dimension beam of 16.8 for type 726 from manufacturer brochure drawing which is layout(plan view) drawing and it is to scale so it is not CGI
Ever heard of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) that is exactly what you did
It is rather pathetic when someone with no technical training try to pose as an expert.You never use perspective to make measurement that is the drafting 101
Read this
I don't see the skirt in front is compartelized at all
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Jeff you did read the previous pages Yes there is something wrong with the Ukrainian Gas turbine that they used in the first 4 prototype because of noise and low vibration They have to wait until QC70 mature which is domestic gas turbine based on WS 10 core
They now solve all the problem and can now resume with serial production of Type 726
The main function of Type 726 is to transport the main battle tank as the ZBD series amphibious APC use high speed water jet and doesn't need type 726 to carry it over the horizon.
It would be more beneficial to carry more APC than Type 726 inside type 71 hull
Hey technical genius, the green line that I drew in your photo is at the BOTTOM of the well deck, not "midway". You have this curious habit of making dishonest comments based off of obviously FALSE premises and then running with it as if you have any kind of point. The green lines (both yours and mine) are in fact correct because both of them touch the end of the narrowest part of the well deck, whereas you deliberately exaggerate the width by running your line far into the starboard end where it obviously passes the narrow part of the end of the well deck and into the area that the ramp uses when folded up. It is NOT a "perspective" problem just because you erroneously claim it is.
I think it's pretty sad when you are trying to use a fanboi CG as "publish 726 beam". Even someone like you must understand deep down that an online CG is meaningless as an authority, unless you really are that thick. It's about as desperately humorous as appealing to someone's mark 1 eyeball as an authority. So no, I don't need to "answer" your "question" about the "publish" 726 beam because that CG has about as much authority as YOU do. You further make yourself look bad by backing this CG because the dimensions of the USN LCAC are actually WRONG; we DO have "publish" LCAC beam figures that are authoritative.
Well, I hope they have solved the problems and put out more LCAC for the Chinese LPDs.
The LCAC is a critical tool. My guess it has a longer range, and can also carry more types of equipment, including the MBT.
It is clear (at least to me) that the Chinese designed their LPD to utilize LCACs of their own design. Now, I am hoping that we will now see more prduction.
But I still maintain that 12 is not really a "mass" production. They should build like 30 of them.
We shall see.