My personal speculation is that they are not pleased with its lack of capacity compared to the LCAC, specifically its (more or less) single file only carrying capacity. It is roughly the size of the LCAC and yet can only load 1/3 the number of vehicles. They may be looking for a Version 2 that gives more bang for the buck.
The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
If that was all there was, they could have addressed it within the time frame we are talking about IMHO.
No, I believe there is something more fundamental, like propulsion, or maneuvering with such a load that is keeping them from building the proper propulsion capable of maneuvering adequately into the space they require.
If all they had to do was add some space to each side, and still maintain the requisite width for the entire vessel, then structurally that is not a difficult thing to do.
But if something is keeping them from being able to do that...and still meet the overall width constraint (ie the width of the LPD well deck) which is not as easy a thing to change, then that would explain the years and years delays.
We've been watching this since the first Type 071 was seen building in 2005 and then launched in 2006. For Pete's sake, it's been over ten years now.
Something fundamental is messing them over on this.
Some try and play down the need for the LCAC...but I do not buy it. Te thing has been built for them...and to carry four of them. They were real proud of this when they came out, how the Chinese had leap frogged up to a San Antonio style vessel with them.
And yet, they cannot take advantage of that now. It has to be eating them alive in the design areas.
anyhow...time will tell.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Exactly my point
A fundamental problem
A fundamental problem
And not a simple matter like being unable to imitate the US counterpart.
Now, the Chinese do have this smaller air cushion craft, the Type 724.
Supposedly, they produced maybe 20 of these...and they can carry only 10 troops or so.
Supposedly the later Type 072 LSTs can carry two of these each and they can enter and exit through the bow doors, like the amphibious vehicles, Type 63A, and ZTD05 vehicles (light tank, IFV, etc.)
But this is very small with a very light load.
Displacement: 6.35 t
Length: 12.4 m
Width: 4.7 m
Height: 3.7 m
maximum speed: 40 knots
voyage: 100 miles
Operator: 2-3
mounted troops: 10 soldiers
Supposedly, they produced maybe 20 of these...and they can carry only 10 troops or so.
Supposedly the later Type 072 LSTs can carry two of these each and they can enter and exit through the bow doors, like the amphibious vehicles, Type 63A, and ZTD05 vehicles (light tank, IFV, etc.)
But this is very small with a very light load.
Displacement: 6.35 t
Length: 12.4 m
Width: 4.7 m
Height: 3.7 m
maximum speed: 40 knots
voyage: 100 miles
Operator: 2-3
mounted troops: 10 soldiers
We know for sure it was at least partly the propulsion as this has been addressed already in this thread, but the engine issue has apparently been rectified. What else it was (or still is) is not entirely clear. On the other hand we have now seen up to 4 726s under construction or fitting out at the same time in recent photos, so I assume they are least ramping up production somewhat.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Ok guys we have photos of the following
The original 3
3319, 3320 and 3321
And now new units
3330, 3331 and 3332
That's 6 x LCAC
There is 5 at JNCX , now are those 5 from these already operational 6 ? Doubt it
Why would they move from JNCX to LPD marine base
So based on the recent photo we have 11 x Type 726 LCAC
That's production scale
The original 3
3319, 3320 and 3321
And now new units
3330, 3331 and 3332
That's 6 x LCAC
There is 5 at JNCX , now are those 5 from these already operational 6 ? Doubt it
Why would they move from JNCX to LPD marine base
So based on the recent photo we have 11 x Type 726 LCAC
That's production scale
Agreed.
They have gottens omething done that they are willing to go with...where for years they were not putting any more out.
I believe there are now six operational...and four more outfitting. That will make ten.
Let's see if they build enough to outfit the six LPDs they are building, which would mean that they need 16. I expect they would want some for training, some for contingencies, etc. So they may build more like 20 or 24 for those six LPDs.