The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

It would be premature to consider the program as a failure; improvements might be underway or have been without us noticing. Also videos and photos are rare but we do know that a type 726 can take some sort of payload, from modules to APCs, soldiers, and that it does work on sea, beaches or ships.

That been said, LCACs are driven by one need which is the transport of heavy armored vehicles and it's a fact the type 726 class can't do this task. There's no point in such equipment if it cannot takes tanks. In the case of China it's not a significant problem as they already have LSTs and capable amphibious tanks but still, a lot of money is lost for this program.

Tetrach said:

It would be premature to consider the program as a failure; improvements might be underway or have been without us noticing. Also videos and photos are rare but we do know that a type 726 can take some sort of payload, from modules to APCs, soldiers, and that it does work on sea, beaches or ships.

That been said, LCACs are driven by one need which is the transport of heavy armored vehicles and it's a fact the type 726 class can't do this task. There's no point in such equipment if it cannot takes tanks. In the case of China it's not a significant problem as they already have LSTs and capable amphibious tanks but still, a lot of money is lost for this program.

Click to expand...

We have seen type 726 transporting MBT at sea. The photo has been posted in this thread. Here is it again


What has been going on in this thread is that ONE specific member FIRST insisting type 726 can NOT load a heavy load, then after being shown "it can" changed the goal post to demanding seeing type 726 carrying MBT leaving the dock of LPD.

On the one hand, PLAN has no obligation to that specific SD member to show to prove anything, so the evidence may not come. On the other hand, WITHOUT providing any supporting evidence, that SD member keeps arguing for the "failure". And worst, calling other fellow members fanboy (due to not able to prove full-load-LPD-disembarking) while not questioning his own stand WITHOUT counter proof. That is double standard, and "selective fact gathering". This is the very reason of dragged-on meaningless argumentation.

taxiya said:

We have seen type 726 transporting MBT at sea. The photo has been posted in this thread. Here is it again

Click to expand...

This photo is at least dating from 2012. At that time the three already produced type 726 were motorised with Ukrainians UGT-6000 DM-71 which were much more powerful engines than what the 726A use. We're speaking of a difference between 350 and 3k depending on the source.

Today the noise level and low-frequency vibrations might have been reduced by use of local engines but through a decrease in the engine power which can effect the payload capacity. Also the tank might just be a type 85II which is under 40 tons so quite light in comparaison to a full ERA and loaded Type 96B/99A2. So it's not a good reference to the capability of the hovercraft to take a 50 ton tanks (actually more modern designs around closer to the 60 tons).

Tetrach said:

This photo is at least dating from 2012. At that time the three already produced type 726 were motorised with Ukrainians UGT-6000 DM-71 which were much more powerful engines than what the 726A use. We're speaking of a difference between 350 and 3k depending on the source.

Today the noise level and low-frequency vibrations might have been reduced by use of local engines but through a decrease in the engine power which can effect the payload capacity. Also the tank might just be a type 85II which is under 40 tons so quite light in comparaison to a full ERA and loaded Type 96B/99A2. So it's not a good reference to the capability of the hovercraft to take a 50 ton tanks (actually more modern designs around closer to the 60 tons).

Click to expand...

How do you know that the reduced vibration is due to lowering of the power It does not make sense Vibration is mostly due imbalance of imperfection in machinery part and it amplify by the high speed of the rotor
Because of lack of precision and high tech CNC machinery in former Soviet Union including Ukraine
China now can produced some of the best CNC machinery Plus they import extensively from Japan and Germany. Henri K report which I posted repeatedly here in the forum said that the Chinese eliminate vibration and say nothing about derating

Tetrach said:

This photo is at least dating from 2012. At that time the three already produced type 726 were motorised with Ukrainians UGT-6000 DM-71 which were much more powerful engines than what the 726A use. We're speaking of a difference between 350 and 3k depending on the source.

Today the noise level and low-frequency vibrations might have been reduced by use of local engines but through a decrease in the engine power which can effect the payload capacity. Also the tank might just be a type 85II which is under 40 tons so quite light in comparaison to a full ERA and loaded Type 96B/99A2. So it's not a good reference to the capability of the hovercraft to take a 50 ton tanks (actually more modern designs around closer to the 60 tons).

Click to expand...

Care to share your proof of "domestic engine used by 726 today is weaker than Ukrainian engine"? Or it is just your wish? To prove and disprove anything has to be based on fact, otherwise, all you and I included can say is "don't know", back to square one.

The tank in that picture was Type-96, nobody ever said Type-99. I think it was known that Type-726 was "never" designed to carry Type-99 regardless which engine. So we should not use Type-99 as a benchmark for "failure".

Also remember, the "meaningless argumentation" by the you-know-who member was NOT about "carrying MBT", it was only the first goal-post he set up, which later was changed by him to "disembark LPD well deck with full load". The changing of goal-post is the real dispute by now.

@Tetrach, continue #715.

To clarify the history, I dug up this thread and found this background post https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-plan-lcac-type-726-yuyi-class.t5620/page-35#post-360870

Before this post, the you-know-who argued that "not seeing well-deck disembarking" was due to Type-726 unable to manoeuvre sideways, therefor a failure. After this post, he changed to "failure because not-seeing fully loaded". Then the picture with Type-96 was shown, he changed goal post again to "not-seeing fully loaded disembarking LPD".

One may ask, what proof is enough to satisfy one's pre-determined goal, probably never because PLA is not going to invite that one to their LPD's deck to observe what he want to see.

Hendrik_2000 said:

How do you know that the reduced vibration is due to lowering of the power It does not make sense Vibration is mostly due imbalance of imperfection in machinery part and it amplify by the high speed of the rotor
Because of lack of precision and high tech CNC machinery in former Soviet Union including Ukraine
China now can produced some of the best CNC machinery Plus they import extensively from Japan and Germany. Henri K report which I posted repeatedly here in the forum said that the Chinese eliminate vibration and say nothing about derating

Click to expand...

*sigh*

what I said is that China resolved the problems of vibration and noise by using a new engine, underpowered comparable to the previous one.

taxiya said:

Care to share your proof of "domestic engine used by 726 today is weaker than Ukrainian engine"? Or it is just your wish? To prove and disprove anything has to be based on fact, otherwise, all you and I included can say is "don't know", back to square one.

The tank in that picture was Type-96, nobody ever said Type-99. I think it was known that Type-726 was "never" designed to carry Type-99 regardless which engine. So we should not use Type-99 as a benchmark for "failure".

Also remember, the "meaningless argumentation" by the you-know-who member was NOT about "carrying MBT", it was only the first goal-post he set up, which later was changed by him to "disembark LPD well deck with full load". The changing of goal-post is the real dispute by now.

Click to expand...

UGT-6000 ДМ71 should have a horse power of 10000HP. QC-70 has a horsepower of 7000HP.

Tetrach said:

*sigh*

what I said is that China resolved the problems of vibration and noise by using a new engine, underpowered comparable to the previous one.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

UGT-6000 ДМ71 should have a horse power of 10000HP. QC-70 has a horsepower of 7000HP.

Click to expand...

Power has nothing to do with vibration I am not sure where you get 7000HP from Wiki ? anyone can put number there not very authoritative

Hendrik_2000 said:

Power has nothing to do with vibration I am not sure where you get 7000HP from Wiki ? anyone can put number there not very authoritative

Click to expand...

It is literrally written in the performance table.

It's well known that the number after QC- represents the power of the turbine. But a better question is if it's in KW or HP. Even if it was 7000MW the turbines would still be underpowered from their ukrainian counterpart by more than a thousand hp.

That been said I don't not seek any discussions with you until you learn how punctuation and quality reading work.

Pro tip: a sentence begins with a capital and ends with a point.

Tetrach said:

It is literrally written in the performance table.

It's well known that the number after QC- represents the power of the turbine. But a better question is if it's in KW or HP. Even if it was 7000MW the turbines would still be underpowered from their ukrainian counterpart by more than a thousand hp.

That been said I don't not seek any discussions with you until you learn how punctuation and quality reading work.

Pro tip: a sentence begins with a capital and ends with a point.

Click to expand...

You don't have to teach me about punctuation or capital letter I am just too lazy to follow it. No need the patronizing attitude if you don't know what you are talking about . Once again power has nothing to do with vibration or not professor.
Quality assurance and manufacturing quality is the cause of vibration and not power