Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

aubzman said:

If the aircraft are to be landed on the straight deck, is there any sign of the arrestor infrastructure required?

Click to expand...

Until the hole in the back is covered, no one will be able to tell.

Just a thought: what if the primary purpose of the catapult on 076 is to launch AEW aircrafts which provides situation awareness in the theatre of operations? Launching UCAV or even manned aircrafts will only be its secondary function.

sheogorath said:

Until the hole in the back is covered, no one will be able to tell.

Click to expand...

Island position and configuration will be interesting to see. Elevator position on the starboard side can give us a clue. Will it be between two islands or will be in front of a single one ?

Actually the expeditionary low level conflict military base on a ship function seems more plausible. Most large format UAVs have endurance of 10+ hours, there would be little difference launching them off the mainland or off a flat top. You would need such capability however if you are conducting ops off the coast of Africa. In such instances there would be basically no point in having fighter jets onboard since UAVs would do all the work.

taxiya said:

Your design will sink the ship almost immediately out in the sea. The supposed deck area in your design is larger and more out of the hull than an angled deck, but without the island being more outwardly located. The ship will naturally list even in static water.

Seriously what is the obssession with an angled deck and mini-carrier concept, even in front of the visible shape of the hull pointing to the opposite?

Click to expand...

A demonstration drawing, the width is the same as the pre-made drone catapult module.

Composite material can be used to reduce weight significantly.

The rear part of it is used as light-weight drone deck.

Hi Mod,

Should this thread be changed to just plain "Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion" ?

Mostly just the deck layout is still up for debate

plawolf said:

If you do take out all the stops and build a no-compromise light carrier, you will find you end up spending substantially most of the cost of a supercarrier and only be able to manage a fraction of a true supercarrier’s capabilities because you lack that magic minimum displacement and deck area threshold. If you are spending 70-80% of the price tag of a supercarrier to deliver 40-50% of the capacity, you are better off spending a little extra and get the supercarrier in the first place.

Click to expand...

I do think light carriers makes sense for other countries and it convoy-escort operations. A country that has the budget to build 2 light carriers vs 1 supercarrier, or 3 light carriers vs 2 supercarriers, should always pick the light carriers due to higher availability, as the supercarriers will no doubt spent a third to half its time in a dock.

Convoy-escort will need slower, conventional, and smaller ships that only needs to carry a small complement of STVOL plans, helicopters and drones, primarily to defend against aerial harassment and submarines. You wouldn't want to waste your fast and expensive ships on escort duties. Great examples of the ships that fight the bill are a modernized Principe De Austrias or Garibaldi class.

A Google Earth image from a while back that clearly shows the compartments for engines and generators.

Size comparison of the America LHA, 076 LHD/A and 075 LHD. Posted by on Twitter.