Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

proelite said:

Speaking of the CATOBAR, someone did a light carrier for the USN that's very similar to a type 076 conversion. The only issue that I see with the deck layout is that the starboard cat should be moved to onto the angled landing strip, since the starboard cat will very rarely be used due to need for arming and parking. I would also move the first weapons elevator to where the starboard jet blast deflector, and move the second weapons elevator to behind the aft island, and add an extra elevator to the port parking.

I would also remove the swastikas.

Click to expand...

What does this have anything to do with the type 076 and it's design. You keep posting these fictional light carrier designs which don't at all add anything to the Type 076 conversation. The 076's Straight deck is obvious now and these fictional what-if, and how you would design a carrier deck have no relation with the 076's development.

If type 076 really has only one catapult I have concerns about this design choice. The biggest issue in my view is it lacks redundancy. Like all mechanical systems, a catapult will have failures, mechanical issues and even maintenance shutdowns. One simple problem in the catapult would put the functionality of the whole carrier wing out of commission. If the ship have 2 catapults, the likelihood of both failing at the same time is much lower. It will keep the carrier wing functional even if at a reduced capacity.

by78 said:

Self-explanatory.

Click to expand...

I see two lifts

tamsen_ikard said:

If type 076 really has only one catapult I have concerns about this design choice. The biggest issue in my view is it lacks redundancy. Like all mechanical systems, a catapult will have failures, mechanical issues and even maintenance shutdowns. One simple problem in the catapult would put the functionality of the whole carrier wing out of commission. If the ship have 2 catapults, the likelihood of both failing at the same time is much lower. It will keep the carrier wing functional even if at a reduced capacity.

Click to expand...

Yes if the catapults do not function then an aircraft carrier is effectively just a mobile warehouse not able to project its airpower, except helicopters for short range missions.

But type 076 is not an aircraft carrier. It may or may not be able to launch large UACV like GJ-11 without catapult, but there are many other manned and unmanned d vertical take-off and short-takeoff aircraft/drones can be stationed onboard. If catapult failed, large UCAV can still be launched with rocket-assisted take-off (RATO)

If it carry mainly helicopters, than lost of catapult would not affect its mission.

If PLAN chosed to have only one catapult, that mean they never think of using it as an aircraft carrier but an LHA(&D - And Drones). I know this is widely unaccepted by fanboys, but PLAN are professionals who have their own doctrines and war plans.

tamsen_ikard said:

If type 076 really has only one catapult I have concerns about this design choice. The biggest issue in my view is it lacks redundancy. Like all mechanical systems, a catapult will have failures, mechanical issues and even maintenance shutdowns. One simple problem in the catapult would put the functionality of the whole carrier wing out of commission. If the ship have 2 catapults, the likelihood of both failing at the same time is much lower. It will keep the carrier wing functional even if at a reduced capacity.

Click to expand...

1) Having one cat is better than no cat. That puts it above all other ships of its class today. When the cat breaks down then it operates like a regular LHA.

2) There are many systems where critical components are not redundant -- single-engined aircraft, vertebrates who have only one heart, single-barrel shotguns, etc. Reliability over cost allowed those non-redundant systems to proliferate.

Really, the redundancy argument is basically like saying two-heads is always better than one when evolution proved that is not the case for every higher life form.

GiantPanda said:

1) Having one cat is better than no cat. That puts it above all other ships of its class today. When the cat breaks down then it operates like a regular LHA.

2) There are many systems where critical components are not redundant -- single-engined aircraft, vertebrates who have only one heart, single-barrel shotguns, etc. Reliability over cost allowed those non-redundant systems to proliferate.

Really, the redundancy argument is basically like saying two-heads is always better than one when evolution proved that is not the case for every higher life form.

Click to expand...

Here is the problem with this argument. A single engine aircraft is only expected to serve a small amount of its time in the air, perform its mission, get back and then spend much more time in the hanger for maintenance.

However, a ship, a potential flagship supporting an ongoing amphibious assault cannot just shutdown for days while the catapult is repaired or goes into maintenance while troops need vital air support. I expect downtime will have devastating effects on the mission in this case.

This is the key difference between aircrafts and ships. Aircrafts are mission oriented platforms that only fly for a certain amount of time. You achieve redundancy by having more aircraft. However, ships especially carriers are expected to constantly operate for months and therefore need more redundancy. You don't expect to have 2 carriers in the same unit where one goes maintenance for one day, the other provides support to troops on shore.

tamsen_ikard said:

Here is the problem with this argument. A single engine aircraft is only expected to serve a small amount of its time in the air, perform its mission, get back and then spend much more time in the hanger for maintenance.

However, a ship, a potential flagship supporting an ongoing amphibious assault cannot just shutdown for days while the catapult is repaired or goes into maintenance while troops need vital air support. I expect downtime will have devastating effects on the mission in this case.

This is the key difference between aircrafts and ships. Aircrafts are mission oriented platforms that only fly for a certain amount of time. You achieve redundancy by having more aircraft. However, ships especially carriers are expected to constantly operate for months and therefore need more redundancy. You don't expect to have 2 carriers in the same unit where one goes maintenance for one day, the other provides support to troops on shore.

Click to expand...

You are still looking at the Catapult as the vital factor of the Type 076 when really it is a secondary determinant, troops can receive vital air support from other bases and or carriers, the specific job of the 076 is still to be an amphibious assault ship meaning it wont stray too far away from chinese shores and it’s main focus is just like any other LHA/D mentioned above. Yes of course losing a catapult would be un-preferable but that wouldn’t diminish its other capabilities as a larger and more capable upgrade to a type 075.

I personally don‘t expect the 076 to be launching and recovering drones anywhere nearly at a similar rate or amount to a carrier which means the catapult itself would be used less frequently like you mentioned about the aircraft engine, and should in theory last longer as a result. It’s probably going to be used to launch the occasional drone here and there, with VTOL and helicopters still being the main aviation branch of the ship. Unlike the Lightning UCAV carrier some others may be expecting it’s role to be.

Please remember that the 076 LHD is an LHD first and foremost. This means that any additional features, be they an EMALS catapult or a 17-person hot tub on the deck, are all secondary to the primary purpose of serving as an LHD. If they break down, it sucks, but it will not cripple the primary function of the 076 LHD.

tamsen_ikard said:

Here is the problem with this argument. A single engine aircraft is only expected to serve a small amount of its time in the air, perform its mission, get back and then spend much more time in the hanger for maintenance.

However, a ship, a potential flagship supporting an ongoing amphibious assault cannot just shutdown for days while the catapult is repaired or goes into maintenance while troops need vital air support. I expect downtime will have devastating effects on the mission in this case.

This is the key difference between aircrafts and ships. Aircrafts are mission oriented platforms that only fly for a certain amount of time. You achieve redundancy by having more aircraft. However, ships especially carriers are expected to constantly operate for months and therefore need more redundancy. You don't expect to have 2 carriers in the same unit where one goes maintenance for one day, the other provides support to troops on shore.

Click to expand...

OMG. Why are you still debating about this? The design is set and visually confirmed to be 1 catapult launcher.

Let it go man. PLAN knows what they are doing and why they need 076 as well. You're talking about this as if it can still be changed.

tamsen_ikard said:

If type 076 really has only one catapult I have concerns about this design choice. The biggest issue in my view is it lacks redundancy. Like all mechanical systems, a catapult will have failures, mechanical issues and even maintenance shutdowns. One simple problem in the catapult would put the functionality of the whole carrier wing out of commission. If the ship have 2 catapults, the likelihood of both failing at the same time is much lower. It will keep the carrier wing functional even if at a reduced capacity.

Click to expand...

The type 076 will work together with the type 004 in each fleet, so that the combination will have 4 emals. This indicates more type 76 and type 004 will be built, so that each fleet will have such combination.