Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Basically in the absence of a VTOL this is the next best thing

but a UCAV can’t match a F35B?

China needs a naval fighter J15 is too big for Type 076

why are we still talking about VTOL?
EMALS made it obsolete. Again, if you can launch a real jet only idiots want to touch a VTOL one. Ask the USN.

AndrewS said:

But let's look at the opportunity cost of a Type-076 primarily configured for amphibious assault versus air/sea control.

By the end of 2030, even with a significant ramp up of large carrier construction, China would realistically only field a maximum of 4 additional large carriers.

But even then, the overall Chinese naval, air and missile force still won't be able to achieve sufficient air superiority over an island in the Second Island Chain, which is a requirement for a successful amphibious assault.

So I think a Type-076 with amphibious assault as its primary mission is 5-10 years ahead of its time.

In comparison, I think a Type-076 which emphasises air/sea control with unmanned drones makes sense now.

Click to expand...

But the 076s built will be in service for decades.
If the initial ship is ahead of its primary mission by 5-10 years, that is not a big deal especially considering some of those years will be spent sorting out the teething issues with the new concept (UCAV integration into a LHD) in the first place.

Remember that we are talking about the design of a ship and its primary role, it isn't something that can be easily rectified once it's built.

Just because we think that 076 might be better if it were more of a dedicated carrier rather than primarily an LHD doesn't mean we can just ignore what the insiders are saying.
They're calling it primarily an amphibious assault ship, and the very name of this thing "076" denotes its purpose as an amphibious assault ship.
Our role is therefore to come up with the most sensible explanation for how to marry the various ideas and seemingly contradictory roles together into something which makes sense.

There is a new operating paradigm due to the combination of:

1. EMALs which is simple in comparison to steam catapults
2. EM arresting wires, which again is simple in comparison to steam
3. Long-range unmanned combat and ISR carrier-capable drones
4. And in China's case, the geographical advantage of having 200 airbases available in mainland China.

---

Say you have Chinese carriers operating at 2000km from the Chinese mainland.
Land-based drones can reach the carriers, and then use the carriers as a base to refuel and rearm.

That extends the reach of the drones to another 1000-2000km.

So large numbers of land-based ISR and combat fighter drones could reach out 3000-4000km into the Western Pacific.

That would drive a carrier requirement that is smaller, cheaper and less high-performance than a carrier designed for Global Power Projection which has to operate independently.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't have any issues with the idea of 076 operating as a UCAV carrier, so long as there is understanding that 076 is primarily an amphibious assault ship and therefore will not be as efficient in fixed wing flight operations as a proper carrier.

Bltizo said:

But the 076s built will be in service for decades.
If the initial ship is ahead of its primary mission by 5-10 years, that is not a big deal especially considering some of those years will be spent sorting out the teething issues with the new concept (UCAV integration into a LHD) in the first place.

Click to expand...

The issue is that the next 10 years are the most critical in the power-transition period between the US and China, and when the tensions will be greatest.

Improved far-seas amphibious capabilities for use in 10 years time seems like a luxury, given more pressing demands now.

Again, I don't have any issues with the idea of 076 operating as a UCAV carrier, so long as there is understanding that 076 is primarily an amphibious assault ship and therefore will not be as efficient in fixed wing flight operations as a proper carrier.

Click to expand...

I actually see the Type-076 as being more efficient in UCAV operations in the Western Pacific, than a full-scale carrier would be. And it is the Western Pacific which is the top priority for the next 15+ years.

Yes, you get less fixed-wing flight performance with a Type-076 than a full-scale carrier.

But it should be more than compensated by the lower carrier construction cost, lower operating costs from leveraging land-based UCAVs, along with a lower impact/risk if the carrier is lost.

AndrewS said:

The issue is that the next 10 years are the most critical in the power-transition period between the US and China, and when the tensions will be greatest.

Improved far-seas amphibious capabilities for use in 10 years time seems like a luxury, given more pressing demands now.

Click to expand...

Sure, but how much resources would the procurement of 076 play in context of the PLA's overall procurement plans during this period and is it enough to make it worth or not worth the opportunity cost?

Because if we're talking about "next 10 years being most critical in power transition period" and we're expecting the PLA to procure its weapons in a way to maximize its westpac HIC capabilities, then arguably there are quite a few projects currently ongoing that could be probably better spent elsewhere on other subsystems.
All of the large amphibious assault ships in service and in fitting out or construction, even the carriers tbh.

Instead, what we've seen with PLA procurement is that they balance both long term procurement goals and near term requirements.
If they do go for 076 then it would say something for what their assessment of ability to achieve near term requirements would be.

I actually see the Type-076 as being more efficient in UCAV operations in the Western Pacific, than a full-scale carrier would be. And it is the Western Pacific which is the top priority for the next 15+ years.

Yes, you get less fixed-wing flight performance with a Type-076 than a full-scale carrier.

But it should be more than compensated by the lower carrier construction cost, lower operating costs from leveraging land-based UCAVs, along with a lower impact/risk if the carrier is lost.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about comparing 076 with a full scale carrier that is larger in displacement.
I'm talking about sortie rate generation, which a dedicated carrier design of equivalent displacement to an LHD would better configured to do, particularly in terms of flight deck and the allocation of equivalent displacement.
Not needing a well deck and decks for vehicle capacity is displacement that can be put elsewhere -- like enlarging your flight deck to allow for better sortie generaiton.

AndrewS said:

But it should be more than compensated by the lower carrier construction cost, lower operating costs from leveraging land-based UCAVs, along with a lower impact/risk if the carrier is lost.

Click to expand...

If you want a carrier first - build one(especially since configuring carrier with secondary landing capability isn't unprecedented). Even small purpose-built carriers can comfortably outdo most LHDs in existence.
Landing ship is primarily focused on performing a different task, in a different battlespace and in a different situations.

Gloire_bb said:

Even small purpose-built carriers can comfortably outdo most LHDs in existence.

Click to expand...

what? Carriers without AWACS are blind. I don't know what "small" carrier you have in mind but an 052D and an 076 without anything but a AWACS plane is going to blow say, the QE CBG, out of the water.

visitor123 said:

Carriers without AWACS are blind.

Click to expand...

They are not. Reconnaissance is certainly harder for them, but nothing more and nothing less.

visitor123 said:

052D and an 076 without anything but a AWACS plane is going to blow say, the QE CBG

Click to expand...

QE CBG? Well, I wish you good luck with this fight.

p.s. chances to see AWACS on 076 are slim at best. AEW drone is your best bet.

Gloire_bb said:

They are not. Reconnaissance is certainly harder for them, but nothing more and nothing less.

Click to expand...

just a couple of hundred of nms disadvantage in range is no big deal at all. Believe me!

QE CBG? Well, I wish you good luck with this fight.

Click to expand...

thanks but I won't need it.

AEW drone is your best bet.

Click to expand...

oh wow. How about we make something that is smaller, carries less equipment, has way smaller range, way lesser power and is easily manipulated by the enemy?
that is the kind of blunder that almost matches the F35 project (except for the unmanned part, but the crap aerodynamics almost makes up for it).

On the bright side, the F35 may be the beginning of the end of the alliance between the US, UK, SK and Japan etc. Imagine being forced to buy that boondoggle. I would be very mad. Should've bought Chinese.