Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
The H1909A is an LNG carrier, and at Jiangnan at that. So neither the 076 LHD nor any FFG hulls to enter water today.
Last edited:
Apologize if this is unrelated but is there anything limiting a 076 hull from a full carrier conversion like the America class LHAs?
America isn't a "full carrier" as it doesn't have arresting gear. Its "conversion" is mostly a flight deck upgrade so it can take the heat of the F-35 exhaust. But it only flies the F-35 STOVL version, not the arrested landing version.
So the only thing limiting 076 is the fact that China doesn't have a STOVL aircraft.
You will offend many people with that question. America class can carry something like 6% of attack munitions that a super carrier can iirc. Possible my number is off here but you get the point.
you can certainly use 076 as light carrier against amphibious target with j35 and gj11, but you shouldn’t expect it can be used like a real carrier.
The America LHAs will never become a full-fledged carrier.
Adding onto the answers by @iconoclast and @tphuang - The first two America LHAs do not have well decks in order to have larger aviation facilities, following the now-cancelled EF21 force structure doctrine, per @MarKoz81. The design was modified back to mirror those of the previous Wasp LHDs (i.e. presence of well deck and smaller aviation facilities) for subsequent America LHA/Ds because the USMC found out that they don't have enough funds and platforms to realize EF21.
Also, it must be stressed that the 076 LHDs are meant to be used primarily as LHDs, not CVs. Previously, Yankee & Co. did mention that the 076 LHDs should be equipped with the capability to operate fixed-wing manned warplanes of the PLAN, but only for emergency/dire situations as spare flat-decks (i.e. in case PLAN CVs were rendered inoperable/sunk by enemy action).
Last edited:
Lack of sufficiently capable STOVL aircraft. For example SeaHarrier at 11,8t MTOW which included 3,6t payload needed 305m to take off without a ramp.
America-class is not a "full carrier" whatever that even means. Proper terms for aircraft carriers are: STOVL, STOBAR, CATOBAR. America is a Landing Helicopter Assault amphibious ship but when used as an aircraft carrier it is a Short Take Off Vertical Landing aircraft carrier.
America was also never converted to "full carrier" from "not full carrier". All four USN helo carrier classes - Iwo Jima (LPH), Tarawa (LHA), Wasp (LHD) and America (LHA) - carried AV-8. Per standard deployment Wasp will carry F-35B in the same quantinty as America - 6 aircraft. While USN claims the ability to carry more it is not very practical because F-35B is much harder to maintain than AV-8 and even with design changes any LHA will struggle to sustain 10 in rotation.
Those numbers are however misleading even further because - as I explained in the past on at least one occasion - the primary role of an LHA is not to serve as a "light carrier" but as a transport ship for deployment of the entire marine task force - along with its aviation element - to shore, for intended operations.
LHA will per standard operation remain nearby to evacuate either the aviation element or the entire task force but it is not intended to serve as a base of operations. Marine aviation establishes a base of operations on land. The six F-35B that an LHA carries are intended to operate from a prepared airfield, not from the ship. Per USMC doctrine the distances at which a MEU will operate range in hundreds of kilometers away from the ship and with targets further hundred kilometers from the field base.
USMC will never perform any operation without a CSG supporting it directly as escort, or indirectly by pre-existing deployment in theater. The aviation component on the amphibious ship is not part of the ship but of the MEU. It is like the USMC tanks, not the USN LCACs.
Yes there are deployments with 20 or more - here comparison to 075:
but they don't make for viable carrier operations and they are not reflected in the new USMC structure - Force Design 2030:
FD2030 maintains 18 VMFA (fighter) squadrons of 10 aircraft each of which three are using F-35C. With 11 to 12 LHA planned and 15 F-35B VMFAs there is not enough squadrons to field two per ship.
Fundamentally however the problem is not a technical or even a tactical one - aviation in USMC exists because of historical and legal reasons.
USMC being subordinate to Department of the Navy was historically the "President's army" meaning that it never required an act of authorisation from the US Congress to be deployed like US Army or US Air Force. This is why USMC grew significantly (to a peak of ~400k) during the Cold War because it served as a rapid reaction full spectrum force. That changed only in 2001 with the entire US military receiving congressional approval for use at POTUS' discretion but by that time all the doctrinal elements were long established and the budget requirements and expectations followed.
That in turn created a significant problem of doubling procurement for comparable systems like UH-1 and UH-60 (which has a naval variant) and arbitrary development of alternatives like CH-53K (despite CH-47 having a historical naval variant) or MV-22 and finally the F-35B which is the single most problematic F-35 variant and the only reason why the JSF procurement disaster exists.
So the first question that you should be asking yourself before deciding to copy US solutions is whether PLAN Marines operate in the same (1) legal and (2) doctrinal framework as the USMC. If not then there is no reason for Type 075 or 076 to ever fulfill "full carrier" roles because it's (a) a misunderstanding of what LHA in USN do and (b) it's a very poorly performing concept that is caused by American legal quirks.
Fundamentally the LPH/LHD/LHA has a flat top to be launch helicopter assault, not to lauch fixed-wing fighter sorties. That only exists because USMC has organic aviation and STOVL aircraft. STOVL aircraft in turn were brought to USMC not because they could operate from ships but because they were designed by the British for the British Army as frontline support fighter jets that could operate from austere locations near the front. Only later they were adopted by the Royal Navy and USMC. But that's the consequence of everything else already in place for completely different reasons.
Type 076 will be designed to and operate under PLAN doctrinal requirements and so far I don't see how it makes sense for PLAN to waste time and resources on developing STOVL. Just because people who understand very little (but think otherwise) see STOVL as a "game changer" doesn't mean it is an actual game changer.
I expect STOVL or even CTOL UAV and UCAVs to be implemented at best because there are clear benefits of that. But an amphibious ship doesn't need to become "full carrier" to be able to use drones at the rate that an amphibious ship needs to use drones. If 076 has elements like a catapult and arrestors we will think about what it means then and only then. In my view it will be to achieve sortie ration for landing support operations. But until then it's just baseless speculation and engaging with the dumber side of the internet.
Last edited:
That's an odd question.
That's like asking is there anything limiting a passenger car from a full conversion into a minivan?
The answer is Yes........a passenger car was never designed to be a minivan!
Likewise an LHA was never designed to be an aircraft carrier.