Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Lethe · Jul 26, 2020

Even if 076 is not envisaged to operate manned combat aircraft, it should have the ability to recover such aircraft in an emergency, even if they cannot subsequently take off. In time of war, having an extra deck to land on can be the difference between preserving a valuable asset and losing it in the sea -- see Russia's loss of a MiG-29K off Syria not so long ago owing to fouled deck on Kuznetsov.

Arienai · Jul 27, 2020

This post on CJDBY has some interesting thoughts on what the 076 could look like.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't agree with some of them, but one of his idea seems very interesting to me.
Remember the inboard-elevator and the UAV deck mentioned in the files? I was quite confused about why 076 still uses inboard elevator with all the crazy stuff going on. This OP mentioned the biggest advantage of inboard elevators is that they can reach much lower levels than deck edge elevators. So the "UAV deck" mentioned might be under the hangar deck, and that's why inboard elevators would be necessary. He thinks the UAV deck is shared with the vehicle stowage thus could store UAV or vehicles depending on the mission.

If this is true then I guess it's still quite possible that besides the inboard-elevator(s) (works for both the hangar deck and the UAV deck), there's also deck edge elevator(s) that works only for the hangar deck?

He has some other interesting ideas but it's quite long so excuse me for not translating the entire post.

AndrewS · Jul 27, 2020

li450274625 said:
I'm wondering how USA can sustain an arm race with China. Chinese purchasing power parity GDP is much larger than USA, and is still increasing fast. This can be seen from that in single year 2019, China launched 10 advanced destroyers(8 052d + 2 055), at a speed faster than what Soviet and USA was able to achieve in a single year during last cold war. Meanwhile China is only using 1/4 of US military budget and military expenditure is only 1.5% of GDP. Imagine it raises to same level of USA.

We will probably witness China can easily build 4 nuclear powered aircraft carriers at the same time given another 10 years of economic development.

Just a few points. SIPRI estimates Chinese military spending at approximately 2% of GDP, which is more realistic.

And 4 large nuclear carriers at the same time is way too excessive.

The upper estimate I have is 4 built over a 10 year timeframe, which is roughly double the tempo we see today.
That would work out as one every 2.5 years

AndrewS · Jul 27, 2020

Bltizo said:
There are obviously many limiting factors to sortie generation.

No one is saying that a ship's flight deck is the only limiting factor, rather that the flight deck of a ship like an LHD will limit its sortie generation rate compared to a carrier of equivalent displacement.

I agree, but like I said before, it's a question of whether in some scenarios, the reduced cost of such a ship still makes it a better investment decision than a larger carrier.

For 076, regardless of what kind of maintenance concept you're describing -- and frankly I don't even know why you are so insistent on this idea of offloading maintenance to the mainland during a HIC, you'd think forcing your aircraft to transit to and from the mainland and your deployed ship poses a whole heap of risks and costs of its own -- the point is that the 076's flight deck would still make it a poor carrier for conducting high tempo flight operations.

I'm being insistent because I think the Chinese Navy has an opportunity to develop a new and better model for carrier operations in the Western Pacific.

Yes, having carriers depend on land-based unmanned drones poses its own challenges.

But remember that Chinese carriers are going to be at very high risk of being sunk by submarines or missiles.
So wouldn't it be better to reduce the impact of losing a carrier and any aircraft which are stuck onboard?

It's a value engineering exercise, where you look at what a carrier actually needs versus what can be removed, given the changes in technology and operational requirements.

A Ford-class carrier costs $13 Billion and carries another $6 Billion worth of aircraft, which is a huge risk if even one is lost.

And given how both the US and China will shortly have constellations of hundreds/thousands of satellites, the ability of surface ships to remain undetected looks highly questionable.

AndrewS · Jul 27, 2020

Arienai said:
This post on CJDBY has some interesting thoughts on what the 076 could look like.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't agree with some of them, but one of his idea seems very interesting to me.
Remember the inboard-elevator and the UAV deck mentioned in the files? I was quite confused about why 076 still uses inboard elevator with all the crazy stuff going on. This OP mentioned the biggest advantage of inboard elevators is that they can reach much lower levels than deck edge elevators. So the "UAV deck" mentioned might be under the hangar deck, and that's why inboard elevators would be necessary. He thinks the UAV deck is shared with the vehicle stowage thus could store UAV or vehicles depending on the mission.

If this is true then I guess it's still quite possible that besides the inboard-elevator(s) (works for both the hangar deck and the UAV deck), there's also deck edge elevator(s) that works only for the hangar deck?

He has some other interesting ideas but it's quite long so excuse me for not translating the entire post.

An explanation for the presence of inboard elevators on a Type-076 is very simple.

The flight deck has more capacity for flight operations than the aircraft available. Rationale below.

---

The Type-076 flight deck has unused capacity for air sorties.

The Nimitz can conduct a catapult launch every 37seconds for example.
Aircraft recovery is every 45seconds.

Whilst a Type-076 straight flight deck would be more inefficient, it does give you an indication of how the flight deck would be used.

For example, an air wing of 20 GJ-11 UAVs could have an operating profile as follows:
1. 20min - all aircraft launched
2. 3hours - conduct mission
3. 20min - all aircraft recovered

You can see there is a lot of time when the flight deck is being unused

---

Combine that with aircraft maintenance requirements

It looks like *22* maintenance man-hours per flight hour for an F-35.
If you have a team of 5 working on a plane, then a 2 hour sortie generates 8 hours of maintenance downtime.

So you need enough space to store all these aircraft whilst they are undergoing maintenance.

---

Inboard elevators would allow additional decks to be used to store more aircraft.
But it makes the flight deck more complicated and comes at additional cost.

That implies lack of aircraft is a key limitation in the tempo of air operations on a Type-076, rather than the size/geometry of the flight deck.

Jiang ZeminFanboy · Jul 27, 2020

Believe

Brumby · Jul 27, 2020

AndrewS said:
I'm being insistent because I think the Chinese Navy has an opportunity to develop a new and better model for carrier operations in the Western Pacific.

Do you know what killed the QE EMAL plan? A 2 Billion sterling bill for the EMAL. Good luck on a cost effective option.

Blitzo · Jul 27, 2020

Brumby said:
Do you know what killed the QE EMAL plan? A 2 Billion sterling bill for the EMAL. Good luck on a cost effective option.

QE was designed with STOVL and CATOBAR "potential," and by the time the study into a CATOBAR conversion was made, the lead ship's work had already begun.
There's cost for the procurement of the equipment itself, cost for installation, but also cost for any redesigns and re-engineering that has to be made.
OTOH 076 will be designed from the ground up for EM catapults.

Obviously 076 will be more expensive than an 075, but your comparison is not very useful here either.

Blitzo · Jul 27, 2020

AndrewS said:
I agree, but like I said before, it's a question of whether in some scenarios, the reduced cost of such a ship still makes it a better investment decision than a larger carrier.

I'm being insistent because I think the Chinese Navy has an opportunity to develop a new and better model for carrier operations in the Western Pacific.

Yes, having carriers depend on land-based unmanned drones poses its own challenges.

But remember that Chinese carriers are going to be at very high risk of being sunk by submarines or missiles.
So wouldn't it be better to reduce the impact of losing a carrier and any aircraft which are stuck onboard?

It's a value engineering exercise, where you look at what a carrier actually needs versus what can be removed, given the changes in technology and operational requirements.

A Ford-class carrier costs $13 Billion and carries another $6 Billion worth of aircraft, which is a huge risk if even one is lost.

And given how both the US and China will shortly have constellations of hundreds/thousands of satellites, the ability of surface ships to remain undetected looks highly questionable.

I really don't know what to say -- look, your concept of carrier operations is fine for the sake of a thought experiment.

But for the purposes of trying to project what the PLAN's aims for 076 may be and what sort of mission and characteristics for that ship class will be, if your argument is that we should treat your concept of carrier operations as if it is something that the PLAN has adopted and is shaping their design and procurement of the 076 around that concept you described, I think you are way overreaching.

Gatekeeper · Jul 27, 2020

Bltizo said:
QE was designed with STOVL and CATOBAR "potential," and by the time the study into a CATOBAR conversion was made, the lead ship's work had already begun.
There's cost for the procurement of the equipment itself, cost for installation, but also cost for any redesigns and re-engineering that has to be made.
OTOH 076 will be designed from the ground up for EM catapults.

Obviously 076 will be more expensive than an 075, but your comparison is not very useful here either.

Also, I would like to add that, China gets much more bang per $ than the West because goods traded inside of China It's a lot cheaper. Particularly when there's no alternative source of supply outside of China.

In addition, there are lots of room for economy of scale. All the cost of the EMAL for the QE2 has to be shared with two carriers only. (Not sure about the French sister ship). Whereas the Chinese EMAL is shared with potentially 6 or more carriers, and not even taking into account of use for other future and current big carriers.

In this scenario, the British EMAL per unit is going to cost a whole lot more than the Chinese ones.

Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Lethe

Captain

Arienai

Junior Member

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Gatekeeper

Brigadier