How do you know the rating of the 076's arresting gear?
Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
The Fujian has 4.
CATOBAR stands for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery. The 076 has a catapult, and arresting gear. It will operate "CATOBAR" aircraft (as you call them).
At this stage I think the prospect of 076 operating a STOVL aircraft is thinking too far into the future.
The complexity, and performance compromises associated with a STOVL aircraft with anything resembling a modern platform, is significant, and would also be a rather new type of aircraft for the PRC aerospace industry to develop.
Which is to say, such an aircraft would not only have the overall demands of developing a new combat aircraft to contend with, but it would also have the entire STOVL part and navalized factor to add on as well.
We know that a STOVL aircraft of some sort is in development, but we have no strong indication if it is intended to be a technology demonstrator or intended as an aircraft of record (afaik). Frankly, given how poorly optimized the F-35B is, and how much performance compromise a STOVL capability requires, I would be somewhat surprised if the PLA invests into outright developing and procuring a STOVL aircraft, whether it's for 076 or otherwise.
.... all of which is to say, if the 076 is ever to have an onboard manned tactical aircraft element, I see nothing wrong with onboarding J-35s. In fact from memory back when 076 was first rumoured with details about its characteristics, I recall that being able to accommodate manned aircraft like J-35 was an "option" if needed.
However it is also very much the case that using 076 for J-35s primarily is a poor use of the ship/platform, and 076 is likely just as poorly optimized for accommodating a proper complement of J-35s as the America/Wasp class is poorly optimized for accommodating a proper airwing of F-35Bs.
I.e.: the "lightning carrier" concept is not that great. So, using 076s as a "J-35 light carrier" concept is probably going to be poor as well.
"Safe manned" CATOBAR operation doesn't technically have any relationship with whether a deck is angled or not, or whether the arresting gear has 3 or 4 wires.
After all, 076 is intended to recover proper sized GJ-21 UCAVs which would have to be recovered in the same way as any manned fixed wing aircraft, and using flight and recovery systems that any modern manned fixed wing aircraft would expect to be upgraded with anyhow.
What 076 is limited in, by being a smaller hull than a proper carrier and lacking an angled deck, is in being able to conduct high sortie rate CATOBAR operations. If one is operating primarily UCAVs or UAVs, a lower sortie rate like what 076 will be limited to, may not be as big of a deal because UCAVs/UAVs have longer endurance than manned aircraft and a different overall mission profile.
However if one is wanting to operate manned aircraft like a manned tactical fighter, then naturally the inability to manage high sortie rates (because of ship size, deck configuration, limited catapults, etc) will significantly compromise the role of your carrier in being a "light carrier with tactical aircraft as part of its primary role/complement".
..... all of which leads me to my overall point (and one which was made a few pages back by various people) -- it would probably be wise to dispense with the idea of 076 operating manned tactical fighters in any meaningful role.
If one asks or entertains the idea of "could 076 operate as a light carrier with a large airwing of manned fighters at some point?" (whether CATOBAR or a hypothetical future VSTOL)
IMO the only appropriate answer at this stage is "no, it cannot. 076's primary fixed wing complement should be viewed as only UCAV/UAV at this stage. The ability to launch and recover manned fighters does not mean it makes sense for a ship to operate an airwing heavily composed of such aircraft".
The complexity, and performance compromises associated with a STOVL aircraft with anything resembling a modern platform, is significant, and would also be a rather new type of aircraft for the PRC aerospace industry to develop.
Which is to say, such an aircraft would not only have the overall demands of developing a new combat aircraft to contend with, but it would also have the entire STOVL part and navalized factor to add on as well.
We know that a STOVL aircraft of some sort is in development, but we have no strong indication if it is intended to be a technology demonstrator or intended as an aircraft of record (afaik). Frankly, given how poorly optimized the F-35B is, and how much performance compromise a STOVL capability requires, I would be somewhat surprised if the PLA invests into outright developing and procuring a STOVL aircraft, whether it's for 076 or otherwise.
.... all of which is to say, if the 076 is ever to have an onboard manned tactical aircraft element, I see nothing wrong with onboarding J-35s. In fact from memory back when 076 was first rumoured with details about its characteristics, I recall that being able to accommodate manned aircraft like J-35 was an "option" if needed.
However it is also very much the case that using 076 for J-35s primarily is a poor use of the ship/platform, and 076 is likely just as poorly optimized for accommodating a proper complement of J-35s as the America/Wasp class is poorly optimized for accommodating a proper airwing of F-35Bs.
I.e.: the "lightning carrier" concept is not that great. So, using 076s as a "J-35 light carrier" concept is probably going to be poor as well.
"Safe manned" CATOBAR operation doesn't technically have any relationship with whether a deck is angled or not, or whether the arresting gear has 3 or 4 wires.
After all, 076 is intended to recover proper sized GJ-21 UCAVs which would have to be recovered in the same way as any manned fixed wing aircraft, and using flight and recovery systems that any modern manned fixed wing aircraft would expect to be upgraded with anyhow.
What 076 is limited in, by being a smaller hull than a proper carrier and lacking an angled deck, is in being able to conduct high sortie rate CATOBAR operations. If one is operating primarily UCAVs or UAVs, a lower sortie rate like what 076 will be limited to, may not be as big of a deal because UCAVs/UAVs have longer endurance than manned aircraft and a different overall mission profile.
However if one is wanting to operate manned aircraft like a manned tactical fighter, then naturally the inability to manage high sortie rates (because of ship size, deck configuration, limited catapults, etc) will significantly compromise the role of your carrier in being a "light carrier with tactical aircraft as part of its primary role/complement".
..... all of which leads me to my overall point (and one which was made a few pages back by various people) -- it would probably be wise to dispense with the idea of 076 operating manned tactical fighters in any meaningful role.
If one asks or entertains the idea of "could 076 operate as a light carrier with a large airwing of manned fighters at some point?" (whether CATOBAR or a hypothetical future VSTOL)
IMO the only appropriate answer at this stage is "no, it cannot. 076's primary fixed wing complement should be viewed as only UCAV/UAV at this stage. The ability to launch and recover manned fighters does not mean it makes sense for a ship to operate an airwing heavily composed of such aircraft".
Which carrier has 5 cables?
US Nimitz class carriers constructed after 1996 has only 3 cables. Nimitz carriers before that has 4 cables.
Ford has 3 cables and all subsequent ford class carriers will have 3 cables.
I'm sorry but this post is so ill informed that it's wasted like 3-4 pages of discussion.
No, it would not make sense to operate J-35 from Sichuan, for the same reason it doesn't make sense for F-35Bs to operate from American LHAs.
The lack of a high performance VSTOL combat aircraft is a wise decision by the PLA, and the existence of the F-35B (and the overall entire VSTOL endeavor by the USMC) is arguably a deadweight and compromise for the overall JSF program.
At this stage there is no reason to think 076 should operate anything other than UCAVs/UAVs as part of its regular/routine fixed wing complement.
Dreams/hopes of 076 operating manned tactical fighters (whether it's J-35, or some hypothetical "future high performance VSTOL aircraft") is making the mistake of viewing US LHA+F-35Bs as if they are a desirable capability for the PLA to emulate.
No it is not.
The short range, limited payload of F-35Bs means that US LHAs operating them in a high intensity conflict would be unable to operate at useful distances in a high intensity westpac conflict.
If you are bullying a nation without much of an air force or in an area where the enemy has no long range anti-ship/surface capabilities, or where the rest of the joint force is able to suppress the enemy to allow your LHAs to get in relatively close during war time, then sure F-35Bs will be able to outfight the enemy.
But such a capability for the US in a high intensity conflict against China is arguably a waste of finite developmental/industry resources -- and for China in a high intensity conflict against the US, such an equivalent type of platform is also a waste of resources not to mention a waste of an 076's deck space.
More relevant than "overwhelming numerical disparity" is the "relevant numerical disparity in context of geostrategic parameters".
If your VSTOL 5th generation fighter from a LHA lacks the range to operate with useful endurance and payload when operating at distances outside of an opfor's expected anti-surface and ISR capability, then what use does your LHA have?
If your 076 is operating J-35s as part of its airwing but it can barely generate a fraction of the sortie rate of a proper carrier, then why even bother giving it J-35s and why not use its fixed wing airwing to operate a type of aircraft where sortie rate is less demanding and less important -- something like UCAVs/UAVs, where they are still able to be useful despite lower sortie rates due to having greater endurance than manned aircraft while still possessing useful range?
My advice to you is to work with the underlying statement: "076 from the beginning was said to accommodate UCAVs/UAVs as its primary fixed wing complement" -- and then work your way backwards to try to reverse engineer out the idea for why manned tactical aircraft like J-35 are not part if its primary fixed wing complement.
If you accept that "J-35/notional VSTOL fighter on 076 as part of primary airwing complement" is a terrible idea to start with, then you will gradually come up with reasons for why it actually genuinely doesn't make sense.
Last edited: