Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

Gatekeeper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe the British proposal would have involved buying EM cats from the US, so it should have been the same product, they wouldn't have been designing and building their own EM cats themselves.

The bulk of the cost would have come from the work needed to install it onto a ship which wasn't designed and built from the ground up to accommodate EM cats.



Either way, comparing the cost of the QE class's catobar proposal with the 076 is silly.

I will just copy paste my comment back on PDF here:-

depending on the design of the ship, the length of the runway is by far the least important factor in determining the max weight of any kind of aircraft that lands on it, I did some quick measurements of the length of the landing runway of some CVs just for reference, that of the Charles De Gaulle is around 200 meters, that of the Gerald Ford is around 230 meters.
if the Type 076 follows this design:-



then it's landing runway length would be even greater than that of Gerald Ford! because it would be using the entire length of the ship , for sure this ship is longer than the America class (America class length is 257 meters), obviously with this design you would have to kiss the idea of simultaneos launch and recovery good by.

however if it uses an angled deck design with minimal to barely visible overhangs and if simultaneous launch & recovery is a requirement then indeed there would be a limitation on the max weight of aircrafts that can land on it (for reference Gerlad Ford can do that, how ever Charles De Gaul can't do simultaneous launch and recovery because it has no launching position + catapult that is completely outside the landing runway even though it has an angled flight deck).

regarding the maximum width of the aircrafts that can land on the runway, the GJ-11 drone has almost the same width as a Flanker just a little less (14 meters vs 14.7 meters respectively) and obviously the J-35 has a much smaller wingspan.

so any way now that I have talked about the landing runway I would like to talk about the catapult, in this design with the runway that is as long as the entire length of the ship:-



the length of the catapult in this design is about one third the length of the ship as we can see from the CGI, since this ship will be probably 260 meters long, that means the catapult in this design is 86 meters long. in comparison, the length of the Steam CATs of the Charles de Gaulle is 80 meters, so they both have around the same length, the de Gaulle was able to launch up to 27 tonnes in the air! EMALS has 30% more launch energy than a steam CAT that is equal in length, so assuming the Chinese EMALS recieves enough electricity for it to reach full potential, it would have no problem doing what the old steam CATs of the de Gaulle can do.

so regarding the electricity supply to the catapult correct me if I'm mistaken but I think Admiral Ma Weiming did say that China has solved the issue of power supply to EMALS even without the need for nuclear power, in which case the catapult that we see in this design would be even more powerfull than that of the de Gaulle since it's EMALS.

Bltizo said:

I believe the British proposal would have involved buying EM cats from the US, so it should have been the same product, they wouldn't have been designing and building their own EM cats themselves.

The bulk of the cost would have come from the work needed to install it onto a ship which wasn't designed and built from the ground up to accommodate EM cats.



Either way, comparing the cost of the QE class's catobar proposal with the 076 is silly.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes it is silly.

obj 705A said:

I will just copy paste my comment back on PDF here:-

depending on the design of the ship, the length of the runway is by far the least important factor in determining the max weight of any kind of aircraft that lands on it, I did some quick measurements of the length of the landing runway of some CVs just for reference, that of the Charles De Gaulle is around 200 meters, that of the Gerald Ford is around 230 meters.
if the Type 076 follows this design:-

Click to expand...

I think its probably reading a bit too much into things making estimates including exact dimensions from what appear to be fan CGIs?

para80 said:

I think its probably reading a bit too much into things making estimates including exact dimensions from what appear to be fan CGIs?

Click to expand...

Obviously it is not a CGI of the real thing ,but it gives us a good visual estimate of how it may look like.

Idk how to attach pics LKJ86 posted at PDF . They aint even that big .






People seem to have high expectations for these . What are those small boats?

Those small boats are robot boats. I have seen them somewhere before. Some Chinese firm proposing unmanned robot boats complete with sensors, working like floating CIWS. That's another thing to think about. Instead of LCACs, the ships can be used to dispense unmanned robot boats or do you call them USVs?

Checked them. Yes, its the JARI USV. More than a proposal, those things had been tested.

no they're LCACs which China DoEsNt HavE eNoUgh oF
/s

Is that a VLS on the 076 stern? Is there any indication the ship will have a VLS?

banjex said:

Is that a VLS on the 076 stern? Is there any indication the ship will have a VLS?

Click to expand...

That looks like a VLS to me. I don't recall the RFP including that.