Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

taxiya said:

Maybe you prefer that I rephrase it as "it looks almost identical in shape as FH-97 according to the clearest photo so far"?

Click to expand...

I would more say "it looks similar to any of the various XQ-58/FH-97/many other similar configuration" UAVs that exist around the world.

Specifically, the purpose is to make it explicit that at this stagex with the tarp over the cover without being able to see precise geometry, we have no reason to think it is related to FH-97.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Taking the Sichuan's overall length at 260 meters, those UCAV looks to be around 8-9 meters long, i.e. roughly similar to the XQ-58 Valkyrie.

Click to expand...

We know the container ship is 97m x 16m.

076 as of right now will never be able to host manned aircraft, the JBDs are too close to the catapult to allow safe takeoff with it open. While with KJ-600, you can't even open the deflectors nevermind with the J-15T which is even longer.

Tomboy said:

View attachment 167614
076 as of right now will never be able to host manned aircraft, the JBDs are too close to the catapult to allow safe takeoff with it open. While with KJ-600, you can't even open the deflectors nevermind with the J-15T which is even longer.

Click to expand...

It would be more convincing if the planes were aligned correctly. It’s the front landing gear that needs to be aligned with the catapult, not the nose tip of the aircraft as you have done with that picture.

Adjust the J35 in line with the front landing gear and there is plenty of room for the JBDs to work. The KJ600 doesn’t need JBD since it doesn’t use jet engines to start with.

The 076 is not optimised for manned fixed wing combat aircraft operations. But to categorically say it can’t do manned fixed wing combat aircraft operations has no firm basis in reality.

The 076 will almost certainly be able to do manned fixed wing combat aircraft operations, but it would be so inefficient at doing so that it just wouldn’t make sense to unless for very specific and limited use cases, for example pairing up with the Liaoning and/or Shandong to provide KJ600 cover in the absence of Fujian. The sacrifice in UCAV carriage would be massively overridden by the giant leap in fleet air combat capabilities to justify the costs in such a case, for example.

Tomboy said:

View attachment 167614
076 as of right now will never be able to host manned aircraft, the JBDs are too close to the catapult to allow safe takeoff with it open. While with KJ-600, you can't even open the deflectors nevermind with the J-15T which is even longer.

Click to expand...

Is there a reason the catapult cannot be adjusted a bit forward or backward based on the aircraft its launching?

iBBz said:

Is there a reason the catapult cannot be adjusted a bit forward or backward based on the aircraft it’s launching?

Click to expand...

There is a physical locking mechanism that blocks the shuttle from moving while the fighter revs up its engines. This locking mechanism is usually very heavy duty owning to the forces it needs to withstand, so it’s unlikely to have multiple positions due to the physical size of the locking mechanism itself.

But this whole line of argument just seems like a nothingburger originating from poorly alignment where the manned planes are set way too far back.

There is zero reason why the designers would need to situate the JBDs needlessly far forwards as to handicap the ability to launch bigger planes. Just from handling UCAVs alone that makes no sense since a lot of the 6th gen CCAs are already pretty big and future UCAVs are almost certainly going to get bigger still.