Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Requirements for electrically deployed internal fire curtains, to be used as a reference during the bidding process. Curtain dimensions are in the red box:
52670988178_92612c7234_o.jpg
Do we know when was the bidding process?

In the meantime, this Tweeter claimed that the construction for the first 076 LHD has already started. He claimed to have identified the construction dock where the construction of the 076 is taking place:

He has also denied said ship being 075 LHD.

Anyone has any more idea and info on this?
 
Last edited:

MarKoz81

Junior Member
Registered Member
After I wrote the previous post I realized something that in retrospect seems obvious but is always missed in discussions leading them in counter-productive direction because we think about amphibious assault ships and S/VTOL aircraft in the wrong terms: what they seem to be, rather than what they are intended to be.

There is a fundamental difference between a USN fleet carrier and a USN amphibious assault ship.
  • On a fleet carrier the entire crew of the ship including aviation support, maintenance crews and pilots, with the exception of USMC VMFA squadrons, are USN personnel subordinate to USN command structure.
  • On an amphibious assault ship aviation support are USN personnel but pilots are USMC and maintenance crews are partly USN personnel that stays on the ship and partly USMC units which may or may not be deployed on land as part of the expeditionary force. USMC personnel is subordinate to USMC command structure and during landing operations USMC has the command of the operation including over USN personnel on amphibious ships.

Historically USMC had two types of fixed-wing squadrons - VMFA for CTOL and VMA for S/VTOL - that reflected that difference. Now both F-35B and C are operated by VMFA but all remaining AV-8B are VMA.

USMC has S/VTOL for operations from improvised airfields on land. Operations from amphibious assault ships are a side benefit that mirrors how VFMA operate from carriers or from land.

S/VTOL aircraft - specifically the Harrier - were not developed for naval aviation. They were developed for ground forces as frontline aircraft capable of operating without infrastructure necessary for CTOL. The impulse for development of S/VTOL CAS was Korean War because dedicated attack helicopters were not available until introduction of AH-1 in 1967 and they carried minimal payloads. First generation Harriers carried over 2t.

First generation Harriers were operated by RAF before Sea Harrier was developed for RN and RAF continued to be the main operator of the type in Britain. This was because under British military structure RAF was responsible for providing air support to expeditionary forces.

Soviet Yak-38 was developed in response to the Harrier but through a misunderstanding of its primary purpose. Lack of that purpose in Soviet doctrine both indirectly and directly were the cause of insufficient funding and support for the program.

Whenever we speculate about design and function of Type 076 or possible S/VTOL jet for PLAN we commit the fallacy of misattribution.

Amphibious assault ships are not used as light carriers unless it is already feasible with existing assets. Navies don't need light carriers but they will use light carriers if they have the means to improvise them. S/VTOL jets are not necessary for naval aviation but for expeditionary forces operating from improvised airfields and so unless PLAMC or PLAGF naval infantry units require them for operations they will not be developed.

Light carriers and naval S/VTOL jets are inefficient as naval assets because they are expeditionary assets and we should expect all logical design and development process to follow the logic of operations rather than of "what it looks like to me".

How does this apply to 076 - read below:

Combined with the above post by @by78, so this one isn't exactly a news per-se: The 076 LHD will be built/already started construction at Hudong-Zhonghua.


Oh look... a light carrier.

type 076 speculative.jpg

This image shows Type 075 with fixed-wing UCAVs which may very well be the same error as mentioned above - treating an amphibious assault ship as a light carrier because everyone keeps talking about using them as light carriers. It's also an incorrect, unworkable arrangement of deck space meaning the artist received no specific instruction and worked with poor understanding of deck operations.

From what I've seen here the only thing that we know about Type 076 is that it "will carry UCAV" without any additional information.

The C in UCAV stands for "combat" and not "conventional" or "fixed-wing". Type 076 is an amphibious assault ship and there is no reason to suspect that the UCAV type preferred for an amphibious assault ship would be fixed-wing for practical reasons.

Fixed-wing aircraft cause all kinds of complications. While EM catapult and lack of human pilot can greatly shorten the distance for takeoff the problem of recovery remains unchanged. During takeoff UCAV has top speed when leaving the deck. During landing it has top speed when approaching the deck. You need space for that and space is scarce on a small deck, especially if at the same time other aircraft are being serviced or prepared for takeoff. Even if you add the angled deck every UCAV has to be redirected to another area before next recovery which also requires space.

Fixed-wing also allows greater payload and range but:
  • payload can be distributed as soon as pilots don't need to do the targeting
  • range is partly a function of payload.
It doesn't make much sense to develop an amphibious assault ship around fixed-wing UCAVs performing high sortie rate because of space requirements. Instead it's better to have an even higher sortie rate with VTOLs because the use of deck space is much more efficient. Furthermore since VTOL UCAV doesn't have to be large it doesn't need a large lift making it possible to use a greater number of smaller lifts for better use of deck and internal space.

Just helos take up space because of forces generated by rotors - here these six can deploy at the same time.

Type 075 deck 1.jpg

UCAV LHA might be much more like a bee hive with many small drones constantly flying in and out than a nest with birds sitting on it and rarely flying.

Furthermore the biggest advantage UAVs have is swarming.

Swarming requires numbers but takeoffs take time which wastes fuel of UAVs in the air. So the best use of swarming tactics is to deploy large numbers of drones simultaneously. Multiple UAVs in a single simultaneous launch require multiple UAVs in single simultaneous recovery and transfer.

This is a completely different type of deck operation than handful of large aircraft being deployed in traditional ops.

Also "Type 076 will carry UCAV" has people thinking first in terms of deck space but I think in terms of "the pilots are not in the aircraft but someone needs to pilot them". Type 076 will need space for operators which will be a second bigger CIC if at any given time there's 50 or 100 or more UAVs and UCAVs in the air. Multiple drones also mean multiple ISR sources which must not be wasted - that's another CIC.

Coupled with different deck ops and lift arrangement it means a completely different internal layout but it may look very similar on the outside. And if 076 uses both manned and unmanned aircraft then complexity increases - it needs a big lift and perhaps smaller lifts. The difference might be completely not where most would look for it.

And finally if USN/USMC and RN experience teaches us anything it is that an amphibious assault ship operating without carrier support should transfer its assets to the shore and withdraw as soon as possible. It's a highly vulnerable asset. Why would anyone keep it within striking distance? Drones are expendable. If retreat is needed then recover troops and run.

Hope this helps.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
After I wrote the previous post I realized something that in retrospect seems obvious but is always missed in discussions leading them in counter-productive direction because we think about amphibious assault ships and S/VTOL aircraft in the wrong terms: what they seem to be, rather than what they are intended to be.

There is a fundamental difference between a USN fleet carrier and a USN amphibious assault ship.
  • On a fleet carrier the entire crew of the ship including aviation support, maintenance crews and pilots, with the exception of USMC VMFA squadrons, are USN personnel subordinate to USN command structure.
  • On an amphibious assault ship aviation support are USN personnel but pilots are USMC and maintenance crews are partly USN personnel that stays on the ship and partly USMC units which may or may not be deployed on land as part of the expeditionary force. USMC personnel is subordinate to USMC command structure and during landing operations USMC has the command of the operation including over USN personnel on amphibious ships.

Historically USMC had two types of fixed-wing squadrons - VMFA for CTOL and VMA for S/VTOL - that reflected that difference. Now both F-35B and C are operated by VMFA but all remaining AV-8B are VMA.

USMC has S/VTOL for operations from improvised airfields on land. Operations from amphibious assault ships are a side benefit that mirrors how VFMA operate from carriers or from land.

S/VTOL aircraft - specifically the Harrier - were not developed for naval aviation. They were developed for ground forces as frontline aircraft capable of operating without infrastructure necessary for CTOL. The impulse for development of S/VTOL CAS was Korean War because dedicated attack helicopters were not available until introduction of AH-1 in 1967 and they carried minimal payloads. First generation Harriers carried over 2t.

First generation Harriers were operated by RAF before Sea Harrier was developed for RN and RAF continued to be the main operator of the type in Britain. This was because under British military structure RAF was responsible for providing air support to expeditionary forces.

Soviet Yak-38 was developed in response to the Harrier but through a misunderstanding of its primary purpose. Lack of that purpose in Soviet doctrine both indirectly and directly were the cause of insufficient funding and support for the program.

Whenever we speculate about design and function of Type 076 or possible S/VTOL jet for PLAN we commit the fallacy of misattribution.

Amphibious assault ships are not used as light carriers unless it is already feasible with existing assets. Navies don't need light carriers but they will use light carriers if they have the means to improvise them. S/VTOL jets are not necessary for naval aviation but for expeditionary forces operating from improvised airfields and so unless PLAMC or PLAGF naval infantry units require them for operations they will not be developed.

Light carriers and naval S/VTOL jets are inefficient as naval assets because they are expeditionary assets and we should expect all logical design and development process to follow the logic of operations rather than of "what it looks like to me".

How does this apply to 076 - read below:



Oh look... a light carrier.

View attachment 106835

This image shows Type 075 with fixed-wing UCAVs which may very well be the same error as mentioned above - treating an amphibious assault ship as a light carrier because everyone keeps talking about using them as light carriers. It's also an incorrect, unworkable arrangement of deck space meaning the artist received no specific instruction and worked with poor understanding of deck operations.

From what I've seen here the only thing that we know about Type 076 is that it "will carry UCAV" without any additional information.

The C in UCAV stands for "combat" and not "conventional" or "fixed-wing". Type 076 is an amphibious assault ship and there is no reason to suspect that the UCAV type preferred for an amphibious assault ship would be fixed-wing for practical reasons.

Fixed-wing aircraft cause all kinds of complications. While EM catapult and lack of human pilot can greatly shorten the distance for takeoff the problem of recovery remains unchanged. During takeoff UCAV has top speed when leaving the deck. During landing it has top speed when approaching the deck. You need space for that and space is scarce on a small deck, especially if at the same time other aircraft are being serviced or prepared for takeoff. Even if you add the angled deck every UCAV has to be redirected to another area before next recovery which also requires space.

Fixed-wing also allows greater payload and range but:
  • payload can be distributed as soon as pilots don't need to do the targeting
  • range is partly a function of payload.
It doesn't make much sense to develop an amphibious assault ship around fixed-wing UCAVs performing high sortie rate because of space requirements. Instead it's better to have an even higher sortie rate with VTOLs because the use of deck space is much more efficient. Furthermore since VTOL UCAV doesn't have to be large it doesn't need a large lift making it possible to use a greater number of smaller lifts for better use of deck and internal space.

Just helos take up space because of forces generated by rotors - here these six can deploy at the same time.

View attachment 106836

UCAV LHA might be much more like a bee hive with many small drones constantly flying in and out than a nest with birds sitting on it and rarely flying.

Furthermore the biggest advantage UAVs have is swarming.

Swarming requires numbers but takeoffs take time which wastes fuel of UAVs in the air. So the best use of swarming tactics is to deploy large numbers of drones simultaneously. Multiple UAVs in a single simultaneous launch require multiple UAVs in single simultaneous recovery and transfer.

This is a completely different type of deck operation than handful of large aircraft being deployed in traditional ops.

Also "Type 076 will carry UCAV" has people thinking first in terms of deck space but I think in terms of "the pilots are not in the aircraft but someone needs to pilot them". Type 076 will need space for operators which will be a second bigger CIC if at any given time there's 50 or 100 or more UAVs and UCAVs in the air. Multiple drones also mean multiple ISR sources which must not be wasted - that's another CIC.

Coupled with different deck ops and lift arrangement it means a completely different internal layout but it may look very similar on the outside. And if 076 uses both manned and unmanned aircraft then complexity increases - it needs a big lift and perhaps smaller lifts. The difference might be completely not where most would look for it.

And finally if USN/USMC and RN experience teaches us anything it is that an amphibious assault ship operating without carrier support should transfer its assets to the shore and withdraw as soon as possible. It's a highly vulnerable asset. Why would anyone keep it within striking distance? Drones are expendable. If retreat is needed then recover troops and run.

Hope this helps.

I agree with the principle of this, but the reason why the discussion of 076 has tended to resolve around carrying a number of CATOBAR, relatively higher performance fixed wing UCAVs/UAVs, is because that is how the initial rumours emerged.

I agree that emphasizing swarming with a large number of smaller UAVs makes sense for certain missions or ship types and has a very useful mission profile -- but at that stage, that doesn't seem to be where the rumours for 076 has been pointing towards.


Perhaps if new rumours emerge then it will change things, but as it stands we expect a EM catapult and arresting gear, and has been spoken of as being intended to accommodate high endish heavyish UAVs, so our predictions for 076 so far is inevitably guided by that.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
And finally if USN/USMC and RN experience teaches us anything it is that an amphibious assault ship operating without carrier support should transfer its assets to the shore and withdraw as soon as possible. It's a highly vulnerable asset. Why would anyone keep it within striking distance? Drones are expendable. If retreat is needed then recover troops and run.
Perhaps the expected operational doctrines of the 076-class are different compared to the America and Tarawa-classes?

Unlike the US Navy that are expected to sail across the vast Pacific to conduct any sort of amphibious assault operations in the Taiwan AR scenario (which demands considerable aerial support and cover from their carriers and bases in the WestPac), China's amphibious assault operations in the Taiwan AR scenario are right within arm's reach of aerial support and cover by the land-based PLAAF and PLANAF that are just next door.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
After I wrote the previous post I realized something that in retrospect seems obvious but is always missed in discussions leading them in counter-productive direction because we think about amphibious assault ships and S/VTOL aircraft in the wrong terms: what they seem to be, rather than what they are intended to be.

There is a fundamental difference between a USN fleet carrier and a USN amphibious assault ship.
  • On a fleet carrier the entire crew of the ship including aviation support, maintenance crews and pilots, with the exception of USMC VMFA squadrons, are USN personnel subordinate to USN command structure.
  • On an amphibious assault ship aviation support are USN personnel but pilots are USMC and maintenance crews are partly USN personnel that stays on the ship and partly USMC units which may or may not be deployed on land as part of the expeditionary force. USMC personnel is subordinate to USMC command structure and during landing operations USMC has the command of the operation including over USN personnel on amphibious ships.

Historically USMC had two types of fixed-wing squadrons - VMFA for CTOL and VMA for S/VTOL - that reflected that difference. Now both F-35B and C are operated by VMFA but all remaining AV-8B are VMA.

USMC has S/VTOL for operations from improvised airfields on land. Operations from amphibious assault ships are a side benefit that mirrors how VFMA operate from carriers or from land.

S/VTOL aircraft - specifically the Harrier - were not developed for naval aviation. They were developed for ground forces as frontline aircraft capable of operating without infrastructure necessary for CTOL. The impulse for development of S/VTOL CAS was Korean War because dedicated attack helicopters were not available until introduction of AH-1 in 1967 and they carried minimal payloads. First generation Harriers carried over 2t.

First generation Harriers were operated by RAF before Sea Harrier was developed for RN and RAF continued to be the main operator of the type in Britain. This was because under British military structure RAF was responsible for providing air support to expeditionary forces.

Soviet Yak-38 was developed in response to the Harrier but through a misunderstanding of its primary purpose. Lack of that purpose in Soviet doctrine both indirectly and directly were the cause of insufficient funding and support for the program.

Whenever we speculate about design and function of Type 076 or possible S/VTOL jet for PLAN we commit the fallacy of misattribution.

Amphibious assault ships are not used as light carriers unless it is already feasible with existing assets. Navies don't need light carriers but they will use light carriers if they have the means to improvise them. S/VTOL jets are not necessary for naval aviation but for expeditionary forces operating from improvised airfields and so unless PLAMC or PLAGF naval infantry units require them for operations they will not be developed.

Light carriers and naval S/VTOL jets are inefficient as naval assets because they are expeditionary assets and we should expect all logical design and development process to follow the logic of operations rather than of "what it looks like to me".

How does this apply to 076 - read below:



Oh look... a light carrier.

View attachment 106835

This image shows Type 075 with fixed-wing UCAVs which may very well be the same error as mentioned above - treating an amphibious assault ship as a light carrier because everyone keeps talking about using them as light carriers. It's also an incorrect, unworkable arrangement of deck space meaning the artist received no specific instruction and worked with poor understanding of deck operations.

From what I've seen here the only thing that we know about Type 076 is that it "will carry UCAV" without any additional information.

The C in UCAV stands for "combat" and not "conventional" or "fixed-wing". Type 076 is an amphibious assault ship and there is no reason to suspect that the UCAV type preferred for an amphibious assault ship would be fixed-wing for practical reasons.

Fixed-wing aircraft cause all kinds of complications. While EM catapult and lack of human pilot can greatly shorten the distance for takeoff the problem of recovery remains unchanged. During takeoff UCAV has top speed when leaving the deck. During landing it has top speed when approaching the deck. You need space for that and space is scarce on a small deck, especially if at the same time other aircraft are being serviced or prepared for takeoff. Even if you add the angled deck every UCAV has to be redirected to another area before next recovery which also requires space.

Fixed-wing also allows greater payload and range but:
  • payload can be distributed as soon as pilots don't need to do the targeting
  • range is partly a function of payload.
It doesn't make much sense to develop an amphibious assault ship around fixed-wing UCAVs performing high sortie rate because of space requirements. Instead it's better to have an even higher sortie rate with VTOLs because the use of deck space is much more efficient. Furthermore since VTOL UCAV doesn't have to be large it doesn't need a large lift making it possible to use a greater number of smaller lifts for better use of deck and internal space.

Just helos take up space because of forces generated by rotors - here these six can deploy at the same time.

View attachment 106836

UCAV LHA might be much more like a bee hive with many small drones constantly flying in and out than a nest with birds sitting on it and rarely flying.

Furthermore the biggest advantage UAVs have is swarming.

Swarming requires numbers but takeoffs take time which wastes fuel of UAVs in the air. So the best use of swarming tactics is to deploy large numbers of drones simultaneously. Multiple UAVs in a single simultaneous launch require multiple UAVs in single simultaneous recovery and transfer.

This is a completely different type of deck operation than handful of large aircraft being deployed in traditional ops.

Also "Type 076 will carry UCAV" has people thinking first in terms of deck space but I think in terms of "the pilots are not in the aircraft but someone needs to pilot them". Type 076 will need space for operators which will be a second bigger CIC if at any given time there's 50 or 100 or more UAVs and UCAVs in the air. Multiple drones also mean multiple ISR sources which must not be wasted - that's another CIC.

Coupled with different deck ops and lift arrangement it means a completely different internal layout but it may look very similar on the outside. And if 076 uses both manned and unmanned aircraft then complexity increases - it needs a big lift and perhaps smaller lifts. The difference might be completely not where most would look for it.

And finally if USN/USMC and RN experience teaches us anything it is that an amphibious assault ship operating without carrier support should transfer its assets to the shore and withdraw as soon as possible. It's a highly vulnerable asset. Why would anyone keep it within striking distance? Drones are expendable. If retreat is needed then recover troops and run.

Hope this helps.
Speaking of beehives, what if we can launch UAV like VLS? All of them neatly pack in tubes. Then we can fire them upward to provide momentum to take off. We can pack like 80 UAV per ship.
 

MarKoz81

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have a habit of writing lengthy posts so whenever I have to fit within the character limit I omit the most obvious things and then immediately after time for editing is up - but never before - I notice obvious problems caused by the omissions. I call it "the classic".

the reason why the discussion of 076 has tended to resolve around carrying a number of CATOBAR, relatively higher performance fixed wing UCAVs/UAVs, is because that is how the initial rumours emerged.

I agree that emphasizing swarming with a large number of smaller UAVs makes sense for certain missions or ship types and has a very useful mission profile -- but at that stage, that doesn't seem to be where the rumours for 076 has been pointing towards.

Perhaps if new rumours emerge then it will change things, but as it stands we expect a EM catapult and arresting gear, and has been spoken of as being intended to accommodate high endish heavyish UAVs, so our predictions for 076 so far is inevitably guided by that.

I should have made it clear that I'm not suggesting that rumours about 076 being CATOBAR are incorrect but only that we are interpreting these rumours too broadly.

Is a battleship with a catapult for launching seaplanes an aircraft carrier?

CATOBAR is a method of launching and retrieving CTOL aircraft. It indicates nothing about the intended tactical role and therefore nothing about the design which would logically be tailored to their intended tactical role. PLAN is well known for their economic, practical and cautious approach to design.

UAV/UCAV on LHD would solve all kinds of tactical issues. The most practical application would be airborne ISR for the entire task force during transit. Another is being able to perform stand-off recon with UAVs before closing to effective range for landing. Endurance of fixed-wing aircraft is an order of magnitude greater than rotary wing and they can operate at higher altitudes. If need be they can threaten a MPA with an air-to-air missile without revealing the location of the task force.

But for this you only need 4 to 8 UAVs and considering their loiter time you can perform recovery on a straight deck whenever space becomes available without disruption to other operations.

Angled deck was introduced to increase sortie rate for combat. Combat missions involve surrivability and attrition of assets as well as payload o target. That calculus says "build large carriers" as anything smaller is not an efficient use of resources.

Here's how the decks compare:

USN carriers - deck evolution over time
aircraft carriers USN.jpg
various carriers with approximate deck measurements
aircraft carriers sizes.jpg
various carriers to scale
aircraft carriers.jpg

And this is indicative (unverified) deck and hangar/storage room for Trieste - the upcoming Italian LHD (38k t full displacement, comparable deck size)
Trieste.jpg
Not sure how accurate this is but it gives an idea.

rankly I don't think we understand UCAVs well enough to design a dedicated UAV carrier because it's not in any way obvious what mass use of UAVs is like compared to manned aircraft. 076 could provide a learning experience but even that is better achieved with a well understood design that can be put to work with other assets.

076 might be very different or not much different at all despite the catapults. I lean toward the latter and hopefully now my position is clearer as to what and why.

Perhaps the expected operational doctrines of the 076-class are different compared to the America and Tarawa-classes?

So far PLAN copied USN with 071 and 075 and it's the correct approach because USN/USMC have very solid doctrine and vast practical knowledge base while PLAN has very limited experience. It wouldn't make sense to invest in experimental designs or doctrines before trying in practice what works.

As for USN doctrine - no USN LHD/LHA operates on its own but as part of Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) which consist of 1 LHD/LHA and 2 LPDs (San Antonio + Whidbey Island). The three ships together carry Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) which consists of a landing battalion and a helicopter squadron. In tactical terms it isn't practical to deploy less than a battalion because a battalion means one company fights, one rests and one remains in reserve. If one company fights your tactics are on platoon level. That's not a lot. You have to sustain the operations for 7 to 14 days with resources carried on your ships.

arg-meu-jpg.95020


Additional info:

LHDs have a set of convergent tactical requirements that cause them to have that specific size. LHDs come in three approx. sizes: 10-15k, 20-25k and 35-45k. If you need more it's better to have multiple smaller ships. It's not difficult to build larger LHDs, just not practical.

If 076 ends up being a significantly larger ship than 075 - around 60k t. full - then it might be the case that it's more than an LHD, something like QE carriers. But this will be a radical departure from well known practice for PLAN.

If 076 is 40k-class LHD then dock will take valuable space for sustaining air operations - fuel, munitions, hangar room etc. and it doesn't make sense to invest in significant aircraft carrying capacity because the resulting sortie rate and payload will not be meaningful. PLAN can expand options and explore UCAV use but it won't be a light carrier that many dream of.

Even now I would expect six 075 to provide each fleet with two LHDs (two ships equals one ready) beore venturing into new tactical concepts. First fundamentals, then experiments.

Unlike the US Navy that are expected to sail across the vast Pacific to conduct any sort of amphibious assault operations in the Taiwan AR scenario (which demands considerable aerial support and cover from their carriers and bases in the WestPac), China's amphibious assault operations in the Taiwan AR scenario are right within arm's reach of aerial support and cover by the land-based PLAAF and PLANAF that are just next door.

Not sure I understad you right but invasion of Taiwan doesn't require "UCAV carriers" at all.

Here's my proposal that is more difficult but cheaper in terms of overall resources:


That's all. Take care.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I have a habit of writing lengthy posts so whenever I have to fit within the character limit I omit the most obvious things and then immediately after time for editing is up - but never before - I notice obvious problems caused by the omissions. I call it "the classic".



I should have made it clear that I'm not suggesting that rumours about 076 being CATOBAR are incorrect but only that we are interpreting these rumours too broadly.

Is a battleship with a catapult for launching seaplanes an aircraft carrier?

CATOBAR is a method of launching and retrieving CTOL aircraft. It indicates nothing about the intended tactical role and therefore nothing about the design which would logically be tailored to their intended tactical role. PLAN is well known for their economic, practical and cautious approach to design.

I fully agree with this.
For 076, a few of the traits based on rumours and contracting information from the last few years allows us to say only a few things with a degree of confidence:
- 076 will have subsystems that allow it to be called "CATOBAR" -- i.e.: EM catapult and arresting gear for fixed wing aircraft
- the primary fixed wing complement that said catapult/arresting gear is meant to support, is strongly suggested to be oriented around UAVs/UCAVs
- 076 will have a welldeck for employment of amphibious vehicles
- it is likely to have IEPS

Other than that, we don't have too much confident knowledge as to how big it will exactly be, whether it will have an angled deck, arrangement of elevators, etc.


UAV/UCAV on LHD would solve all kinds of tactical issues. The most practical application would be airborne ISR for the entire task force during transit. Another is being able to perform stand-off recon with UAVs before closing to effective range for landing. Endurance of fixed-wing aircraft is an order of magnitude greater than rotary wing and they can operate at higher altitudes. If need be they can threaten a MPA with an air-to-air missile without revealing the location of the task force.

But for this you only need 4 to 8 UAVs and considering their loiter time you can perform recovery on a straight deck whenever space becomes available without disruption to other operations.

Angled deck was introduced to increase sortie rate for combat. Combat missions involve surrivability and attrition of assets as well as payload o target. That calculus says "build large carriers" as anything smaller is not an efficient use of resources.

Here's how the decks compare:

USN carriers - deck evolution over time
View attachment 106853
various carriers with approximate deck measurements
View attachment 106855
various carriers to scale
View attachment 106854

And this is indicative (unverified) deck and hangar/storage room for Trieste - the upcoming Italian LHD (38k t full displacement, comparable deck size)
View attachment 106856
Not sure how accurate this is but it gives an idea.

rankly I don't think we understand UCAVs well enough to design a dedicated UAV carrier because it's not in any way obvious what mass use of UAVs is like compared to manned aircraft. 076 could provide a learning experience but even that is better achieved with a well understood design that can be put to work with other assets.

076 might be very different or not much different at all despite the catapults. I lean toward the latter and hopefully now my position is clearer as to what and why.

Again, I do agree with what you're writing here -- but that's why 076 was (and remains to a degree) such a surprise when we got information about it, because it seemed like a rather comprehensive, tied together idea with a concept of operations that was essentially "075 LHD but with ability to employ high-endish UAVs and UCAVs from catapult and arresting gear".

It was a somewhat surprising idea then, and is still a bit surprising now, not least because we don't know what the nature of the UAVs and UCAVs will be.

Would they be relatively large stealthy X-47B style UCAVs for strike and ISR, or perhaps MQ-25 style UAVs for a variety of different missions, or smaller MALE UCAVs like GJ-2/3 but adapted for naval use, or a combination of all three? Etc.



.... all of which is to say, if I had to bet money on it, I would guess 076's fixed wing complement will likely normally consist of a "relatively small" (a dozen or so) number of high-end ish UAVs/UCAVs (X-47B to MQ-25 sized) that are likely to all be somewhat multirole, oriented for the strike and ISR mission primarily (but also ASW, and other missions as UCAVs have the subsystems developed for them). It may or may not have an angled deck, but will have an EM catapult with arresting gear to support the launch and recovery of the UAVs. As you wrote, the relatively long endurance nature of modern UAVs/UCAVs will have benefits, and I believe the endurance will be useful in enabling such a ship to have an outsized aerial ISR/strike radius as well, or at least more so than a ship of this configuration may otherwise be expected to have if they were using manned aircraft.

Accompanying the normalfixed wing complement would be any mix of helicopters (ASW, air assault, attack, helicopter UAVs).

A well deck and vehicle deck would allow the ship to retain the employment of amphibious assault vehicles and landing craft if required, but the way in which things are trending, it may also be future proofed for employment of USVs and UUVs as they are developed.
Finally, it is expected to have IEPS including both gas turbines and diesels, and may be able to achieve a higher top speed than 075s (albeit still lower than that of a true carrier), which may allow it to keep up with and support a surface action task force more practically than an 075 could, and provide long range OTH fixed wing strike and ISR, as well as providing significant helicopter borne ASW and potentially fixed wing ASW (if/when UAVs with ASW subsystems are developed).
 

by78

General
One more internal document from Hudong shipyard. It lists the requirements for hatches/covers over the 'frontal loading compartment'. The document is to be used as a reference during the bidding process. Specifically, it lists two entry/exit hatches for the gas turbines, and two entry/exit hatches for generators.

52676828491_c48a30cb01_o.jpg
 
Top