He said the diagrams were notional, so I wouldn't read too much into it.
The thing of actual note is the dimensions.
Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
He said the diagrams were notional, so I wouldn't read too much into it.
The thing of actual note is the dimensions.
Of course.
And now I believe we can have a rough notional visualization.
Here are some CGI illustrations by @大包CG on Weibo on how the 076 could look like, providing that the 076 is a step-up from the 075 with a straight deck, one EMALS, one arresting gear and twin islands based on @伏尔戈星图's findings yesterday.
Truth to be told, I'm really impressed by @大包CG's (Weibo) work speed and efficiency.
Wait hold on, if you agree that the diagram is notional, then doesn't that mean we CANNOT try to visualize what it actually looks like in terms of flight deck arrangement etc?
That is to say, the only useful thing we can "take seriously" at this stage is the dimensions and that it will possibly have two islands
Everything else, whether it be catapult arrangement, arresting gear arrangement, deck elevator arrangement, and elevator placement, is NOT something that I think we should take at face value yet.
大包CG does good work and is fast, but sometimes the speed of his work means that he sometimes gives credence to ideas which should be more restrained.
The problem with that is it also gives us more work because people are inevitably going to see those CGIs and assume that they are the result of solid, substantiated rumours and try to ask about the details of the CGIs, whereas in reality the basis of evidence should be "ignore them, pretend the CGIs don't exist".
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Very good concept and forward thinking by PLAN
only other nation to use this concept is Turkey and with their vast army of modern drones they will also field a very good drone carrier
Turkey has the LHD ready but naval versions of the drone should start by end of this year like naval TB3, Kizilema and Anka-3
China on the other hand seems to have the drones but no flat deck
Type 071 LPD to carry naval infantry
Type 075 LHD to carry rotary wing
Type 076 LHA to carry UCAVs
Carriers for fast fixed wing fighter jets
only other nation to use this concept is Turkey and with their vast army of modern drones they will also field a very good drone carrier
Turkey has the LHD ready but naval versions of the drone should start by end of this year like naval TB3, Kizilema and Anka-3
China on the other hand seems to have the drones but no flat deck
Type 071 LPD to carry naval infantry
Type 075 LHD to carry rotary wing
Type 076 LHA to carry UCAVs
Carriers for fast fixed wing fighter jets
Sorry, perhaps my usage of terms and/or presentation of meaning has caused confusion.
I actually meant to say that thanks to @大包CG, I believe we can largely visualize what a 076 could look like in general based on @伏尔戈星图's findings yesterday. (or in other words, having a general idea of what a 076 could look like)
Yes, I agree on that. Though it is fun to speculate about those.
Sure. I will add a note WRT that next time.
This is the kind of naval project that China needs to develop. Asymmetric capabilities against Western ships. The US Navy is deeply influenced by fighter jock culture and won't invest on these kinds of projects. After a huge investment into development of prototypes of naval drones, most of them got blocked from further development because of the jocks.
I was going to ask the same questions. That deck layout is weird.
1- Angled deck is absolutely essential for safety if non-vertical landing aircraft are involved.
2- Similarly those elevator positions are horrendous. Hangar, especially on a LHD, doesn't extend below catapults or through most of the ship's length. Even CVs aren't like that. You don't need elevators that large either. The aft elevator would be unusable during landings and the front elevator would be unusable during take-offs. If you are handling non-vertical landing aircraft putting a large elevator to the stern is a bad idea.
The only credible thing here is the existence of two catapults. A single catapult design would need perfect reliability which is always a bad assumption to make.
The ship looks like WW2 carriers with this layout.
Look at how the Essex and Midway classes evolved through numerous modernizations.
(Note for all newcomers and anyone unfamiliar with the 076 LHD discussion in this thread:
This is only a discussion based on open-source information that we have gathered on the 076 LHDs from the internet thus far. Please do not take anything that we are discussing in this thread regarding the 076 LHD as the final official version of information regarding the 076 LHD - Until the information provided/obtained has been confirmed to be official, factual and genuine.)
Yes, it is indeed undesirable (and rightfully so).
However, consider this for the sake of comparison:
1. The width of the bow end of the flight deck of Nimitz CVNs is only around 23 meters, and
2. The separation between the two bow catapults at their midpoints on Nimitz CVNs is only around 18 meters.
If @伏尔戈星图's findings is anywhere close to the actual stats, the width of the flight deck of the 076 LHD (including the bow end) is 45 meters. In other words, you can almost fit 2 Nimitzs' bows into it.
Therefore, assuming that the two bow catapults on the 076 is spaced wide enough, then technically speaking, fitting a deck elevator right in between the two bow catapults is actually more than possible. The hangar deck in the bow section should also have enough space for planes and helicopters to park inside, even with both catapult machineries occupying the spaces on both sides of the hangar deck in the bow section.
For reference, CV-41 Midway after the SCB-110 upgrade:
Still, I believe it is much better if the deck elevator can be located at the port side edge, instead of right in between the bow catapults as per your explanation.
Last edited: