So what is the advantage of having these catapults? Are the aircraft they can launch with them worth it? Quite frankly, so far we have yet to see UAVs that can meaningfully compete with manned aircraft. So are these going to be used to launch MQ-9 like aircraft or at best something along the lines of a GJ-11?
Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
This is an illustration drawn to scale using Gerald Ford and America class decks to demonstrate that in terms of deck size both Gerald Ford EMALS and angled runway are possible within the limits of America deck.
View attachment 126620
The problem is the overall layout of the deck that makes it impossible to operate more than a single operation - either takeoff or landing - at one time. This is why Charles de Gaulle has a different layout that enables better operations at the given size: landing aircraft are moved to the starboard where refueling and rearming area is located between the two elevators and later they are moved to the bow or to the catapult.
In general small carriers are useless because the difference between a "heavy" and "light" carrier in WW2 is much more pronounced than today, due to the evolution of carrier operations and deck arrangement. In WW2 when deck layout was poorly designed the difference was proportional. Today when deck layout is optimised the difference is disproportionate.
And since the carrier's payload delivery depends on the amount of sorties it can generate in a shortest possible span of time a light carrier carries not just fewer aircraft in general but can launch them far slower naturally limiting the effect of sustained or massed power projection in the air.
Having four aircraft in the air at any time is not going to make any difference compared to having twenty or more, and there is a serious argument to be made that a CVL of the size of America can't sustain four aircraft at any time for longer than 12 to 16 hours.
Building light carriers will result in wasted resources because if the opponent can destroy a carrier it can definitely destroy a disproportionately weaker light carrier.
Also:
Independence-class light carriers were built as an interim solution until Essex-class fleet carriers were made available. They weren't replacing fleet carriers, or diverting resources from their construction just bridging the gap for fleet defense purposes. This is why they carried 3:1 fighters to torpedo bombers. Afterward light carriers were built for escort duties and to augment offensive power during landing operations and allow for transporting of aircraft to the landing zone - which is why modern amphibious ships have decks.
During WW2 scouting was done by eyesight and attack required putting the aircraft in direct danger so having more aircraft carriers - even if they were less capable - was much more valuable than it is today where satellites, radars and missiles change the nature of battlespace.
Japan, Italy etc don't employ their ship-based F-35B the same way USN employs F-35C. They are using them the same way USN LHD/LHA employ F-35B. These ships are called "aircraft carriers" for propaganda reasons, not because they're capable of what a CV should be capable of.
Also:
LHD/LHA travel at lower speeds because they are not required to maneuver due to their role. They are not aircraft carriers, but aircraft transporters. They are carrying USMC aircraft which are intended to operate from the shore or landing zone as well as from ships. They travel at lower speeds also because they have weaker powerplants not because of their hulls. America-class at full displacement of 45k t has 55MW total power. John F Kennedy at 82k t had 210MW.
Also:
I just explained so much of the problem a week ago:
00X/004 future nuclear CATOBAR carrier thread
What can we determine about Chinese future policy in nuclear vs non nuclear? Since it is not a technical bottleneck the considerations must be economic and political. China has over 25 civilian nuclear reactors (at least 1,000 MW each) currently under construction. If China has the capacity to...www.sinodefenceforum.com
This forum's motto is "don't read, just write".
Of course.
So how should a country replenish, if not expand their carrier-based airpower rapidly, especially in case/times of high tension or all-out war?
lcloo
Captain
Advantage of catapult is quick launch of heavy weight UAV/UCAV with full load, using small foot print of the top deck. There is big difference between using full length of top deck for take off against a fraction of that length by using catapult. More UAV can be parked on top deck and ready for launch if you have a catapult.
Development of UAV is advancing very fast, we will be seeing more new UAVs for various tasks, single role or multiple roles. They will be doing recon, attack, air combat, electronic warfare, early warning radar, search and rescue, transport, aerial refuel, medical evacuaton etc.
What type of UAV/UACV to be deployed on type 076 will depend on the missions and strength of the opponent, and also the strength of the flottila in which type 076 will be part of it. GJ11 or similar navy variants ae almost a certainty to be found onboard type 076.
Type 076 will serve at least 40 years into the future. It should be ready to take onboard current types of UAV as well as next generations of UAV.
Previously I thought the Type 076 would definitly have to carry mainly manned fighters for air defence.
But looking at the current and previous wars it make's sense why the type 076 would be armed mainly with drones in a war.
If China ever goes to war in which they would have to do a land invasion then they would be going up against a capable enemy most likely backed by the US armed with anti aircraft and anti ship missiles similar to Ukraine and not some poor unarmed people in Africa, they can't just park their aircraft carrier beside the enemy shore and launch manned airstrikes with impunity.
In this case the main weapon China would use against such an enemy would be drones, a large number of drones & for that you need a large ship dedicated to carry these drones. In this kind of a war the type 076 ofcourse won't be alone & it will be accompanied by an aircraft carrier, the bulk of the bombing would be done by the drones while the manned aircraft aboard the carrier would be mainly there to provide aircover while the fleet would be as far away from the shore as the range of the drones allows it.
The leaders of the PLAN are not idiots, they won't be sending the Type 076 to a war without it being accompanied by a CV/CVN.
Infact I would say even for the US, a ship like the type 076 would be more usefull than the wasp or America class for their empire's needs. Anti ship missiles are becoming more common among militias and a ship full of drones would have served the US better than those "light carriers" that they have.
But looking at the current and previous wars it make's sense why the type 076 would be armed mainly with drones in a war.
If China ever goes to war in which they would have to do a land invasion then they would be going up against a capable enemy most likely backed by the US armed with anti aircraft and anti ship missiles similar to Ukraine and not some poor unarmed people in Africa, they can't just park their aircraft carrier beside the enemy shore and launch manned airstrikes with impunity.
In this case the main weapon China would use against such an enemy would be drones, a large number of drones & for that you need a large ship dedicated to carry these drones. In this kind of a war the type 076 ofcourse won't be alone & it will be accompanied by an aircraft carrier, the bulk of the bombing would be done by the drones while the manned aircraft aboard the carrier would be mainly there to provide aircover while the fleet would be as far away from the shore as the range of the drones allows it.
The leaders of the PLAN are not idiots, they won't be sending the Type 076 to a war without it being accompanied by a CV/CVN.
Infact I would say even for the US, a ship like the type 076 would be more usefull than the wasp or America class for their empire's needs. Anti ship missiles are becoming more common among militias and a ship full of drones would have served the US better than those "light carriers" that they have.
One of the key differences between the marines of China and the US is in terms of what overlords them.
China's marines, known as the PLA Navy Marine Corps (PLANMC) is directly subordinate to the PLA Navy HQ, and is one of the five major branches of the PLA Navy itself. The US' marines, known as the US Marine Corps (USMC), meanwhile, is an independent service branch of its own, of which its command is equivalent in-rank to the US Navy (USN). Both the USN and USMC
That means while the USMC can obtain the necessary support and protection from the USN, they are still very much doing the fighting largely on their own initiatives when it comes to amphibious assault operations and/or special operations, and in conjunction with other service branches of the US Department of Defense (DoD) when required. That's why the USMC operates land-based & carrier-based fighters and utility crafts of their own, which includes the AV-8s, F/A-18s and F-35s of the B and C variants. In fact, they even operate their own Abrams MBTs until quite recently.
Meanwhile, the PLANMC does not operate on their own, but under the umbrella, unified command of the PLA Navy. This is also why the PLANMC does not operate as huge variety of air and land equipment as their American counterparts. In a sense, the PLANMC is working for the PLAN.
From this, it is understandable as to why the PLANMC does not plan to operate J-35s from the 076 LHD, perhaps from the outset. Why? Simply because they don't have to. Speaking solely of the Chinese navy, the PLANMC can depend upon the PLAN's land-based and carrier-based fighters, special mission aircrafts, surface combatants, submarines and coastal defense forces to cover them while fighting enemy forces in the skies and on the seas, alongside establish and maintain control in those two domains of warfare. The PLANMC is mainly focused on amphibious assault operations by establishing safe landing beachheads and infrastructures before the PLAGF moves in with more infantry, artillery and armor.
The EMCATs on the 076 LHD being shorter (~40 meters) compared to the EMCATs on Fujian (~100 meters) testifies to this. The UCAVs that are meant to operate from the LHD are generally 15-20 tons lighter than the J-35's MTOW, hence only necessitate shorter EMCATs on said LHDs.
To pile on the previous point - Unlike the USMC which is expected to operate in expeditionary fashion and across the world, the PLANMC is only expected to operate mostly within 1000 kilometers of the home shores, namely Taiwan, the Ryukyu Islands, and much of the South China Sea. Bar the extreme eastern and southern reaches of the SCS, 1000 kilometers is within the combat radius of the PLAAF's current medium fighters (J-10), let alone the heavyweight ones (J-11, J-16, J-20).
The presence of the PLAN further complements this formula. Hence, in times of war, the availability friendly air power support and cover isn't as high degree of a major concern for the PLANMC as it is for the USMC.
And until the PLAN has the equivalent prowess as the USN on their own, any islands or islets beyond the 1IC is definitely beyond reach. So there's that.
Last edited:
Adding on unfinished sentence.
PLANMC are a normal marine corps set up the way everyone does it.
USMC is the only marine corps that is separated out as its own branch instead of subordinated to the navy. It's a stupid setup which gets you into constant jurisdictional pissing contests with other branches, lingers only for long-obsolete historical reasons, and is papered over by virtue of an enormous military budget having enough room for everyone's toys (mostly). Which doesn't make it any less stupid, the US is just rich enough to get away with it.
What is the difference? 2x40m for UCAV VS 1x40m 1x60m for J35&UCAV.
Give up all the possibility that comes with J35 for the mere 20m space saving on the left side of the deck (landing deck anyway).
During times of conflict, consider the scenario when some African rebel group (claim China dept trap their country) attack Chinese shipping. Or some funny business by the Indian navy (claim Chinese shipping breaks sanctions whatever). 076 with J35 would have been a centerpiece to project power and prevent escalation of such scenarios.
This is the 1st 076, 50k tons is not cheap. Navy needs to experiment with new tactics on this ship. If they make up their mind that only 40m is needed, they can build such ships later.
Give up all the possibility that comes with J35 for the mere 20m space saving on the left side of the deck (landing deck anyway).
During times of conflict, consider the scenario when some African rebel group (claim China dept trap their country) attack Chinese shipping. Or some funny business by the Indian navy (claim Chinese shipping breaks sanctions whatever). 076 with J35 would have been a centerpiece to project power and prevent escalation of such scenarios.
This is the 1st 076, 50k tons is not cheap. Navy needs to experiment with new tactics on this ship. If they make up their mind that only 40m is needed, they can build such ships later.