Minor edits.
Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
Minor edits.
The key is the EM catapults. You would build the angled deck only if you could launch large fixed-wing aircraft off a shorter LHD/LHA type vessel. Otherwise, you need to go the VTOL route.
Not saying that there will be an angled deck but the substantial overhangs and the removal of the large rear elevator present in the Type 075 dials up at least the possibility of an angled deck.
Don't want to jump into conclusions too early as well, but 075 island(as is the case for all other LHDs) was on the hull, not outside.
Here it may actually stick out; let's see.
There may be merit in having a small detachment in the amphibious group - for CAS and group's safety(small CAP is still CAP).
4-6 small foldable planes don't take too much, especially if there will be some sort of an angled deck. Even a minimal one will do.
(1)there is always lack of air support at sea, until and unless you have your own deck in your formation. Air support from a base several hundred km away, +weather, + vulnerability of a stationary airfield to suppression - is inherently patchy and not overly reliable. Small detachment of even the shittiest fighters, but here(not there) is a big boost.
(2)PLAN right now has two decks, and there won't be second-grades to speak of in the foreseeable future (given the visible tempo - until the mid-2030s at least). Any fleet deck is a deck.
(3)limiting fleet of existing scale to 1 IC is pointless - it isn't worth building what was already built for that. Yet built it was.
Last edited:
IMO there is no reason why it wouldn't be able to operate a J-35. EM catapults can launch heavier aircrafts than steam cats so this should somewhat balance out the cats being shorter than those of the type 003.
Also drones are getting larger and heavier, and this ship will serve at least till 2065. So they would have to make it capable of launching such future heavy drones.
Personaly I think in peace time it will carry mainly helicopters with a smaller number of drones & J-35 fighters
I guess the 076 will finish construction maybe first half of next year and then maybe finish fitting out the year after that. And then we may see mock ups of aircrafts and drones on it. If we see a J-35 mock up then that should tell us.
The type 076 is likely to carry hovercrafts or amphibious fighting vehicles, not some unmanned boat. It's rediculous how some people take the information of the 076 carrying drones to mean the 076 is gonna be allergic to carrying men.
4-6 small light fighters (i.e. JL-10s in this context) mean very little if the enemy can easily snipe them from 100+ to 200+ kilometers away with a couple of AIM-120Ds and/or AIM-260s launched by F-35s and/or F/A-XXs (perhaps in conjunction with the CCAs), while being supported by E-2C/Ds, E-3s and/or E-7s.
If anything, the 076 LHD oughta be better by fielding J-35s (of which the world's shortest EMCATs are unlikely to be able to operate them, unless those EMCATs are significantly longer) than navalized JL-10s. Otherwise, the LHDs might as well field S/VTOL 5/5.5th-gen fighters (of which Chengdu and Shenyang are said to be developing one now, which is a completely separated project from the J-35).
And speaking of limiting the scale of operations into geographical conditions - I don't see how the PLAN will be conducting amphibious assault operations against the Marianas or the Andamans, let alone Hawaii or New Zealand, for instance. China has more than enough islands along the 1IC to be worried about than anywhere else.
Last edited:
4-6 small light fighters mean that there is:
1, a peacetime CAP to escort MPAs&long range drones out (into the water if they're really asking for it);
2, reliable, not situation-dependent ability to engage targets under the horizon (and provide backup targeting below the horizon for ships);
3, timely, heavy ordnance fixed-wing close support capability for the marines.;
4, all that - sitting ready on the deck and not hampering priority (helicopter) operations.
Curing high altitude sniping from hundreds of kilometers is a problem for AD destroyers/frigates to solve - both directly (shoot the offender out of the sky with a big missile) and indirectly (missile approach attack warning - defensive turn - long-range missile is easily wasted). And yes, if singular enemy penetrating aircraft are dumb enough to operate high within the fleet situational awareness bubble - good luck to them, may end up the first 5/6 gen aircraft to get ambushed&shot down by a glorified trainer. That will be funny.
If E-2C/Ds, E-3s or E-7s fly around your unsupported amph. group - amhib is in a very precarious position, and I'd rather focus on how to save thousands of people who'll likely be in the water soon. And prepare for a formal investigation into who's responsible for such a blunder.
I.e. for high-threat landings - there will be actual CSGs to force the opponent away. They will be busy, however, so your own local CAS will be a useful asset.
Well, it isn't like no one never ever tried to operate phantom-sized CATOBAR aircraft from small decks...
Not because it couldn't be launched and trapped *in principle*. It could and it was.
STOVL is manageable in this regard, but assisted landing makes handling a problem and a big hazard.
If a navy(PLAN) can fight at least early on (i.e. theater-limited) USN - provided there is the logistical capability to sustain it&landing capability to exploit it(which PLAN either has or creates) - it can do it anywhere. Or at least anywhere, where your logistical reach is good enough&where you can dismantle enemy logistics fast enough.
If you're willing to sit stranded and blockaded with a navy capable of moving enemy presence half a globe away(and even waiting for him to concentrate&overproduce you) - this is not "I have a job here", it's a conscious choice of being willing to get stranded to death.
Maritime warfare doesn't like passive seaters(which, sadly perhaps, land powers tend to be - psychology is a mighty enemy).
At sea there can only be two lines of defense - it's either enemy bases, or yours. If you're willing to limit yourself to yours - it's more comfortable psychologically, but it will be them who'll be hitting you. And it will be them who'll be exploiting access to the rest of the globe through the seas(to overwhelm you through simple resource metrics), not you.
All of this, however, is actually secondary - we aren't talking geopolitics(wrong thread), we're talking ships, and ships are here to provide options. Conscious options on how to use an instrument are up to users. But the instrument shall be fully capable and provide all the options, or what's the point of paying for it?
In Pacific War 2.0 China will be conducting amphibious assault operations on the places you listed, yes Hawaii included.
When we think of Sea power it's normal to think of ships.
However...
because of advances in long range missiles (example DF-26B) enemy targets can now be hit 4,000km out at sea. You can "technically speaking" be standing 4,000km away from your enemy and still hit him. Furthermore on an island the same can be done 360 degrees all around.
because of this:
In Pacific War 2.0 having control of islands will be very important.....more so than in WW2.
The PLA rocket force will not be operating purely from the mainland. They will also operate on islands in the Pacific.