Why bother with two EMCATs of significantly different lengths on just one ship?
I highly doubt that J-35s will operate from the 075-mod/076 LHDs.
Rumoured Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
I highly doubt that J-35s will operate from the 075-mod/076 LHDs.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
for UCAVS
Contingency-only I hope.
The logistics for basing both UAVs and J-35 would be a total nightmare. Extra pilots/command staff/mechanics billeting, different sets of spares, fuel, and weapons, etc...
075/076 are all Diesel so speed/acceleration limited.
LHA's operate much closer to the enemy shores so either air superiority is already established or coverage provided by other assets. A few J-35s can't do much.
Instead of a single Swiss knife, I rather have much better and dedicated tools (i. e. a System) and China can easily afford.
Would it make a good case for emergency cases? For example, a carrier has been taken out of action/sunk, and there needs to be some aircraft around and fast. To the point quality matters little, any is better than none?
That is one of the contigency scenarios when a proper CV is always in the picture.
By now, we need to understand that the 075s and 075-mod/076s are LHDs from-the-keel-up. Their inherent hull design and engineering which allows them to perform their primary tasks (i.e. conducting and supporting amphibious assault operations) also means that they will never be able to sail as fast and with similar endurances as proper combatant warships, namely CVs, CGs, DDGs and FFGs.
This is why all LHDs and LHAs across the world can sail no faster than 24-25 knots at most.
Speaking of using 076 LHDs as "lightning carrier" of sorts - The information available to us at present does not support the operation of J-35s from said LHD, given the significantly shorter length of the 2x EMCATs on the 076 LHDs (~40 meters) compared to the 3x EMCATs on Fujian (~100 meters). At best, those shorter EMCATs can only launch UCAVs within the weight class of the GJ-11 (which, according to @万年炎帝 on Weibo,may actually approach that of the X-47B), at most.
In the meantime, if there is indeed an acute need to replenish carrier-based airpower ASAP in case of high tension or war - Personally, I am in favor of procuring the 21st-century version of Independence CVLs or Unryu CVs. TL; DR - Smaller, cheaper, easier to built and less complex flattops compared to their larger, proper CV counterparts.
Three options:
1. Recall that pop3 mentioned about Chengdu and Shenyang are currently developing S/VTOL warplanes (likely fighters), which has been noted as being fully independent of the J-35. If that is true, then an expanded variant of the Izumo as pure S/VTOL CVs; or
2. Repeated and improved variants of Shandong as STOBAR CVs; or
3. Shandong but improved and as CATOBAR CVs.
Note that option 1 does not permit AEW&C aircraft operations, option 2 may or may not permit AEW&C aircraft operations, while option 3 certainly permits AEW&C aircraft operations.
This is why all LHDs and LHAs across the world can sail no faster than 24-25 knots at most.
Speaking of using 076 LHDs as "lightning carrier" of sorts - The information available to us at present does not support the operation of J-35s from said LHD, given the significantly shorter length of the 2x EMCATs on the 076 LHDs (~40 meters) compared to the 3x EMCATs on Fujian (~100 meters). At best, those shorter EMCATs can only launch UCAVs within the weight class of the GJ-11 (which, according to @万年炎帝 on Weibo,may actually approach that of the X-47B), at most.
In the meantime, if there is indeed an acute need to replenish carrier-based airpower ASAP in case of high tension or war - Personally, I am in favor of procuring the 21st-century version of Independence CVLs or Unryu CVs. TL; DR - Smaller, cheaper, easier to built and less complex flattops compared to their larger, proper CV counterparts.
Three options:
1. Recall that pop3 mentioned about Chengdu and Shenyang are currently developing S/VTOL warplanes (likely fighters), which has been noted as being fully independent of the J-35. If that is true, then an expanded variant of the Izumo as pure S/VTOL CVs; or
2. Repeated and improved variants of Shandong as STOBAR CVs; or
3. Shandong but improved and as CATOBAR CVs.
Note that option 1 does not permit AEW&C aircraft operations, option 2 may or may not permit AEW&C aircraft operations, while option 3 certainly permits AEW&C aircraft operations.
Last edited:
by78
General
That doesn't look like the weather deck. There are additional modules to the side, which likely belong to the ship, and it means there is some ways to go before we get a look at the top deck.
You may as well make a 003 at this point.
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.
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".