075 LHD thread

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
China's sovereignty over Taiwan is recognized by all countries except for half a dozen mini-states. Thus China has the legal authority to close the ports and airports of Taiwan. No ship owner, to give one example, would dare send his tanker to the Island. End of play for the Taiwan independence games. So no full scale war unless the US were to attack China.
Short of Taiwan doing something very provactive and foolish to instigate such an action by the PRC, the US would not recognize such a blockade and would go to war to prevent it.

This has been made abundantly clear over the years.

Now, I cannot promise that Obama would, thpugh with his "pivot to the Pacific," is is likely that he would continue with this doctrine (which is basically one China but two governments), but almost any other occupant of the White House in modern times, including Clinton would.

So, again, unless Taiwan itself commits agression and invites such action, I seriously doubt the PRC will take such a course.

...and the LHD would not be used for such a blockade in any case. They would rely on aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants like DDGs and FFGs. Which the US would counter with numerous SSNs and aircraft to augment Taiwan's air forces and naval forces with. Let's all just hope and pray it never comes to that.
 
Last edited:

Preux

Junior Member
Short of Taiwan doing something very provactive and foolish to instigate such an action by the PRC, the US would not recognize such a blockade and would go to war to prevent it.

This has been made abundantly clear over the years.

Now, I cannot promise that Obama would, thpugh with his "pivot to the Pacific," is is likely that he would continue with this doctrine (which is basically one China but two governments), but almost any other occupant of the White House in modern times, including Clinton would.

So, again, unless Taiwan itself commits agression and invites such action, I seriously doubt the PRC will take such a course.

...and the LHD would not be used for such a blockade in any case. They would rely on aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants like DDGs and FFGs. Which the US would counter with numerous SSNs and aircraft to augment Taiwan's air forces and naval forces with. Let's all just hope and pray it never comes to that.

The PRC's redline is fairly clear, and comprises the following:
1.) Formal declaration of independence
2.) Formal alliance with a third party
3.) Foreign forces stationed in Taiwan
4.) Development of nuclear weapons by Taiwan

We can all agree that any of the above constitutes provocative action.

Given what the Taiwan Straits had seen in the last 21 years, I think it is very safe to assume that the PRC won't launch a blockade for the lark of it.

And Taiwan knows all about these too, and considering that they are already de facto a self-ruling and prosperous polity, they have next to zero incentive to push the PRC to the wall.

Now, of course there can be ambiguity in the red lines - what exactly constitute a declaration of independence? One can easily imagine a salami approach to it - but by definition such things take a long time and in time any thing can happen.
 

delft

Brigadier
tphuang,
I only just read your blog item about PLAN amphibious development and I must object to the notion of Chinese STOVL aircraft on LHD's. When it is a choice of building STOL performance into the aircraft or the ship you naturally choose the ship. It is not allowed by law in the amphibious ships of USN, hence F-35B, but here you're talking about a 40k LHD, nearly as large as Vikramditye. A LHD of that size with a ski ramp and angle deck with arresting gear would be a much healthier proposition than a conventional one with STOVL aircraft, especially one with GT-electric propulsion and EM cats built into the ski ramp.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
tphuang,
I only just read your blog item about PLAN amphibious development and I must object to the notion of Chinese STOVL aircraft on LHD's. When it is a choice of building STOL performance into the aircraft or the ship you naturally choose the ship. It is not allowed by law in the amphibious ships of USN, hence F-35B, but here you're talking about a 40k LHD, nearly as large as Vikramditye. A LHD of that size with a ski ramp and angle deck with arresting gear would be a much healthier proposition than a conventional one with STOVL aircraft, especially one with GT-electric propulsion and EM cats built into the ski ramp.

Why do PLAN care what is allowed by law for USN? It's a lot more likely that they put UCAVs on LHD, but my point is that they need to design LHD for not just the airwing that is available now, but what might be available in 10 and 15 years.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
tphuang,
I only just read your blog item about PLAN amphibious development and I must object to the notion of Chinese STOVL aircraft on LHD's. When it is a choice of building STOL performance into the aircraft or the ship you naturally choose the ship. It is not allowed by law in the amphibious ships of USN, hence F-35B, but here you're talking about a 40k LHD, nearly as large as Vikramditye. A LHD of that size with a ski ramp and angle deck with arresting gear would be a much healthier proposition than a conventional one with STOVL aircraft, especially one with GT-electric propulsion and EM cats built into the ski ramp.

"Not allowed by law" ?
 

delft

Brigadier
Why do PLAN care what is allowed by law for USN? It's a lot more likely that they put UCAVs on LHD, but my point is that they need to design LHD for not just the airwing that is available now, but what might be available in 10 and 15 years.
Sorry thuang, my point is that PLAN is not bound by US law and can there do without STOVL aircraft.
And it may well launch and recover unmanned aircraft from these vessels.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Where is Asif Igbal?

Hongjian at CDF just posted what could be type 75 picture out in the open. After many false start It could be it with big IF. It has the contour of LHD or Bulk Carrier

Anyone? go there and download the photo
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
You're right, Jeff. But I can't remember China taking a frivolous decision in a serious matter.

O'RLY...?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Japan protest over China ship's radar action

A Chinese navy frigate has locked its weapon-targeting radar on a Japanese ship, Tokyo says, amid mounting tensions over a territorial row.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera said the incident happened on 30 January near islands claimed by both nations in the East China Sea.

He said this had prompted Tokyo to lodge a formal protest with Beijing.

The row, over islands known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, has escalated in recent months.

Taiwan also claims the island chain (known as Diaoyutai in Taipei), which is controlled by Japan.

Last week, tensions between Tokyo and Beijing appeared to be easing after a Japanese delegation met senior Chinese leaders and both sides later expressed hopes that relations could improve, the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo reports.

But on Monday China sent patrol ships back in to the disputed waters around the islands, our correspondent adds.

'Dangerous situation'
Continue reading the main story
Disputed islands

The archipelago consists of five islands and three reefs
Japan, China and Taiwan claim them; they are controlled by Japan and form part of Okinawa prefecture
Japanese businessman Kunioki Kurihara owned three of the islands but sold them to the Japanese state in September
The islands were also the focus of a major diplomatic row between Japan and China in 2010
Q&A: China-Japan islands row
"On 30 January, something like fire-control radar was directed at a Japan Self-Defence Maritime escort ship in the East China Sea," Mr Onodera told reporters on Tuesday.

The minister said Japan's Yuudachi vessel and the Chinese frigate were about 3km (two miles) apart at the time, Japan's Kyodo News reports.

Asked about the delay in filing the protest, Mr Onodera said it took the ministry until Tuesday to determine that a fire-control radar had indeed locked on the Japanese ship.

He added that a Japanese military helicopter was also targeted with a similar type of radar by another Chinese frigate on 19 January.

"Directing such radar is very abnormal. We recognise it would create a very dangerous situation if a single misstep occurred," he said.

Radars use radio waves to detect the intended target and then guide missiles or other weapons.

China's UN move
Also on Tuesday, the Chinese ambassador to Japan rebuffed an earlier protest over continuing Chinese patrols off the disputed islands, according to China's state-run Xinhua news agency.

File image of protest in Beijing over islands dispute
Protests took place in some Chinese cities last year over the territorial row
Ambassador Cheng Yonghua said the islands and the surrounding waters were China's "inherent territory".

The dispute over their ownership of the islands has continued for years, but it reignited in 2012 when the Japanese government purchased three of the islands from their private Japanese owner.

The move triggered diplomatic protests from Beijing and Taipei, and sparked small public protests in China, affecting some Japanese businesses operating in the country.

Chinese government ships have since sailed many times through what Japan says are its territorial waters around the islands.

Late last year, a Chinese government plane also flew over the islands in what Japan called a violation of its airspace.

In response, Tokyo has moved to increase military spending for the first time in a decade.

The eight uninhabited islands and rocks lie close to strategically important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and are thought to contain oil deposits.

In December, Beijing submitted to the UN a detailed explanation of its claims to the disputed islands.

A UN commission of geological experts will examine China's submission but does not have the authority to resolve conflicting claims.
 
Top