I don't think China has the type of requirement US has for MLP's. Carrying two Zubrs into SCS or back might well be all the naval task there is. Other such work for PLAN like getting a damaged small ship home can be done by hired merchant vessels.
PLAN Zubr Large Air Cushion Landing Craft
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
lcloo
Captain
The role of 868 is obviously very different from US MLPs, it is more likely to be used most of the time as a transport of navy ships and over-size heavy equipment.
At 20,000 ton plus, it is small compared with other semi-submersible heavy transport operated by Shanghai Zhenhua (ZPMC) which has several heavy semi-submersible transport ships ranged up to 51,500 tons.
At 20,000 ton plus, it is small compared with other semi-submersible heavy transport operated by Shanghai Zhenhua (ZPMC) which has several heavy semi-submersible transport ships ranged up to 51,500 tons.
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I was thinking along that line of thought as well. Most here assume the MLP was designed strictly to carry only Zubrs. Unless some officer in PLAN or some document stating so I thinking that would be very presumptious. I think it was made to carry/transport things that are big and bulky.. be it Zubr, a small sub, other vessels etc...
To be real honest this ship to me is not so much like the Montford class MLP but more like a flo/flo although for the most part both ships serves many similar functions. Even the US Navy do not operate any true flo/flo ships and the MSC contracts with civilian shipping companies when they need to transport big vessels.
For ex.. USS Cole was moved by a Norwegian shipping company all the way to Pascagoula for repairs from the Gulf of Aden.
The 868 class is not a true MLP IMHO. The US MLP concept was designed strictly as a 'floating pier' for LCACs and other equipment incase of inaccessibility on the beachhead and local transportation network. It was designed strictly with LCACs primarily in mind and the modifications made to accommodate three of them for quick movement of cargo and troops from a seabase. It came to being from the strategies that stemmed from the MSC's ship prepositioning strategy.
I didn't invent that BTW.. they said it themselves:
"Our (Strategic Sealift (PM3) Prepositioning Program is an essential element in the U.S. military's readiness strategy. Afloat prepositioning strategically places military equipment and supplies aboard ships located in key ocean areas to ensure rapid availability during a major theater war, a humanitarian operation or other contingency." .....
While most active ships in MSC's Prepositioning Program strategically place combat gear at sea, there are other ships, including:
- The Mobile Landing Platform, a new class of ships designed to serve as a mobile sea-base option that provides our Navy fleet with a critical access infrastructure supporting the flexible deployment of forces and supplies
The Montford Class has the ability to interface with cargo ships, including the using the Vehicle Transfer Ramp (VTR) and the with its vehicle ramp, and the Improved Navy Lighterage System to offload equipment onto it to be moved to shore by LCACs, reducing the need for use of a foreign port. (from wiki)
At this point in time I do not believe PLAN has such an ambitious global prepositoning strategies in active state. Not because they can't or won't but because it is simply not needed at this point in time. When it comes to matters of gear and equipment prepositioning, the rapid deployment of men and equipmernt etc the requirements of both navies are simply not the same. The USN is a true blue world going navy while PLAN at this point is regional focus. The USN is also semi actively engage in wars while PLAN is not.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Most likely one way.. but depends on who the author is. Is he a civilian or is it from brochure? Also when it comes to ships, a better measure is nautical miles not 'regular' miles.
Anyway whatever it is operational range is probably equivalent to what we call combat range which is max distance under combat load or in this case the usual load of what the Zubr was designed to carry.
Jovian
Junior Member
Why did the Soviet design and build the Zubr-class in the first place? For what strategic or tactical purpose did they see a need for such big hovercrafts? What was the original argument (for or against) designing and building these crafts? Where did their originally intended to use them?
Sorry about the questions, just suddenly couldn't get my head around why the Soviet see a need for such a big hovercraft. Also, couldn't find much history behind the conception of the Zubr-class.
Sorry about the questions, just suddenly couldn't get my head around why the Soviet see a need for such a big hovercraft. Also, couldn't find much history behind the conception of the Zubr-class.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Try reinforcing the Russian Far East territories or their once Balkan ally states with just LHA. The Zubr-class can travel over shallow water and over land to move men and equipment quickly at strategical importance in large numbers.
