075 LHD thread

[Intrepid]

There's any particular choice of reasonable explanations one can come up with for why 075 might be equipped with a new MR SAM and why CV-17 was not.

Let us wait and see whether 003 gets the same new MR SAM as 075. Then we know that the design of 002 is simply to old and/or not of first line value.

 

[Blitzo]

Let us wait and see whether 003 gets the same new MR SAM as 075. Then we know that the design of 002 is simply to old and/or not of first line value.

Just for the record, I repeat, I don't think 075 even has a VLS to begin with. I think the sponson that has been mentioned as possibly for the VLS is more likely to be a sponson for CIWS, or decoy launchers or some other purpose instead.

But I think if 075 does have a VLS, I think the most likely (or rather the least unlikely) payload it would accommodate would be an MR SAM. If 075 does have a VLS then I would be surprised if 003 does not also get it.

 

[Iron Man]

Or, it's a dedicated small footprint VLS for a new MR SAM that is capable of accommodating the weapon in a low footprint size rather than putting in a full VLS module (whether it's the UVLS or the HHQ-16 VLS)?

What??? Come on!

Edit: ... or, alternatively, the missile was not yet ready when CV-17 was being designed and constructed, and the value vs cost of giving CV-17 the UVLS (if the 075 can carry the UVLS) was judged to be not worth it?

There's any particular choice of reasonable explanations one can come up with for why 075 might be equipped with a new MR SAM and why CV-17 was not.

Seriously? How about just even dedicating the mere SPACE for a VLS then? Which BTW CV-17 did NOT do. This is getting surreal.

Well I was talking about large flight deck ships having a VLS, for the record.

Which then is irrelevant to the claim of an LHD having any prior basis of comparison for loading LACMs. Do you not remember your "norm"? What's the pointing of talking about a "norm" for LHDs loading or not loading LACMs when you now include carriers and helicopter destroyers in your norm for LHDs loading or not loading LACMs???

Depending on what the suggestion is, yes I think some suggestions need to be heard about before it could be reasonably entertained as a likely possibility.
If the 075 was designed to have the ability to carry LACMs, I consider such a subsystem to be significant enough that we should have heard about it via rumours by now if one wants to make the argument that such a subsystem should be argued as likely rather than possible.

No, I don't consider it significant at all. It's a munition, pure and simple. A munition that could be one of several LACMs that are already well known to the PLA watching community, in a UVLS that is already well known to the PLA watching community. You are also being quite inconsistent here, with an alleged new, compact MRSAM in an alleged new, compact VLS that NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF.

 

[Blitzo]

What??? Come on!


Seriously? How about just even dedicating the mere SPACE for a VLS then? Which BTW CV-17 did NOT do. This is getting surreal.

While CV-17 was being designed and built no practical MR SAM existed that it could be fit with, so it wasn't fit with an MR SAM or a VLS or the space for it. Because the system at the time hadn't existed yet.

While 075 was being designed and built a practical MR SAM was either ready or would be soon ready so it was fitted with a VLS for the MR SAM.

Which then is irrelevant to the claim of an LHD having any prior basis of comparison for loading LACMs. Do you not remember your "norm"? What's the pointing of talking about a "norm" for LHDs loading or not loading LACMs when you now include carriers and helicopter destroyers in your norm for LHDs loading or not loading LACMs???

I didn't include carriers or helicopter destroyers for my norm of LHDs loading or not loading LACMs. I think you're getting the posts mixed up.

My norm for "flattop ships" was for the earlier part of the discussion about VLS and the ranking of likely payloads that 075 might have, based on the "norms" of other flattop ships which have VLS are equipped with and the payloads those VLS are equipped with (this post #1249 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-125#post-568477)


For the "loading or not loading LACMs on LHDs" part of the discussion (this post #1259 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-126#post-568581), the "deviation from the norm" that I wrote about was specifically about giving amphibious assault ships LHDs an organic land attack capability, I quote:

However I think it is far from the most likely payload for a VLS on 075 if there is a VLS, because giving amphibious assault ships like LHDs an organic in built land attack capability would be quite a deviation from worldwide norms and it means 075 would be the first of its kind in that regard.

You are confusing one part of the discussion with an earlier part of the discussion.

No, I don't consider it significant at all. It's a munition, pure and simple. A munition that could be one of several LACMs that are already well known to the PLA watching community, in a UVLS that is already well known to the PLA watching community. You are also being quite inconsistent here, with an alleged new, compact MRSAM in an alleged new, compact VLS that NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF.

Well I do consider it significant, because giving an LHD a LACM capability would represent a deviation from global norms where no LHD in service has an organic LACM capability, and if the PLAN were to do that I think we would have heard some forewarning.

I don't believe that merely giving a certain ship a modular VLS like the Chinese Navy's UVLS or the US Mk-41 means we can believe that any ship with a given length of UVLS or Mk-41 can be expected to carry any munition that is physically compatible with the length.

Edit: but as I wrote above in post #1273, I think that the idea of giving an LHD like 075 LACMs is not implausible. I don't think it's illogical either. But I don't believe that if 075 had a VLS that it would be the most likely candidate for the payload it is intended for.

 

[Iron Man]

While CV-17 was being designed and built no practical MR SAM existed that it could be fit with, so it wasn't fit with an MR SAM or a VLS or the space for it. Because the system at the time hadn't existed yet.

While 075 was being designed and built a practical MR SAM was either ready or would be soon ready so it was fitted with a VLS for the MR SAM.

Again, with this "practical", a term you have used before but never clarified what you even meant by this. Whatever you mean by this is still wrong and/or irrelevant. The very SPACE for VLS on CV-17 was designed OUT. This means the PLAN is not interested in VLS MRSAM capability for the CV-17 at all. This point is so painfully obvious that your recalcitrance here is a clear indication that you just cannot be seen to be wrong on any point, regardless of how hopeless it is.

I didn't include carriers or helicopter destroyers for my norm of LHDs loading or not loading LACMs. I think you're getting the posts mixed up.

My norm for "flattop ships" was for the earlier part of the discussion about VLS and the ranking of likely payloads that 075 might have, based on the "norms" of other flattop ships which have VLS are equipped with and the payloads those VLS are equipped with (this post #1249 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-125#post-568477)


For the "loading or not loading LACMs on LHDs" part of the discussion (this post #1259 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-type-075-lhd-lph-lha-discussion.t5644/page-126#post-568581), the "deviation from the norm" that I wrote about was specifically about giving amphibious assault ships LHDs an organic land attack capability, I quote:

You are confusing one part of the discussion with an earlier part of the discussion.

The specific "payload" a "large flattop" with VLS would have is specifically and only relevant if we are talking "flattops" that could conceivably load LACMs in the context of amphibious landings, so again, adding large flattops like aircraft carriers and DDHs that would NOT conceivably load LACMs. So either your distinction here is completely irrelevant, or at best relevant in the context of flattops that engage in amphibious attack.

Well I do consider it significant, because giving an LHD a LACM capability would represent a deviation from global norms where no LHD in service has an organic LACM capability, and if the PLAN were to do that I think we would have heard some forewarning.

I don't believe that merely giving a certain ship a modular VLS like the Chinese Navy's UVLS or the US Mk-41 means we can believe that any ship with a given length of UVLS or Mk-41 can be expected to carry any munition that is physically compatible with the length.

Do you also consider a heretofore unknown compact MRSAM in a new compact VLS to be "significant" and something that we would have had some "forewarning" about? I think you would, but yet you are not applying the same standards to your own statements that you are applying to mine. Why not?

Secondly, we aren't even talking about just LHDs when it comes to land attack, we are talking about LHDs with VLSs. How many of those are there in the world? We are also talking about the 075 specifically, i.e. "large amphibious warships" (your words). How many of those are there in the world? There is literally no precedent for VLS and what it would load in a large amphibious warship, yet you try to talk like there is some kind of norm here.

Third, if there is a VLS on the 075, and it also already has air defense weapons like SRSAMs and CIWSs (I don't think you dispute this), and larger warships like carriers aren't seen to need MRSAMs, then my point is that the 075 will also not have MRSAMs, due to lack of perceived need.

 

[Blitzo]

Again, with this "practical", a term you have used before but never clarified what you even meant by this. Whatever you mean by this is still wrong and/or irrelevant. The very SPACE for VLS on CV-17 was designed OUT. This means the PLAN is not interested in VLS MRSAM capability for the CV-17 at all. This point is so painfully obvious that your recalcitrance here is a clear indication that you just cannot be seen to be wrong on any point, regardless of how hopeless it is.

Of course the space for VLS on CV-17 was designed out, because there was no appropriate MR SAM at the time that would've been able to accommodate it, so why wouldn't they remove it to use it for other purposes? (This is even assuming the VLS space on CV-17 derived from the original Kuznetsov design would've been enough to accommodate the dimensions of an MR SAM design that had yet to emerge at the time)

The specific "payload" a "large flattop" with VLS would have is specifically and only relevant if we are talking "flattops" that could conceivably load LACMs in the context of amphibious landings, so again, adding large flattops like aircraft carriers and DDHs that would NOT conceivably load LACMs. So either your distinction here is completely irrelevant, or at best relevant in the context of flattops that engage in amphibious attack.

Considering no amphibious assault ship or flattop exists in the world with organic LACMs, I think my norm stated in #1249 is quite relevant.

Do you also consider a heretofore unknown compact MRSAM in a new compact VLS to be "significant" and something that we would have had some "forewarning" about? I think you would, but yet you are not applying the same standards to your own statements that you are applying to mine. Why not?

For the MR SAM we actually have had rumours for the last two years regarding a quad packable SAM that has been dubbed the "3-5" SAM (in regards to its capabilities; top speed of Mach 5, range 50km, and minimum altitude 5m), so it isn't exactly heretofore unknown. There is no compact VLS that has been rumoured though previously I did write my argument in a way that allowed for either using the same UVLS with the new MR SAM or with a new dedicated compact VLS for the MR SAM.

Applying my same standards by taking together the sum of rumours, and taking into account past norms of both flattop ships and norms of large amphibious assault ships, I believe that if 075 has a VLS then the least unlikely payload for it to carry would be an MR SAM, followed by VL ASW weapon and then LACMs.

Secondly, we aren't even talking about just LHDs when it comes to land attack, we are talking about LHDs with VLSs. How many of those are there in the world? We are also talking about the 075 specifically, i.e. "large amphibious warships" (your words). How many of those are there in the world? There is literally no precedent for VLS and what it would load in a large amphibious warship, yet you try to talk like there is some kind of norm here.

Just because there are no other large amphibious warships with VLSs in the world doesn't mean that we are not able to alter our likelihood based on other relevant ship types that the 075 has relevant similar characteristics with.

Putting it another way; the 075 is a large amphibious warship, and it also a flattop.
There are no large amphibious warships in the world that have VLS, but there are flattop ships in the world with VLS.
Of the large amphibious warships in the world and flattops in the world with various organic weapons in general (carried in VLS or otherwise), the various different classes in the world carry a variety of organic weapons such as gun CIWS, missile CIWS, MR SAMs (in VLS and not VLS), as well as VL ASW weapons.
However not one large amphibious warship or flattop in the world carries organic LACMs whether it's VLS or not.

Based on the above, the best I am willing to give it is that if 075 does have VLS, then as a large amphibious warship that is a flattop, then it is possible that it may carry LACM but it is not the most likely payload it may carry.

Third, if there is a VLS on the 075, and it also already has air defense weapons like SRSAMs and CIWSs (I don't think you dispute this), and larger warships like carriers aren't seen to need MRSAMs, then my point is that the 075 will also not have MRSAMs, due to lack of perceived need.

If 075 does have a VLS, I believe the most likely payload it would be is an MR SAM that is now ready which wasn't ready for CV-16 or CV-17 (and thus why they weren't equipped with it nor did they leave space for it) -- and by extension I would expect 003 to have the MR SAM as well.

====


This is the last I'm going to write on the matter.
I think I've made my case to well enough to readers who happen to be interested, because neither of us are going to change the other's opinion.
You can have the last word.

 

[Brumby]

Andy I'm wondering if you meant that circus Aug 19, 2019

or some other "VLS Tomahawk launches on trucks"?

I am afraid you are not connecting the dots as to where this is going.

THE US armed services especially the USN and USMC have been talking about distributed lethality for some time and more recently about the concept o island hopping. For those wondering where those missiles will be placed post INF world, the concept is basically to put those long range missiles into a truck and ferry them via V-22 a thousand kms away onto some remote island, unload and fire them away with tracking data from F-35s. Pack and then disappear back onto their LHA's or whatever.

Remember the test in August of a F-35 providing tracking data to ground missile via the IBCS network.

 

[Brumby]

There is a principle that I believe is reasonably true and that "form follows function" If you want to argue your case as to what offensive and offensive weapons will be placed on board the 075 you will first have to explain the purpose of the type 075 as intended for use by the PLAN.

Unfortunately some of the discussions I have seen seem to be whether it is LHD or LHA rather than its intended functional nature in the design.

Is it a command ship with secondary amphibious assault?
Is it primarily ASW with secondary amphibious assault?
Is it a multi purpose vessel?

What is the rumour mill saying?

 

[Equation]

Let me know when attack helos can launch HARM, JASSM-ER, and PGM's from 10,000m altitude. BTW, China's defenses against American ARG's have nothing to do with China's ARG capabilities or with American ARG capabilities, since neither would attack each other with ARGs before their other air and naval air forces (and literally everything else) had already attacked and pulverized their respective coastlines. Amphibious assault in our current context is not really a discussion of combat between two equals or near equals.

Let me know when those VTOL jets can safely do land attacks without E-2 Hawkeye types AWACS system helping them. Bottom line of my argument is VTOL jets on LDH is usefull (to some extent) but not a big changer as you would assume it to be because of their natural short range against other land base fighter jets.

 

[Brumby]

Let me know when those VTOL jets can safely do land attacks without E-2 Hawkeye types AWACS system helping them.

Since you are repeating such an assertion can you please substantiate it.