by78
General
A single tank is considered full load. It's a MBT after all.
071 LPD thread
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
A single tank is considered full load. It's a MBT after all.
PanAsian has a point though.Too lazy to find more from my collection:
I have been watching the PLAN Type 726 / Yuyi-Class LCACs since they first appeared years ago.
In all of that time, I have seen maybe three pictures of them with any vehicles in them at all. One is the pic you show above...but we have seen that one over and over again.
We have an entire thread for the PLAN LCAC.
HEREhttps://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-plan-lcac-type-726-yuyi-class.t5620/page-10 https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/the-plan-lcac-type-726-yuyi-class.t5620/page-10
I started that thread in 2011...four years ago...here on SD.
In all of that time we have exactly two pictures of the PLAN LACAC carrying any vehicles posted on that thread. The one you posted above, which was posted on that thread by escobar in April 2013, and this one:
That's it. And on a thread that's been on SD for four+ years and has over 335 posts and over 100,000 views.
I am sure if they were many more out there...we would be seeing them.
Although the PLAN now has maybe seven LCACs, they could clearly build A LOT more if they wanted to. I have to believe that they have had problems with them.
I like to see the PLAN exercising with what they have and gaining experience...but to date almost all of that experience has been maneuvering at sea with them and moving in and out the Type 071 LPD empty...and a little operations going ashore.
However, the entire purpose of the LCAC is to carry troops and equipment to shore in numbers and to do so repetitively over and over. We have seen almost none of that in several years. Hence, I have to believe they have problems. Perhaps power problems...perhaps buoyancy problems...I simply do not know.
I do know that the Type 071 LPDs were designed to carry four of them and to be able to move troops and equipment to shore with them.
I expect when the PLAN works out whatever issues it has with them, we will see a LOT of pictures with all types of equipment and troops in them. That's what they are or.
So,, IMHO, PanAsian makes a good pint. it's not a new one.
I feel like a lot of this can come down to both the limited numbers of LCACs in service, as well as possibly the relative lack of priority the navy is placing for the development of LCAC capability in amphibious assault (which might also be related to any potential issues that the LCAC programme is facing -- i.e.: if the LCAC does face any bottlenecks they might not be interested in funding for solutions due to low priority), but more importantly also the general secretive nature of the military and navy overall.
It's worth recalling the LCAC is an "offensive" amphibious assault tool in many ways, in it is meant to ferry troops, AFVs or other materials to distant shores, so it can be perceived as an "aggressive" weapons system in the same way as the Liaoning and its airwing is, so the navy is conscious about not showing off the true capability of the LCAC.
With PLA watching it's always good to keep in mind the question of whether the photos we have are equal to the actual state of capability/readiness of a particular weapons system.
Personally the lack of LCAC photos I think is due to:
1: general chinese military secrecy
2: possible lack of priority of the LCAC programme for the navy + possible issues with the LCAC programme
3: limited number of LCACs in first place
... in order from most influential to least influential.
I think one more factor is whether China has much practical need for LCAC's.
They are really not necessary for MOOTW or humanitarian missions where regular boats and helicopters deploying from a mother ship should be sufficient.
Against China's potential opponents in a real war LCAC's may not be much more survivable deploying from a 071 than numerous small landing craft or perhaps even amphibious vehicles on their own, at least for the budget.
With greater payload, range, and armament the Zubr is probably more useful to China in the scenarios it faces.
So the fact that China has a LCAC program at all may just be part of the keeping up with niche military technologies.
Numbers definitely play a part. I am not sure about priority.
The Type 071 LPD was designed for these LCACs.
LCACs are designed to carry troops and vehicles.
We see the LCACs training and have numerous pictures of those first there doing so. But not with troops or vehicles.
And yet we see numerous pictures of the LPDs and the LCACs...just without equipment. Therefore I do not believe it is secrecy...there is nothing secret about what the LCACs will carry in terms of troops, IFV, APC, tanks, etc. If it was secrecy...IMHO, we would see very little of them at all.
See above. They are training...just without troops and equipment in then. If it was high enough priority to have them there training at all...since as you said, they are meant to take troops and equipment to shore...I have to believe in those training exercises that they would do so.
Yet they are not. Which adds credence to the idea that there are issues with the design. They are training with them for what they can do...and that is good and needed. But if they felt that they could reliably carry numerous troops and more equipment...they would. It is what they are for.
No doubt this has something to do with it. But you would expect to see them with equipment a proportional amount of the time if they could since we are seeing the limited number of LCACs numerous times.
Yet we do not.
As I said, I believe to date that they have had problems with the design.
Perhaps now that they are building them again and we are seeing them in the yards, they have addressed whatever issues they had. I would expect that they would not begin building more until they had.
We will see if these new ones, once they are in service, begin training with the men and equipment aboard.
I think that the LPDs, which there are now four of, with two more coming, were absolutely designed with LCACs in mind...to carry four each.
This was not for a niche type of thing. I simply believe that they are still working out design issues.
We see them building more now. Perhaps they have worked whatever issues out.
A couple of TYPE 071 LPDS, with 3-4 LCACs each, accompanied by 3-4 Type 072 IIs or Type 072As can project whatever power necessary for the PLAN across long distances.
Since the PRC is establishing itself strongly in places like Africa and other far flung places, I expect they foresee potential needs for such capabilities. A Zubr is fine for the South China Sea or the Taiwan Straits...but it is not meant to go with a large task force clear across the Indian Ocean.
The Type 071s and their LCACs will provide the PRC with that type of amphibious capability...for military, humanitarian, or whatever other needs they may have.
I just believe they have not quite got there yet with their LCAC design is all.
I expect they ultimately will, and then the training exercises we are seeing will include troops and equipment in the LCACs.
Engineer
Major
I have said this in the past: I believe the LCAC's lack of ability to control side way motion to be a design flaw, and is what impeding large scale production of the hovercraft.
What I observed from footages is that there is a huge difficulty in getting the hovercraft back into the well deck of 071. If it takes an unacceptable amount of time to have all four hovercraft back into the well deck, then they are operationally useless.
What I observed from footages is that there is a huge difficulty in getting the hovercraft back into the well deck of 071. If it takes an unacceptable amount of time to have all four hovercraft back into the well deck, then they are operationally useless.
That's exactly my point, actually -- "without equipment".
We have many pictures of Liaoning, but many of them do not feature planes aboard.
We have many pictures of Chinese Air Force fighters, but rarely do we get pictures with them operating with any kind of warload, and almost never see them practice with their weapons (and if we do, it's usually with things which are not very "capable" such as dumb bombs or SRAAMs... occasionally we might get a MRAAM test)
An LPD loaded with LCACs which are loaded with equipment and AFVs shows quite a different picture to an LPD loaded only with a single LCAC without any heavy equipment....just like how a carrier practising with an airwing is quite different to only getting pictures of a carrier usually lacking its airwing.
There are different levels of secrecy, the highest of which is not acknowledging a project's existence, all the way down to full and open disclosure.
In between, there is a region of secrecy which is where the military will acknowledge a project's existence but would be careful to not display the project's true level of advancement.
J-20, Y-20, Liaoning, LCAC, all fill the bill in that regard.
In other words, just because "we have pictures" of say, the LPD or the LCAC and that they are confirmed to exist, does not mean that the navy is going to give us pictures of them displaying their full capability, and it is likely that they have a reason to prevent us from knowing the true capability.
As for priority -- yes, 071 was definitely designed with LCACs in mind, but what I'm suggesting is that maybe the need for 071 to carry LCACs isn't as great as it may have once been; e.g.: that they may be quite content with the ability for 071 to be used as an AAV carrier... at least in the short term.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
lcloo
Captain
I have been pondering the possibility of using mechanical means to push/ pull the LCAC into/ out of the deck well. The aim is to minimize time taken for exit and entry of the LCAC in/out of the LPD.
Ideas like using mechanical "mule", extendable robotic arms or simply mobile hoist on overhead H-beam etc. came across my mind. These will grab the hard points fitted on LCAC and move it into position.
Question is why they (PLAN and US Navy) still persist in depending on driver skill to move the LCAC into/ out of LPD? Is it cost factor, penalty on weight and space inside the deck well, technical feasibility or simply to uphold pride of seamanship of LCAC crew?
Ideas like using mechanical "mule", extendable robotic arms or simply mobile hoist on overhead H-beam etc. came across my mind. These will grab the hard points fitted on LCAC and move it into position.
Question is why they (PLAN and US Navy) still persist in depending on driver skill to move the LCAC into/ out of LPD? Is it cost factor, penalty on weight and space inside the deck well, technical feasibility or simply to uphold pride of seamanship of LCAC crew?