075 LHD thread

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
If by "clipper bow" you're talking about the concave overhanging part of the bow, I think it's reaching quite a bit to interpret that as a sign that the ship is not built to a warship standard and based on a merchant design?
(Also, yes, the bow can be argued to be "unlike those on any other Chinese warship" -- but 075 overall is also a type of warship that is unlike any other previous Chinese warship in general)

US LHDs of the America/Wasp class have a near identical bow geometry, and in fact for most ships with large flight decks extending to the front (including aircraft carriers) the bow geometry is of a clipper design.

To suggest that a clipper bow (or any other sole external design feature, for that matter) is somehow indicative of a warship being a merchant design is a little bit ambitious of a claim to make IMO, unless you are talking about something else.


prinB5i.jpg


1hBLGkG.jpg


D54fLJr.gif


There are two things on this ship that makes me think the underlying hull is based on merchant hull practice.


1. The shape of the bow near the flight deck overhang maybe one way to support an overhanging flight deck, but it is not the only way to fair in an overhanging deck. The long and perfectly vertical cutwater of the stem, however, certainly owes nothing to the overhanging flight deck. Such a vertical cut water just above a bulbous forefoot is uncommon, almost unheard of, on a modern warship. But it is common on many merchant hulls.

2. The cutaway of the sides of the stern above waterline is also uncommon on modern warships. Modern warships tend to have broad transom with twin rudders undernearth. The cutaway of the hull sides beginning considerably above water is, however, common on merchant hulls because the underwater hull narrows to a single centerline rudder.


Being based on merchant hull practice in no way denigrates an amphibious warship. It is almost a standard practice for helicopters amphibious assault ships. The much talked about French Mistreal is also build to merchant hull standards, so is the Australian Canberra class, and the former HMS Ocean.

The US has become sensitive about any suggestions its military equipment is cutting corners, but I am by no means certain the Wasp and their lineal predecessors were truly built to warship standard either. The now retired Iow Jima were completely built not just to merchant standard, but actually based on a specific merchant hull.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
There are two things on this ship that makes me think the underlying hull is based on merchant hull practice.


1. The shape of the bow near the flight deck overhang maybe one way to support an overhanging flight deck, but it is not the only way to fair in an overhanging deck. The long and perfectly vertical cutwater of the stem, however, certainly owes nothing to the overhanging flight deck. Such a vertical cut water just above a bulbous forefoot is uncommon, almost unheard of, on a modern warship. But it is common on many merchant hulls.

2. The cutaway of the sides of the stern above waterline is also uncommon on modern warships. Modern warships tend to have broad transom with twin rudders undernearth. The cutaway of the hull sides beginning considerably above water is, however, common on merchant hulls because the underwater hull narrows to a single centerline rudder.


Being based on merchant hull practice in no way denigrates an amphibious warship. It is almost a standard practice for helicopters amphibious assault ships. The much talked about French Mistreal is also build to merchant hull standards, so is the Australian Canberra class, and the former HMS Ocean.

The US has become sensitive about any suggestions its military equipment is cutting corners, but I am by no means certain the Wasp and their lineal predecessors were truly built to warship standard either. The now retired Iow Jima were completely built not just to merchant standard, but actually based on a specific merchant hull.

It's well understood that some amphibious assault ships are built to less than military standards, yes.

However the reason for my skepticism was because it seemed like you were suggesting that a few particular external design features on 075 (or on LHDs or amphibious assault ships in general) means that such ships are built to merchant standards rather than military.


I would argue that there are few singular external design features on modern warships that allow us to externally guess what standard a warship is built to, and that superficial external "similarities" with "merchant ships" do not tell us what standards the insides of the ship are built to.
 

H2O

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't know what others here think. But these fanboy art work shouldn't be posted, unless it's sanctioned by the government, SOEs and or credible think tanks.
 
Top