There's also maintenance with stealth aircrafts having historically a lot more maintenance per flying hours than the last generation to keep them at full capability. A prolonged conflict will be on j15 shoulders.
Last edited:
J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
To be honest, I don't really see how a Type 076 would be capable of showcasing her full potential flexibility-wise, when she can only have half of the capabilites as an amphibious assault ship, plus another half of the capabilities as an aircraft carrier at the same time.
If given options, I would rather design the Type 076 to become fully-fledged medium-size aircraft carriers (maybe closer to the size of Vikrant). Said redesigned Type 076 CVMs would mainly operates combat drones and a number of manned fighters, alongside limited or zero amphibious operation capabilities.
Type 076 CVMs would thus be relegated to support amphibious task forces, AND support the mainline carrier battle groups (001A, 002, 003, 004, 005 etc) regarding naval aviation warfare/operations on the high seas - all while without wasting any spaces onboard, because space can be transformed into capability when used efficiently.
Meanwhile, I'll choose to continue pumping out more Type 075 LHDs and Type 071 LPDs, since those ships are actually geared towards launching and supporting amphibious assault roles. Maybe giving the Type 075 LHDs some ground-support drones with VTOL and/or STOVL capabilities would be a better option.
But that might just be my own personal opinion on the matter. What do you guys think?
If there are some newernaval concepts surrounding the viability of Type 076 LHAs that I do not know or don't understand, please feel free to point out.
Last edited:
Can you link this podcast and is this guy a good source?
Shilao and his podcast can be considered a 'good source'.
Ofc things should be taken with a pinch of salt, but there have been plenty of times his (and also Xi Yazhou's) podcast has revealed/hinted at stuff that later turned out to be true (quite safe to say that they have sources/know friends in like the PLA as well as 'other places').
Link for the 2 podcasts and
Are you looking for a LHD or a baby carrier that does everything worse than a real carrier?
A LHD would have a large well deck which is completely wasted if you want to use it as a carrier. It would also have part of a deck reserved for armored vehicles that you would want to launch the assault. A LHD would not have the same powerful motor or speed requirement as a nuclear carrier. It would not have the same endurance as a carrier. It would not have the same sized aviation facility as a carrier. How are you getting a full sized maintenance facility for your J-35 air wing? Remember, the maintenance facility size for 8 J-35s isn't going to be that much smaller than for 20 J-35s.
It's one thing to have a few J-35s on deck for a short mission and live with the inefficiencies. It's quite a different thing to go to another part of the world with it. It seems to me you want a small carrier, not a LHD.
The insistence of 076 retaining a major amphibious assault role despite having a CATOBAR fit out, is a reflection of a welldeck being listed as one of its key subsystems and also being a consistent part of rumours with one of the usual sources stating that it would still be an amphibious assault ship.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
I didn't make my statement clear. The "situational bubble" was talking about refers to the carrier's eyes & ears, not those of the J-15 itself. The J-20 and J-XY for sure will have a more complete sensor suite than the J-15B ever will, but the latter having a much larger radar implies a greater search range, which translates to greater radar coverage for the carrier group.
This is relevant only in absence of shipborne AWACS.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You can have both.
With Catapults, the speed of the boat is far less of an issue.
For full-on combat operations you will need full blooded fleet carriers, but how likely is it that China will want to invade some random country in Africa or the middle east?
It’s long range amphibious assault capabilities are, realistically speaking, going to be primarily used for security assistance and stabilisation operations in support of friendly nations being CIA-coup’d; and evacuating Chinese nationals in the event of a catastrophic collapse of friendly governments to foreign sponsored coups and civil wars.
For such missions, time is of the essence. Unless China is absolutely curbstomping the CIA in the spy business, China is going to potentially have very limited reaction time to a sudden coup attempt to be able to do enough to stop it from succeeding in ousting the friendly government or plunging the nation into civil war.
That, plus the very limited number and mission set of Chinese overseas military bases makes naval action groups the primary rapid reaction force China could realistically field on the short to medium term.
In that context, you don’t need nor want to pack your LHD/LHAs to the gills with marines and armour, thus the loss of some carrying capacity is going to be of limited or even no concern.
The purpose of mini-carrier LHD/LHAs like the like of 076 I envisage would be to provide PLAN with SAGs that can carry out such missions without needing fleet carrier support. Deploying 2-3 of such SAGs centred around such an 076 would give China the rapid reaction presence it needs to hopefully dissuade the CIA from even attempting some coups while not diluting the PLAN fleet carrier fleet strengths at home.
The alternative is that the PLAN would need up to 6 additional fleet carriers to do the same peacetime missions if we factor in the rest, refit and retraining times needed after long deployments.
The J35s would be there primarily to provide fleet air defence and escort for rotor wing friendlies of such SAGs, as well as providing PLAN carrier pilots with useful experience of long duration naval aviation deployments without needing to send out full fleet carriers.
In that sense, you should get 90% of the peacetime capabilities of deploying full fleet carriers for maybe 20-30% of the costs.