Rumoured Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion


ChineseToTheBone

New Member
Registered Member
regarding the maximum width of the aircrafts that can land on the runway, the GJ-11 drone has almost the same width as a Flanker just a little less (14 meters vs 14.7 meters respectively) and obviously the J-35 has a much smaller wingspan.
That is quite wide for sure, which is not unexpected for what is basically a stealthy flying wing.

Hopefully folding wings are planned akin to what had been implemented on the F-35C as to better accommodate for storage capacity.
 

Tsavo Lion

New Member
Registered Member
These smaller LHD/As mini carriers will save them a lot of $ & time:

It makes sense, as they now have unsinkable CVs on the islands in the SC Sea.
 

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #184
^unsinkable, sure, but it's not like the relevant infrastructure and assets magically become invulnerable lol
 

Tsavo Lion

New Member
Registered Member
Time will tell! After the 4th or 5th CV/N is inducted, they may focus on building nuclear icebreakers & submarines instead.
 

Brumby

Major
QE was designed with STOVL and CATOBAR "potential," and by the time the study into a CATOBAR conversion was made, the lead ship's work had already begun.
There's cost for the procurement of the equipment itself, cost for installation, but also cost for any redesigns and re-engineering that has to be made.
OTOH 076 will be designed from the ground up for EM catapults.

Obviously 076 will be more expensive than an 075, but your comparison is not very useful here either.
Your attempt in explaining the high cost attribution of EMAL solely to the QE acquisition process is not factually supported by public facts as they are well documented. The various UK National Audit reports pertaining to the QE acquisition process issued in 2011 and 2013 and in particular the latter report highlighted the cost blow out with the EMAL option and the subsequent decision to revert to a STVOL based design. Up to that point of time, the UK was in a design phase and the sunk cost identified by the decision was 74 million sterling. It is not a case of EMAL cost blow out to accommodate a design change but rather catapults are expensive by nature especially the EMAL type.

Cats and traps are unique to carriers and these are the capabilities that distinguish it from non-cat design. It is therefore unsurprising they would constitute a significant portion of overall cost. No economies of scale would somehow remove such a high but necessary component cost. IMO, China wants to mirror the capability of the USN with its LHA America class and its STOVL aviation. Lacking such an option, an alternate approach in the form of EMAL being mated to a LHA design is being considered. I think such an approach is fundamentally flawed because the payback on a high investment cost with the EMAL is constrained by a compromised design in the form of a LHA. Said differently, if you want to go for EMAL then go for a mini carrier optimised design to fully leverage the capability arising from your EMAL investment. LHA by design is for amphibious assault with a more aviation centric approach. It is not a carrier centric design.

We know the LHA America gave up a well deck to gain additional aviation storage space. Even with that, the maximum number it can operate with is about 20 F-35Bs. In contrast, the French carrier of around the same tonnage can operate with 30 plus aviation assets.
 

visitor123

New Member
Registered Member
How do you know that China's EMALS will be expensive?

Maybe the American just sucks and is incompetent? The Ford is still not operational. And they have just sunk a LHD in their port. Then you have the Zumwalt and LCS debacles. The F-35 after the first 076 comes out will become a joke too.
 

SAC

Just Hatched
Registered Member
The fixed-wing component of the Type 076 (as suggested here) will depend in no small part as to whether it is being accompanied by PLANS 16 or 17, or by a CATBAR carrier. If it is being accompanied by a CATBAR carrier it will require few if any stealth UCAVs, as this capability will be delivered by the CATBAR carrier. If however CATBAR carriers are otherwise tasked and the Type 076 is accompanied by PLANS 16 or 17, then a small number of stealth UCAVs would provide the essential pre-assault strike capability, while being supported by the future stealth fighters for air-to-air combat and Z-18s for airborne early warning off the STOBAR carriers. We should expect that the Type 076 (as suggested here) will be able to operate the future stealth fighter.
 

Top