asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Equation I would expect better reasoning from you
Rumoured Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
Equation I would expect better reasoning from you
Equation
Lieutenant General
You don't think the MB-22 needs fuel as well? Manned VTOL aircraft of any kind has a shorter range than UCAV vehicles with launched catapult systems that can carry more weapons.
It's a trade off. it's always a trade off. Increasing range vs increased firepower. Putting F-35Bs on the deck decreases the number of marines that can be ferried as part of any particular wave of the assault since there are less VTOLs to carry them. One of the reasons the Marines wanted VSTOL was because they also want to be able to use smaller landing strips on islands. WW2 was the quintessential defining moment for the USMC for their doctrine.
The PLAN and its marines will be faced with the same sorts of decisions. The Type 076 will have limited deck and hanger space. Flexibility is probably more important than anything. No VSTOLs? How do you get a similar capability? UAVs. Put UAVs on the deck and you lose out if you need to send as large a wave of marines at once. Dump the UAVs for helicopters? You lose out on the faster, longer range strike. Put attack helicopters on? etc, etc. Everything has a cost. Even if you built an lHD/LHA the size of the Ford class, there would still be trade offs.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
you people are funny.
Q: Why was a VTOL jet developed in the first place?
A: because the targeted platform is shit and cannot launch a real jet.
Now China has developed a platform that can launch real jets and the clowns are coming out saying that it was a compromise for not having a VTOL jet in the pipeline.
What?
And for all of your copes about how "flexible" a VTOL jet is, you don't see any real navy (USN) or air force (USAF) using VTOL. In fact, the F35C was such a failure the USN is starting to develop its own jets to replace the hornets.
Q: Why was a VTOL jet developed in the first place?
A: because the targeted platform is shit and cannot launch a real jet.
Now China has developed a platform that can launch real jets and the clowns are coming out saying that it was a compromise for not having a VTOL jet in the pipeline.
What?
And for all of your copes about how "flexible" a VTOL jet is, you don't see any real navy (USN) or air force (USAF) using VTOL. In fact, the F35C was such a failure the USN is starting to develop its own jets to replace the hornets.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
clearly you are a fan boy and a Tier 3 one at that
none of what you said is anything useful
so either read the forum rules or prepared to get banned soon
Can you provide more detail? Not sure I've heard about this before.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
People should not blindly take the US as the gold standard for everything.
The USMC went with F35B STOVL fighters primarily because internal politics within the USN meant they were not allowed cats and traps on their LHD/As as they navy was worried that might threaten funding for their precious carriers if people could see actual alternatives out in the world.
Currently the USMC loves VTOL because that’s the only way they can have fastjets to play with.
If given the option of mounting cats and traps on their LHD/As, I think the USMC might have some serious thinking on whether all the drawbacks of the F35B is really worth the trade off in terms of performance.
Furthermore, unlike the US with its sprawling global interests, Chinese international interests worth fighting for are actually pretty concentrated in the Indian Ocean, ME and Africa. That means the PLAN can deploy pretty much all its ships not needed for homeland defence. So what if carrying manned fighters cut the number of helicopters you can carry on your LHD/A, when the PLAN can just sent two extra LHP/D/As to compliment the fleet? The only things I would see the PLAN hesitant in deploying would be next gen CVN supercarriers, as having 2-3 of those trapped beyond the Malacca strait would be a massive proportion of the PLAN surface fleet even if it does go to a full 10 carriers as rumoured.
I think if each 076 could carry 10-12 of the new J35 carrier fighter, that would provide a credible mini-carrier capability for expeditionary missions against 90%+ of the countries along the BRI without needing a silly large fleet of 076s.
On top of that, I think the PLAN would retain, and potentially refit the Liaoning and Shandong with EMALS to function as expeditionary carriers for such missions against the few countries in the region who might be too much for 076s alone.
The key advantage of 076 mini carriers is to provide operational fastjets support for any PLAN task group without full carrier support, and/or to complement the Liaoning/Shandong to achieve the sortie rate of a full blooded CVN without needed to commit one.
The USMC went with F35B STOVL fighters primarily because internal politics within the USN meant they were not allowed cats and traps on their LHD/As as they navy was worried that might threaten funding for their precious carriers if people could see actual alternatives out in the world.
Currently the USMC loves VTOL because that’s the only way they can have fastjets to play with.
If given the option of mounting cats and traps on their LHD/As, I think the USMC might have some serious thinking on whether all the drawbacks of the F35B is really worth the trade off in terms of performance.
Furthermore, unlike the US with its sprawling global interests, Chinese international interests worth fighting for are actually pretty concentrated in the Indian Ocean, ME and Africa. That means the PLAN can deploy pretty much all its ships not needed for homeland defence. So what if carrying manned fighters cut the number of helicopters you can carry on your LHD/A, when the PLAN can just sent two extra LHP/D/As to compliment the fleet? The only things I would see the PLAN hesitant in deploying would be next gen CVN supercarriers, as having 2-3 of those trapped beyond the Malacca strait would be a massive proportion of the PLAN surface fleet even if it does go to a full 10 carriers as rumoured.
I think if each 076 could carry 10-12 of the new J35 carrier fighter, that would provide a credible mini-carrier capability for expeditionary missions against 90%+ of the countries along the BRI without needing a silly large fleet of 076s.
On top of that, I think the PLAN would retain, and potentially refit the Liaoning and Shandong with EMALS to function as expeditionary carriers for such missions against the few countries in the region who might be too much for 076s alone.
The key advantage of 076 mini carriers is to provide operational fastjets support for any PLAN task group without full carrier support, and/or to complement the Liaoning/Shandong to achieve the sortie rate of a full blooded CVN without needed to commit one.
I think it's a no-brainer that the USMC would have preferred catapult-launched F-35Cs like the US Navy has on full-size carriers.
Yes, there was a huge political element at play here, but more importantly, steam catapults were previously the only technology option available.
But steam catapults have significant support requirements, which pushes the optimum carrier size larger.
Generating large amounts of steam requires a nuclear reactor or significant fuel capacity.
You couldn't justify developing 2 separate classes of nuclear carrier, due to cost and the small, short production run.
And a conventionally powered carrier isn't much use to the US Navy which has to sail far from home.
But the advent of EMALs and IEPS changes this by making smaller carriers viable.
The type 076 is a genius design. The British and Japanese must be feeling stupid using F-35B VTOL.
Italians, South Koreans...
Perhaps, just perhaps, it's not that dumb?
I find the design we think the Type 076 to be an interesting design. We will have to see how the PLAN uses it and if it even matches what we think when built.