Seems like state security is more lax on the type 076 than the Fujian, we're almost getting bolt by bolt pictures at this point.
Rumoured Type 076 LHD/LHA discussion
- Thread starter banjex
- Start date
I refer to the tender requirement file, a 200m ship with a 25m runway.
This picture of a 100m ship I suspect is a smaller version, testing some features related to that 200m ship.
------------
Yes, landing and launch will be at separate times, when the central 25m is used for landing, the Jet must have wings folded while sitting in the catapult position.
Last edited:
Then it wouldn't be wise to speculate so much on something that hasn't appeared yet, isn't it?
Apart from what I've explained above WRT the wingspan of contemporary carrier-based warplanes (including MALE/HALE U(C)AVs) - I also don't think you realise just how difficult, challenging and dangerous flight deck operations can be.
There're plenty of good reasons why the flight decks of aircraft carriers are designed and utilized the way we see today - And the reasons are (more often than not) written in blood and tears over many decades of carrier operations by the US Navy, Royal Navy and others.
That's why:
1. Angled deck is the best layout option for CATOBAR and STOBAR carriers;
2. Flight deck does not get jam-packed with aircrafts and helicopters except during exceptionally emergency situations; and
3. There are mandated separation margins/zones in between the landing strips, launch positions, parking spaces etc. on the flight deck, such that must have sufficient distances between -
Among many other things.
Honestly, I'd suggest you to do some self finding-out on how and why the flight decks of aircraft carriers are being designed and utilized as such today first.
Last edited:
This shows they have something even better than the type 076, so that allowing you to see type 076 is just okay.
How many of these type 076 are they going to build in the first batch?
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Here's another tidbit for ya as someone who has 'been there, done that'.
Want to know why the island is on.the starboard and the angle deck port side?
The simple answer is way back in the day the USN realized that most aviators in a panic fubar'ed situation would instinctively yank the stick to the left thereby flying it to the left at a high AoA. They decided to put the island on the right for obvious reason.
You are overcooking this. A straight deck can preserve the necessary separation margins/zones. The straight landing strip would be offset to port of centre line.
If it is going to have 2 cats, then only the port cat would be inoperable (cleared) during landing (as will many of the helicopter spots).
This is not to say that there will be no angled deck, just that a straight deck can easily fulfill the intended design requirements and parameters for operation.
The bolded sentence is exactly what @sutton999 doesn't get - Because apparently he thinks that having two aircrafts/UAVs with their wings folded while being in their respective EMCAT launch positions forward of the flight deck are absolutely fine when another aircraft/UAV is landing at the same time - As if in case the aircraft/UAV that is landing on the flight deck fails to catch the catapult, the aircraft/UAV will always manage to snuggly fit in between the other two aircrafts/UAVs that are at their launch positions.
Unfortunately, that's not how the real world works.
Given what we can observe by now - An angled deck is very likely to be off the table for the 076 LHD.
Sorry, somehow missed that part of their argument, you/we are very much correct. What they’re suggesting is somewhat ludicrous.
I also think there will be no angled deck. The last bit is just the standard caginess that PLA watching teaches us to have, and also an attempt to preserve the standards of this forum, by only making educated guesses when a preponderance of evidence points to a fact.