The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

Okay...here are the only active Type 726 LCAC I can find,.

If you can find other/more active pennant numbers for Type 726 LCACs please let me know and post them here:

Pennant Number 3320



Pennant Number 3321



Pennant Number 3322



Those are the only ones I can document that are in use.

They may have others...some not marked yet...but those are all I can find and document and with four Type 071s commissioned and in service, they should certainly have over ten of them, if not 12-15.

MwRYum said:

Don't know if that's due to budget squeeze or technical difficulty or "new and improved model" in the pipeline with better powerplant available, the LCAC scene is very quiet for the last 6 months at least. After all, a LCAC of that class is too big a hardware to hide.

Click to expand...

I sincerely hope the PLAN finds this hovercraft as disappointing as I do. A vessel almost the same size as the USN LCAC but with only one-third the floor space. Hopefully this is only a proof-of-concept vessel and they manage to design an ACV that more efficiently uses the length and beam of the deck. It will probably require different engines and transmission because they are huge compared to what is found on the LCAC.

Iron Man said:

I sincerely hope the PLAN finds this hovercraft as disappointing as I do. A vessel almost the same size as the USN LCAC but with only one-third the floor space. Hopefully this is only a proof-of-concept vessel and they manage to design an ACV that more efficiently uses the length and beam of the deck. It will probably require different engines and transmission because they are huge compared to what is found on the LCAC.

Click to expand...

If they ditched the LCAC altogether, then the whole 071 and even the rumoured LPH (081?) will come to question as well, as those designs relied on the LCAC to quickly (if not also from a further off-shore distance) deploy troops and heavy hardware - especially MBTs - onto beachheads. For Zubr to do the same, they'd require specialist ships as launchpad, which doesn't pack any firepower or helicopter themselves.

LCAC could allow MBTs be delivered ashore as part of the first wave, giving the attackers an edge in firepower that'd not be as effective if with AAVs. That's quite an issue when you consider PLA doesn't have that many aerial assets to provide air-to-mud support package as would be available to USMC, and Z-10 still lacking in performance compare with players like AH-64D, AH-1Z and Mi-28NM, they'd rely more ground-based firepower then contemporary amphibious warfare applications - assuming PLAAF fast movers already won the sky, as per the contemporary doctrine demanded.

So, if the LCAC project is still alive, then the only logical path is that they're working on an improved model - as far as Type 726 goes, the prove-of-concept part of the project should've been completed, if there's a glaring (as in "project-killing" kind of) flaw we should've heard about it by now, but even at Chinese side there's nothing but dead silence...we know too well they can't keep such things under the lid so why the silence?

There are two things to consider here. Firstly just because we don't get pictures does not necessarily mean assets are not in place.

LCACs, by nature, are highly offensive oriented assets, given recent tensions in the SCS, it would be totally understandable if Beijing opted to purposely suppress LCAC deployment news to avoid alarming the neighbours.

But if we assume, for the time being, that the lack of visible progress does indeed mean a lack of new LCAC orders, then that would indicate one or both of the following factors apply.

1) what are the PLAN's primary potential amphibious assault theatres? Taiwan and the SCS.

China lacks the logistical bases and the need to launch large scale amphibious assaults further field.

Without foreign local bases, launch an amphibious invasion is pretty much impossible from sea base assets only unless we are talking about small islands like the Falklands that could be isolated and cut off from enemy reinforcements.

But even then such an operational would be massively risky, and almost certainly costly. Far more so than would be justifiable for any Chinese overseas assets.

Any long range amphibious operations the PLA is remotely likely to undertake outside of Asia would thus not involve the kind of head-on heavy beach assaults you would need MBTs for, and would be largely limited to humanitarian rescue and relief operations; evacuation of Chinese nationals from war torn regions and maybe some small scale special forces ops.

For those kinds of ops, the PLAN are far better off with packing more of their amphibious IFVs onboard 071s rather than sacrifice dozens of IFVs to carrier a handful of MBTs.

Within Asia, we also need to take into account just how much of a game changer China's new built island bases in the SCS are.

From them, Zubrs have range to reach any potential target zone in the SCS with far more, and heavier MBTs, removing one of the primary rationales for 726s on 071s.

2) Speaking of MBTs, has anyone seen pictures of 726s carrying anything heavier than an 96? The 96 in question was also stripped down, without its usual ERA modules IIRC. That would suggest it currently lacks the payload to carry out its core intended mission to me, which may be why the PLAN is holding off an ordering more until a version able to carry the 99 and new 99A2s become available.

I think this combination of having a better delivery option for MBTs and other assets within Asia; a lack of a desire or need to seriously consider large scale offensive beach assaults further afield; together with potential performance shortcomings in the 726 would explain why the PLAN might be holding off on buying more.

I think the PLAN will likely put much greater emphasis on LHDs compared to LPDs in the future, as airborne assault would be far more suitable for the kinds of operations they might realistically be called to perform far from home.

LCACs would will be an useful capability to have, so I am by no means suggesting the PLAN will ditch them.

My main point is that there is no real pressing need for China to acquire LCAC capabilities on a large scale at present or in the near future. As such, they can afford to take their time and be a lot more demanding if the level of performance they want from their LCAC before commiting to a large order.

Well, we have been seeing Chinese LCACs for years and years now. The Type 726, which we see looks similar to the US LCAC, was designed by Aviation Industry Corporation of China and constructed at Jiangnan Shipyard. The first unit was launched and introduced in December of 2009. Almost seven years ago.

We have been seeing them in all sorts of exercises and in port and at the shipyards for almost seven years now.

The Chinese (it seems to me) have not really made an effort to hide them.

We simply have only seen the three specific pennant numbers I show above.

Could they have more? Of course.

But if they do, with the many exercises they have been performing with the Type 071s, I would expect to see more pennant numbers.

That's all...an yet we do not.

We have heard rumors of engine and transmission troubles and thayt hass been used as an excuse.

My point is simple.

With four Type 071 LPDs in service and with at least two more planned, and with the Chinese themselves proclaiming that each of those is capable of carrying four LCACs, and with the Chinese openly doing exercises showing the use of LCACs, you would expect to see more.

Quite frankly, I would expect to have found ten or more different pennant numbers, and hoped I did. But I did not.

Some time go through a google search of US LCACs, who have LPDs, LHDs, LHAs, and LSDs all onfigured to use LCACs. You will find dozens of different pennant numbers in very short order.

This is not top secret stuff.

The best explanation I can find for only finding three different pennant numbers is simply that they do not have many more (if any) than that at this point...for whatever reason.

I am confidant that sooner or later they will. Their planned use for their existing and future LPDs and the planned LHDs depends on it.

Everybody is to busy talking about type 052s that they skip over the smaller stuff being built.

jacksprat said:

View attachment 30219

Click to expand...

Yes...I see those three...and from time to time we have seen others.

Are those older ones being worked on?

Are those new builds?

Are those going through refit?

We simply do not know.

What I do know is that I have only seen three pennant numbers over a space of several years actually participating in exercises on active craft.

I'd simply like to see more of those. But to date...we haven't.

If you can find different pennant numbers on active craft (other than 3320, 3321, and 3322) I'd love to see them.

How fast do they can build this ship? 1 per year, 2 or maybe 3? Is this kind of ship can be build in hurry if an emergency situation arise?

Now THAT is interesting

I only ever thought that 5 X LCAC had been identified now we have 6

This is JNCX yard and at the start of the year in 2015 only 2 X LCAC were there now we have 3

Could they have made another 3 in 2016?

So in reality like Jeff said we have 3 with pennant numbers 3 more ready and possible more in the making

What the latest google image from JNCX ?

This just took a interesting turn