I know that is speculation, but China can acquire some blueprints for Yak-141 and make it operational in few years. For me, putting catapult/s and arresting cables on LHD would put the price too high and the whole idea of cheap landing vessel with support aircraft capabilities would vanish. The result would be a behemoth as QE aircraft carrier which is too expensive and not as capable as, for example Kuznetsov or CV16/17, even INS Vikramaditya.
075 LHD thread
- Thread starter nosh
- Start date
Bleargh. I think the proposed 076s with drones and small EMALS cats are much more viable.
Trying to use the LHDs for conventional VTOL jet fighters is, I think, a waste of resources.
What I think China needs is something to compete with the putrid V-22 Osprey. It is a terrible aircraft but the long range and higher speed than helicopters make this a must for a Pacific conflict scenario where you need to transport troops or materials quickly.
Agree.
PLAN doesn't really need an F-35B-like, but a V-22-like would be helpful.
Traps are a machine, much like EMALS itself, with a pretty big hidden part below the decks & a lot of strain.
It can't be added at will.
F-35B? That's for sure, STOVL version of the JSF is a weirdo.
But going as far as telling that PLAN(PLA), in general, doesn't need VTVL fixed-wing manned combat aircraft - IMHO is a stretch.
The need is present, the question is if it is big enough to move.
It would cost a lot of money (and time) to develop, but why do you feel that's necessary? I don't think so. So, to me, that'd be a bad investment, really bad. The 076 with UAVs is a smart move.
Pacific Theatre. The moment you're looking at controlling island chains, you're looking at a whole immense theatre full of islands of all sizes, where airpower(and the ability to deploy it at will) matters the most. In return, the most direct way of dealing with airpower is attacking its basing.
During the pacific war (which is unavoidably a go-to reference), both sides had to develop options to get this airpower to new locations, rapidly, freeing fleet carriers from those duties (and sparing them the vulnerability of being tied down).
For the Japanese in 1942, those were seaplanes and seaplane carriers(as well as the 4th carrier div, i.e. Ryujo, acting independently from the carrier force). For the US/UK(from 1944-43 onwards) - same seaplanes and seaplane carriers, but also massive adoption of escort carriers into amphibious support role (direct ancestors of modern LHA/LHDs, by the way).
Both were useful both directly(launching various air operations), but, perhaps even more crucially - in their ability to establish new bases&fly in the aircraft.
Seaplanes, smaller planes for smaller decks, or whatever is of secondary importance here - times change, technologies change. What's more important is that there is a complete niche for a line of combat/support aircraft with good austere/rough/short field performance.
For decades to come, a manned, fixed-wing jet wing is a necessary component of airpower, hence - the need. Simply because AI won't replace humans for some time to come.
CATOBAR drones(thus, EMALS/traps question) have nothing to do with it - both are needed. It isn't even a question of either EMALS drones or STOVL fighters - it's a necessity to have both lineups for this theater.
3/8 suitable decks are more of a topping of a cake - just to get full possible utility of them.
These types of littoral environments are actually very good for the types of loitering attack drone swarms that the Azerbaijanis used in their war with Armenia if launched from ships like the Type 075 or converted cargo ships, as their cost and time to mass produce would be miniscule relative to the area of action they could carry out. This would provide greater tactical and strategic flexibility for more important assets to be focused towards.