The PLAN LCAC Type 726 Yuyi Class

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
We know this...the Chinese have not built but a pitiful hadnfull of their LCAC...and yet they have continued to build their LPDs that were designed for them.

One thing, after years of being around these Chiinese boards, is that you have to learrn to "read the beads" somewhat.

You get around on other boards, you try and find out who the true "big shrimps" are, and then you analyze what they say as a whole, sometimes over months.

it is clear that there is something wrong with the Type 726 that has not been solved yet.

Perhaps it is their propulsion, perhaps it is their maneuvering, structural issues, something.

The issue of the manueverability and whether the Chinese have figured out how the US does it may be an answer.

Whatever it is...they have built and put out to sea maybe five of these things, and they have built enough ships to hold 16 of them and are building two more, enough to hold 24 of them.

...and the lag has gone on now for several years.

We will just have to be patient and keep on waiting...and analyzing what we hear and pick up on.
My personal speculation is that they are not pleased with its lack of capacity compared to the LCAC, specifically its (more or less) single file only carrying capacity. It is roughly the size of the LCAC and yet can only load 1/3 the number of vehicles. They may be looking for a Version 2 that gives more bang for the buck.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
My personal speculation is that they are not pleased with its lack of capacity compared to the LCAC, specifically its (more or less) single file only carrying capacity. It is roughly the size of the LCAC and yet can only load 1/3 the number of vehicles. They may be looking for a Version 2 that gives more bang for the buck.
If that was all there was, they could have addressed it within the time frame we are talking about IMHO.

No, I believe there is something more fundamental, like propulsion, or maneuvering with such a load that is keeping them from building the proper propulsion capable of maneuvering adequately into the space they require.

If all they had to do was add some space to each side, and still maintain the requisite width for the entire vessel, then structurally that is not a difficult thing to do.

But if something is keeping them from being able to do that...and still meet the overall width constraint (ie the width of the LPD well deck) which is not as easy a thing to change, then that would explain the years and years delays.

We've been watching this since the first Type 071 was seen building in 2005 and then launched in 2006. For Pete's sake, it's been over ten years now.

Something fundamental is messing them over on this.

Some try and play down the need for the LCAC...but I do not buy it. Te thing has been built for them...and to carry four of them. They were real proud of this when they came out, how the Chinese had leap frogged up to a San Antonio style vessel with them.

And yet, they cannot take advantage of that now. It has to be eating them alive in the design areas.

anyhow...time will tell.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Now, the Chinese do have this smaller air cushion craft, the Type 724.

Supposedly, they produced maybe 20 of these...and they can carry only 10 troops or so.

Supposedly the later Type 072 LSTs can carry two of these each and they can enter and exit through the bow doors, like the amphibious vehicles, Type 63A, and ZTD05 vehicles (light tank, IFV, etc.)

000-Type724-LCAC.jpg

000-Type724-LCAC-b.jpg

But this is very small with a very light load.

Displacement: 6.35 t
Length: 12.4 m
Width: 4.7 m
Height: 3.7 m
maximum speed: 40 knots
voyage: 100 miles
Operator: 2-3
mounted troops: 10 soldiers
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
If that was all there was, they could have addressed it within the time frame we are talking about IMHO.

No, I believe there is something more fundamental, like propulsion, or maneuvering with such a load that is keeping them from building the proper propulsion capable of maneuvering adequately into the space they require.

If all they had to do was add some space to each side, and still maintain the requisite width for the entire vessel, then structurally that is not a difficult thing to do.

But if something is keeping them from being able to do that...and still meet the overall width constraint (ie the width of the LPD well deck) which is not as easy a thing to change, then that would explain the years and years delays.

We've been watching this since the first Type 071 was seen building in 2005 and then launched in 2006. For Pete's sake, it's been over ten years now.

Something fundamental is messing them over on this.

Some try and play down the need for the LCAC...but I do not buy it. Te thing has been built for them...and to carry four of them. They were real proud of this when they came out, how the Chinese had leap frogged up to a San Antonio style vessel with them.

And yet, they cannot take advantage of that now. It has to be eating them alive in the design areas.

anyhow...time will tell.
We know for sure it was at least partly the propulsion as this has been addressed already in this thread, but the engine issue has apparently been rectified. What else it was (or still is) is not entirely clear. On the other hand we have now seen up to 4 726s under construction or fitting out at the same time in recent photos, so I assume they are least ramping up production somewhat.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Ok guys we have photos of the following

The original 3

3319, 3320 and 3321

And now new units

3330, 3331 and 3332

That's 6 x LCAC

There is 5 at JNCX , now are those 5 from these already operational 6 ? Doubt it

Why would they move from JNCX to LPD marine base

So based on the recent photo we have 11 x Type 726 LCAC

That's production scale
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
We know for sure it was at least partly the propulsion as this has been addressed already in this thread, but the engine issue has apparently been rectified. What else it was (or still is) is not entirely clear. On the other hand we have now seen up to 4 726s under construction or fitting out at the same time in recent photos, so I assume they are least ramping up production somewhat.
Agreed.

They have gottens omething done that they are willing to go with...where for years they were not putting any more out.

I believe there are now six operational...and four more outfitting. That will make ten.

Let's see if they build enough to outfit the six LPDs they are building, which would mean that they need 16. I expect they would want some for training, some for contingencies, etc. So they may build more like 20 or 24 for those six LPDs.
 
Top