The Type 075 landing helicopter dock will be the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s newest and most powerful amphibious assault ship.
The 40,000 tonne vessel is being built in Shanghai.
The Type 075 is roughly analogous to the United States Marine Corps’ Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, capable of supporting an amphibious assault by thousands of troops. It also has a hangar for holding up to 28 helicopters that can land at six points on its deck.
Several photos of China’s Type 075 amphibious assault ship (roughly analogous to the USN’s LHDs) undergoing construction have surfaced online recently. Bridge structure installed on main hull. Launch expected later this year pic.twitter.com/HEAjzWUAqp
— Mike Yeo 杨启铭 (@TheBaseLeg) August 23, 2019
A rendering of China’s first landing helicopter dock vessel, the Type 075. CCTV pic.twitter.com/NIgounTtwU
— HV Kaltenborn–21st century edition (@crunchtimelover) July 30, 2019
China sucks! With all their copy rip offs. But it’s navy sure is getting huge!
Isn’t this yet another reason why our navy needs a major boost in funds?
To fight an invasion from China?
China could cause mayhem around NW Europe with any of its extensive surface or submarine fleet. It uses a lot of “soft power” to influence & intimidate, but as they develop a full superpower global fleet the gloves may well come off & cruder threats can be backed up with force. The UK has a barely credible fleet at its current nadir, sowe desperately need sufficient depth to translate into real power projection. Our 2 new CVAs need a larger escort fleet pool to enable it to be effective & credible as well as enabling the apropriate deployment of warships for our other commitments given that some must be in refit etc at any time.
The PLAN seems primarily working towards the ability to re-take Taiwan, with the S China sea annexations of newly built or extended Island bases, creation of CVA fleets & building of helicopter carriers to enable a major landing ability. They also bully & coerce all the neighbouring states to comply & anybody from supporting Taiwans military. If Russia, China, N Korea & may be Iran were all to act in concert, A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be both a bloodbath & very difficult indeed for the USA & allies to prevent or reverse.
So as well as defending Europe from China we have to go to defend Taiwan as well?
Have you wondered what would happen to the Chinese economy if the rest of the world stopped buying all their pointless tat?
I have thought, for a long time, that 3 vessels of this kind (with a ramp) would have been a better fit for Britain than the current mix of QE and Albion vessels.
That would effectively be recreating the Invincible class. My understanding is that the RN found those too small to field an effective air wing, which is why they wanted something the size of the QE class.
Yep you need both. You need a proper carrier to offer full air support and landing ships to directly land and support ground troops.
Yes, of course, if that is the kind of engagement that you envisage for the RN. The problem is, we can’t afford it! I’m replacing my car tomorrow….I thought about a Ferrari….but the Bank Manager said a Fiat 500!
To be fair, those fiat 500s are pretty cool. Sun roof, which colour?
It’s a little cracker in a dark and rich (Rolls Royce type) grey, not like the sort of insipid grey/slivers you see around so much. It’s the Lounge version with the big glass roof..all the gizmos including stop/start tech!
Stop/Start so over rated, like a lot of tech today unnecessary. I have mine switched off permanently, when my battery went (at just 48k miles) it cost double the price because it was stop/start at £210
Yes, it’s what worries me about today’s cars…just too much to go wrong. I will try it out and then will probably switch the function out
Yes, a proper central handbrake, rather than those horrible button parking brakes that cost £2000 to fix if they go wrong. Also ditch the keyless entry that only car thieves seem to like.
Over sophistication at the cost of reliability and security! Do you think that this is pertinent to modern arms acquisition?
Oh and the colour would suit RN types. I’m thinking of hiring it out to the new skipper of QE….
Boris seems to have infinite money right now so we should be fine 😉
Nah…Dom Cummings must be costing him a fortune!!!!
I rented a Fiat 500 not long ago. It was like driving around in a Smeg fridge. I loved it! Struggled on the way to Berry Head though. I hope you live somewhere flat.
Yeah, it’s like climbing inside a 50s radio. I previously owned a 1200cc 3 cylinder Ibiza…so I probably won’t notice much difference. You have to use the gearbox more on these small cars. Still, the Severn Vale is not very challenging!
Err no! These are substantial vessels of twice the tonnage of the Invincible class (40,000), and much larger than the European efforts. Anyway, I doubt that we will ever really have enough F35s to operate our carriers to their full potential without US Marine Corps flights. If we were going to have full scale carriers then they should have been CATOBAR. A small (affordable) number of F35Cs supplemented by F18 or marinized Typhoons might have been within reach and, more importantly, sustainable!
The Type 75s maybe substantially heavier than the Invincible class but their aircraft complement is not not that much larger. 18,000 tonnes apparently only gets you enough space for an extra 8 helicopters.
We have done the CATOBAR discussion to death and there were very good reasons we reverted back to the B variant. A navalised Typhoon is a non starter, BAE pretty much killed it off themselves when they said it would be expensive to make and the additional weight would make it less capable than a normal Typhoon.
My argument above suggests that we would be better off with a multi-purpose vessel rather than full-scale carriers that we can’t afford to furnish with combat aircraft!
Even if we can’t afford to park 40 jets on the deck now, the ships are expected to last 50s years. Who knows how many and what size of aircraft will fly from the carriers in the future?
If they can endure half an century of defence reviews…I somehow doubt it! I appreciate you optimism, but history tells us otherwise, I’m afraid!
They are multi purpose carrier’s, the QE’s can support F35B , Chinook, Merlin, Puma, Apache and Lynx. And making the a COTOBAR carrier would mean they are much more expensive , F18’s are not cheap, and a naval Typhoon would be hugely expensive, as we would be the only one buying it. The QE class with the F35B is the best all round bang for our buck, and even a small number, is a huge capability to put anywhere around the world we want.
No Pumas. The aircraft cannot fly from a ship unless the sea state is 2 or below. This is because it carries too much top weight on a narrow undercarriage. The French get round this with the super Pumas by using a more pronounced splayed out undercarriage.
Thanks for the Puma info ?
I prefer the mix of two aircraft carriers for vertical lift and fives ships capable of supporting amphibious operations. Combining both functions would have just reduced Hull numbers where the Albion class definitely would have been scrapped or sold when they where under review last year.
Yes, I see your point, and I was suggesting that the Albion’s went as well. But, I would have expected the savings to be passed on for more frigates. Better to have a well equipped and balanced fleet than one that pretends to cover all bases, but in practise can’t.
I know other countries have these. But I wonder why Chinese feel they need assault ships, Taiwan perhaps?
Taiwan, Siberia (so that they can attack from multiple fronts) Plus all the other territories they probably plan to attack.
Same reason Britain, France and other nations have Assault Ships.
The uk has assault ships as we have overseas territory’s China wants them because the USA has them
NIGEL COLLINS NOT HARRY BULPIT
All credit to China,
Should push ever come to shove, they will have built up a fleet of warships while we will have little that we can do about it without the help of other nations.
It’s shameful that our armed service personnel should be treated in such a way when they are seen by most as the pride and backbone of the United Kingdom.
We cannot and should not become solely reliant on the help of others in a time of need, especially once we have left the EU.
I often wonder how Brexit will affect trading with the EU if we build up our armed forces given that they have potential enemies closer to hand as they too are lacking in sufficient numbers in all areas of defence?
I don’t think that leaving the EU (assuming, of course that we do) should alter our defence requirements. We are an active member of Nato and will remain so. We are working with EU partners on defence projects that shouldn’t be disturbed by Brexit!
Agree.
If the potential enemies mentioned are the EU, I find that incredulous. The whole bloody business was to leave a political union, not make enemies! Europe’s potential enemies are our enemies.
I think you have misread my post Daniel,
The EU is not the enemy, but the potential for problems with Russia and Iran are, hence my suggestion for increasing our defence budget should we be called upon to fight alongside them in any future conflict.
I would not be too hasty in blocking trade deals with a friendly country that could support them given the fact that they are experienced and well equipt!
Please see my reply to Herodotus above.
Agreed Harry. My apologies.
It’s Nigel Collins Daniele, somehow UKDJ has got Harry and myself mixed up. He is receiving my mails and I am receiving his. Likewise, our posts have the wrong name on them too!
Contacted admin again, let’s see what happens!
Oh! Ok!
Hi Harry, we don’t keep any records of users. Users need to enter their own details when posting, we have no control over what you enter nor is there anything for us to change on our end. You are submitting posts with the wrong e-mail.
The point is though that it is in our interests to defend Europe if needed… Using that as a trade incentive is not what friends do and also the EU full well knows that trade or no trade, if Russia attacked the EU then we would be fully in on the fight as would the US.
Let’s hope so.
Is Spain part of NATO? and can we rely on other countries from NATO coming to our aid in a time of need? or, do we have to pick and choose depending on the political situation at the time?
“Spain recalls frigate from US Navy strike group over Gulf tensions”
https://thedefensepost.com/2019/05/14/spain-pulls-mendez-nunez-lincoln-strike-group-iran/
NATO is for the defence of the member nations not to police various parts of the world. If a member is attacked then all other members pledge to come to their aid. This is what happened after 9/11. There are some strange circumstances where that has not happened though but I am not sure what the deal is with those. One notable one was the Falkands. France, despite giving us information about the excorcet were actually physically helping Argentina! Also no other nation came to help. The US were helping a little in the background while trying to make it seem like they were not but most other countries stayed well out of the way. Not sure whether that was at the request of the UK government or not… Although to be fair we probably did not activate the come help button (Article 5).
Seriously what is up with this name issue? Im getting your notifications through my emails.
It’s a nightmare Harry,
I’ve informed admin, but no reply.
It’s certainly peculiar. Have you tried using another device?
Somehow Harry, I doute very much we would be going to war alone with China.
Wasn’t it the Chinese who responded to the launch of ‘Big Lizzy’ with something along the lines of her being a great target for their balistic anti-ship missiles yet they seem to be trying to join the carrier club as well..do they think they are the only ones with these type of weapons or are not concerned about our tactical smart submersible weapons?
This is part of China’s long game. The Heli Carrier is just part of it.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-planning-10-aircraft-carriers-we-need-at-least-3-navy-chief/articleshow/70864740.cms
These are the PLA Navy’s future fleet. While their first few STOBAR carriers are somewhat primitive, these are just long term tools to build up experience on building these capital ships. Their newer aircraft carriers will be larger, and more complex. Eventually, they plan to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers to rival the US Fleet.
On the other end we have India’s response :
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-planning-10-aircraft-carriers-we-need-at-least-3-navy-chief/articleshow/70864740.cms
Yes, I know, India is behind the learning curve with regards to building carriers. They are additionally hampered by a complex, democratic (meaning “mob rule” mentally) political system that can’t seem to get out of their own way.
Just recently, HAL had to slash the price of their Tejas fighter by nearly 50% to “just stay in business.” Selling aircraft at a loss doesn’t make sense unless it is the only thing you can do to keep contracts intact and the production lines running.
The PRC’s real edge is that they have a Totalitarian government which can get things done. There is no counter-arguments or worry of opposition parties to slow down progress. Once something is decided, it can get done.
Which brings me to a rather prophetic episode or the original Star Trek TV series. It’s an episode titled “The Omega Glory.” It has a futuristic Earth where the Kohms are fighting the Yangs. At the end of the show we discover that the people are descendants of the Chinese (Kohms aka Comms aka Communists) and Americans (Yangs aka Yanks). I get goosebumps just thinking that someone actually saw this coming back when the USA and the USSR (not China) were the two juggernauts at the brink of war.
But, I digress… I suppose I am a little more acutely aware of this as I am living in the area of “conflict.”
China believes it is its right, necessity and destiny to rule the entire Western Pacific and dominate the sea lanes to its de facto African colonies and other sources of raw materials and food supplies.
In 2016 The Permanent Court Of Arbitration in The Hague agreed unanimously that China violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (CLOS) and its occupation of atolls violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights. China is trying to annexed the 3.5 million square kms of the South China Sea.It is claiming the seas to within 12 miles of the Malaysian Coast, even though its nearest coast, Hannan Island is 1000 miles away. China refuses to recognise the 200 mile EEZ’s of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan that the CLOS grants.
A Chinese amphibious task force held exercises at James Shoal and the Commander told his Marine force to be prepared to fight to defend China’s territory. ( Text of his speech was reported on Beijing TV ). The shoal never actually breaks sea level but China claims it. It is 50 miles off the Malaysian coast.
Climate change interruptions to its food production may lead China to conclude it needs to seize control of Australia and New Zealand.
Increasingly plausible events may force politicians and voters in the West to face up to the issue. Stand up for the rule of Law or allow a state to succeed in stealing territory.
Events of 1938 show appeasement does not work.
But there is one certainty. If Western forces are allowed to continue to decline at recent rates, not only will the West be unable influence Chinese actions but this weakness may actually persuade them to act while conditions are favourable.
It does make you think. China has a population of around 1.4 billion mouths to feed. It is a staggering amount when you consider the UK is only around 67.5 million and the USA is about 329 million with a slightly smaller land area.
At some point there will not only be a food shortage but also clean water. The past use of only one child per family didn’t really slow the growth down, so who knows what the future may bring?
There is one constant, the ruling party will always find a way of controlling the population. So if food and resources become scarce, they will look elsewhere to get them as to stay in power the population must be appeased.
I can sort of understand their reasons for the land (sea) grab of the South China Sea. It will be mean all other Nations will not be able to fish there.
Where other resources are concerned, we have seen not so much as occupation but more financial incentives given to poor African Nations. This places a massive dependency financially on these countries to China. But means China has first say in mining rights. They have even moved into Afghanistan by building roads and infrastructure mostly in the East of the country. The eastern part of Afghanistan is untapped when it comes to mining.
At some point Europe/the West is going to have to wake up, if they want to compete with China. The old adage of “Business is war” is very apt and China is making sure it is a position of power to get the richest pickings.
Dear HMG
Please operate at least one of our carriers with a full air wing. Not 12-24 F35b’s. That’s a joke. They where built for (at least) double that number!!!!
And sort out the god damn escorts too!!
Either get more hulls or arm our current ones to the teeth!
Regards,
TopBoy