I would have sailed with much more peace of mind if I had been ensured by an engineer who deisigned the ship I'm on so sure about what he says... 101% safe...
I'm pretty sure @panasian pointed out a real weakness that's been analysed by much more knowledge advanced in modern weapons systems people than any of us here. And I think he hit the real case of so many of us aren't aware about. A real threat pointed out on some Internet forum that's actually 'real'.
...Using the 056 as an example again, clearly the PLAN is capable of building something more advanced, more powerful, and which can fulfill more missions. But by going with proven components, a less capable platform overall, and therefore a cheaper design, not only can it be built quickly but also in more shipyards. The modifications made to the 056s post-commissioning seem like they should have been obvious to professional ship designers such as covering up the stack so why wasn't it done in the first place? I think it is because the ships were funded by economic stimulus which was "use it or lose it". Of course they would still spend it on something they need and has decent performance for what it is, but the whole thought process would have given more weight to budget and timeliness (therefore proven technology) and who is getting the order than otherwise....
... Also, as mentioned, the idea of a threat coming in from the frontal angle in the tiny volume of the blind spot can be so easily mitigated just by orienting the the ship a fraction port or starboard, so it is actually the easiest solution.
Most missiles will tend to seek and come in from the side as well, given that is where the largest RCS is. That is why many ships (including 052D) now have forward and back ciws designed to be turned both at port or starboard to put maximum fire in either direction if necessary.
...
Some ideas for AShM mission profile programmers