056 class FFL/corvette

Status
Not open for further replies.
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
joshuatree said:
You are right, doesn't mean one can't launch a TAS from the mooring line opening. However, I think a dedicated TAS opening has rollers on the edges to facilitate with launch and recovery of a TAS?
Click to expand...

I believe the rollers help to cut down on the wear and tear on the array by reducing the friction, which is why they are adding them to later built designs.

More importantly, it seems the 056 program either had several variations planned early on as you say or there is more modifications going on. Just compare the two. 597 clearly doesn't have that supposed TAS opening compared to 583. And for these two vessels, they have their upper smokestack painted black. Don't think some of the others do. Makes me wonder if there is any pattern depending on which shipyard built the vessel.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if its a case of modifications or refinements. Looking at the development of the project, you get the distinct impression that the design was rushed into production, and the running improvements done to ships even as they were still being built reinforces that impression.

Based on that, I get the feeling that things like the redesigned smoke stack, redesigned openings at the stern of the ship and things like the dedicated TAS ports are just a case of the designers dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's after they had got the first draft in under the deadline and now have some time to polish things off.

For something as major as retrofitting TAS and all the associated back end processing equipment, you would need to significantly rearrange the internal layout of the area under the helo deck, and there is just nothing to suggest that redesign work of that magnitude had taken place. There are no external differences other than the dedicated opening itself, and the pace of construction had not slowed down in any noticeable way to indicate that they reworked the internals.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
plawolf said:
I'm not so sure if its a case of modifications or refinements. Looking at the development of the project, you get the distinct impression that the design was rushed into production, and the running improvements done to ships even as they were still being built reinforces that impression.

Based on that, I get the feeling that things like the redesigned smoke stack, redesigned openings at the stern of the ship and things like the dedicated TAS ports are just a case of the designers dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's after they had got the first draft in under the deadline and now have some time to polish things off.

For something as major as retrofitting TAS and all the associated back end processing equipment, you would need to significantly rearrange the internal layout of the area under the helo deck, and there is just nothing to suggest that redesign work of that magnitude had taken place. There are no external differences other than the dedicated opening itself, and the pace of construction had not slowed down in any noticeable way to indicate that they reworked the internals.
Click to expand...


I do get the same feeling most of these changes were due to rushing into production for whatever the reason may be. Because most of these changes are not revolutionary but simply polishing up the final product. As for the TAS, I don't think it's retrofitting either. Since no one has seen the space under the pad, there's a good chance those without the TAS opening don't have TAS installed yet and there simply lies open space for it. It's not unreasonable to speculate that the ships were prewired and space preallocated for TAS.

Regardless, unless we have folks disputing that new window at the stern is not for TAS, the recent pics indicate the vessel's capability in ASW has increased significantly.
 
D

duncanidaho

Junior Member
joshuatree said:
Just compare the two. 597 clearly doesn't have that supposed TAS opening compared to 583.

qq20131.jpg



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...


597 has an opening, where the TAS opening supposed to be, it just closed. But you can definitely see the silhouette.
 
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
escobar said:
N°9 sea trials
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by No. 9, but to me the surroundings look like Lushun.

Hull 8 LN 2 (581) was the last unit launched in 2012 (18.11.12), so it would make sense that this was the one now on sea trials.

Btw, turns out 583 at Xiamen is named SHANGRAO, not GANZHOU.
 
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
What a wonderful video! Especially grateful on the type designations of the 76 and 30 mm guns, as I am building up a list of PLAN artillery system designations.

I suppose you are the author of the article on Type 056? Then I feel obliged to give a proper response:

The PLAN type designation is not guided missile frigate, but light frigate (轻护卫舰).

The ship list is OK, except that ship name GIAN should be JI’AN. Whether it is 586 is not certain, I have become cautious about future name after 583 GANZHOU turned out to be SHANGRAO. But there will no doubt be both a JI’AN and a GANZHOU, only we will have to wait to see which pennant numbers they are.

It is not quite correct that the class is built by CSSC. Wuchang, Wuhan, is a CSIC shipyard, and Liaonan, Lushun (4810) is a Navy yard. I do not really follow design institutes, but I believe it was designed by 701 Institute.

You may safely put the total number at 40. You can drop the reference to their replacing Type 053, they are 037 replacements.

You may find this list of deployment of the first 10 units (from ****) useful, I suspect it might be correct:

预测056前10艘列装的部队（今年服役）：
580猎潜艇80大队 Dalian-Xigang
581猎潜艇77大队 Haiyangdao
582猎潜艇72大队 Putuoshan
583猎潜艇83大队 Xiamen
584猎潜艇84大队 Yangpu
585猎潜艇81大队 Beihai
586猎潜艇79大队 Lianyungang
587猎潜艇78大队 Ningde-Sandu’ao
596驻港大队 Hong Kong
597驻港大队 Hong Kong
 
L

Lintuperhonen

New Member
franco-russe said:
The ship list is OK, except that ship name GIAN should be JI’AN.


Even though the name Gian is most probably a typo, it could also be explained by dialectal differences. In Jianghuai Mandarin velar stops and fricatives followed by i and ü have not palatalised to become alveolo-palatal sibilants and affricates. Because of this reason, the spelling Gi'an would be partially correct, especially if the author came from Jiangsu or Hubei.
Click to expand...
 
F

franco-russe

Senior Member
I am quite overwhelmed by so much learnedness and must admit that I have not studied Chinese phonetics to the degree I ought. But I think that ship names should be rendered in Mandarin, where 吉安 can apparently only be Ji’an.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top