056 class FFL/corvette

joshuatree said:

I used to think it was a disadvantage for the 056 to not have a helicopter hangar but when taken into context of it's intended area of operation, nothing beyond the first island chain, it's really a small disadvantage vs the savings cost in build and maintenance. That adheres to the workhorse role the ship is tasked with. They can always park a helo on the pad for ASW specific missions. Ships in this class usually don't have an endurance beyond a week without need of a tender for extended deployments so the accompanying helo can be serviced by the tender as well if the mission calls for extended stays.

None of the regional subs in the area go anywhere near 25-28 knots so not a problem either. Furthermore, if the plan is to saturate the area with 056s and they each carry a helo, the chasing part wouldn't need to be reliant on a single 056 itself.

The first batch of 20 056s haven't been completed yet and we're already seeing #17 sporting potentially a TAS/VDS, I have little doubt fast, serial production of this variant will happen. As much as the regional navies acquiring subs will be changing the playing field in the waters within the first island chain, this 056 variant will tilt the field back. I wonder if this model is different enough to be calls an 056A?

Click to expand...

Some are calling the 056A the type with a slightly higher bridge.


In any case, the 056 is such a simple but well rounded ship with room for growth, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up replacing all the old 037 subchaser variants with 056s of various specializations.

Considering how many 037s the PLAN has in service and how many will need to be replaced, a 1 to 1 or even 1 to 2 replacement of 056 will easily saturate local waters with modern, multirole surface combatants.
The 056s relatively modest baseline design means they can modify a few variants with additional toys like VDS, or a hangar, or provision for other future toys like UUV, UAV, minelaying, or even a few VLS tubes.

The best part is, it's probably a very cheap ship, and they have shown they can build them by the bucket and commission about ten a year.
Quantity does have a quality of its own, and 056 is quite a quality ship too -- it looks like a competitive corvette that can go up against ships like K130 and sigma, but obviously built in far greater numbers.
I think I'm even more impressed with the 056 program than I am of 022.

Does anyone have a good picture showing the new higher bridge from the side or front?

Bltizo said:

Considering how many 037s the PLAN has in service and how many will need to be replaced, a 1 to 1 or even 1 to 2 replacement of 056 will easily saturate local waters with modern, multirole surface combatants.
The 056s relatively modest baseline design means they can modify a few variants with additional toys like VDS, or a hangar, or provision for other future toys like UUV, UAV, minelaying, or even a few VLS tubes.

The best part is, it's probably a very cheap ship, and they have shown they can build them by the bucket and commission about ten a year.

Click to expand...

I would lean more towards 1 to 2 or 1 to 1.5. These ships are far more capable than the 037s. In order to remain cheap, I don't see the hangar or VLS happening from previous discussions. That will increase cost fast. Also, in the Chinese Navy, there's already a nice number of 054As so giving the 056 a hangar and/or VLS overlaps. I can see such versions built as exports for smaller navies but not within CN.

I'm really curious on what the weapons load will be for #17. Perhaps reduce the number of ASuMs from 4 to 2 and the freed up 2 box launchers can field ASMs?

joshuatree said:

I would lean more towards 1 to 2 or 1 to 1.5. These ships are far more capable than the 037s. In order to remain cheap, I don't see the hangar or VLS happening from previous discussions. That will increase cost fast. Also, in the Chinese Navy, there's already a nice number of 054As so giving the 056 a hangar and/or VLS overlaps. I can see such versions built as exports for smaller navies but not within CN.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can't really see 056 being fit with VLS either. They could possibly lengthen the boat to fit in a couple new CCL VLS tubes, or even replace the helicopter deck altogether for a few VLS modules. But what would they fit in their? The boat doesn't have the draft to fit the strike length VLS, and it lacks the sensors to effectively use the tactical and small VLS. Possibly they could use the tactical length VLS for launching VLASROC type weapons, but that ASW capability should be fulfilled with helicopters or MPA instead.

However I think a hangar is easily feasible. They already have all the relevant communications and sensors on baseline 056 to control and help a helicopter land, probably refuel and rearm as well. A hangar will only add some higher metal walls, a ceiling, without adding much equipment that's not already there. The ship might get a little top heavy if the deck remains at its present height, so they can lower it if need be, which may lose them the TAS and VDS -- but then again, most of a hangar is empty space anyway, and they'll only need to shift the weight of HQ-10 up a couple of meters.

I'm really curious on what the weapons load will be for #17. Perhaps reduce the number of ASuMs from 4 to 2 and the freed up 2 box launchers can field ASMs?

Click to expand...

You mean replacing to YJ-83s with one of the CY series ASW missiles? I don't think that is a worthy trade off.
Chances are an 056 will encounter an enemy ship more often during even ASW patrols, and a couple of ASROC style missiles won't provide much more capability than a helicopter or fixed wing MPA which it should be expected to work with.

And even the baseline 056 has two triple torpedo launchers anyway, so it's not like they're exactly toothless against submarines.

Bltizo said:

However I think a hangar is easily feasible. They already have all the relevant communications and sensors on baseline 056 to control and help a helicopter land, probably refuel and rearm as well. A hangar will only add some higher metal walls, a ceiling, without adding much equipment that's not already there. The ship might get a little top heavy if the deck remains at its present height, so they can lower it if need be, which may lose them the TAS and VDS -- but then again, most of a hangar is empty space anyway, and they'll only need to shift the weight of HQ-10 up a couple of meters.


You mean replacing to YJ-83s with one of the CY series ASW missiles? I don't think that is a worthy trade off.
Chances are an 056 will encounter an enemy ship more often during even ASW patrols, and a couple of ASROC style missiles won't provide much more capability than a helicopter or fixed wing MPA which it should be expected to work with.

And even the baseline 056 has two triple torpedo launchers anyway, so it's not like they're exactly toothless against submarines.

Click to expand...

I am assuming in your description of modifying the existing 056 to add a hangar does not include lengthening the hull. If that is the case, you'll have to lose some of the current features to fit the hangar. If you lower the landing deck to counter top heavy, you'll have to give up the TAS/VDS, the RHIB launch bay, and the RHIB itself. If you don't lower the landing deck, the height of the hangar will put the secondary mast and HQ-10 right in the path of the ship's exhaust and make it top heavy. Either approach will require removing the triple torpedo tubes. So how does that benefit overall? Given the current size of the ship, I do not believe it has any storage for additional fuel and weapons reload to any helo. There was much speculation when the first 056 was being constructed that the middle area between the triple torpedo tubes was a small hangar/storage and that turned out false. So lengthening the hull would almost be required to add a hangar and not lose all the other existing features. All of this is technically possible but the cost will now escalate.


If this is an ASW variant, having a pair of ASMs in lieu of ASuMs makes sense. Torpedo tubes are close range. What if a helo is not accompanying the ship or in a wrong area when a sub is detected beyond torpedo tube range? Short of an ambush, what is the realistic chance a single 056 will need to fire off 4 ASuMs? Let's not forget it still has HQ-10 and H/P J-26 for surface engagements. Lastly, ASMs are still just torpedos thrown much further out from the ship, and they still can sink a ship. Without any additional mods, I think a 2 ASM + 2 AsuM with TAS/VDS and a helo (with it's own ASW gear) on the pad would make a very inexpensive yet highly potent ASW platform sub commanders cannot ignore especially if they are produced in large numbers and all roaming out there within the first island chain.

I would say its easier to ask the design team to beef up the helo to withstand the outdoor environment as the cheaper alternate to a hangar.

joshuatree said:

I am assuming in your description of modifying the existing 056 to add a hangar does not include lengthening the hull. If that is the case, you'll have to lose some of the current features to fit the hangar. If you lower the landing deck to counter top heavy, you'll have to give up the TAS/VDS, the RHIB launch bay, and the RHIB itself. If you don't lower the landing deck, the height of the hangar will put the secondary mast and HQ-10 right in the path of the ship's exhaust and make it top heavy. Either approach will require removing the triple torpedo tubes. So how does that benefit overall? Given the current size of the ship, I do not believe it has any storage for additional fuel and weapons reload to any helo. There was much speculation when the first 056 was being constructed that the middle area between the triple torpedo tubes was a small hangar/storage and that turned out false. So lengthening the hull would almost be required to add a hangar and not lose all the other existing features. All of this is technically possible but the cost will now escalate.

Click to expand...

WRT the small hangar "doors," do we know the space between the torpedo tubes are filled? Of course, the torpedo tubes will need space to swing out when they fire, but it's not a case where they need to be perpindicular to the ship's length to fire, it appears to be a 30-45 degree rotation maxima. Do we know how large empty space there is forward of the torpedo tubes?
It was thought before that the hangar doors could fit UAVs, but the torpedo tubes meant it would be impractical. But that doesn't discount use of space for helicopter rearm/supply

Helicopter refuelling equipment would be integrated into the ship, and at this point there's yet to be any proof the equipment is lacking. Maybe if someone had detailed pictures of that interior area.



My suggestion for adding a hangar did not include lowering the deck, nor lengthening the ship. Lengthening the ship may be cost prohibitive, and lowering the deck will reduce the other ASW sensors as you mentioned.

The Pattani class which 056 has ancestry with, shows a good hangar design which 056 can emulate. Its rear helipad is at a similar height to 056, its bow sits similarly low in the water, so the entire ship configuration makes a good analogue.



I expect such a configuration would make the roof of 056's helicopter hangar reach height of the black/grey smoke stack line. The HQ-10 and the rear "mast" (more of a stump, isn't it) do not protrude very high as it is, and raising it a meter or two will still make it sizably lower than the height of the main mast -- which sits both higher and probably has a greater mass. HQ-10 doesn't need deck penetration, so there's no weight beneath it which will further raise up, and an HQ-10 8 cell mount won't weigh more than a few tons at most (I think RAM launcher weighs 5.5 tons in all, and it holds 21 versus 8 missiles of HQ-10).


But this is conjecture, and unless we have hard data I don't think either of us can properly say whether such a modification would make the ship unstable. It will definitely be more top heavy than baseline 056, but whether it poses a danger to standard operating is another question.
However the benefits of such a modification is worth the PLAN to investigate, and if any top heavy issues can be resolved without unacceptable rises in cost, such plans should be implemented.


OTOH, if such a configuration is deemed dangerous and the PLAN doesn't want to lengthen the ship, they could lower the helipad as you also suggested. Not the best choice, but losing VDS, TAS, and RHIB may be worth a permanent helicopter capability.

If this is an ASW variant, having a pair of ASMs in lieu of ASuMs makes sense. Torpedo tubes are close range. What if a helo is not accompanying the ship or in a wrong area when a sub is detected beyond torpedo tube range? Short of an ambush, what is the realistic chance a single 056 will need to fire off 4 ASuMs? Let's not forget it still has HQ-10 and H/P J-26 for surface engagements. Lastly, ASMs are still just torpedos much further out from the ship, and they still can sink a ship. Without any additional mods, I think a 2 ASM + 2 AsuM with TAS/VDS and a helo (with it's own ASW gear) on the pad would make a very inexpensive yet highly potent ASW platform sub commanders cannot ignore especially if they are produced in large numbers and all roaming out there within the first island chain.

Click to expand...

I suppose whether replacing AShMs with ASROCs will depend on how ASW specialized 056s are used.
If they are replaced, there's also something to be said for having a dedicated quantity of a certain type of weapon. So it might be better to replace all 4 YJ-83s with an equivalent ASW missile launcher. Who knows, maybe CY series missile canisters can be designed smaller and they can fit in 8 instead of 4 or something.

PanAsian said:

Does anyone have a good picture showing the new higher bridge from the side or front?

Click to expand...

a lot of this is just the angle of perception I think. I'm not convinced the bridge is higher.

All this talk of having a hanger just strikes me a little as box ticking, and seems more to say the 056 has one rather then because it is strictly needed.

Just think of it from the PLAN's resource management and logistics as well as tactical deployment prospectives. I

If they build the 056 in the numbers we think they will, will the PLAN have enough helicopters to actually allocate one to each 056 on top of the additional requirements on helos the Liaoning, her sister ship(s) and possible future LHDs will make on the PLAN's rotor wing fleet? If you don't have enough helos to allocate one to each 056 on a permanent basis, just what is the real benefit in having a hanger? Bare in mind that the vast majority of the space in the hanger needs to be kept clear for yue helo, and if people are doubting if they could find the space in the after superstructure to even store a few torpeodos, sonarbouys and a refuelling hose, just where do they think all that equipment would be store even even more of that space needs to be kept clear to store the helo itself?

Then there is also the issue of the helicopters themselves. Currently the PLAN's best ASW helos are the Ka28s. To house one of them, you need a far higher hanger than the one found on the Panatti class that would present much greater top weight risk to the design as well as a possible LOS issue with the HQ10 launcher if it stays on top of the new higher hanger.

So adding a small hanger seems even more pointless if you can't store your best ASW helos in it.

In terms of tactical deployment scenarios, the 056 is unlikely to much further beyond the first island chain, and they will not be operating alone if they are engaged in serious ASW ops. In any remotely likely conflict scenario, the PLAN won't be conducting USN style hunt and kill ASW missions but rather focus on task force protection. In that context, the 056s are not really going to be roaming all over the place hunting for subs but rather supplement a major surface task groups' existing ASW assets and form the outer lay of its ASW defense perimeter.

Dedicated ASW helos from friendly carriers, LHDs and maybe even DDGs and FFGs will use the 056s as forward operating posts and refuelling/rearming stations so they don't need to go all the way back to the principle ships of the task group to tank up.

The fact that any sub would be trying to get at the principe surface combatants of the fleet would make the 056s far less appealing targets themselves, meaning they could afford to be more proactive in their ASW duties, and the 056s can benefit from the AAW umbrella of the fleet as well as its surface strike capability to operate safely further from shore and can give up some of its peacetime standard armament like a pair or even all of their AShMs for ASROCs with little risk.

One last point is that although this concept is anathema to Americans and most Western Europeans, but the 056s were also designed and built to be ultimately an relatively expendable platform. In a real war, while no PLAN commander would wastefully throw away 056s, I think any PLAN task force commander would consider lossing one or two 056s to kill an enemy sub as a good trade. And I think that was always part of the calculation when determining everything about the 056, from cost and crew complement to capacity and features.

If you think and even expect to loose ships in combat, you find you have very different priorities to those who don't want to loose anything in a fight. I think the very different underlying assumptions and expectations are reflected very well in how the 056 and LCS turned out.

Even the mighty US economy is getting buried under the burden of wanting all the bells and whistles on everything it's military operates, China most certainly cannot afford to be as demanding. Instead of wanting the best of everything, I think the PLAN is only aiming for good enough. Something doesn't have to tick every possible box, especially if doing so costs significantly than merely ticking all the boxes needed for that asset to perform its core duties well.

I have made a couple of images in the past and posted them here on this thread showing the Type 056 with the hanger.


I believe if constructed properly, they could maintain the TAS in such a configuration.

plawolf said:

Then there is also the issue of the helicopters themselves. Currently the PLAN's best ASW helos are the Ka28s. To house one of them, you need a far higher hanger than the one found on the Panatti class that would present much greater top weight risk to the design as well as a possible LOS issue with the HQ10 launcher if it stays on top of the new higher hanger.

So adding a small hanger seems even more pointless if you can't store your best ASW helos in it.

Click to expand...

Not that I am for a hangar but I don't believe the 056 needs to use Ka28s as 056 ASW variant isn't the navy's top ASW asset. Z-9s like the Z-9EC would work and have a lower height. I don't see why they can't crank up production if needed. So if you had a Z-9EC parked on deck with its own ASW gear, ship's triple torpedo tubes, TAS/VDS, and maybe a pair of ASMs, that's an impressive suite for such a small ship.

Jeff Head said:

I have made a couple of images in the past and posted them here on this thread showing the Type 056 with the hanger.

I believe if constructed properly, they could maintain the TAS in such a configuration.

Click to expand...

Great pics, it affirms what I've been saying. Without a mod to hull length, lowering the deck to fit a hangar without disturbing the secondary mast and HQ-10 results in a need to eliminate the RHIB bay, RHIB, and torpedo tubes. Lastly, a TAS/VDS would need modification which runs counter to every system we've seen installed so far, all off the shelf components to keep costs low. So is that tradeoff worth it for a ship that really has an endurance of about 7 days without tender or returning to port?

Bltizo said:

WRT the small hangar "doors," do we know the space between the torpedo tubes are filled? Of course, the torpedo tubes will need space to swing out when they fire, but it's not a case where they need to be perpindicular to the ship's length to fire, it appears to be a 30-45 degree rotation maxima. Do we know how large empty space there is forward of the torpedo tubes?
It was thought before that the hangar doors could fit UAVs, but the torpedo tubes meant it would be impractical. But that doesn't discount use of space for helicopter rearm/supply

Helicopter refuelling equipment would be integrated into the ship, and at this point there's yet to be any proof the equipment is lacking. Maybe if someone had detailed pictures of that interior area.

The Pattani class which 056 has ancestry with, shows a good hangar design which 056 can emulate. Its rear helipad is at a similar height to 056, its bow sits similarly low in the water, so the entire ship configuration makes a good analogue.

OTOH, if such a configuration is deemed dangerous and the PLAN doesn't want to lengthen the ship, they could lower the helipad as you also suggested. Not the best choice, but losing VDS, TAS, and RHIB may be worth a permanent helicopter capability.

Click to expand...

Attaching old pics of the inside. The space between the torpedo tubes primarily functions as the helo pad control room and even has standardized doors in the internal hallway. I can't see how one would roll out helo weapons reload efficiently. Perhaps there is a fuel tank below for the helo but given the size of this ship, if such a tank exists, it would eat into precious space for supplies to the ship itself.





The pic of a Pattani class clearly shows the hangar at the same height as the smokestack, it does not sport a secondary mast nor RAM. No torpedo tubes and no RHIB/RHIB bay. Pattani class is also actually longer than the 056. Everything discussed is technically possible. But the question is, given it's role, is the advantage of a hangar worth removing so many other features?

I suppose the ASW variant can trade in all of it's ASuMs for ASMs in the box launchers but I was only thinking splitting into a 2+2 setup. If you had two or three 056s working together spread out over an area, that's 6 ASuMs and 6 ASMs providing a decent web coverage. If no dedicated helo is planned, the ASW 056 variant carrying some ASMs makes even more sense.