056 class FFL/corvette

I think that helicopters are optional for the Type-56, as they are designed for operations close to China and will be operating with Y-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

If we do a cost-benefit analysis, I suspect you could buy 3 helicopters for the price of a single Y-8.
Yet the Y-8 would still be much more effective at Anti-Submarine Warfare.
And on the rare occasions when they do go out of area, they will certainly be accompanied by larger ships with helicopters.

===

On the other hand, I think a missile launched torpedo is definitely needed, particularly since it wouldn't cost very much.

I can see situations where the Type-56 obtains a submarine location whilst still undetected.
Firing a torpedo from shipboard tubes will alert the submarine to the fact that there is a lightweight torpedo heading towards it, and also the location of the Type-56.
The submarine has a good chance of outrunning the torpedo because they are short-ranged, and will be heading away from the Type-56, so it will be much more difficult to reacquire.
At the same time, the submarine will likely launch a heavyweight torpedo which does have the range to sink the Type-56

A better way is to have a Y-8 or Helicopter drop a torpedo from above, which definitely would have the range to reach the submarine.
But if there wasn't one around, a missile launched torpedo from the Type-56 would work.

tphuang said:

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

Click to expand...

I put these two photos of the new and old Type 056s side by side for comparison.



The bridge does look convincingly taller, if that's the proper terminology. My guess would be that they put up a solid 'stealthier' railing around all the stuff on the roof of the bridge. The extra height roughly equals the height of the solid railing at the front on the bridge deck.

We can only see for sure how the bridge changed if there is a good picture from the front, side, or above, but I believe the extra height is there.

Once the Type-56 gets widely deployed, I can see submarine operations against China becoming a nightmare.

The PLAN could record the acoustic signature and create a decoy package, so that a fishing boat sounds like a Type-56.

It would be dirt cheap to produce these decoy packages and there are tens of thousands of dirt-cheap fishing boats in China that could be converted into naval auxiliaries which can cover the first island chain.

So let's say there are 1000 fishing boats and 50 Type-56 corvettes saturating Chinese coastal waters in the Western Pacific, under air cover from mainland China.

A submarine trying to get close to the Chinese coastline could encounter say 30? potential Type-56 corvettes over the course of 2days.

But that submarine would not know whether it was a genuine Type 56 without going for a look, but it doesn't want to get too close to a real Type-56. That:

a) slows down the submarine
b) an airborne radar could detect the submarine at periscope depth
c) the submarine also has to worry about high-definition cameras on the boat, which could have automated target recognition software

And the submarine couldn't just sink all of them because:

1) the submarine would run out of torpedoes first
2) the torpedoes cost 10x more than the fishing boats with the decoy packages
3) whenever a fishing boat sinks, the Chinese fleet will know where the submarine is.

It does look like some sort of sonar hatch, be that a VDS, or a TAS. It does not makes sense to build dozens and dozens of this corvette over 3 or 4 years, and then just stop. One the supply chain is worked out, the bugs ironed out, the design done, to keep it in production for another 4 or 5 years, thus having a total of 70 ships would make a lot of sense. A production run of 8 or 9 years makes much more sense.

Now a type 56 corvette vs a submarnine is going to be dangerous for the type 56, however the type 56 is going to be much cheaper than an enemy sub, so a 1:1 trade-off would suit China. Also a sub sinking a type 56 would use a torpedo and also be at risk of revealing its position. A type 56 could also work as a radar picket, at the edges of a fleet, giving the fleet extra time in the event of air or missile attack, making it that much harder to get to the more valuable ships.

My guess is that the anti-sub Type 56 may work with other larger vessels, providing an outer screen. It would work in complement with other vessels, the hope being that the Type 56 is lost in preference to a much larger ship. If the sonar of the type 56 detects a sub, its position could be relayed to other ships in a fleet via datalink, and stand-off anti-sub weapons and/or helicopters used against the sub. If helicopters are used, the option of lilipadding a helicopter in an emergency could come in useful (better than ditching in the sea).

The bridge does look higher, (it was in line with hanger top before) I assume they have traded off radar signature for better visibility and situational awareness. I assume they found the low bridge made was an issue and rectificied the situation somewhat. Under the raised bridge would be extra space for black boxes for more electonics etc.

My guess (and it is little more than a guess), is that this new version is an anti-submarine variant, and that it will be built in higher numbers than the standard type 56. My best guess is 80 ships total, time will tell. Its a very uselful little ship, it does not make sense to build 30 or 40 and then just stop.

China is working up incrementally, slowly expanding its skills and the area of ocean it can control, best to control the ocean closest to you, and then in time extend your reach. Having smaller ships closer in makes sense, and this frees up the larger ships for further offshore.

If a type 56 is sunk, because it is a ship, it should float awhile, thus there is a good chance most crew will survive. If a sub is sunk, chances for crew are quite a bit less. Thus with small crew in a type 56, loss of a vessel might only mean say 20 sailors killed. (bad if your one of the 20), but better than losing 100 dead.

Cheng said:

Once the Type-56 gets widely deployed, I can see submarine operations against China becoming a nightmare.

The PLAN could record the acoustic signature and create a decoy package, so that a fishing boat sounds like a Type-56.

It would be dirt cheap to produce these decoy packages and there are tens of thousands of dirt-cheap fishing boats in China that could be converted into naval auxiliaries which can cover the first island chain.

So let's say there are 1000 fishing boats and 50 Type-56 corvettes saturating Chinese coastal waters in the Western Pacific, under air cover from mainland China.

A submarine trying to get close to the Chinese coastline could encounter say 30? potential Type-56 corvettes over the course of 2days.

But that submarine would not know whether it was a genuine Type 56 without going for a look, but it doesn't want to get too close to a real Type-56. That:

a) slows down the submarine
b) an airborne radar could detect the submarine at periscope depth
c) the submarine also has to worry about high-definition cameras on the boat, which could have automated target recognition software

And the submarine couldn't just sink all of them because:

1) the submarine would run out of torpedoes first
2) the torpedoes cost 10x more than the fishing boats with the decoy packages
3) whenever a fishing boat sinks, the Chinese fleet will know where the submarine is.

Click to expand...

The science of acoustic signature is not so simple that can be easily allow a decoy to mimic as something else convincingly. At best you might be able to fool a machine but not a pair of human ears, all they need is to hear for something else that "doesn't make sense". What set human intellect apart from AI is our ability to cast doubts, not take it as yes automatically when answer come back as "80% accurate".

Fishing vessels have almost none when comes to acoustic dampening, so how could they turn into decoy of something else in the first place?

Also, given China's potential enemies in submarine warfare is only "those few countries", they'd undoubtedly have the ability to gather and discern the PLAN general anti-sub patrol pattern via satellite imagery, even up to and including whatever naval auxiliaries that are in the theatre of operation.

Even if things gets that bad for submarines, there're technologies available to submarine to get some idea what's on the surface - underwater drone can be launched from submarine to scout surface movements.

peterAustralia said:

The bridge does look higher, (it was in line with hanger top before) I assume they have traded off radar signature for better visibility and situational awareness. I assume they found the low bridge made was an issue and rectificied the situation somewhat. Under the raised bridge would be extra space for black boxes for more electonics etc.


If a type 56 is sunk, because it is a ship, it should float awhile, thus there is a good chance most crew will survive. If a sub is sunk, chances for crew are quite a bit less. Thus with small crew in a type 56, loss of a vessel might only mean say 20 sailors killed. (bad if your one of the 20), but better than losing 100 dead.

Click to expand...

The perceived raised height doesn't appear to be enough for an additional deck floor, perhaps it's space create to relocate whatever electronics that may have been in the stern that is now freed up for the TAS/VDS?

I don't think anyone's ever confirmed the crew size for the 056? I wonder if it can be 50 or under?

We had actually seen this ASW version before completion but we didnt know then that it has a big hole at the stern. Note the higher ceiling bridge.



Edit; The smoke funnel could be same as base version.

what is that big round hole (about 8ft diameter), in the helicopter deck?
Is it something that assists in bringing down a helicopter in bad sea-state, or is it possibly an access port for a round drum, that a VDS or TAS gets placed in. That way they could remove the drum vertically up and replace it if required. The photos I have seen show the drum with an 'axle' that is horizontal (on british ships), however there is no reason the axle for a sonar reel could not be vertical

Is that round 'hole' in previous ships? There seems to be a circle on the decks of previous type 56 (approx same size and location) however I thought that was to mark the spot where the helicopter was to land.

I am just asking, because I dont know. Also, it looks as though the bridge windows seem to be the same height, they seem to have added a layer about 2ft high on top of the bridge. My guess is that it is some space for extra communication equipment. Radios, damage control reporting system etc.

in the iamge 2 posts back, the hull below the waterline is all pixelated out. The topsides and background are all fine. Are they trying to hide something,,, weird, maybe a larger bow sonar? Very odd.

MwRYum said:

The science of acoustic signature is not so simple that can be easily allow a decoy to mimic as something else convincingly. At best you might be able to fool a machine but not a pair of human ears, all they need is to hear for something else that "doesn't make sense". What set human intellect apart from AI is our ability to cast doubts, not take it as yes automatically when answer come back as "80% accurate".

Fishing vessels have almost none when comes to acoustic dampening, so how could they turn into decoy of something else in the first place?

Also, given China's potential enemies in submarine warfare is only "those few countries", they'd undoubtedly have the ability to gather and discern the PLAN general anti-sub patrol pattern via satellite imagery, even up to and including whatever naval auxiliaries that are in the theatre of operation.

Even if things gets that bad for submarines, there're technologies available to submarine to get some idea what's on the surface - underwater drone can be launched from submarine to scout surface movements.

Click to expand...

MwRYum said:

The science of acoustic signature is not so simple that can be easily allow a decoy to mimic as something else convincingly. At best you might be able to fool a machine but not a pair of human ears, all they need is to hear for something else that "doesn't make sense". What set human intellect apart from AI is our ability to cast doubts, not take it as yes automatically when answer come back as "80% accurate".

Fishing vessels have almost none when comes to acoustic dampening, so how could they turn into decoy of something else in the first place?

Also, given China's potential enemies in submarine warfare is only "those few countries", they'd undoubtedly have the ability to gather and discern the PLAN general anti-sub patrol pattern via satellite imagery, even up to and including whatever naval auxiliaries that are in the theatre of operation.

Even if things gets that bad for submarines, there're technologies available to submarine to get some idea what's on the surface - underwater drone can be launched from submarine to scout surface movements.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of physics for me.

A fishing boat is a simple steel hull which doesn't have much of an acoustic signature apart from the diesel engine.

So they could strip the fishing vessel, switch the engine off or dampen it, and then add a bunch of other frequencies with varying volumes and durations.

Then it's a question of how close a submarine has to get it has to get, before it can determine if it is a fishing boat or Type-56.

Sheer numbers will complicate the situation immensely, and we're talking only talking say a total of $400 million for 1000 fishing boats. That is dirt cheap.

So if there are 8 submarines, the disruption could be equivalent to only having 7 submarines in operation.

So $400 million of fishing boats could effect a "mission kill" of a single submarine worth $2700million.

===

As for satellites, remember that this is essentially the same problem as tracking/hitting an aircraft carrier, as the fishing boats will be moving. And how are they going to communicate this information to the submarine which is out of radio contact?

===

As for the use of drones, using a drone to check out a fishing boat every hour sounds like it a mission kill to me. Remember there are 1000 fishing boats.

And remember that undersea drone warfare has many parallels to its airborne equivalent.
It will vastly increase the number of potential underwater platforms compared to the situation today which is dominated by comparatively few high-cost and high-capability submarines.
This development favours the side which has numerical superiority which is China for the following reasons:

1. The disputed waters are near the Chinese coastline, so China can bring more forces to bear
2. It's a better fit for Chinese doctrine which emphasises "numbers" rather than "quality".
3. At the same time, China now has the world's largest economy and is rapidly building a world-class technology base.
I give it about 3 more years before China spends more on R&D than the USA.