056 class FFL/corvette

Any guess how much PLAN pays for an EMPTY hull of Type 056? ... I'd say ~$15M

Discussion seems to have faded on this thread. Some new thoughts.

- I've noticed there hasn't been any pics of 056s in exercises with any of the big boys - 054As, 052Cs, 071s. Anyone think this is a division being employed by the navy? Of course, the 056 does not operate far from home waters but one would think coordination and joint operation would happen in areas such as the ECS?

- Slight tangent but if 055s are supposed to be in development and 052Ds are supposed to be produced alongside 055s, is there really a need for a successor to the 054As? It would seem to make more sense to have a large fleet of 055s and 052Ds for global blue water ops. Having said that, would an enlarged 056 (like an 056B) make more sense to replace the 053H3s and 053H2Gs when it's time?

- What would be the feasibility of lengthening the 056 hull slightly and then adding outriggers to create a trimaran? Afterall, they are experimenting with trimarans. Why not build one off the 056 platform? That way, draught is kept roughly the same. But that could dramatically increase width above water so there's a larger helo pad, the torpedo tubes can be pushed further out, and the center roof can be raised for a hangar without affecting the deck below. Three diesels with IEPs?

I am still convinced that the 052D is a stopgap upgrade of 052C. They will probably cease production of 052D after 6 and put out a pair of 055s to try them out just like the original 052Cs. We have seen a big expansion phase of the PLAN surface ships the past few years, we are due for a consolidation phase where they practice with their current assets and not build so much. For their next surface ship expansion phase it's going to be the 055 (052 successor), the 054 successor, and a LHD.

P.S. 054 successor = Chinese LCS?

PanAsian said:

I am still convinced that the 052D is a stopgap upgrade of 052C. They will probably cease production of 052D after 6 and put out a pair of 055s to try them out just like the original 052Cs. We have seen a big expansion phase of the PLAN surface ships the past few years, we are due for a consolidation phase where they practice with their current assets and not build so much. For their next surface ship expansion phase it's going to be the 055 (052 successor), the 054 successor, and a LHD.

Click to expand...

Well you're obviously free to have your own opinion, but it is one which is contrary to most other places that have reputations for projecting future PLAN trends, and they say we will be seeing more than 6 052Ds.

And there is no reason the PLAN cannot consolidate and train its crews and ships while expanding fleet size either.
They won't have to recruit more people or even necessarily have a net increase in ship number, they'll only have a net increase in fleet tonnage, and they can shift crews from older combatants to newer ones, and train them up.

The USN built Ticos and Burkes en masse while reitiring older ships as well, and didn't need a dedicated period to consolidate their new ships while pausing new production, I don't see why the PLAN needs it. Especially when they had the 2000s to uptrain much of their crews for more advanced combatants to a level where they can shift to 052Ds and 055s with less issue.

Of course corvettes don't have the endurance to effectively operate as part of a carrier battlegroup or to defend sealines of communication far away from friendly ports.
Basicaly corvettes aren't designed for all mission types where they need to operate indepently for a longer time.

But it doesn't say they aren't able for global missions in littoral zones. They do even have an adventage against larger ships because of the superior manoeuvrable, smaller draft and RCS and the way shorter maintenance time - so they could operate way longer in such zones than larger destroyers for example.

Solaris said:

If a CVBG does not get early warning soon enough, then something has gone terribly wrong. That means the entire airwing of fighters available for CAP has been destroyed, all the available AEW/C have been destroyed, and communications with the rest of your military support structure (land based AEW/C, satellites, HALE UAV's, OTH radars, etc.) have been destroyed. This could be accomplished, but if you insist on continuing with your attack in the face of this level of destruction of your electronic eyes and ears, you will have nobody to blame but yourself if you get utterly annihilated later on. In practice a carrier group (especially a USN one) will have multiple means of early warning and can position its ships accordingly as an enemy attack is inbound. If there is more than one threat axis the escorts will have to do their best to spread their assets between them.

Click to expand...

I was considering more in liaoning's case, where fighters available for CAP and lack of fixed wing AEWC may hinder the effectiveness of early warning compared to say a USN CVN. And of course, land based AEWC, UAVs, and OTH radars have finite range if combat is being fought in, say the second island chain and beyond

But that was just an aside to consider. A CSG would naturally position its escorts in a way which is tailored to known and expected threats and where they may come from, while having not too much distance between them, to allow for shifting between positions if a situation demands it.

Bltizo said:

I was considering more in liaoning's case, where fighters available for CAP and lack of fixed wing AEWC may hinder the effectiveness of early warning compared to say a USN CVN. And of course, land based AEWC, UAVs, and OTH radars have finite range if combat is being fought in, say the second island chain and beyond

But that was just an aside to consider. A CSG would naturally position its escorts in a way which is tailored to known and expected threats and where they may come from, while having not too much distance between them, to allow for shifting between positions if a situation demands it.

Click to expand...

I think you bring up a good point Bltzo. We simply cannot compare a Chinese CSG to a USN CSG simply because they have different mission profiles and operational directives. While there is a 'standard formation' of escorts the strike force commander will position his assets accordingly based on real time threat analysis and procedures.

Keep in mind also that even in the case of a US CSG, we have never fought a true Sea/Air battle in the open ocean with any navy/af of significant firepower since WWII nevermind a CSG vs CSG battle!!

kwaigonegin said:

I think you bring up a good point Bltzo. We simply cannot compare a Chinese CSG to a USN CSG simply because they have different mission profiles and operational directives. While there is a 'standard formation' of escorts the strike force commander will position his assets accordingly based on real time threat analysis and procedures.

Keep in mind also that even in the case of a US CSG, we have never fought a true Sea/Air battle in the open ocean with any navy/af of significant firepower since WWII nevermind a CSG vs CSG battle!!

Click to expand...

Closest was during the Falklands in 1982 when RN carrier strike group was almost stuck by the Argentinian carrier which had located the RN carrier but did not launch its aircraft because it was out of range and the wind died down and they couldn't fuel them to the max was a very close call

Bltizo said:

I was considering more in liaoning's case, where fighters available for CAP and lack of fixed wing AEWC may hinder the effectiveness of early warning compared to say a USN CVN. And of course, land based AEWC, UAVs, and OTH radars have finite range if combat is being fought in, say the second island chain and beyond

Click to expand...

I don't think this particular scenario will ever be allowed to occur. By the time the PLAN is ready to field a bona fide, ready for combat CVBG, it will have fixed wing AEW/C. It will have enough fighters for CAP, strike, and whatever else. It will have whatever is needed to operate effectively in the second island chain and beyond, or it won't go there in the first place. Not being as capable as a USN carrier group is not the same thing as being complete blind and deaf to the environment around you.

kwaigonegin said:

We simply cannot compare a Chinese CSG to a USN CSG simply because they have different mission profiles and operational directives.

Click to expand...

How do you know this is true since nobody has ever seen a Chinese CSG? We do know for sure the PLAN has definitively veered away from the Soviet model of the carrier group where the fighters are mainly anti-air and designed to provide air cover to get the ships close enough to launch their missiles. This is a totally obsolete strategy in my view, especially when pitted against a US carrier group which uses fighters as its primary means of offense and the ships are all escorts built mainly to keep the carrier alive. The way things are shaping up with the kinds of ships coming out recently and the disposition of the Liaoning itself, I think it's pretty clear that the PLAN is going all in with the American view of carrier doctrine.