056 class FFL/corvette

Viktor Jav said:

True, but just because the Russian's can't afford to build bigger ships atm ss means that their current ships are not worth looking.
It is not too hard to imagine a hypothetical war on China's periphery, unthinkable yes but not impossible with all the current tensions going on. In those scenarios, a upgraded Type 56a can do more than just being a patrol vessel, such as a mobile land strike platform, freeing up larger vessels for more pressing matters. It would be a monumental task for an enemy force seeking to destroy such vessels hiding in China's shore line lobbing cruise and anti ship missiles.

Click to expand...

Russian ships are compromises, reflecting a desire to have a lot of firepower but also the constraints of Russian industry. You think the Russian corvettes are great ships but there's a reason why no other maritime heavyweight (except Israel) bothered to pack that amount of firepower into ships of that displacement. That many weapon systems require a crew of a certain size of operate effectively and that crew needs proper rotation, rest, and nutritional intake, all of which requires ample volume dedicated to crew quarters, food storage, and food preparation. Somewhere along the line, the Russians and Israelis said "screw it" and shoved a bunch of firepower into a tiny hull with limited consideration for logistical factors which NATO and Chinese naval architects found unacceptable.

Your claims of the 056s' inadequacies cannot be rectified by simply up-arming as the facilities inherent to the design can only support the weapons systems they currently have. The 056A can support a certain crew size, which can effectively man their existing systems and no more. To shove additional systems in the vessel means to take away manning from other systems leading to an overall degradation of capability and readiness. We only have to look at the USN 7th Fleet to understand the consequences of crews that are fatigued by too many tasks and suffer from insufficient rest.

Simply put, your interpretation of Russian ships is flawed. The fact that their vessels displace so little while packing a large punch is not a good thing. It means they wanted to build larger ships but couldn't, so they had to compromise and shove it in a smaller hull resulting in reduced effectiveness. E.g. their Gorshkovs are supposed to be destroyers but due to various constraints, they ended up with a 4,000t design trying to do the job of an 8,000t ship.

What a ship can or cannot do does not necessary depends on its weight and class. And perhaps the most dangerous thing to assume is that one has enough of a certain class of ships for a particular job. One must remember that the Type 54A frigate still uses a older model radar that while is still capable is really starting to show its age, whilst there is currently only a handful of the current destroyers are capable of area fleet defense. And even fewer of them are capable of land strike missions, and certainly none of the current frigates can do so as well. In the event of a war (especially one that occurs near China's borders), the majority of the principal surface combatants will be expected to conduct defensive fleet air defense for the carriers and the like, leaving precious few vessels in the strike configuration.
Even if the Type 56a is not called upon to conduct cruise missile strikes, it can most certainly be expected to conduct day-to-day littoral patrols and showing the flag ops due to their cheap operating costs, which in light of ever more capable submarines and the propagation of cheap UAVs means that at the very least the Type 56a needs an upgrade to its sensors and self-defense weapons to remain relevant.
Plus a U VLS will greatly enhance the Type 56a's capability for ASW warfare as well with ASROC missiles.

Click to expand...

China will not commission anything like the Buyan-M because China has something called an air force. Two, in fact, one PLAAF and the other PLANAF. If you have missile-carrying aircraft, you don't need missile-carrying boats. That's a principle exemplified by the Type 22 FACs whose utility faded over the years as the PLANAF built up its strength. If China needed to conduct strike missions, the JH-7s, Su-30s, and H-6s are much better options than a Sino-Buyan.

The 056s' role is simply to be tripwires during peacetime and fleet escorts during wartime. The sorts of missions you have in mind for it are unsuited to a vessel with 1,400t displacement. You should instead wish for accelerated J-16 and H-6K adoption by the PLANAF which will allow them to conduct strike missions much more effectively than building a dedicated missile boat like you want the 056 to become.

The 056 also already possess ASROC capability with the slant launchers, there's no need to add UVLS, not that it will fit anyway.

jobjed said:

Russian ships are compromises, reflecting a desire to have a lot of firepower but also the constraints of Russian industry. You think the Russian corvettes are great ships but there's a reason why no other maritime heavyweight (except Israel) bothered to pack that amount of firepower into ships of that displacement. That many weapon systems require a crew of a certain size of operate effectively and that crew needs proper rotation, rest, and nutritional intake, all of which requires ample volume dedicated to crew quarters, food storage, and food preparation. Somewhere along the line, the Russians and Israelis said "screw it" and shoved a bunch of firepower into a tiny hull with limited consideration for logistical factors which NATO and Chinese naval architects found unacceptable.

Your claims of the 056s' inadequacies cannot be rectified by simply up-arming as the facilities inherent to the design can only support the weapons systems they currently have. The 056A can support a certain crew size, which can effectively man their existing systems and no more. To shove additional systems in the vessel means to take away manning from other systems leading to an overall degradation of capability and readiness. We only have to look at the USN 7th Fleet to understand the consequences of crews that are fatigued by too many tasks and suffer from insufficient rest.

Simply put, your interpretation of Russian ships is flawed. The fact that their vessels displace so little while packing a large punch is not a good thing. It means they wanted to build larger ships but couldn't, so they had to compromise and shove it in a smaller hull resulting in reduced effectiveness. E.g. their Gorshkovs are supposed to be destroyers but due to various constraints, they ended up with a 4,000t design trying to do the job of an 8,000t ship.




China will not commission anything like the Buyan-M because China has something called an air force. Two, in fact, one PLAAF and the other PLANAF. If you have missile-carrying aircraft, you don't need missile-carrying boats. That's a principle exemplified by the Type 22 FACs whose utility faded over the years as the PLANAF built up its strength. If China needed to conduct strike missions, the JH-7s, Su-30s, and H-6s are much better options than a Sino-Buyan.

The 056s' role is simply to be tripwires during peacetime and fleet escorts during wartime. The sorts of missions you have in mind for it are unsuited to a vessel with 1,400t displacement. You should instead wish for accelerated J-16 and H-6K adoption by the PLANAF which will allow them to conduct strike missions much more effectively than building a dedicated missile boat like you want the 056 to become.

The 056 also already possess ASROC capability with the slant launchers, there's no need to add UVLS, not that it will fit anyway.

Click to expand...

What I think here hardly matters, what matters is the the capabilities offered by a Buyan or Stereguishy class corvette which in many case is much better than the Type 56a, that is an undeniable fact. And its not like major maritime powers have not looked into the concept before, the US did with their LCS though the results were less then favorable, the Dutch did it too with the De Zeven frigates, as so did the Danes with the Iver Huitfeldt. Even the Visby class corvettes has the same armament as the Type 56A while displacing only a measly 640 tonnes.
"Simply put, your interpretation of Russian ships is flawed. The fact that their vessels displace so little while packing a large punch is not a good thing."
And since when is getting more punch for the buck is a bad thing? Just because the Russian's aren't doing things the way you expect does not mean their thinking is flawed. True, they made compromises, but these compromises have to be viewed in light of the capabilities they gained in return.
There is no report stating that the Russian corvettes suffers in return of lack of crew amenities or comfort or anything of the such. Duration is perhaps something that would be concerning but it is ridiculous to think that the crew for a corvette would require such large space for food storage and preparation as you so claimed. This ain't the sailing age with no fridge. Automation can also help to reduce crew size and duties.
The main problem being faced with the US 7th fleet is not due to over complicated tasks, but rather the sheer rotation of duty. They are tired not because they have to perform multiple tasks, but rather they are forced to be at sea far longer than what is prescribed and far more often due to multiple peace time patrols and FONOPS.
And again we touch upon the same tired old argument that a ship needs to be of a specific weight class to perform a specific task . This is an inherently wrong though in the context of the modern navy.Size and weight might matter when one is classifying the type of ship, but in terms of capability, this is an erroneous assumption to make given the constant advances of technology.
Just because China has an air force means that it can dismiss with other stand-off capabilities.Indeed, the modern threat environment means that China would need to diversify it's capabilities. Advanced AA defences are readily available to any state actor with the appropriate funds, and China will be facing some of the world's most capable air forces in any hypothetical periphery war. It cannot readily expect air strikes in the face of such challenges.
Using the Type 56A are mere tripwires would be a tremendous waste of human lives since it cannot be expected to defend itself from a determined attack, and equipment are always more expendable then the men manning them. And the current iteration of the Typ56a is hardly suited for fleet escort as well given their pathetic lack of range and weaponry to function as anything more than a token last ditch defense.
If the Type 56a can be equipped with the slant ASW launchers then it will be a good thing, but it will still need to the appropriate sensors in order to exploit it to the max.

I have said it once, and I will say it again. The Type 56A is a good corvette for the current being, but with the progress of time. It needs to be readily upgraded, or replaced if necessary to meet the relevant threats.

There are only so many light warships required for littoral taskings. Longer-term, the more pressing issue is ASW against some of the world's most advanced threats. Light, first-rate ASW combatants would allow China to offset a significant proportion of that threat at relatively low cost. But a ship without organic air cannot be considered a first-rate ASW asset.

The cost of a helicopter and supporting infrastructure is not trivial, but nor is the cost of building, crewing and operating a corvette in the first place.

Viktor Jav said:

What I think here hardly matters, what matters is the the capabilities offered by a Buyan or Stereguishy class corvette which in many case is much better than the Type 56a, that is an undeniable fact.

Click to expand...

The Buyan is "better" only if you want a missile truck, which the PLAN does not want. They want a patrol vessel with good endurance and an ASW suite advanced enough to ensure China's peripheral waters are clear of enemy subs, and they got it with the 056/A. The Buyan is absolute garbage if it was employed the same way the PLAN employs 056s.

And its not like major maritime powers have not looked into the concept before, the US did with their LCS though the results were less then favorable, the Dutch did it too with the De Zeven frigates, as so the
"Simply put, your interpretation of Russian ships is flawed. The fact that their vessels displace so little while packing a large punch is not a good thing."
And since when is getting more punch for the buck is a bad thing? Just because the Russian's aren't doing things the way you expect does not mean their thinking is flawed. True, they made compromises, but these compromises have to be viewed in light of the capabilities they gained in return.

Click to expand...

Packing a large punch while sacrificing other aspects like ASW and crew well-being is not a good thing. If the Russians deem it satisfactory for their navy, that's their problem; the PLAN will do no such thing. Also, they're not getting more bang for their buck, they're getting more bang for the tonne, which is only advantageous if your shipbuilding industry has problems with tonnage, which the Russians certainly have but not the Chinese. China tried the "more bang for tonne" philosophy once upon a time with the Type 22 FACs but those were desperate times and desperate times called for desperate measures. Since the PLANAF got their act together, the Type 22s are no longer very useful. If the PLANAF is still undeveloped then maybe the PLAN could consider building something like the Buyan but since the PLANAF is very healthy in both numbers and growth, a Sino-Buyan is redundant.

There is no report stating that the Russian corvettes suffers in return of lack of crew amenities or comfort or anything of the such. Duration is perhaps something that would be concerning but it is ridiculous to think that the crew for a corvette would require such large space for food storage and preparation as you so claimed. This ain't the sailing age with no fridge. Automation can also help to reduce crew size and duties.
The main problem being faced with the US 7th fleet is not due to over complicated tasks, but rather the sheer rotation of duty. They are tired not because they have to perform multiple tasks, but rather they are forced to be at sea far longer than what is prescribed and far more often due to multiple peace time patrols and FONOPS.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a crew that should've been bigger to allow for more frequent rotations and longer rest times, which requires larger crew quarters for the additional people, which goes back to my point about needing a vessel to be of sufficient size.

And again we touch upon the same tired old argument that a ship needs to be of a specific weight class to perform a specific task . This is an inherently wrong though in the context of the modern navy.Size and weight might matter when one is classifying the type of ship, but in terms of capability, this is an erroneous assumption to make given the constant advances of technology.

Click to expand...

Ships need to be of a certain size to accommodate the requisite crew. The requisite crew is determined by how many systems are on board that need to be operated. The 056 in its current form is optimised for its current load out and adding additional capabilities like land-attack will require crew to be diverted from other systems which would compromise the overall readiness of the vessel and lead to intolerable fatigue.

Just because China has an air force means that it can dismiss with other stand-off capabilities.Indeed, the modern threat environment means that China would need to diversify it's capabilities. Advanced AA defences are readily available to any state actor with the appropriate funds, and China will be facing some of the world's most capable air forces in any hypothetical periphery war. It cannot readily expect air strikes in the face of such challenges.

Click to expand...

More countries possess modern anti-ship missiles than anti-air missiles. If an enemy country is powerful enough to make aircraft not viable, missile boats are even less viable given they're easier to detect and are much slower than aircraft. It's better to just lob a DF-15B or DF-16 in that case.

Using the Type 56A are mere tripwires would be a tremendous waste of human lives since it cannot be expected to defend itself from a determined attack, and equipment are always more expendable then the men manning them. And the current iteration of the Typ56a is hardly suited for fleet escort as well given their pathetic lack of range and weaponry to function as anything more than a token last ditch defense.

Click to expand...

They will only be tripwires during peacetime. If Vietnam sinks one 056, they lose their entire country and population. THAT'S the function of a tripwire; it's a one-time thing. Same with the US forces stationed in the ROK. If the DPRK was to attack with WMDs, those 30,000 Americans are pretty dead but that's their job, to die and allow their country to justify a full-blown response.

A fleet-escort role for 056s means they are part of larger fleets that operate in China's periphery. They cover the 054As who cover the 052Ds and 055s, who cover the carriers or amphibious assault ships; layers upon layers. No one's sending them to face the enemy alone. The 056As' ASW capabilities allow them to form a protective ring around the fleet preventing enemy submarines from penetrating.

Like they say jack of all trades but master of none
Basically said it all If you crammed anti ship, anti surface and anti air, ASW warfare into one small ship Then you cant do your primary task very well
Ship is designed and optimized for certain operation .In case of type 56 it is ASW and patrol in EEZ
Type 56 was designed to replace the Hainan class patrol boat .And built in large number maybe 60 to 70 copies
In that respect they already exceed the spec of Hainan class by miles

IMO the P18 corvette or something like it is what the Type 056 should have been all along.


The addition of an organic hangar/helicopter and 8 slant launchers is surely not so much more expensive than the basic Type 056 that its cost could not be borne by the PLAN (the P18 allegedly costs $50 million). In its current form the Type 056 is next to useless to a PLAN fleet even in the littoral environment, while a P18-type vessel could easily and seamlessly integrate into the ASW aspect of fleet defense while such a fleet operates in the littorals. The Type 056A fairs somewhat better but lacks the inherent means to prosecute any sensor contacts, having to either rely on a helo borrowed from shore or from another ship in the fleet, limiting both the range and the response time of the helo. 4 slant tubes also seems to necessitate the commitment of the 056A to either an ASW mission or an antiship mission, while 8 slant tubes would allow a more flexible mission configuration, allowing it to serve simultaneously in the basic patrol and ASW missions without having to sail back to base to change out its missiles.

One could argue that the 056 was never intended to provide support to a blue water force operating in the littorals. This is almost certainly true, though to me this is an act of shortsightedness on the part of the PLAN. For a little extra money they could have bought themselves a well-rounded patrol vessel in peacetime and a robust ASW asset in wartime, especially in defense of the near seas.

The Viktor dude is advocating arming a soldier with a battle rifle, a grenade launcher and an anti-tank missile with all the bullets, grenades and missiles. Yes, the soldier has the most firepower in the field, but how far can he get? How useful can he be if he can only move slowly and have endurance of a few hours before becoming exhausted?

056's mission is to be a sentry. Its job is to move around for long hours to look for intruders, nothing more, nothing less. Arming it to the teeth like you suggested will destroy its designinated mission.

It's not a dick comparison contest buddy

jobjed said:

The Buyan is "better" only if you want a missile truck, which the PLAN does not want. They want a patrol vessel with good endurance and an ASW suite advanced enough to ensure China's peripheral waters are clear of enemy subs, and they got it with the 056/A. The Buyan is absolute garbage if it was employed the same way the PLAN employs 056s.






Sounds like a crew that should've been bigger to allow for more frequent rotations and longer rest times, which requires larger crew quarters for the additional people, which goes back to my point about needing a vessel to be of sufficient size.



Ships need to be of a certain size to accommodate the requisite crew. The requisite crew is determined by how many systems are on board that need to be operated. The 056 in its current form is optimised for its current load out and adding additional capabilities like land-attack will require crew to be diverted from other systems which would compromise the overall readiness of the vessel and lead to intolerable fatigue.



More countries possess modern anti-ship missiles than anti-air missiles. If an enemy country is powerful enough to make aircraft not viable, missile boats are even less viable given they're easier to detect and are much slower than aircraft. It's better to just lob a DF-15B or DF-16 in that case.



They will only be tripwires during peacetime. If Vietnam sinks one 056, they lose their entire country and population. THAT'S the function of a tripwire; it's a one-time thing. Same with the US forces stationed in the ROK. If the DPRK was to attack with WMDs, those 30,000 Americans are pretty dead but that's their job, to die and allow their country to justify a full-blown response.

A fleet-escort role for 056s means they are part of larger fleets that operate in China's periphery. They cover the 054As who cover the 052Ds and 055s, who cover the carriers or amphibious assault ships; layers upon layers. No one's sending them to face the enemy alone. The 056As' ASW capabilities allow them to form a protective ring around the fleet preventing enemy submarines from penetrating.

Click to expand...

If the PLAN wants to go with the "good enough" concept, then maybe the Type 56A would be suitable, but considering the fact that what it considers to be "good enough" still somewhat dated, then one really must wonder whether its money can be better spent on making the Typ56A better than just its current iteration of a 1990s boat with a radar/sensor suit that is better stored in a museum.
The Type 22 FAC is not really comparable to the Steregushchy class, as the capability for both ships are really different. The Type 22 was built with one purpose in mind only, which is to attack surface ships. The Steregushchy class is built with also ASW and littoral patrol in mind.

Larger crew quarters is not going to solve the fatigue problem, not only it makes the ship even more redundant by having 2 persons for a job, which would cut into the pool of recruits. It would also mean alot of useless people consuming vital provisions on board the ship when not working and all the while enduring the hard sea environment, hardly a worth the point of a vessel of increased sizes. Only a very foolish navy would even consider such a prospect. Not to mention the extra strain it puts on the hardware as well.

As for the issue of the anti ship missile, bringing up the map shows that China shows that it has a considerably dragged coastline with all the nooks and cranny in which a small sized ship can hide in. And searching for a corvette among the coastline is much harder than picking out a fighter from the sky with all the radar refraction going on.

Of course in the prospect of a tripwire, the PLAN's best hope would be if a 3rd rate nation like Vietnam tries something funny. But what if the opposing force is a nation like Japan, or worse the US strikes the first blow. No amount of justification can justify the fact that if the Type 56A was deployed en masses during the first few hours, they are gonna be wrecked. And if even they are not, it might see little active service beyond submarine picket on the coast line which in light of China's increasingly maturing underwater hearing complex really does calls into question the Type 56A's current existence. I never did understand why is it so justifiable to send good men and women to a mission on which they are guaranteed to meet near certain death, just because the US does it does not mean that China has to jump on the bandwagon without a thought.

In the end of all things, China might not ever build a Buyan or Steregushchy class of corvette true. But that does not mean that the Type 56A can be expected to serve in its current form for the next 30 years or so regardless of the newness of the hulls. My point was always this

1) That the Type 56A should be brought up with the current times and possibly the future.
2) That the PLAN can also refer to how other nations build their corvettes to get a better understanding of what they would want of their next generation frigates, while it was safe to do things conventionally in the past. The PLAN cannot expect to adopt a "wait and see" approach to future ship building.

Even if removing the land attack option from the list, there is a whole lot of improvement that the Type 56A could have or its next successor. That includes a better radar, better self-defense options than just a 8 cell launcher and finally a hangar for a helo or UAV.

vincent said:

The Viktor dude is advocating arming a soldier with a battle rifle, a grenade launcher and an anti-tank missile with all the bullets, grenades and missiles. Yes, the soldier has the most firepower in the field, but how far can he get? How useful can he be if he can only move slowly and have endurance of a few hours before becoming exhausted?

056's mission is to be a sentry. Its job is to move around for long hours to look for intruders, nothing more, nothing less. Arming it to the teeth like you suggested will destroy its designinated mission.

It's not a dick comparison contest buddy

Click to expand...

And since when is a boat comparable to a soldier there buddy ? As far as I am concerned I don't see a boat with lungs, heart and all the like. But if you must make that comparison then the Type 56A is more like a 1970's Vietnam War soldier in terms of armament whereas the majority of world is currently more like the first Iraqi War level.
This is as far away from a dick comparison contest as it can be, rather it is looking at the current situation and the future prospects and seeing what the Type 56A would be facing. And one has to draw a 5 outta 10 score card from that observation, good enough for now but not for the future.

Viktor Jav said:

Even if removing the land attack option from the list, there is a whole lot of improvement that the Type 56A could have or its next successor. That includes a better radar, better self-defense options than just a 8 cell launcher and finally a hangar for a helo or UAV.

Click to expand...

The more stuff you put on a 056A successor, the more it starts looking (and costing) like a 054A. Of the 3 upgrades you mentioned the hangar is the only reasonable one, and one that should have already been part of the original design rather than part of some upgrade.