056 class FFL/corvette

Tam said:

Is that really a Type 360 radar on top of the Type 056? The entire Type 36X family of radars look similar from a distance with the rotating curved eye shaped array, but the frequencies they use vary widely: Type 360, S band; Type 362, X band; Type 363, S band; Type 364, C band.

Click to expand...

Well it's 360-something. 36X if you like.

The other thing to add to my previous post is that if the 054B turns out to be the ship that I think it will, at some point the 054As may well be taken out of CSG rosters in favor of 054Bs, in which case you may end up with a bunch of 054As relegated to lesser duties that overlap even more with 056As and their successors, and thus have even less reason to supe up a 056A successor with better weapons and sensors to begin with.

antiterror13 said:

@Viktor Jav

with your propose improvements on 056/A .. do you think PLAN could have 80 of them?]
you forget something important .... MONEY and BUDGET! ... that is always a limiting factor no matter how rich you are!

if PLAN had extra $50B laying around to spend freely for anything fancy and flash ... they might do what you have been proposing, unfortunately it is not the case and will never be

Also .... do you think PLAN didn't know what they were doing? and you knew better?

Click to expand...

Well I will not put it that I am a overall expert on all naval matters, but we have seen incidents of which even competent navies like the USN has sometimes made pretty bad choices regarding ship procurement and technologies even when from the start the project was already doubtful. The PLAN is no different in that regard, they are humans who are too prone to flaws and short comings. To say that one is not entitled to voice one's opinion on the matter just because one is supposedly not an expert upon the subject is a rather flawed reasoning, if that be the case then we are all dis entitled to state our sentiments, might as well close this forum as it would then be no better then an echo chamber.

Iron Man said:

I think turning a corvette into a frigate and still calling it a corvette is what's ludicrous.

If not an AESA, what radar are you thinking of? .

Click to expand...

I am more thinking of a Sea Giraffe radar used by the Visby corvettes, which the Swedes have proven that it can be fitted on a small sized ship. Nor am I advocating for a full sized radar of the like of a destroyer or frigates. What I am really advocating is a upgraded radar that provides better and faster targeting resolution for fast moving small targets as well as perhaps a slight increase in range, which the Type 56A can really need in order to increase its it's chances of survival in the face of ever more potent anti ship missile, every second of reaction counts in that regard.
Weapons-wise, since the HQ-10 is supposed to be a modular design, it is a rather easy and relatively cheap task to upgrade it from a 8 cell to at least a 12-16 cell variant to increase the Type 56A's chances of retaliation without causing it to stray from its original purpose of self-defense.

jobjed said:

That's because they're supposed to be frigates. Stop thinking of them as well-armed corvettes and start thinking of them as underweight frigates. If Russia and Israel could build 3000-4000t hulls cheaply, they would have. But they can't so they're relegating themselves to corvette-sized hulls.

The 056 is a light frigate in a light frigate hull. The Sa'ar V and Russian corvettes are full-blown frigates packed into a corvette's hull with compromises in so many critical areas that no other navy deems it acceptable to do what they did.

Most of what you think are current mainstream corvette designs are actually downsized frigates. I've told you this already, multiple times. Those corvettes are not "good" corvettes, they're substandard frigates. If Russia could build frigates properly, they would much rather have those than the compromised cramped "corvettes' they currently have.



Why don't you read about the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

of USN 7th Fleet sailors yourself? Here, let me quote it for you: "Sailors in Mims’s engineering department reported 'extreme work hours,' with one telling investigators they slept about three hours a night."

How do you solve sleep deprivation on a ship? You let the sailors go to sleep, which means you need other sailors to replace them, which means you need more bunks for those other sailors, which means your ship cannot be corvette-sized if you want a frigate's weapons suite, unless you are willing to compromise your crew's comfort and combat effectiveness by forcing them to be awake for 21 hours a day.



What does the flight altitude of JH-7s have to do with your argument? How are they even related to each other?

I also don't follow your logic with the Buyan. Why do you think China needs the Buyan again? They have DF-15Bs and DF-16s, and JH-7As with YJ-83Ks, YJ-91s, and YJ-12s. What use could China possibly have for a non-versatile and loitering-incapable missile truck? What does a "1500km range cruise missile with Mach 0.9 speed" have to do with whether or not China should introduce their version of a Buyan?



That's supersonic. And they're late. Russia and China already had air-launched supersonic AShMs decades ago with the Kh-31 and YJ-12. Get back to me when it becomes hypersonic.



You implied the 056 should possess additional capabilities even though that's not their job. That's exactly like forcing them to possess HQ-16s for air-defence when their job isn't air-defence.

They'll get an 8-cell HQ-10A when the time for upgrades come. That's sufficient for self-defence which is the only thing they need during a war as medium to long-range air-defence will be handled by 054As, 052Ds and 055s.



The Kilos and Soryus would have a hard time penetrating the 056's defences given the advanced capabilities of the HQ-10. They also won't be alive for long after the 056A rams an ASROC up their behind.

And no, 056s will not be expected to face "corvettes" (not real corvettes but undersized frigates) from other countries as that's the 054A and 052D's job. If the 056s find themselves in the unlikely situation where they need to take on an enemy pseudo-frigate, their YJ-83Ks are decent enough and their HQ-10s will hold off anything the enemy can throw at them. Also, 056s will not be deployed alone in a war, they will be in groups so it won't just be one 8-cell HQ-10 but multiple sets.

Just for clarity's sake, why don't you list the extra capabilities that you want the PLAN to shove inside the 056 hull? Here, let me start if off for you:

1. Land-attack cruise missile launch capability
2. ???

Please continue.

Click to expand...

Again, frigates, corvettes. What is the differences does that makes if only to sooth's one's ego and perception. I remembered how this forum kicked up a certain amount of froth when the US decided to classify the Type 055 as a cruiser rather then a destroyer despite China's insistence to the contrary.
So now we are shifting the Type 56A from a corvette designation to a light frigate now ? Really is that how we are going to play it ? If that be the case it did be even worse of then the time it was called a corvette. Heck even the Gepard would be able to nail it to the door.
And sorry, but I find the admissions of a US Navy personal who has a bad track record of behavioral problems to be untrustworthy to say the least, nor do the individual reports tell the whole story of the troubles facing the US 7th fleet. If we want to make a reference, an official statement by the navy would be much better like this one :


''The long-term solution is a larger Navy. The fleet has shrunk from its 1987 high of to today, even while the number of ships deployed outside US home waters at any given time has stayed roughly constant at about 100. That means ships and sailors must deploy more often and for longer, putting more strain on humans and machines alike with less time for recovery and repair. That’s a particularly acute problem in the Japan-based 7th Fleet to which both McCain and Fitzgeraldbelonged. Unless the demand for ships drops – which is unlikely – then the supply of ships must rise.''

And since when does supersonic missiles do no pose a threat to currently field anti-air defences or ships in general? The US Navy has run numerous stimulation that even missiles that travels at mach 2 poses a serious threat already. The HQ-10 for all intents and purposes functions exactly like that RAM which at best has a 50 percentage kill per missiles, and that is considered high already. Just because China is starting on a hypersonic missile means that it can ignore the threat posed by existing ones.

I brought up the issue of the cruise missile vs the JH-7A low flight altitude because you brought it up earlier. To future explain, there is no way the JH-7A can achieve the same level of ground hugging that a cruise missile can do to avoid enemy radars. There is only so low the pilot can do before he or she risks the danger of a crash not to mention the extreme stress and fatigue it places on the pilot as well, which is not a problem for a cruise missile.

If you ever read my first earliest post, I specifically made the reference to the steregushchy class not the Buyan, nor did I made the referrence that the Type 56A should have cruise missiles. It was you who rashly lump 2 and 2 together without a future thought.What I stated was that the PLAN can look at the Steregushchy class as a example of what modern corvettes can be made to do and seeing that the Seregushchy class has a rather comprehensive suite of sensors and weaponry to perform admirably in all forms of corvette warfare (ASW, littoral patrol and anti-ship) it is not a bad design to gain pointers from.

And I will not be so rash as to dismiss the capabilities of the Kilos and the Soryu's that easily, just as how a anti-ship missile is not a surefire kill. So is a ASROC against a modern AIP submarine. If we can demand that the West does not look down on the PLAN, the same rules and logic applies to the PLAN in return. Arrogance is abound here, so lets try not to fall into the hubris trap that we so like to accuse Western observes of.

And how on earth is wanting the Type 56A to have a better self-defense suit like a CIWS or increased HHQ-10 missiles the same as wanting HQ-16? These weapons have vastly different performance and capabilities, so vast in fact that they are incomparable.

What the Type 56A is "expected" or wants to face will differ vastly from reality. I will just say only this, what is often envisioned in a meeting room rarely last more than 5 seconds in the battlefield.

Since you ask for clarity's sake, I will make my points clear on what I think the Type 56A should have in the near future in order to remain relevant. If the Type 56A cannot' be upgraded to that level then it should be present on its successor. I have made my points rather clear in all my earlier posts but I am going to do so here again :

1) A better suit of sensors for better targeting resolution and faster reaction time. It does not have to be a frigate or destroyer level, but it should have a slight increase in range to give the Type 56A a earlier reaction time.
2) A better suit of self-defense weapons.
3) A U VLS for flexibility of weapons deployment (unlikely yes, but if the Type 56A and is successor will be probably having the slant launched ASROC, this can be removed, though the capability to mount both anti ship missiles and ASROCs at the same time is rather welcomed)

These are the points I am making, if you can't agree to these fine. I am not trying to make you to, we are both entitled our options on how the Type 56A should be.

jobjed said:

That's because they're supposed to be frigates. Stop thinking of them as well-armed corvettes and start thinking of them as underweight frigates. If Russia and Israel could build 3000-4000t hulls cheaply, they would have. But they can't so they're relegating themselves to corvette-sized hulls.

The 056 is a light frigate in a light frigate hull. The Sa'ar V and Russian corvettes are full-blown frigates packed into a corvette's hull with compromises in so many critical areas that no other navy deems it acceptable to do what they did.

If the next-gen light frigate costs more than a full-size frigate, the naval architect responsible needs to be fired and forced to redo a course on cost-benefit analysis.

There's nothing more the PLAN can shove inside the 056 without compromising other areas. The Russians and Israelis are willing to compromise, the PLAN is not. It's that simple.

Most of what you think are current mainstream corvette designs are actually downsized frigates. I've told you this already, multiple times. Those corvettes are not "good" corvettes, they're substandard frigates. If Russia could build frigates properly, they would much rather have those than the compromised cramped "corvettes' they currently have.


.

Click to expand...

The cost of ship building is always on the rise, that is a fact of life. And the hard fact is that many modern light to medium naval ships cost just as much as not more then full sized ships 20 years back due to the simple fact of advances of technology and rising costs of wages. Just like how the Type 54B frigate will assuredly cost more then a 1990's Type 51B destroyer even when it weights 2000 tons lighter if we factor in currency exchange rate and the like.
You keep calling the Russian's corvettes cramped even though there is no a shred of evidence that suggests otherwise except for the relative size of the ship in comparison to others which in turn when compared to the men manning them is still huge.

Viktor Jav said:

I am more thinking of a Sea Giraffe radar used by the Visby corvettes, which the Swedes have proven that it can be fitted on a small sized ship. Nor am I advocating for a full sized radar of the like of a destroyer or frigates. What I am really advocating is a upgraded radar that provides better and faster targeting resolution for fast moving small targets as well as perhaps a slight increase in range, which the Type 56A can really need in order to increase its it's chances of survival in the face of ever more potent anti ship missile, every second of reaction counts in that regard.
Weapons-wise, since the HQ-10 is supposed to be a modular design, it is a rather easy and relatively cheap task to upgrade it from a 8 cell to at least a 12-16 cell variant to increase the Type 56A's chances of retaliation without causing it to stray from its original purpose of self-defense.

Click to expand...

First, the Chinese military possesses no such radar, so now you would have to add the R&D cost of this Sea Giraffe-type radar onto the cost of each 056A successor in addition to the increased cost of the radar itself over the 360. Second, the 056A needs no such radar, as the Type 360 air/surface radar provides only general cueing functions to the HHQ-10 launcher. There is absolutely no need for "better and faster targeting resolution". The HHQ-10 launcher slews to the general direction of the target, the HHQ-10 missile seeker itself acquires the target while still inside the launcher, and then launches after lock-on. I think it may also be possible to launch before lock-on. Nor is there any need to increase the range of this non-existent hypothetical radar, since the current range of the 360 far exceeds the maximum range of the HHQ-10 missile. In other words, there is no justification for a more capable radar unless you also change the missile system that you use, and the next step up is the HHQ-16 in a VL launcher. In which case you will need the Top Plate (or more precisely the Type 382) and the Orekh-equivalent FCR, which means you've just arrived at the 054A.

Upgrading the HHQ-10 launcher from 8 to 16 is possible, though here the calculus is whether an enemy would ever devote more than 8 antiship missiles to try and sink a single vessel of this type, or whether the 056X should ever expect to face a situation in which 8+ ASCMs are launched at it. If the answer is no, and I feel reasonable in guessing no, then 16 HHQ-10s is too many for this ship. I've seen 8 (056, 053H3), 16 (CV-16, CV-17), and 24 (052D, Sov?), so your "12"-round launcher is non-existent and would have to be freshly designed, adding yet more expense.

I think my suggestion of a hangar and 8 slant launchers is far less costly of an upgrade/redesign as it consists of extra metal and four more of the same slant launchers, in order to enhance/force-multiply both the antiship and the ASW missions of the 056A, assuming the 056A is even meant to launch this type of ASW missile (which it should if it doesn't already):

Iron Man said:

First, the Chinese military possesses no such radar, so now you would have to add the R&D cost of this Sea Giraffe-type radar onto the cost of each 056A successor in addition to the increased cost of the radar itself over the 360. Second, the 056A needs no such radar, as the Type 360 air/surface radar provides only general cueing functions to the HHQ-10 launcher. There is absolutely no need for "better and faster targeting resolution". The HHQ-10 launcher slews to the general direction of the target, the HHQ-10 missile seeker itself acquires the target while still inside the launcher, and then launches after lock-on. I think it may also be possible to launch before lock-on. Nor is there any need to increase the range of this non-existent hypothetical radar, since the current range of the 360 far exceeds the maximum range of the HHQ-10 missile. In other words, there is no justification for a more capable radar unless you also change the missile system that you use, and the next step up is the HHQ-16 in a VL launcher. In which case you will need the Top Plate (or more precisely the Type 382) and the Orekh-equivalent FCR, which means you've just arrived at the 054A.

Upgrading the HHQ-10 launcher from 8 to 16 is possible, though here the calculus is whether an enemy would ever devote more than 8 antiship missiles to try and sink a single vessel of this type, or whether the 056X should ever expect to face a situation in which 8+ ASCMs are launched at it. If the answer is no, and I feel reasonable in guessing no, then 16 HHQ-10s is too many for this ship. I've seen 8 (056, 053H3), 16 (CV-16, CV-17), and 24 (052D, Sov?), so your "12"-round launcher is non-existent and would have to be freshly designed, adding yet more expense.

I think my suggestion of a hangar and 8 slant launchers is far less costly of an upgrade/redesign as it consists of extra metal and four more of the same slant launchers, in order to enhance/force-multiply both the antiship and the ASW missions of the 056A, assuming the 056A is even meant to launch this type of missile (which it should if it doesn't already):

View attachment 44647 View attachment 44648

Click to expand...

I will say that the R&D cost will be justified since the PLAN can also possibly integrate the radar as a secondary back up system on the frigates and destroyers. It can also be mounted on the Type 71 LPD or the future Type 75 LHD as well, just because a radar is designed for a specific class of ship means that it cannot be modified accordingly or that it's technology cannot be harness for future endeavors like for example USVs.
Better and faster targeting resolution and identification is a plus when being faced with multiple high speed attack vectors, which may also include stealthy missiles. As so all the better for the crew to better identify the threat and prosecute it accordingly, plus a 2 way guidance system can greatly increase the kill chance of the missile.
And again, just because the HHQ-10 has a short range means that the radar range must be accordingly so. Supersonic missiles can close the gap within mere seconds and extending those seconds means more time for reaction which can mean the possible survival of the ship.
There is also a issue of the kill ratio of the HHQ-10, even the US Navy's Arleigh Burke fired no less then 3 missiles of 2 different types at a incoming missile in the Red Sea. And even then it was unsure if they actually shot the missile down or it crashed into the sea of its own accord, as high as the HHQ-10s kill ratio is purported to be of missiles of its type (30% kill ratio) , it will still need multiple launches at a single target to achieve a guaranteed kill and that is if the offending missile is a subsonic variant, supersonic or hypersonic variants might require more salvos.
While a Type 56A might not be expect to face a barrage of missiles, it is not out of the question for it to face a surprise volley of maybe 2-3 from a fighter or submarine. Missiles vary greatly depending on the types so I won't be too surprised if the enemy will be accordingly more generous in expending them if the missiles are lightweight anti ship ones specifically designed to sink corvettes and patrol boats.
Your suggestion of a hanger plus the slant launched ASROC is not bad either, it would make the Type 56A a much better sub hunter. Though such modifications would be no less complex then the aforementioned sensor upgrade. There would also be the need to find sufficient helicopters to equip the corvettes plus a doctrinal change of how the corvettes are suppose to function (should they carry just anti ship missiles or ASROC or a mix of both at the cost of reduced ammuntion ?)

[QUOTE="Iron Man, post: 490134, member: 11971" In which case you will need the Top Plate (or more precisely the Type 382) and the Orekh-equivalent FCR, which means you've just arrived at the 054A.


View attachment 44647 View attachment 44648[/QUOTE]

The Orekh and the Top Plate as good as they are still derives their technology from the 1980s-1990s time period. At a time where radar technology is rapidly moving on to the next level in light of increased threats like stealthy fighters, drones and the like. A replacement is not too out of place.

Iron Man said:

... whether an enemy would ever devote more than 8 antiship missiles to try and sink a single vessel of this type, or whether the 056X should ever expect to face a situation in which 8+ ASCMs are launched at it. If the answer is no, and I feel reasonable in guessing no, then 16 HHQ-10s is too many for this ship. ...

Click to expand...

I would be guessing "Yes" though: Dec 24, 2017

Jura said:

Oct 13, 2017

now noticed a view of the locally built variant:

...

Click to expand...

more of short-range defenses could be very useful on some long day in the SCS

(LOL I hope I won't be considered a warmonger now)

Viktor Jav said:

Again, frigates, corvettes. What is the differences does that makes if only to sooth's one's ego and perception. I remembered how this forum kicked up a certain amount of froth when the US decided to classify the Type 055 as a cruiser rather then a destroyer despite China's insistence to the contrary.
So now we are shifting the Type 56A from a corvette designation to a light frigate now ? Really is that how we are going to play it ? If that be the case it did be even worse of then the time it was called a corvette. Heck even the Gepard would be able to nail it to the door.

Click to expand...

The PLAN DOES call it a light frigate. It's a 轻型护卫舰, not whatever a corvette is in Chinese, which probably doesn't even exist as it's an etymological holdover from an obsolete period in maritime history. At this point, I'm doubtful of your knowledge of the PLAN practices.

And sorry, but I find the admissions of a US Navy personal who has a bad track record of behavioral problems to be untrustworthy to say the least, nor do the individual reports tell the whole story of the troubles facing the US 7th fleet. If we want to make a reference, an official statement by the navy would be much better like this one :
''The long-term solution is a larger Navy. The fleet has shrunk from its 1987 high of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

today, even while the number of ships deployed outside US home waters at any given time has stayed roughly constant at about 100. That means ships and sailors must deploy more often and for longer, putting more strain on humans and machines alike with less time for recovery and repair. That’s a particularly acute problem in the Japan-based 7th Fleet to which both McCain and Fitzgeraldbelonged. Unless the demand for ships drops – which is unlikely – then the supply of ships must rise.''

Click to expand...

Did you even read the article? I doubt you did because that quote came from another sailor, not the sailor who caused the debacle.

Increasing the number of ships is one way to relieve fatigue while designing the ships to house a larger crew from the get-go is another way. The USN cannot modify their Arleigh Burkes to hold more bunks as the design is crowded enough already so the only recourse they have left is to build more ships.

The 056 is built to house a certain amount of people, and those amount of people can comfortably man the current number of systems aboard. Increasing the number of systems to a level comparable to the Sterergushchiys would strain the existing crew of the 056 to an unacceptable degree.

And since when does supersonic missiles do no pose a threat to currently field anti-air defences or ships in general?

Click to expand...

China isn't ignoring the threat from supersonic AShMs which is why they have put HQ-10s on the 056s instead of leaving them defenceless. HQ-10s in their present form are sufficient for current in-service supersonic AShMs, like I showed in a previous reply.

I brought up the issue of the cruise missile vs the JH-7A low flight altitude because you brought it up earlier. To future explain, there is no way the JH-7A can achieve the same level of ground hugging that a cruise missile can do to avoid enemy radars.

Click to expand...

Why would a JH-7 need to fly as low as a missile? Do you want the JH-7 to launch a kamikaze attack or something? It only needs to fly close enough to launch its own missiles then turn around and get the hell out of there at 800km/h. The Buyan also needs to get close enough to launch a missile but unlike the JH-7, it won't be able to run away at 800km/h after it launches. Essentially, a missile boat is a much slower version of a missile plane and if you have the ability to use missile planes, dispense with missile boats. The PLAN did use missile boats once before they had sufficient numbers of planes but now that the plane situation is rectified, the missile boats are no longer useful.

If you ever read my first earliest post, I specifically made the reference to the steregushchy class not the Buyan, nor did I made the referrence that the Type 56A should have cruise missiles. It was you who rashly lump 2 and 2 together without a future thought.What I stated was that the PLAN can look at the Steregushchy class as a example of what modern corvettes can be made to do and seeing that the Seregushchy class has a rather comprehensive suite of sensors and weaponry to perform admirably in all forms of corvette warfare (ASW, littoral patrol and anti-ship) it is not a bad design to gain pointers from.

Click to expand...

The Steregushchiy, like I told you in a previous comment, is more equivalent to the 054A. If you want the PLAN to up-arm the 056 into a Steregushchiy, you're basically telling them to buy a 054A instead.

And I will not be so rash as to dismiss the capabilities of the Kilos and the Soryu's that easily, just as how a anti-ship missile is not a surefire kill. So is a ASROC against a modern AIP submarine. If we can demand that the West does not look down on the PLAN, the same rules and logic applies to the PLAN in return. Arrogance is abound here, so lets try not to fall into the hubris trap that we so like to accuse Western observes of.

What the Type 56A is "expected" or wants to face will differ vastly from reality. I will just say only this, what is often envisioned in a meeting room rarely last more than 5 seconds in the battlefield.

Click to expand...

I find it funny you want the PLAN to turn the 056 into a Steregushchiy when a Steregushchiy will likely be even less survivable than a 056A in the conditions you just described. The Vinyetka can take a seat when up against the Type 311. I'm not even sure it can hold its own against the 311's predecessor, the 206.

Since you ask for clarity's sake, I will make my points clear on what I think the Type 56A should have in the near future in order to remain relevant. If the Type 56A cannot' be upgraded to that level then it should be present on its successor. I have made my points rather clear in all my earlier posts but I am going to do so here again :

1) A better suit of sensors for better targeting resolution and faster reaction time. It does not have to be a frigate or destroyer level, but it should have a slight increase in range to give the Type 56A a earlier reaction time.
2) A better suit of self-defense weapons.
3) A U VLS for flexibility of weapons deployment (unlikely yes, but if the Type 56A and is successor will be probably having the slant launched ASROC, this can be removed, though the capability to mount both anti ship missiles and ASROCs at the same time is rather welcomed)

Click to expand...

What benefits would a better radar have for the 056? The HQ-10 and ECM/ESM systems already have a reaction time on the order of seconds so how would additional warning time assist them? The current Type 36X already gives the ship at least half a minute of warning against an incoming supersonic AShM which is like 25 seconds more than the HQ-10 needs so how would a hypothetical full minute of warning help? It's not like they can do anything about the missile for the additional 30 seconds they can see it.

I've told you multiple times, the HQ-10 is good enough to counter all existing threats. In fact, in terms of CIWS technology, China has nothing better than the HQ-10.

If the 056 starts getting a non-trivial amount of VLS cells, the PLAN might as well get a 054A.

The cost of ship building is always on the rise, that is a fact of life. And the hard fact is that many modern light to medium naval ships cost just as much as not more then full sized ships 20 years back due to the simple fact of advances of technology and rising costs of wages. Just like how the Type 54B frigate will assuredly cost more then a 1990's Type 51B destroyer even when it weights 2000 tons lighter if we factor in currency exchange rate and the like.[/quote[

This has nothing to do with my point. It should be obvious to any competent reader that I was comparing the cost of a light frigate to a contemporary frigate, not a cheaper older frigate.

You keep calling the Russian's corvettes cramped even though there is no a shred of evidence that suggests otherwise except for the relative size of the ship in comparison to others which in turn when compared to the men manning them is still huge.

Click to expand...

You know what, now that I've made a list of Russian vessels' displacements and compared them, I don't think there would be very many compromises in crew comfort and ergonomics. Your insistence on having the PLAN include Steregushchy capabilities into the 056 gave me the misimpression that they were comparable to the 056 but they are not because they have 50% larger displacement and complement, allowing them to effectively man the extra weapon systems they have over the 056, which is mostly the air-defence suite.

My point still stands, however. If the PLAN wanted a ship with the firepower of the Steregushchiys, they already have the 054A which serves the PLAN's purposes better than a Steregushchiy-type vessel can.

These are the points I am making, if you can't agree to these fine. I am not trying to make you to, we are both entitled our options on how the Type 56A should be.

Click to expand...

Your opinion on what the Type 056 should be is that it should be the Type 054A.

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

[QUOTE="Iron Man, post: 490134, member: 11971" In which case you will need the Top Plate (or more precisely the Type 382) and the Orekh-equivalent FCR, which means you've just arrived at the 054A.


View attachment 44647 View attachment 44648

Click to expand...

The Orekh and the Top Plate as good as they are still derives their technology from the 1980s-1990s time period. At a time where radar technology is rapidly moving on to the next level in light of increased threats like stealthy fighters, drones and the like. A replacement is not too out of place.[/QUOTE]
Yes, a replacement for Orekh/Top Plate is not only not out of place, it is necessary, and likely imminent. Unfortunately for you, this replacement is almost certainly going to be some kind of expensive X-band AESA which combines fire control (Orekh) and search/track (Top Plate), and is meant for the 054B, meaning the 056X is out of luck. Maybe you'll be right some day and the PLAN will start building an upgraded version of the Type 360 that's slightly better. Then again how this turns a 056X into a Steregushchiy, I have no idea.