056 class FFL/corvette

jobjed said:

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the PLAN practices, but calling a ship a frigate or corvette or even a destroyer does not change a the requirements of a specific ship in the face of the threats it is expected to face. Trying to shoe horn the Type 56A into specific category of ship depending on the preferences of the West or the East has little to no relevance on the subject at hand here.


I did read the article, but I am questioning the validity of taking the singular statements of a single ship's crew as a extremely vast generalization of the issues an entire fleet is facing. Not when the US Navy has complied a rather comprehensive analysis of the situation and a solution for it. And again, as I have told you so many times, the solution to what the US navy is facing is not putting more crews in a single ship and subjecting them to the same taxed environment, nor is their problem one of doing multiple tasks, as even crew members being assigned to rather singular tasks are also reportedly under stress. It is one of assignment and deployment rotation. Even the PLAN will suffer likewise if they try to pull off what the USN is doing regardless of the number of crew they put. And the number of systems that are deployed on the Steregushchiys are not too different from what the Type 56A is deploying atm, which is littoral patrol. ASW , Anti shipping and self-defense. With just the mere addition of the land attack option. The main difference is however the level of advancement of the system's deployed on the respective ships, mainly on the air sensor department.[/QUOTE]


No, but I am pointing out the ridiculousness of how flying at low altitudes can somehow magically remove the problem of radar detection being faced by the JH-7. And again, I have repeated this once. The Buyan can' run at 800 kph an hour yes, but with 1500km ranged cruise missiles, IT WONT HAVE TO. It can just sit neatly in the coastline and fine off its missiles and sneak away.

And the HHQ-10 is good enough says you ? Maybe, if we are talking about a lone subsonic missile, but if we are looking at the threat posed by mere supersonic missile or worse hypersonic missile. Then the HHQ-10 really begins to show some short comings, and those threat are coming fast. There has been countless studies on how even just supersonic missiles has made life so incredibly hard for defense systems. And did you not read up the average kill ratio for even supposedly reliably systems like the HHQ-10 is still a 30 %. A HHQ-10A would be a welcome upgrade, but it should arrive soon. China does have additional systems that they can put on the Type 56A, like the Type 730 CIWS which can provide an additional curtain of fire and defense. Or a combination of both as they have shown in the LD-3000.

The Steregushciy has the Furke-2 radar which has a range of 250km, an absolute overkill I admit but it is better then the Type 360 in terms of intergration. While its self-defense suit of either a Kashtan CIWS or Redut missiles provides a much better chance of it at survival then the measly 8 cell HHQ-10.

I never said that the Type 56A must have full sized VLS for missiles, but an upgrade of the HHQ-10 is a good start.
"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".
And yet you leave out the fact that the frigate in question is slated to be replaced in production for a newer and definitely more expensive frigate. Now if the Type 56A's successor would prove to be more expensive then the Type 54B then your point might make sense. But we comparing now a upgraded or possibly even an entirely new corvette design to an existing an arguably dated frigate. And even claiming that mere sensor and self-defense upgrades would double or triple the cost is a ridiculous claim seeing as it takes alot more improvement and equipments to raise the cost to that kind of level.

An improved radar can help increase the reaction time, which in turn can increase the ship's odds of survival as it can correctly identify and prosecuted the target, which in light of ever increasingly fast and stealthy anti ship missiles and drones is a wise decision. We have not yet seen the end of how far anti ship missile developments can go.The problem with the 30 second claim reaction is that it neglects the possibly of stealthy missiles that are also possibly sea skimming as well as a high level jamming environment as well. Any additional information that can be feed into the HHQ-10 system prior to fire as to increase its success of a kill is always a welcome.

"Your opinion on what the Type 056 should be is that it should be the Type 054A."
No, my opinion is and always was that the Type 56A should be a better Type 56A in the future. If I ever wanted the Type 56A to be a frigate I did call for no less then a 32 cell vls for firing HQ-16. Which I pointedly did not. But I see there is no point in discussing this future, so I suggest that we end it here.

Viktor Jav said:

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.

Click to expand...

I do think the Type 022 proved to be a short sighted solution in the long run, and the Type 056 is better off with a helicopter hanger and 8 canisters for antiship missiles and flying torpedoes. But that's about the extent of it. The spec discipline the PLAN put on their ships can be well commended, since it keeps things within budget and ships built within schedule, while lessening any issues that may arise unexpectedly all of which is a welcome relief of what appears as an epidemic of overspectitis and overbudgetitis with naval defense projects. I would think and hope that in the future, they can shift to a P18 based design.

The lack of spec discipline has caused budgets to bloat, redesigns that delay the production of ships. One good example is the long torturous and delayed ship project and production is India's Kamorta class.

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...

Unless approved by the PLAN, such a radar would have to be a private project developed for export use, in which case could greatly increase the marketability of export corvettes and frigates in the world market. Which can then be used to convince the PLAN.

As already mentioned before, the HQ-10s only need to be queued in the general direction by a radar. It would lock on while it is on its launcher, and for that purpose, it is much more like a short ranged AAM. This queuing can be done independently without radars, and even by EO sensors.

But the main gun happens to be radar directed, and for that purpose, the ship has a second radar, which is the Type 347G. Gunnery radars do have the speed and the resolution for fast tracking and targeting of speed objects. This radar is clearly an X-band type. This radar however, only covers the forward aspect, and the ship has two 30mm H/PJ-17 guns in the back that are also remote controlled, with manual operator backup using EO sensors. Which is why I am curious what the main radar on the top is, and I suspect to an increasing confidence of certainty from examination of images that the radar on top of the Type 056 is the MR36A, which is the export name for the Type 362. The Type 362 used to be known as the Type 347S, and is supposed to be a pair radar with the Type 347G (the S stands for Search and the G for Gun). While the Type 360 family of radars have a physical resemblance, the fact that its an X-band makes it functionally quite different from the S band search only radars. This means the radar has the speed to track rapidly moving targets with a high degree of precision and resolution, that it can potentially remotely control guns, and even better yet, queue the missile seeker heads to the precise location and track of the targets for an even quicker lock. (I have ruled out the Type 364, which is a C band radar, this radar has a spine and a planar IFF, supposedly the Type 364 is the radar that sits on near on top of the Type 054A frigate. Type 360 is the one that appears on the Jianghus and Jiangweis. Either the Type 362 or 364 are the ones that appear on the top mast of the Type 052C or D inside a spherical radome. A version of the Type 362 is on the Type 022 which also serves both as search and gunnery functions.)

I am not saying the Type 362 or MR36A can outperform a fire control radar using a phase array or AESA, but it might be quite competent for its price, and that this isn't a slow turning S band search radar. (Type 364 might be a bit better, with 75km against 2m square targets).

Tam said:

I do think the Type 022 proved to be a short sighted solution in the long run, and the Type 056 is better off with a helicopter hanger and 8 canisters for antiship missiles and flying torpedoes. But that's about the extent of it. The spec discipline the PLAN put on their ships can be well commended, since it keeps things within budget and ships built within schedule, while lessening any issues that may arise unexpectedly all of which is a welcome relief of what appears as an epidemic of overspectitis and overbudgetitis with naval defense projects. I would think and hope that in the future, they can shift to a P18 based design.

The lack of spec discipline has caused budgets to bloat, redesigns that delay the production of ships. One good example is the long torturous and delayed ship project and production is India's Kamorta class.




Unless approved by the PLAN, such a radar would have to be a private project developed for export use, in which case could greatly increase the marketability of export corvettes and frigates in the world market. Which can then be used to convince the PLAN.

As already mentioned before, the HQ-10s only need to be queued in the general direction by a radar. It would lock on while it is on its launcher, and for that purpose, it is much more like a short ranged AAM. This queuing can be done independently without radars, and even by EO sensors.

But the main gun happens to be radar directed, and for that purpose, the ship has a second radar, which is the Type 347G. Gunnery radars do have the speed and the resolution for fast tracking and targeting of speed objects. This radar is clearly an X-band type. This radar however, only covers the forward aspect, and the ship has two 30mm H/PJ-17 guns in the back that are also remote controlled, with manual operator backup using EO sensors. Which is why I am curious what the main radar on the top is, and I suspect to an increasing confidence of certainty from examination of images that the radar on top of the Type 056 is the MR36A, which is the export name for the Type 362. The Type 362 used to be known as the Type 347S, and is supposed to be a pair radar with the Type 347G (the S stands for Search and the G for Gun). While the Type 360 family of radars have a physical resemblance, the fact that its an X-band makes it functionally quite different from the S band search only radars. This means the radar has the speed to track rapidly moving targets with a high degree of precision and resolution, that it can potentially remotely control guns, and even better yet, queue the missile seeker heads to the precise location and track of the targets for an even quicker lock. (I have ruled out the Type 364, which is a C band radar, this radar has a spine and a planar IFF, supposedly the Type 364 is the radar that sits on near on top of the Type 054A frigate. Type 360 is the one that appears on the Jianghus and Jiangweis. Either the Type 362 or 364 are the ones that appear on the top mast of the Type 052C or D inside a spherical radome. A version of the Type 362 is on the Type 022 which also serves both as search and gunnery functions.)

I am not saying the Type 362 or MR36A can outperform a fire control radar using a phase array or AESA, but it might be quite competent for its price, and that this isn't a slow turning S band search radar. (Type 364 might be a bit better, with 75km against 2m square targets).

Click to expand...

True, but discipline and control are more of a human error fault then a machinery one.
I am aware of how the HHQ-10 works, but it cannot be denied that one can feed more information to the system and the missile prior to launch. One can increase the chances of success for a kill. Relying on EO and the systems on sensors means that one would have significantly less reaction time due to their accordingly shorter ranges.

Viktor Jav said:

True, but discipline and control are more of a human error fault then a machinery one.
I am aware of how the HHQ-10 works, but it cannot be denied that one can feed more information to the system and the missile prior to launch. One can increase the chances of success for a kill. Relying on EO and the systems on sensors means that one would have significantly less reaction time due to their accordingly shorter ranges.

Click to expand...

Its the job of the other ships to snipe offending missiles and aircraft further away. But when the offending targets do get close, firing a missile from a VLS which then has to arc downwards, and then attempt to lock on to the target, will actually cost you more time to react than a missile already locked and pointed at its target using a movable launcher, where it only has to fly a nearly straight path. I have not counted the time cost of cold launching SAMs at closer ranges, because the missile isn't accelerating at the time it leaves the tube, and I think these Russian ships use cold launched VLS even on their smaller missiles like Osas, Shtils, and the Reduts (9M96).

Sea skimming type missiles can have reduce radar cross sections, either because of its nose shape, like an angular flattened nose, or the fact the missile maybe made mostly of composite and has a small physical diameter. Sea skimmers are most likely well below .5m2 in RCS, and hide from the ship due to the earth horizon curvature, and only becomes detectable when they pop up over the horizon and activate their radar seekers, which can trigger your ship's radar warning receivers. Combined with low radar cross sections, the missile can already be under 35km from you when detected.

Lets consider this from another point of view. You got Type 055 being made, 052D still being made with a huge backlog of ships in the water still fitting and trials. Now you got at least 20 to 24 Type 054B being made. You still have four Sovs that will be updated, two 052B after that, and with the 051B, you got all those ships on top of the 30 plus 054A that will be done. That already is a lot of air defense, in addition to the carrier air wings, and land and shore based fighters that will include J-20s. There is going to be plenty of air cover. As Type 054B are made, the Type 054A themselves will sort of be lowered in rank and increasingly made to do more corvette like duties. It makes even less sense to make a super corvette with longer ranged air defenses.'

Tam said:

Its the job of the other ships to snipe offending missiles and aircraft further away. But when the offending targets do get close, firing a missile from a VLS which then has to arc downwards, and then attempt to lock on to the target, will actually cost you more time to react than a missile already locked and pointed at its target using a movable launcher, where it only has to fly a nearly straight path. I have not counted the time cost of cold launching SAMs at closer ranges, because the missile isn't accelerating at the time it leaves the tube, and I think these Russian ships use cold launched VLS even on their smaller missiles like Osas, Shtils, and the Reduts (9M96).

Sea skimming type missiles can have reduce radar cross sections, either because of its nose shape, like an angular flattened nose, or the fact the missile maybe made mostly of composite and has a small physical diameter. Sea skimmers are most likely well below .5m2 in RCS, and hide from the ship due to the earth horizon curvature, and only becomes detectable when they pop up over the horizon and activate their radar seekers, which can trigger your ship's radar warning receivers. Combined with low radar cross sections, the missile can already be under 35km from you when detected.

Lets consider this from another point of view. You got Type 055 being made, 052D still being made with a huge backlog of ships in the water still fitting and trials. Now you got at least 20 to 24 Type 054B being made. You still have four Sovs that will be updated, two 052B after that, and with the 051B, you got all those ships on top of the 30 plus 054A that will be done. That already is a lot of air defense, in addition to the carrier air wings, and land and shore based fighters that will include J-20s. There is going to be plenty of air cover. As Type 054B are made, the Type 054A themselves will sort of be lowered in rank and increasingly made to do more corvette like duties. It makes even less sense to make a super corvette with longer ranged air defenses.'

Click to expand...

True, but I am referring to the hot launched HHQ-10 here. Sea skimming missile are always a threat, but radar that is specifically geared toward's terminal detection can perhaps elevate that issue, which is precisely what what the Type 56A would need.
As for the second point, if the PLAN ever decides to relegate the Type 54A to more corvette like duties, it would render my entire point moot. Indeed,it would render the entire existance of the Type 56A moot. But there are some arguments against that, primarily the devotion of such a large number of sailors to corvette related task, as well as the potential upgrades that can be done to extend the Type 54A's usefulness. There is also the number of ships required for such a task, if asking for 80 upgraded Type 56A's is too much. Then the same would readily apply to a 40-60 fleet of Type 54Ass.

Viktor Jav said:

True, but I am referring to the hot launched HHQ-10 here. Sea skimming missile are always a threat, but radar that is specifically geared toward's terminal detection can perhaps elevate that issue, which is precisely what what the Type 56A would need.
As for the second point, if the PLAN ever decides to relegate the Type 54A to more corvette like duties, it would render my entire point moot. Indeed,it would render the entire existance of the Type 56A moot. But there are some arguments against that, primarily the devotion of such a large number of sailors to corvette related task, as well as the potential upgrades that can be done to extend the Type 54A's usefulness. There is also the number of ships required for such a task, if asking for 80 upgraded Type 56A's is too much. Then the same would readily apply to a 40-60 fleet of Type 54Ass.

Click to expand...

If you actually read the MR36A brochure, you will find that Type 362/MR36A might even be actually be better than Type 382/Top Plate/MR710/Fregat in terms of detecting, tracking and engaging sea skimmers, especially in their terminal stage. Top Plate works mostly as a search and track radar, and in the Type 054A, other radars are employed for engagement --- Type 366/Mineral ME for antiship engagement; Type 347G for gun control; Type 345/MR90/Orekh for HQ-16. Somewhere in between, you need a radar that can detect and track sea skimmers and low RCS surface targets. And that's why, when you look at the Type 054A, there is a radome in front of the funnel, and inside that, is a Type 360 type radar, which I believe is either the Type 364 or Type 362 (I tend to believe its more of the former --- its hard to be certain, since you got this spherical covering hiding the radar.) Since Type 362/364 only covers the rear aspect, detecting sea skimmers on X-band from the front aspect falls on the Type 366, which you can describe as the Mineral ME radar, also known as Band Stand. That's the big white R2D2 dome on top of the bridge. Even on the Type 052C/D destroyers, you will still see the combination of Type 362/364, which is the radome on top the mast, and the Type 366, on top of the ship's bridge. These two radars add to the redundancy and coverage with the Type 346 AESA radars that is most dominant with the ship.

This lowly radar type just might be more important and capable than most people think they are. And so yeah, the Type 056 got exactly what it needed for its purpose for engaging threats in their terminal phase.

Viktor Jav said:

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.

Click to expand...

Some day there will almost certainly be a replacement for the 360 series of radars. That it would be driven by the need to "better" equip a 056A successor is highly unlikely.

Viktor Jav said:

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.

Click to expand...

"Multiple high speed attack vectors"??? Against a 056?? Forget a 056, a 054A would be in grave danger in this kind of scenario, which means your 056 should never have been in this scenario to begin with. This is a ludicrous scenario to put a 056 in and then say "oh the 056 can't handle this scenario? Clearly we need to upgrade it to do so!"

And what "2 way guidance system" are you talking about? Please stop making up non-existent radars and guidance systems to upgrade the 056 with. That's not even how the HHQ-10 works anyway.

As for the radar range of the 360, it's quoted range is 250km (presumably against fighers), and its detection range against missiles is going to be limited by the radar horizon, in this case probably 25-30km. So how much more range do you want?

Viktor Jav said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. Just no. Two HHQ-10s per incoming missile is what is going to happen. The USN was almost certainly testing out both their air defense missiles in a scenario they have not faced before: an enemy missile attack against one of their ships. AFAIK this is an absolute first in USN history. In any case your quoted kill rate for the HHQ-10 of "30%" is ridiculously low, and a number that would certainly be totally unacceptable to the PLAN. Please cite and link a source for this dubious claim.

And no, the 056/A should not expect to face an attack from more than a couple fighters or a single random sub or corvette. Which means 8 HHQ-10s to down 4 enemy missiles is sufficient. Don't forget it can also use both the flank 30mm guns and the 76mm main gun in the antimissile role as well. In any case if it does routinely have to face more than this then you are using the 056 class incorrectly.

Viktor Jav said:

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 ?)

Click to expand...

What does this even mean "complex"? We are not talking about complexity, because none of the items either of us mentioned are "complex". As for the "doctrinal change", no such change is necessary. Whereas before you had 4 slant launchers for 4 ASCMs or 4 ASW missiles, you now have 8 slant launchers for 4 ASCMs AND 4 ASW missiles.

Tam said:

I do think the Type 022 proved to be a short sighted solution in the long run

Click to expand...

A short-term solution is not a short-sighted one. Type 022 was a solution reflecting the circumstances, requirements and budgets of the time, most notably the need to threaten US carrier groups so that the US could not again impose its will upon China as occurred in 1996.

Would China really have been better off with a few more 053H3s and 051Bs in place of the squadrons of 022s that it built? Today, perhaps, but 'today' China has not yet had to fight a war, and PLAN could not assume that in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the relevant decisions were made.

(And one only needs to look at the LCS program to see that the US Navy really was concerned about the threat small, expendable missile craft could pose to their big shiny ships.)

I would think that to develop just a new radar exclusively for the Type 056, and tie that to its development, it would take years, and prevent the Type 056 from happening at all. It would have swelled the cost of the ship with the R&D budget. New designs and technologies are also suspect, there is going to be a considerable debugging and teething process in return. If you look at the USN, they have enough of experimentation recently, and is quite clear about using only existing and off the shelf technology for their FFG(X) program.

Now if you look at the US, even with its resources, they didn't develop a new radar set exclusively for the LCS. Both Freedom class and Independence class have their radars outsourced to Europe, the Freedom class to an Airbus related group, the Independence class to SAAB. If one considers that the Freedom class is by Lockheed Martin, who is responsible for the AEGIS system, and which is more than capable of designing their radars inhouse, for them to outsource the LCS radars to Germany, tells you another thing. They wanted to get something that's already on the shelf so they can get the ship out into the water from the drawing board as fast as they can. Neither Sea Giraffe nor the TRS-3D are brand new radar designs either, they go back to the nineties; Sea Giraffe has been on use with Singaporean corvettes, and the TRS-3D with German corvettes.

China does not have the same breadth of allies as the US to shop for offshore defense industry items. The nearest off the shelf items they can find from existing inventory would be the radars off their small ships, and took that.

Viktor Jav said:

I am well aware of the PLAN practices, but calling a ship a frigate or corvette or even a destroyer does not change a the requirements of a specific ship in the face of the threats it is expected to face.

Click to expand...

I don't know what your point is with this. The 056 will not be expected to face enemy frigates or pseudo-frigates. The one time they do will be the last time because from then on, war would have begun and the PLAN would definitely be dispatching 056s in groups or with a 054A flotilla leader.

I did read the article, but I am questioning the validity of taking the singular statements of a single ship's crew as a extremely vast generalization of the issues an entire fleet is facing. Not when the US Navy has complied a rather comprehensive analysis of the situation and a solution for it. And again, as I have told you so many times, the solution to what the US navy is facing is not putting more crews in a single ship and subjecting them to the same taxed environment, nor is their problem one of doing multiple tasks, as even crew members being assigned to rather singular tasks are also reportedly under stress. It is one of assignment and deployment rotation. Even the PLAN will suffer likewise if they try to pull off what the USN is doing regardless of the number of crew they put. And the number of systems that are deployed on the Steregushchiys are not too different from what the Type 56A is deploying atm, which is littoral patrol. ASW , Anti shipping and self-defense. With just the mere addition of the land attack option. The main difference is however the level of advancement of the system's deployed on the respective ships, mainly on the air sensor department.

Click to expand...

More systems on board a ship means more people needed to operate them. The Steregushchiys have 50% more humans than the 056 which means they can man the extra anti-air complex effectively. The 056, with a crew of 67, cannot afford to take on another system without compromising ergonomics and rotation schedules.

If you want the PLAN to introduce an anti-air complex to the 056s along with its requisite crew, you just got yourself a 054A.

No, but I am pointing out the ridiculousness of how flying at low altitudes can somehow magically remove the problem of radar detection being faced by the JH-7. And again, I have repeated this once. The Buyan can' run at 800 kph an hour yes, but with 1500km ranged cruise missiles, IT WONT HAVE TO. It can just sit neatly in the coastline and fine off its missiles and sneak away.

Click to expand...

The H-6 can launch 2000km-range missiles thus eliminating the need for the PLAN to develop a naval missile truck. Also, when it comes to sneaking away, the H-6 and JH-7 can do it at 800km/h.

The PLAN has no use for a littoral missile truck because the PLANAF has got that handled. For expeditionary strike missions beyond the range of land-based aircraft, the PLAN has the 052D and 055s for that role. The Buyan (or a hypothetical modified 056) cannot or at least should not be sailing that far anyway.

And the HHQ-10 is good enough says you ? Maybe, if we are talking about a lone subsonic missile, but if we are looking at the threat posed by mere supersonic missile or worse hypersonic missile. Then the HHQ-10 really begins to show some short comings, and those threat are coming fast. There has been countless studies on how even just supersonic missiles has made life so incredibly hard for defense systems. And did you not read up the average kill ratio for even supposedly reliably systems like the HHQ-10 is still a 30 %. A HHQ-10A would be a welcome upgrade, but it should arrive soon. China does have additional systems that they can put on the Type 56A, like the Type 730 CIWS which can provide an additional curtain of fire and defense. Or a combination of both as they have shown in the LD-3000.

Click to expand...

There are no hypersonic AShMs in service anywhere in the world discounting ASBMs.

I already posted a picture of an HQ-10 intercepting a sea-skimmer and you're still insisting the HQ-10 is inadequate? What more do you want? A PLAN officer to ring your doorbell to personally tell you the HQ-10 is perfectly capable of intercepting all supersonic AShMs currently in service?

And where the hell are you getting a 30% Pₖ value? Even a Type 730 has a 80% Pₖ against 0.1m² targets flying at Mach 1, and missile-based CIWS are known to perform substantially better than gun-based CIWS.

The Steregushciy has the Furke-2 radar which has a range of 250km, an absolute overkill I admit but it is better then the Type 360 in terms of intergration. While its self-defense suit of either a Kashtan CIWS or Redut missiles provides a much better chance of it at survival then the measly 8 cell HHQ-10.

Click to expand...

The additional cost of a larger CIWS suite is simply not worth it considering the situations the PLAN foresee the 056s' being in. The only times they'll be on the receiving end of enemy AShMs will be as part of a larger task force or in the opening hours of a war. In the former case, there will be multiple vessels which means there won't be a shortage of air-defence ordnance. In the latter case, the 056 is probably lost but that will be the last time a 056 is sent out alone as a war would've begun.

An improved radar can help increase the reaction time, which in turn can increase the ship's odds of survival as it can correctly identify and prosecuted the target, which in light of ever increasingly fast and stealthy anti ship missiles and drones is a wise decision. We have not yet seen the end of how far anti ship missile developments can go.The problem with the 30 second claim reaction is that it neglects the possibly of stealthy missiles that are also possibly sea skimming as well as a high level jamming environment as well. Any additional information that can be feed into the HHQ-10 system prior to fire as to increase its success of a kill is always a welcome.

Click to expand...

There are no stealth AShMs in service.

No, my opinion is and always was that the Type 56A should be a better Type 56A in the future. If I ever wanted the Type 56A to be a frigate I did call for no less then a 32 cell vls for firing HQ-16. Which I pointedly did not. But I see there is no point in discussing this future, so I suggest that we end it here.

Click to expand...

The Type 056 is as good as the PLAN needs it to be. It can patrol China's EEZ by itself confidently during peacetime and can operate well as part of a larger fleet or patrol flotilla during wartime. Its 1,400t displacement fits 67 crew members which is optimal for the current systems deployed on board which is tailored to fulfil the role given to it by the PLAN. To include more systems means to increase crew size which means a bigger hull which means you should just cut the BS and get a 054A instead.

As technology improves, the PLAN will refit older 056s with newer systems as part of their MLU. Stop whining about the lack of upgrades before the upgrades have even been developed.