056 class FFL/corvette

Deleted member 13312 · Jun 11, 2018

Bltizo said:
054Bs are already confirmed in the pipeline. the 054A is good, but Navy certainly still has a need for a more modern, more capable frigate in the 054A weight class or thereabouts.

056s will likely to continue for a little while too; henri has stated 60 ships fairly consistently.

I wouldn't be surprised if 056 production ends by 2020, but large destroyer, destroyer and frigate production all look like they're going to continue for a while yet.

Well I expect the 056 to be superseded in the future by a more capable littoral ship. Reality is China's most serious potential conflicts and points of interest are located in it's immediate periphery. So there is a pressing need for a coastal asset to perform littoral patrol, ASW and sea interdiction.
Maybe we will see a ship along the lines of Karakurt class, or maybe it would be a USV. One thing is for certain, China will always has a need for a corvette fleet.

Tam · Jun 12, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
Well I expect the 056 to be superseded in the future by a more capable littoral ship. Reality is China's most serious potential conflicts and points of interest are located in it's immediate periphery. So there is a pressing need for a coastal asset to perform littoral patrol, ASW and sea interdiction.
Maybe we will see a ship along the lines of Karakurt class, or maybe it would be a USV. One thing is for certain, China will always has a need for a corvette fleet.

A bit more capable littoral ship, and you would have gone full circle back to a Type 053 Jiangwei. Jiangweis are old, but maybe a brand new ship from scratch with the same armament template: 76mm or 100mm gun, 8 cell HQ-10 launcher, 8 ASM slant launchers, two Type 730B CIWS, hanger for helicopter. The 056s are meant to be modular ships, sort of like the Dutch SIGMA, German MEKO or Turkish MILGEM. You can customize one for different customers, or upscale to meet future demands.

In addition to sixty 056s, there are still 80+ (83?) Type 022 FACs, and what might be the world's largest Coast Guard which is still getting new ships.

I kind of think that frigates is the future heart of the PLAN because it merges both littoral and blue water. I am interested to see if the trimaran frigate project could go further (2500 tons). 2200 to 2500 tons is where I think the PLAN should be going for a ship that is borderline littoral and yet capable of ocean cruising. Do note that the Type 053H3, which I believe to be 2200 to 2500 tons, small ships they are, has gone far enough to play part in Gulf of Aden escort missions, and Pakistan has used their F22Ps for Libyan and Yemen humanitarian rescue missions.

Deleted member 13312 · Jun 12, 2018

Tam said:
A bit more capable littoral ship, and you would have gone full circle back to a Type 053 Jiangwei. Jiangweis are old, but maybe a brand new ship from scratch with the same armament template: 76mm or 100mm gun, 8 cell HQ-10 launcher, 8 ASM slant launchers, two Type 730B CIWS, hanger for helicopter. The 056s are meant to be modular ships, sort of like the Dutch SIGMA, German MEKO or Turkish MILGEM. You can customize one for different customers, or upscale to meet future demands.

In addition to sixty 056s, there are still 80+ (83?) Type 022 FACs, and what might be the world's largest Coast Guard which is still getting new ships.

I kind of think that frigates is the future heart of the PLAN because it merges both littoral and blue water. I am interested to see if the trimaran frigate project could go further (2500 tons). 2200 to 2500 tons is where I think the PLAN should be going for a ship that is borderline littoral and yet capable of ocean cruising. Do note that the Type 053H3, which I believe to be 2200 to 2500 tons, small ships they are, has gone far enough to play part in Gulf of Aden escort missions, and Pakistan has used their F22Ps for Libyan and Yemen humanitarian rescue missions.

Not exactly, a littoral ship is expected to only provide minimum AA for self defence as they are expected to operate under the umbrella of friendly air support. And their first priority is ASW, not surface warfare , though I have stated in the past that a universal VLS would go a long way for a future corvette to improve on its ASW in the form of longer range ASROC. And they would have to be cheap enough to be produced in bulk, and easy enough to man with a small crew to effective patrol China's long coast
A frigate on the other hand is not only expected to look after itself, but also to provide protection to nearby ships as well as forming the second layer of a CBG's air and ASW defense.
The future successor to the Type 56A can possibly mount a sino version of the Russian Pantsir-M (2 would be too much), a hangar for a ASW helo and a single VLS grid to launch ASROCs or AShM depending on the load out.
The Houbeis are numerous but they are configured for surface warfare only, and they are quite vulnerable to any enemy air assets. And if China was ever to consider using only frigates for both littoral and blue water operations, it would need to procure an obscene number of them. A 100 frigates would not be a far fetched number given future requirements and maintenance cycles. The price alone would be prohibitive.

Tam · Jun 12, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
Not exactly, a littoral ship is expected to only provide minimum AA for self defence as they are expected to operate under the umbrella of friendly air support. And their first priority is ASW, not surface warfare , though I have stated in the past that a universal VLS would go a long way for a future corvette to improve on its ASW in the form of longer range ASROC. And they would have to be cheap enough to be produced in bulk, and easy enough to man with a small crew to effective patrol China's long coast
A frigate on the other hand is not only expected to look after itself, but also to provide protection to nearby ships as well as forming the second layer of a CBG's air and ASW defense.
The future successor to the Type 56A can possibly mount a sino version of the Russian Pantsir-M (2 would be too much), a hangar for a ASW helo and a single VLS grid to launch ASROCs or AShM depending on the load out.
The Houbeis are numerous but they are configured for surface warfare only, and they are quite vulnerable to any enemy air assets. And if China was ever to consider using only frigates for both littoral and blue water operations, it would need to procure an obscene number of them. A 100 frigates would not be a far fetched number given future requirements and maintenance cycles. The price alone would be prohibitive.

The current VLS on the 054A (H/AJK-16) already does fine with ASW using the Yu-8, and add slant launchers for Yu-11.

If you're going to add VLS, then you are looking still at least a Type 053H3 sized ship, and that's a minimum ocean going frigate. We know one of the exports ones to Thailand got refitted with an 8 cell Mk. 41 VLS. The trimaran I was talking about could fit 16 cells of AJK-16 based on its exhibited form, and still has room for 8 slant launchers. The trimaran is the best configuration that lets you have two helos and hangers for minimum displacement, and that's something the PLAN should heavily consider. The AJK-16 would give you a choice between the HHQ-16 for air defense and Yu-8 for ASW.

Type 730B would do just fine. A 730B is a stripped down Type 730 CIWS with the radar and EO, so just the turret and gun. They take the place of the AK-630. The radar and EO is placed somewhere in the back of the ship and commands two 730B turrets. This has been used on the 053H3 modern refits, the F22P, and Norinco's exhibit of a Type 056 variant. The trimaran exhibit also uses twin 730Bs.

The VLS is an either and or proposition versus an HQ-10 launcher.

Deleted member 13312 · Jun 12, 2018

Tam said:
The current VLS on the 054A (H/AJK-16) already does fine with ASW using the Yu-8, and add slant launchers for Yu-11.

If you're going to add VLS, then you are looking still at least a Type 053H3 sized ship, and that's a minimum ocean going frigate. We know one of the exports ones to Thailand got refitted with an 8 cell Mk. 41 VLS. The trimaran I was talking about could fit 16 cells of AJK-16 based on its exhibited form, and still has room for 8 slant launchers. The trimaran is the best configuration that lets you have two helos and hangers for minimum displacement, and that's something the PLAN should heavily consider. The AJK-16 would give you a choice between the HHQ-16 for air defense and Yu-8 for ASW.

Type 730B would do just fine. A 730B is a stripped down Type 730 CIWS with the radar and EO, so just the turret and gun. They take the place of the AK-630. The radar and EO is placed somewhere in the back of the ship and commands two 730B turrets. This has been used on the 053H3 modern refits, the F22P, and Norinco's exhibit of a Type 056 variant. The trimaran exhibit also uses twin 730Bs.

The VLS is an either and or proposition versus an HQ-10 launcher.

Not necessarily, the Buyan class corvettes have a VLS and they come way below the weight and size threshold of the 053H3, these ships are pushing the boundaries of what can be done to a corvette to be sure, but they irrefutably proves that a VLS is not restricted by the size and weight of a ship. A 8 cell VLS is just about right for a litoral ship as it gives it enough space for a sizeable number of ASROCS and still hold one or 2 AShM for the unlikely prospect of a enemy surface combatant, 16 would be too few for a frigate of PLAN requirements in blue water operations, whereas a 32 cell would be overkill for something expected of littoral patrol and land based support. It is all about costs vs effectiveness.
While I am accepting that future PLAN frigates should have 2 hangers instead of the current one. Having 2 hangars for a corvette would be pushing it too much as well. And if in the future with UAV improvements, it is not impossible for a future PLAN corvette to operate multiple UAVs in the place of one manned helicopter.
The Kashtan/Pantsir-M gun+missile setup is a interesting prospect that the PLAN should look into in the future as it can combine both the Type 730 CIWS and the HQ-10 sam into one compact package, such a setup can free up space on deck and remove the need to place short range SAM in any future PLAN corvette's VLS.

Tam · Jun 12, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
Not necessarily, the Buyan class corvettes have a VLS and they come way below the weight and size threshold of the 053H3, these ships are pushing the boundaries of what can be done to a corvette to be sure, but they irrefutably proves that a VLS is not restricted by the size and weight of a ship. A 8 cell VLS is just about right for a litoral ship as it gives it enough space for a sizeable number of ASROCS and still hold one or 2 AShM for the unlikely prospect of a enemy surface combatant, 16 would be too few for a frigate of PLAN requirements in blue water operations, whereas a 32 cell would be overkill for something expected of littoral patrol and land based support. It is all about costs vs effectiveness.
While I am accepting that future PLAN frigates should have 2 hangers instead of the current one. Having 2 hangars for a corvette would be pushing it too much as well. And if in the future with UAV improvements, it is not impossible for a future PLAN corvette to operate multiple UAVs in the place of one manned helicopter.
The Kashtan/Pantsir-M gun+missile setup is a interesting prospect that the PLAN should look into in the future as it can combine both the Type 730 CIWS and the HQ-10 sam into one compact package, such a setup can free up space on deck and remove the need to place short range SAM in any future PLAN corvette's VLS.

The installation of VLS on those ships means something is alternatively gone. Adding UKSK on a Project 20380 type ship means you forgo either the Kashtan or the Redut VLS option. Likewise, if you put Redut VLS, you forgo Kashtan or UKSK. If you go with Kashtans, you forgo Redut or UKSK. In the case of the Buyan M, the 8 cells have to be divided between ASW, AAW and ASuW and that doesn't leave you much.

For a 2500 ton ship, two hangers are too much for a single hull, and the only way that is possible is with a trimaran design.

For an ASW ship, 8 to 16 cells of H/AJK-16 instead of U-VLS is fine. That lets you use Yu-8 ASROC, which has yet to be verified on U-VLS launches, meaning we have yet to see one launch from that.

A Kashtan type CIWS limits you to 4 missiles only, which are also command guided and literally works like MANPADs. The HQ-10 missiles are more sophisticated than that. HQ-10 missiles on such a setup, because the missiles are always exposed to the heat, which the HQ-10 launcher keeps the missiles enclosed, protected and cold. HQ-10 also operates on passive guidance, and a short distance from the back of the HQ-10 launcher, there are two radar receivers that takes and tracks the threat signals, which are analyzed by the EW system, then a copy is sent to the missiles so they could recognize and lock on to the threat. If the missile chooses to operate on IR mode, the radars would cue the launcher at the target, the cover would open, exposing the seekers, which is then cued by the radars to "stare" at the target to get a lock on. The Type 056 could be using combined radar sensor tracking (including gun EO) for that purpose. The Type 056 is said to operate with an advanced combat management system that integrates all sensors and weapons into a network. I would think the HQ-10 missile set up is more assuring than a Pantsir-M/Kashtan setup when it comes to supersonic missiles or saturated attacks under a high EW environment.

In a Norinco exhibit, their version of the Type 056 is enhanced further by adding two 730B CIWS while keeping the HQ-10.

There is a question whether VLS can be better than a slant missile launcher for close range air defense. The VLS fired SAM has to go up, then flip over with its TVC controls, and has to be guided by SARH if the missile is not an ARH. ARH for a small missile has an issue due to the space it takes for the power source and the radio emitter, which causes the missiles to be bigger. SARH requires illuminators on board, which limits you to the number of targets that are engaged simultaneously. If these are IR missiles fired from a VLS, they have to lock on after launch, they have to be command guided by radar through data link till they achieve direct lock on to the target. The beauty of the RAM type missile which the HQ-10 is copying, is that threat radar signal from the enemy antiship missile might be the strongest signal of all, being in the front aspect of the missile, rather than the heat signature at the missile's exhaust. Whether its passive or in heat seeking mode, the HQ-10 is lock before launch, compared to the lock after launch if using VLS, and for close quarters air defense, plus that the missile does not need to travel up then flip over, but heads straight to the target, cuts down on interception time. This is why I would prefer these missiles for close air defense.

snake65 · Jun 13, 2018

Tam said:
The installation of VLS on those ships means something is alternatively gone. Adding UKSK on a Project 20380 type ship means you forgo either the Kashtan or the Redut VLS option. Likewise, if you put Redut VLS, you forgo Kashtan or UKSK. If you go with Kashtans, you forgo Redut or UKSK. In the case of the Buyan M, the 8 cells have to be divided between ASW, AAW and ASuW and that doesn't leave you much.

For a 2500 ton ship, two hangers are too much for a single hull, and the only way that is possible is with a trimaran design.

For an ASW ship, 8 to 16 cells of H/AJK-16 instead of U-VLS is fine. That lets you use Yu-8 ASROC, which has yet to be verified on U-VLS launches, meaning we have yet to see one launch from that.

A Kashtan type CIWS limits you to 4 missiles only, which are also command guided and literally works like MANPADs. The HQ-10 missiles are more sophisticated than that. HQ-10 missiles on such a setup, because the missiles are always exposed to the heat, which the HQ-10 launcher keeps the missiles enclosed, protected and cold. HQ-10 also operates on passive guidance, and a short distance from the back of the HQ-10 launcher, there are two radar receivers that takes and tracks the threat signals, which are analyzed by the EW system, then a copy is sent to the missiles so they could recognize and lock on to the threat. If the missile chooses to operate on IR mode, the radars would cue the launcher at the target, the cover would open, exposing the seekers, which is then cued by the radars to "stare" at the target to get a lock on. The Type 056 could be using combined radar sensor tracking (including gun EO) for that purpose. The Type 056 is said to operate with an advanced combat management system that integrates all sensors and weapons into a network. I would think the HQ-10 missile set up is more assuring than a Pantsir-M/Kashtan setup when it comes to supersonic missiles or saturated attacks under a high EW environment.

In a Norinco exhibit, their version of the Type 056 is enhanced further by adding two 730B CIWS while keeping the HQ-10.

There is a question whether VLS can be better than a slant missile launcher for close range air defense. The VLS fired SAM has to go up, then flip over with its TVC controls, and has to be guided by SARH if the missile is not an ARH. ARH for a small missile has an issue due to the space it takes for the power source and the radio emitter, which causes the missiles to be bigger. SARH requires illuminators on board, which limits you to the number of targets that are engaged simultaneously. If these are IR missiles fired from a VLS, they have to lock on after launch, they have to be command guided by radar through data link till they achieve direct lock on to the target. The beauty of the RAM type missile which the HQ-10 is copying, is that threat radar signal from the enemy antiship missile might be the strongest signal of all, being in the front aspect of the missile, rather than the heat signature at the missile's exhaust. Whether its passive or in heat seeking mode, the HQ-10 is lock before launch, compared to the lock after launch if using VLS, and for close quarters air defense, plus that the missile does not need to travel up then flip over, but heads straight to the target, cuts down on interception time. This is why I would prefer these missiles for close air defense.

Project 22800 corvette has both 8-cell VLS and Pantsyr-M with automated reload system. What exactly makes you more assured with 8 rounds of passive/IR homing missile vs 4 target channels of r/com and 32 reloads at 5-15 km range?

Tam · Jun 13, 2018

snake65 said:
Project 22800 corvette has both 8-cell VLS and Pantsyr-M with automated reload system. What exactly makes you more assured with 8 rounds of passive/IR homing missile vs 4 target channels of r/com and 32 reloads at 5-15 km range?

I will be assured which method is more EW resistant.

Granted I think Pantsir M should be corrected from four to eight channels for missiles. But I don't recall the Pantsir M having any ability to reload missiles on the 22800. I think there is also another missile for the Pantsir, passive and command guided using EO with thermal and optical imaging, with a laser rangefinder. I forgot whats its called but its a new one.

The question is also whether you can put SAMs on the UKSK VLS and if the radars on the 22800 can support those missiles. But putting SAMs on the VLS means less options for other work like anti-ship.

The 22800 lacks any sonar I can find, TAS, helo deck, torpedoes. I would think ASW capability is non existent.

Deleted member 13312 · Jun 13, 2018

Tam said:
The installation of VLS on those ships means something is alternatively gone. Adding UKSK on a Project 20380 type ship means you forgo either the Kashtan or the Redut VLS option. Likewise, if you put Redut VLS, you forgo Kashtan or UKSK. If you go with Kashtans, you forgo Redut or UKSK. In the case of the Buyan M, the 8 cells have to be divided between ASW, AAW and ASuW and that doesn't leave you much.

For a 2500 ton ship, two hangers are too much for a single hull, and the only way that is possible is with a trimaran design.

For an ASW ship, 8 to 16 cells of H/AJK-16 instead of U-VLS is fine. That lets you use Yu-8 ASROC, which has yet to be verified on U-VLS launches, meaning we have yet to see one launch from that.

A Kashtan type CIWS limits you to 4 missiles only, which are also command guided and literally works like MANPADs. The HQ-10 missiles are more sophisticated than that. HQ-10 missiles on such a setup, because the missiles are always exposed to the heat, which the HQ-10 launcher keeps the missiles enclosed, protected and cold. HQ-10 also operates on passive guidance, and a short distance from the back of the HQ-10 launcher, there are two radar receivers that takes and tracks the threat signals, which are analyzed by the EW system, then a copy is sent to the missiles so they could recognize and lock on to the threat. If the missile chooses to operate on IR mode, the radars would cue the launcher at the target, the cover would open, exposing the seekers, which is then cued by the radars to "stare" at the target to get a lock on. The Type 056 could be using combined radar sensor tracking (including gun EO) for that purpose. The Type 056 is said to operate with an advanced combat management system that integrates all sensors and weapons into a network. I would think the HQ-10 missile set up is more assuring than a Pantsir-M/Kashtan setup when it comes to supersonic missiles or saturated attacks under a high EW environment.

In a Norinco exhibit, their version of the Type 056 is enhanced further by adding two 730B CIWS while keeping the HQ-10.

There is a question whether VLS can be better than a slant missile launcher for close range air defense. The VLS fired SAM has to go up, then flip over with its TVC controls, and has to be guided by SARH if the missile is not an ARH. ARH for a small missile has an issue due to the space it takes for the power source and the radio emitter, which causes the missiles to be bigger. SARH requires illuminators on board, which limits you to the number of targets that are engaged simultaneously. If these are IR missiles fired from a VLS, they have to lock on after launch, they have to be command guided by radar through data link till they achieve direct lock on to the target. The beauty of the RAM type missile which the HQ-10 is copying, is that threat radar signal from the enemy antiship missile might be the strongest signal of all, being in the front aspect of the missile, rather than the heat signature at the missile's exhaust. Whether its passive or in heat seeking mode, the HQ-10 is lock before launch, compared to the lock after launch if using VLS, and for close quarters air defense, plus that the missile does not need to travel up then flip over, but heads straight to the target, cuts down on interception time. This is why I would prefer these missiles for close air defense.

I don't see why adding a VLS must come at the cost of losing a CIWS or any other weapons system.As one poster have pointed out, ships like the Project 22800 can have both of 2 worlds. It is all down to the effectiveness of the designers. Remember that a Karakurt only weights around 800 tons fully loaded, whereas a 056A clocks in at around TWICE that much.
Even the predecessor to the Pantsir-M, the Kashtan have the ability to reload up to 3 rounds of 8 missiles each, that is plenty of firepower already, so to think that the newer Pantsir-M would not come with such an amenity is highly incredulous. And since the Kashtan/Pantsir-M configuration points the missile directly at the incoming threat, your worries about the effectiveness of VLS launched short range SAM is rendered moot. And it is not like the PLAN had not experimented with this setup before in the LD-3000. It is possible that the PLAN can even produce a better variant by using the more capable HQ-10 in place of the Hermes-K Missile although judging by the listed capabilities, the Hermes is not that far off in capability compared to the HHQ-10.
And on a more personal scale, why are you so insistent that any successor to the Type 56A carries 2 helos? It is not like it is expected to operated outside land based ASW systems like MPAs, undersea hydrophones, plus their numbers makes it possible to work in pairs. But it is a valid choice for ocean going frigates that cannot count on such support reliably.
Merging a corvette and a frigate will most likely get the PLAN something in between that is the lesser of both sums combined. A 16 cell VLS frigate will simple be inadequate for blue water ops to provide secondary air defense+ASW duties, and current designs made it clear that this is what the PLAN wants off it's frigates. While the increased price of a larger ship with additional weapons would make it unfeasible for large numbers of this corvette/frigate hybrid to be built. Which is important considering China's coastal geography.

Tam · Jun 13, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
I don't see why adding a VLS must come at the cost of losing a CIWS or any other weapons system.As one poster have pointed out, ships like the Project 22800 can have both of 2 worlds. It is all down to the effectiveness of the designers. Remember that a Karakurt only weights around 800 tons fully loaded, whereas a 056A clocks in at around TWICE that much.
Even the predecessor to the Pantsir-M, the Kashtan have the ability to reload up to 3 rounds of 8 missiles each, that is plenty of firepower already, so to think that the newer Pantsir-M would not come with such an amenity is highly incredulous. And since the Kashtan/Pantsir-M configuration points the missile directly at the incoming threat, your worries about the effectiveness of VLS launched short range SAM is rendered moot. And it is not like the PLAN had not experimented with this setup before in the LD-3000. It is possible that the PLAN can even produce a better variant by using the more capable HQ-10 in place of the Hermes-K Missile although judging by the listed capabilities, the Hermes is not that far off in capability compared to the HHQ-10.

You didn't get what I said. I said you get only two of these three options --- the Kashtan, the UKSK, and the Redut. The 22800 doesn't have the Redut VLS. If you have the Kashtan and the Redut, you don't get the UKSK. If you have the Redut and the UKSK, you don't get the Kashtan.

I am not sure if every ship has the Pantsyr reload, there is something supposed to be beneath the CIWS to the side like hatches but I don't seem to see that in many installations. Some installations don't even have the missiles.

Another thing with the Kashtan is that you have the entire complex paying attention to one target. If you keep the guns and missiles separate, each can pay attention to different targets.

And on a more personal scale, why are you so insistent that any successor to the Type 56A carries 2 helos? It is not like it is expected to operated outside land based ASW systems like MPAs, undersea hydrophones, plus their numbers makes it possible to work in pairs. But it is a valid choice for ocean going frigates that cannot count on such support reliably.

More helos allow you to cover more water and coverage is everything. Two helos engaging a submarine in a coordinated pair is another point. ASW is another thing that can determine the course of any potential conflict with the PLAN. The US and Japan has many capable submarines. There is also India and Vietnam. I believe the PLAN is genuinely and correctly concerned about ASW, and that concern is a driving force for 054A and 056 high prioritization. It will drive the next generation ASW combatants.

Merging a corvette and a frigate will most likely get the PLAN something in between that is the lesser of both sums combined.

I'm not sure. That's like Russian heavy corvettes, which NATO classifies as frigates. I don't think such as class replaces the larger frigates, rather it bridges the gap between corvettes and frigates. Like Project 20380/85 between 22800 and the Grigorovich and Gorshkov frigates.

I don't even know why the 22800 is brought up. The Type 056 is more of the spiritual successor to the "light frigate" line --- the Riga, Koni class, leading to the modern Gepard class. There are a lot more parallels with the Gepard and the 056. Rigas also were the first light frigates of the PLAN, starting this family line that ends with the 056 today. 22800 reminds me of a successor to the Tarantuls.

A 16 cell VLS frigate will simple be inadequate for blue water ops to provide secondary air defense+ASW duties, and current designs made it clear that this is what the PLAN wants off it's frigates. While the increased price of a larger ship with additional weapons would make it unfeasible for large numbers of this corvette/frigate hybrid to be built. Which is important considering China's coastal geography.

Its not about the 16 cell VLS and I won't focus on that, since its an export detail. Its about the general concept of a small, fast ship with two helicopter support instead of one. You can't assume that the 16 cell VLS might get approved assuming if the trimaran goes into PLAN use. It can be just an export detail. A hypothetical PLAN version can be satisfied with lets say HQ-10 in place of the VLS. The important thing is having two helicopters on a hanger on a small, fast ship that can be cheaply mass produced.

A second helo with a hanger is the biggest and most potentially worth it upgrade over other potential upgrade options, e.g. VLS, CIWS, etc,.

056 class FFL/corvette

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Tam

Brigadier

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Tam

Brigadier

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Tam

Brigadier

snake65

Junior Member

Tam

Brigadier

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Tam

Brigadier