056 class FFL/corvette

Tam said:

I am referring to the Kashtan specifically, not the small AK-630s.

Click to expand...

Well I am considering them to be almost in the same class and function, if the Derzky was to forgo the Redut Vls, it can very well have one or 2 Kashtans in place

Tam said:

I am not sure if that is a problem if two of the three systems have shared hemispherical coverage.

In the case of let's say, of an upgraded 056, this one based on Norinco's exhibit, you got two 730Bs on top of the minihanger deck that would situate them amidships or waistline, with the HQ-10 at the same position. On the 053H3, the HQ-10 is in the front, with the 730Bs at this position.

In any case, any littoral combat vessel also has a 76mm gun that is dual purpose, and would act as the AA covering the front arc. An ASM would try to hit the ship at the side, so you can at least bear the 76mm gun, a 30mm gun, and the missile at the target. With the Kashtan you can bear down two guns, but at the expense of being vulnerable if both sides are attacked simultaneously.

There is also the question how heavy the Kashtan is, in contrast to using two AK-630s. The Kashtans have their own independent radar systems; the AK-630s can be driven by a central radar and EO. That can save a lot of weight.

Click to expand...

Having not just one but 3 CIWs on the same area is an even more ridiculous notion than a stripped down Kashtan. For one the 730Bs are not like the Ak-630s. They follow the western doctrine of having their separate tracking and FCS, in fact they are more approaching the Kashtan and Panstry than anything else, so accordingly they are going to weigh a lot, that is of no dispute. And it is unlikely that the PLAN would opt for a less capable variant. Having a separate close loop FCS and radar for the CIWS improves their reaction time. So unless the engineers do some very intricate hoop jumps it is impossible to fit 3 separate CIWS system along side their respective FCS (The HQ-10 also has independent systems) on such a small platform. And if you can that so you might as well get 2 combined gun-missile systems in the place of the 730Bs and remove the HQ-10 to save space and weight.
And the 76mm gun's anti missile performance would not be as capable as a 30mm gatling, for one thing it will depend on programmed air burst shells to ensure maximum kill statistics, so each shell fired has a certain percentage to fail and miss entirely. Then there is the rate of fire which is much slower than a Gatling and a lower barrel endurance. There is a reason why a dedicated system trumps over dual purposes systems most of the time.

Tam said:

I don't think so. If you got two helicopters, you can cycle the two helicopters, one at rest or repair, the other up in the air. That gives you more resources at the disposal of the captain.

Click to expand...

But yet with UAVs, the captain can dispose of a pilot entirely. Plus they are not restricted by pilot fatigue and error. We can go over this as much as we like but it is clear in this instance we have differing views. So lets agree to disagree on this.

Tam said:

The 16 cell VLS is only a consideration, not a necessity. A corvette can be considered heavy when it approaches a certain weight guidepost. That seems to me like 3000 tons. Even at 2500 tons, the warship can already be ocean going, and the minimum warship that can blue water should be considered a frigate.

Click to expand...

2500 tons barely meets the requirements for an ocean going vessel. And armaments also figure in when we are to classify a type of ship as well. A heavy corvette would most likely have a more extensive set of armaments that goes beyond the standard requirement of a corvette which is self-defense first.

Tam said:

I don't recall the ship having those.

Click to expand...

Sorry my mistake I am actually referring to the Project 20380 which is more in line with the Type 056A in both armaments and displacement than the 22800

Tam said:

An HQ-10 or any close range missile should be sufficient yes.

Click to expand...

The HQ-10 can already by mounted on smaller ships without the need of a VLS. In fact putting such short range missiles in a VLS cell will negate the very advantage it offers in a swivel arm which is reduced reaction time by not having to maneuver future to face the incoming threat. A HQ-10 in a VLS will be more of a liability than an advantage.

Tam said:

The Chinese term is more of a weight classification. Frigate to the West is a bit more than a weight classification. NATO classifies Project 20380 as frigates not corvettes, because of their capability and range. The Russian Navy refers to them as Guards ships.

Click to expand...

There is more too just weight classification in mind when China names its ships. If is the end all be all, then the Type 055 would have been classified as a cruiser (they have a chinese name for that class already). Instead of the term "large destroyer" as we are hearing right now NATO members too also flip flop on their classifications as well, with the Iver Huitfeldt class being insisted by the Danes as a "frigate" when it is clearly pushing its luck in that matter.

Tam said:

I don't see China having any problems operating multi-hulled ships in their littorals, which there is plenty, especially in the commercial side.
It would be good if it has 2 helicopters, I am making the conservative assumption it may only have one. The future 056 variant or successor also needs a radar upgrade, similar to what they did with the two Bangladeshi OPVs this year.

Click to expand...

And to be fair I don't either. The future 056 successor can stand to have a radar upgrade, but what it should be upgrading in that regard would be it's resolution and tracking capability rather than range.

Tam said:

I understand that, but the PLAN isn't looking for a small and stealthy AD surface warship that can throw supersonic missiles like Taiwan's Tuo Chiang class. They are looking for an ASW ship that can be used to "bastionize" the three China seas.

I don't think a Yu-8 ASROC is that big. Based on the dimension and range of the CY-2, that should be 55 kilometers range with a 4.5m long body. That will well fit within an H/AJK-16 VLS if it has a 5.5m length depth. The weight is only 600kg. Its actually lighter than a single HQ-16 missile or a YJ-83.

.YJ-12 are huge missiles, I think at least 2500 kg to 3000 kg. Even a YJ-18 should be around 2300 kg if its like the supersonic Klub.

There is a short version of the U-VLS, only at 3.3 meters depth. I believe that's meant for quad or multipacks of small SAMs. That won't be deep enough for a Yu-8.

Click to expand...

And I am not insisting that they do as such. But having a Universal VLS allows for future potential upgrades like a better ASROC with a bigger booster and warhead then the current Yu-8. The standard range of 20KM for most current ASROCs is clearly insufficient considering sonar systems can potentially detect a submarine at much greater range and that the torpedoes carried by submarines have nearly triple the range at 70km plus. Combining the extended range with airborne ASW assets and you can have a very potent system.

For ones that argue for more weapons in a small hull, you have to think about the impact on the vessels' endurance if you cramp tons of weapons onto the ships. With little living space, life onboard is gonna suck

vincent said:

For ones that argue for more weapons in a small hull, you have to think about the impact on the vessels' endurance if you cramp tons of weapons onto the ships. With little living space, life onboard is gonna suck

Click to expand...

Not endurance but seakeeping qualities. Case in point is the Eilat/Saar class corvettes. It's a terrible ship because the IDF wanted to cram too much weapons system into a small vessel making it top heavy and not very seaworthy.

Viktor Jav said:

Well I am considering them to be almost in the same class and function, if the Derzky was to forgo the Redut Vls, it can very well have one or 2 Kashtans in place


Having not just one but 3 CIWs on the same area is an even more ridiculous notion than a stripped down Kashtan. For one the 730Bs are not like the Ak-630s. They follow the western doctrine of having their separate tracking and FCS, in fact they are more approaching the Kashtan and Panstry than anything else, so accordingly they are going to weigh a lot, that is of no dispute. And it is unlikely that the PLAN would opt for a less capable variant. Having a separate close loop FCS and radar for the CIWS improves their reaction time. So unless the engineers do some very intricate hoop jumps it is impossible to fit 3 separate CIWS system along side their respective FCS (The HQ-10 also has independent systems) on such a small platform. And if you can that so you might as well get 2 combined gun-missile systems in the place of the 730Bs and remove the HQ-10 to save space and weight.
And the 76mm gun's anti missile performance would not be as capable as a 30mm gatling, for one thing it will depend on programmed air burst shells to ensure maximum kill statistics, so each shell fired has a certain percentage to fail and miss entirely. Then there is the rate of fire which is much slower than a Gatling and a lower barrel endurance. There is a reason why a dedicated system trumps over dual purposes systems most of the time.


But yet with UAVs, the captain can dispose of a pilot entirely. Plus they are not restricted by pilot fatigue and error. We can go over this as much as we like but it is clear in this instance we have differing views. So lets agree to disagree on this.


2500 tons barely meets the requirements for an ocean going vessel. And armaments also figure in when we are to classify a type of ship as well. A heavy corvette would most likely have a more extensive set of armaments that goes beyond the standard requirement of a corvette which is self-defense first.


Sorry my mistake I am actually referring to the Project 20380 which is more in line with the Type 056A in both armaments and displacement than the 22800



The HQ-10 can already by mounted on smaller ships without the need of a VLS. In fact putting such short range missiles in a VLS cell will negate the very advantage it offers in a swivel arm which is reduced reaction time by not having to maneuver future to face the incoming threat. A HQ-10 in a VLS will be more of a liability than an advantage.



There is more too just weight classification in mind when China names its ships. If is the end all be all, then the Type 055 would have been classified as a cruiser (they have a chinese name for that class already). Instead of the term "large destroyer" as we are hearing right now NATO members too also flip flop on their classifications as well, with the Iver Huitfeldt class being insisted by the Danes as a "frigate" when it is clearly pushing its luck in that matter.


And to be fair I don't either. The future 056 successor can stand to have a radar upgrade, but what it should be upgrading in that regard would be it's resolution and tracking capability rather than range.

Click to expand...

Actually both 056 and 054A are referred to as 导弹护卫舰(missile guard ship).

kwaigonegin said:

Not endurance but seakeeping qualities. Case in point is the Eilat/Saar class corvettes. It's a terrible ship because the IDF wanted to cram too much weapons system into a small vessel making it top heavy and not very seaworthy.

Click to expand...

If PLAN wants to send 056 corvettes out for patrol for weeks at a time, there gotta be decent living space on-board. I read some articles about life on-board the Houjians or one of the small missile boats. The sailors had to eat their meals on the deck

Tam said:

No duel here. We are having a lively discussion, trying to opine on each other's viewpoints..

Click to expand...

man had I had more time these days, I would've been following your LOL "duel"

I love to read about both naval tactics and strategy, Jeune Ecole, Mahan and so on and so forth

Viktor Jav said:

And I am not insisting that they do as such. But having a Universal VLS allows for future potential upgrades like a better ASROC with a bigger booster and warhead then the current Yu-8. The standard range of 20KM for most current ASROCs is clearly insufficient considering sonar systems can potentially detect a submarine at much greater range and that the torpedoes carried by submarines have nearly triple the range at 70km plus. Combining the extended range with airborne ASW assets and you can have a very potent system.

Click to expand...

The Yu-8's predecessor, CY-2, already does 55km on a 4.5m length. Although actual ranges are classified on torpedoes, the Mk 48 ADCAP is said to be 50km on a slower speed setting, the Yu-6 at 45km, UGST at 40km and Whale at 50k. Once again, these are public consumption ranges, not the actual ranges, but the same can be said of the ASROC. Yu-11 is given at 30km.

While U-VLS will certainly give better long term potential, it has to assume that you are developing such an ASROC, which has to be by far the biggest in the world, literally putting a heavy torpedo on a rocket booster. But based on existing weapons, Yu-8 should be currently adequate and gives better range than the Yu-11 which uses only the YJ-83's slant launcher.

Viktor Jav said:

Well I am considering them to be almost in the same class and function, if the Derzky was to forgo the Redut Vls, it can very well have one or 2 Kashtans in place.

Click to expand...

I would think one. Kashtans on smaller ships appear to be center mounted for the balance and coverage issues.

Having not just one but 3 CIWs on the same area is an even more ridiculous notion than a stripped down Kashtan. For one the 730Bs are not like the Ak-630s. They follow the western doctrine of having their separate tracking and FCS, in fact they are more approaching the Kashtan and Panstry than anything else, so accordingly they are going to weigh a lot, that is of no dispute. And it is unlikely that the PLAN would opt for a less capable variant. Having a separate close loop FCS and radar for the CIWS improves their reaction time. So unless the engineers do some very intricate hoop jumps it is impossible to fit 3 separate CIWS system along side their respective FCS (The HQ-10 also has independent systems) on such a small platform. And if you can that so you might as well get 2 combined gun-missile systems in the place of the 730Bs and remove the HQ-10 to save space and weight.
And the 76mm gun's anti missile performance would not be as capable as a 30mm gatling, for one thing it will depend on programmed air burst shells to ensure maximum kill statistics, so each shell fired has a certain percentage to fail and miss entirely. Then there is the rate of fire which is much slower than a Gatling and a lower barrel endurance. There is a reason why a dedicated system trumps over dual purposes systems most of the time.

Click to expand...

Being in the same area does not necessarily mean they have the same coverage, as the two 730Bs would be more of a waist position, and their arcs can extend wide enough forward. If its aft centrally mounted like the Kashtan, the firing arcs would be blocked by the funnel and superstructure to the front. Its still similar to the relative position where the 730s are in the 054A and in the 051B refit. The 956EM has its Kashtans on the same relative position.

No closed loop system here, even if it is said to improve on reaction times. Instead, its known that the 056 has its own advanced combat management system that takes all the sensors together, and allows them to combine tracks. Using 730Bs means you have to put an EO and a Type 347 gunnery radar in a center position above the mini hanger towards the center of the ship. Its also the same system that serves AK-630s. But if you want a closed system you can revert the 730B back to the 730 with the radar and EO on top, or perhaps the 1130 instead.

Gun CIWS are not fully dedicated. They are also meant to attack surface or water targets close by.

2500 tons barely meets the requirements for an ocean going vessel. And armaments also figure in when we are to classify a type of ship as well. A heavy corvette would most likely have a more extensive set of armaments that goes beyond the standard requirement of a corvette which is self-defense first.

Click to expand...

Which is also why the trimaran has HQ-16.

2500 tons can go and meet the ocean. 053H3s have been used in Gulf of Aden escort missions a number of times. Certainly no problem there. 2500 ton ASW ships should have no problems escorting a PLAN battlegroup both within the China seas and the second island group.

The HQ-10 can already by mounted on smaller ships without the need of a VLS. In fact putting such short range missiles in a VLS cell will negate the very advantage it offers in a swivel arm which is reduced reaction time by not having to maneuver future to face the incoming threat. A HQ-10 in a VLS will be more of a liability than an advantage.

Click to expand...

That already is obvious, since the HQ-10s are also locked before launch missiles. VLS requires missiles that lock after launch.

Which also reminds me that the HQ-10 won't benefit on a Kashtan like setup. The missiles used on the Kashtan are command guided CLOS, and uses the Kashtan's radar to track targets. The HQ-10 is an infrared and a passive radiation missile. The radar can direct the seeker heads towards the target for a lock, but the passive or home on emission mode of the missile cannot work on a closed loop since it would require the ship's ESM to support that.

Let me repeat that.

Well I am considering them to be almost in the same class and function, if the Derzky was to forgo the Redut Vls, it can very well have one or 2 Kashtans in place

Click to expand...

Given this.




I would think absolutely not.

There is certainly no place for a gun CIWS there like a Kashtan or Pantsyr. Adding a gun CIWS would also destroy what the ship is trying to achieve which is maximum stealthiness.

Aside from that, this ship is an awesome design on its own.