056 class FFL/corvette

Jeff Head said:

Uhh...I believe it just got one in the latest update/refit.

Best check on that. I'm pretty postivie it did not have one before.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything that was incorrect. Nothing to check, sir.

joshuatree said:

Some of the discussion is intriguing. For instance, say they do make a version without the landing pad, that does give back significant real estate for other purposes. Enough to beef up the suite of defenses and mount more sensors to be a command ship to work with a flotilla of 022s. The islands in the SCS present many shallow areas that would give larger warships additional unwanted concerns when operating in a battle situation. Besides, if open hostilities do happen in those areas, they will be more of skirmishes rather than flat out large scale operations so varying flavors of 056s would suffice. Don't know what the draft is on the 056 but if it's like the 053Hs at about 10.5 ft, then they will be able to traverse shallow areas even better than the US LCSs.

Click to expand...

This design could have had good potential had it been designed from the keel up for ASW. It needed TAS and a hangar with an ASW helo embarked. But at least in my mind it is clear that this design is meant for the standard escort/littoral duties that typical corvettes are assigned to, for which this ship is excellently designed. Adding TAS and a hangar to this design is not reasonable at this point IMO. Might as well design a brand new ASW corvette.

[/COLOR]Let me help you two out and make it unambiguously clear to you how mooring works on these ships:

Click to expand...

They say a picture speaks a thousand words, so here, enjoy.



Something that might help you in the future is to ask yourself the question 'why?' when you make an assumption.

So, why would you actually need to have a round or square hole for mooring lines if you have an open rear design that would allow you to run those lines from anywhere you want?

I left your picture of the Luhu with the holes because you will obviously refer to that so I might as well save us the back and forth. The Luhu is a far larger ship that the 056 or the Jianwei in my picture, and even in the picture you so thoughtfully doodled on, you can clearly see a second set of mooring lines just running out the side.

Now look at the doodle you made of the 056. Ask yourself why someone would do that when they could have just run mooring lines through the giant openings in the rear of the ship directly to the mooring posts instead.

Your entire line of reasoning is completely backwards.

You have decided that the 056 is not meant for ASW, so you are interpreting everything you see in that light when you should be looking at the evidence with unbiased eyes to try and see things for what they are.

That is why you have been making some frankly ridiculous claims like suggesting that those enormous doors leading to the helipad are only meant for normal passage; insisting that a ship needs to be able to have a hanger to be able to conduct ASW ops and completely ignoring very detailed arguments to the contrary to the very close minded insistence that the hole at the rear of the 056 could only be for mooring lines for no other reason than the fact that it happens to be round.

All of your 'concerns' have already been addressed several times. But instead of coming with better thought out and/or more plausible explanations to support your POV, all you are doing is rehashing what you have already said with steadily more hyperbole and shrillness added in as your frustration grows.

A good debate that does not make.

If you disagree with what I said, that's fine, it's your right. But if you want to convince anyone, you need to spend less time on the sarcasm and more time on reasoning and logic.

Many ships also have hull based sonar

however having TAS, Anti-submraine helicopter and hull based sonar are all tools for ASW, one is not better than the other, although sonar is extremely powerful its like looking for a needle in a haystack when ur scanning the deep vast ocean for submarines

the operator also needs to know what hes looking at, you can have the most sophisticated sonar display in the world, but if ur sailors are not trained and dont have experience and judgement then it all goes to waste

some sonar operators can sit infront of a screen for 5-6 hours just looking for signs and clues of noise, you just have to be very patient

plawolf said:

Something that might help you in the future is to ask yourself the question 'why?' when you make an assumption.

So, why would you actually need to have a round or square hole for mooring lines if you have an open rear design that would allow you to run those lines from anywhere you want?

I left your picture of the Luhu with the holes because you will obviously refer to that so I might as well save us the back and forth. The Luhu is a far larger ship that the 056 or the Jianwei in my picture, and even in the picture you so thoughtfully doodled on, you can clearly see a second set of mooring lines just running out the side.

Now look at the doodle you made of the 056. Ask yourself why someone would do that when they could have just run mooring lines through the giant openings in the rear of the ship directly to the mooring posts instead.

Click to expand...

It doesn't take much thought to ascertain why those holes are better than not having them, but of course it depends on you actually thinking about them instead of continuing to make blind assumptions. The Luhu photo is a perfect illustration. It is an open-backed design yet those holes are there. You attempt to flippantly dismiss their presence by saying that "the Luhu is a far larger ship" but fail to explain why a larger ship needs them if a smaller ship did not. They serve as a conduit for lines that helps to ensure the integrity of both the lines and the hull and provides much greater safety for personnel operating them. If the position of the ship shifts with respect to the pier, those lines could rub against a hull edge and either damage the lines and/or the hull, and make it a hazard for the crew. This is essentially the purpose for all the mooring ports you find on ships. You might as well say that all the mooring ports at the bow of ships are totally redundant because they could just string them over the edge instead of directing them through the port. I find it rather sad that I have to explain all this to you, but it seems that you don't take your own rather humorously condescending advice. The lack of this port hole in the older ships simply reflects poor design that has been remedied on all the newer designs, including the 056. You also never bothered to ask yourself why the 052B, 052C, and 054/A have a combination viewing port/mooring port when they could have just strung the lines out the viewing port. More holes = less stealth, after all. And, wow, those mooring ports on those other ships look EXACTLY like the single rear port on the 056 but let's not call it what it looks like, let's call it something fancy like a new TAS hole design.

plawolf said:

Your entire line of reasoning is completely backwards.

You have decided that the 056 is not meant for ASW, so you are interpreting everything you see in that light when you should be looking at the evidence with unbiased eyes to try and see things for what they are.

That is why you have been making some frankly ridiculous claims like suggesting that those enormous doors leading to the helipad are only meant for normal passage; insisting that a ship needs to be able to have a hanger to be able to conduct ASW ops and completely ignoring very detailed arguments to the contrary to the very close minded insistence that the hole at the rear of the 056 could only be for mooring lines for no other reason than the fact that it happens to be round.

Click to expand...

Your entire line of reasoning is completely backwards. You have decided that the 056 is meant for ASW, so you are interpreting everything you see in that light when you should be looking at the evidence with unbiased eyes to try and see things for what they are. This is why you have been making some frankly ridiculous claims like suggesting that this design could be retooled for a hangar, that the rear hole that is obviously a mooring port is a NEW heretofore TAS hole design, that the rear openings that are obviously for torpedo launchers are mini-hangars, that a potent ASW ship can still be considered one when it has to use shore-based ASW helos. BTW, you have never been able to come up with which shore-based ASW helos you are referring to. Care to educate me on this?

And those passageways are always that wide, probably to accommodate the torpedo launchers when they swing out. Are you STILL jibberjabbing about what those things are underneath those tarps? Let me help you, big man:

plawolf said:

All of your 'concerns' have already been addressed several times. But instead of coming with better thought out and/or more plausible explanations to support your POV, all you are doing is rehashing what you have already said with steadily more hyperbole and shrillness added in as your frustration grows.

Click to expand...

You know, that's exactly what I've been thinking this whole time. And not about myself.

plawolf said:

If you disagree with what I said, that's fine, it's your right. But if you want to convince anyone, you need to spend less time on the sarcasm and more time on reasoning and logic.

Click to expand...

You should consider taking your own advice here, big man.

plawolf said:

So, why would you actually need to have a round or square hole for mooring lines if you have an open rear design that would allow you to run those lines from anywhere you want?

Click to expand...

To be fair, I will say using the round or square hole to thread the mooring lines through would help prevent/reduce any of the mooring lines from causing damage to other parts of the ship if the waters do get rough and the ship moves back and forth from the pier harder than normal.

But I don't believe modifications to the 056 hull is as impractical the way Mysterre believes. The upgrade pics shown for the Luhu clearly demonstrate adding a TAS isn't that hard of a modification. The first batch of 056s we see are clearly general purpose littoral corvettes. Call them OPVs or light Frigates if you want, that's just semantics and it's up to the owner to decide what they want to classify them. But a GP littoral vessel is needed by PLAN for replacement of their older fleet as well as creating a potential export product. Further mods to specialize the vessel is well within practicality if the need arises.

joshuatree said:

But I don't believe modifications to the 056 hull is as impractical the way Mysterre believes. The upgrade pics shown for the Luhu clearly demonstrate adding a TAS isn't that hard of a modification.

Click to expand...

I've never said anything about modifying this ship to accept a TAS. Can you point out where I said that this wasn't feasible?

joshuatree said:

The first batch of 056s we see are clearly general purpose littoral corvettes. Call them OPVs or light Frigates if you want, that's just semantics and it's up to the owner to decide what they want to classify them.

Click to expand...

Some things that are clear to people seem to be not clear at all to other people.

Mysterre said:

I've never said anything about modifying this ship to accept a TAS. Can you point out where I said that this wasn't feasible?

Click to expand...

Okay, then you do believe modifying the existing 056 hull is feasible?

And I quote you, " Adding TAS and a hangar to this design is not reasonable at this point IMO. Might as well design a brand new ASW corvette."

joshuatree said:

Okay, then you do believe modifying the existing 056 hull is feasible?

And I quote you, " Adding TAS and a hangar to this design is not reasonable at this point IMO. Might as well design a brand new ASW corvette."

Click to expand...

No, of course it is not feasible, and I have already said why. It should be obvious just looking at the design why modifying it for a hangar is not feasible. Nor is it reasonable. Note the difference between the words "reasonable" and "feasible". I assume you know what they mean, and that I don't have to further explain.

joshuatree said:

Okay, then you do believe modifying the existing 056 hull is feasible?

And I quote you, " Adding TAS and a hangar to this design is not reasonable at this point IMO. Might as well design a brand new ASW corvette."

Click to expand...

Mysterre said:

No, of course it is not feasible, and I have already said why. It should be obvious just looking at the design why modifying it for a hangar is not feasible. Nor is it reasonable. Note the difference between the words "reasonable" and "feasible". I assume you know what they mean, and that I don't have to further explain.

Click to expand...

And I assume you read my earlier reply, I said "impractical", I never brought in the word "feasible". So your disagreements and differing viewpoints are absolutely fine. But the need to argue for the sake of argument is silly.

joshuatree said:

And I assume you read my earlier reply, I said "impractical", I never brought in the word "feasible". So your disagreements and differing viewpoints are absolutely fine. But the need to argue for the sake of argument is silly.

Click to expand...

No, you said I believed that putting a TAS on the 056 was somehow impractical, as in not feasible. I never said that, and I am still not saying that. Here's a refresher: feasible - "can I physically do this?"; reasonable - "should I even want to do this?". Though IMO practical and reasonable are more closely related, YOU clearly associated "impractical" with "not feasible" when you described the Luhu's structure implying that the 056 by extension could fit a TAS assembly. This refers to the physical possibility of a TAS. Inside a 056. I do not necessarily disagree with this, though I would like to get a better look at the amount of available volume underneath the helipad before I say anything else about it. What I do disagree with is whether it is reasonable to put a TAS in the 056. I think it is not. Can do and should do are not the same things.