056 class FFL/corvette

joshuatree said:

Interesting read, that would be a crucial piece if they were to build an ASW dedicated 056.

Click to expand...

I believe that article is such a compelling read about a very critical part of the PLANs naval strategy, that I posted it as a seperate thread. Feel free to comment on any PLAN ASW issue there. I believe it will be a great thread.

MwRYum said:

1. the tonnage of the flotilla's combatants will be will be more than doubled (the wording should be referred to individual vessel's, not total tonnage of the flotilla);

2. strike range will be 5-times more then current equipped;

3. ASW capability via anti-sub torpedo will be introduce on the next batch of 056 corvette - unless my Chinese is that bad, that sentence means the 056 corvettes will be introduced in 2 batches, with the batch after this one sport ASW mission packages?

Click to expand...

So then I guess point 3 implies that the current type 056 does not even have torpedoes launch capabilities, in other words no effective counter for submerged threats?

The type 037-II class missile boat is at 520 tonnes, so more than twice means the current type 056 is more than 1040 tonnes at least, probably somewhat more.

If the increase in striking range applies to missiles we're looking at at least 500+ Km range. Maybe they need third party targeting for this strike capability?

no_name said:

So then I guess point 3 implies that the current type 056 does not even have torpedoes launch capabilities, in other words no effective counter for submerged threats?

Click to expand...

Actually it looks like the torpedoes are already present in this current batch of 056's.

no_name said:

If the increase in striking range applies to missiles we're looking at at least 500+ Km range. Maybe they need third party targeting for this strike capability?

Click to expand...

Unless the PLAN has a new missile out that we don't know about, I doubt the range of the YJ-8X series of missiles could be upgraded that much unless they put turbofan engines in them, which IMO would qualify them for a new designation altogether.

Jeff Head said:

Here's a pretty good article from last August on Chinese ASW capabilities:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In it they talk about the Chinese "qianshe fanqian daodan" rocket launched ASW weapon for the Song Class SS vessels.

I am not aware of the specs for this weapon, but apparently there is something for the subs which would beg the questionas to whether they have developed a surface vessel launched version.

The reference for the discussion regarding that weapon is this:

Chen Guangwen, “Bu sheng zhuo ying: zhongguo haijun fanqian zhanli de fazhan” [Catching a Sound to Seize a Shadow: Development of China's ASW Combat Power] Jianzai wuqi [Shipborne Weapons], December 2010, p. 25

Which I have not been able to get and read in English yet.

Click to expand...

Interesting read, cheers for posting that article.

Quick question, how do you get the references to show? I can't seem to be able to find them.

Mysterre said:

This is essentially a deus ex machina type of answer, at least as far as us civilian fan-types are concerned. If you lengthen the hull enough you could hypothesize almost anything to fit in to that ship. I'm sure if you stretch the ship out like a stretched Hummer limo you could fit a hangar in there. Hell, you could stretch it out enough to fit 10 hangars front to back, each with its own helipad. Before wolfie chimes in and accuses me of hyperbole again, the point is, how do you know how much stretching this design can take? All I can say is that looking at its current design and displacement, I'd rate the odds of it being able to accommodate a hangar into its design as slightly worse than the odds of me being able to score with Kate Upton. Whether its powerplant and structure can accommodate the increased displacement necessary to add a hangar or even how much more displacement would be required to add a hangar, are two brand new variables to which neither you nor I have the answer to or could even reasonably guess at. And since this is the case, saying that a hangar could be shoehorned in if you stretch the design out doesn't provide any reasonable or verifiable answers to debate with and raises more questions that nobody can answer. And yes, I know the Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes were stretched out to add the hangars, but presumably the designers could answers the questions of whether and how much (and we are talking about a 9,000ton ship versus a 1,000ton ship). Can YOU answer these questions?

Click to expand...

Funny this is from someone who thinks it's possible to magically carve out a second hangar on the 052C without major rearrangement and modifications. So now you think that it's impossible to stretch 056 to accommodate a hangar because it's a 1,000 ton ship, seriously? Arleigh Burke is certainly a terrible example, the Sigma class (as I've hinted before) has a basic variant that's 90m long with a 1692t displacement, it was stretched all the way to over 105m at 2400t.

hmmwv said:

Funny this is from someone who thinks it's possible to magically carve out a second hangar on the 052C without major rearrangement and modifications. So now you think that it's impossible to stretch 056 to accommodate a hangar because it's a 1,000 ton ship, seriously? Have you ever considered that maybe it's just beyond your capabilities to comprehend? Fine, let me enlighten you, the Sigma class (as I've hinted before) has a basic variant that's 90m long with a 1692t displacement, it was stretched all the way to over 105m at 2400t.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered that this is a totally disenguous comparison? Let me enlighten you, the SIGMA class was designed from the keel up to be customizable. In fact the very name SIGMA stands for Ship Integrated Geometrical Modularity Approach. In other words from the very beginning this ship was meant to be built to customer specifications and had its internal layout arranged and its engines rated to cover the entire range of sizes that this ship could be ordered in. This ship's design is almost unique in its approach to modularity. You are now trying to claim that the 056 was designed to be a SIGMA-type vessel? And yes, I think it's far easier to fit a second hangar into a 6 to 7,000 ton vessel than it is to fit even a single hangar into a 056.

Mysterre said:

Have you ever considered that this is a totally disenguous comparison? Let me enlighten you, the SIGMA class was designed from the keel up to be customizable. In fact the very name SIGMA stands for Ship Integrated Geometrical Modularity Approach. In other words from the very beginning this ship was meant to be built to customer specifications and had its internal layout arranged and its engines rated to cover the entire range of sizes that this ship could be ordered in. This ship's design is almost unique in its approach to modularity. You are now trying to claim that the 056 was designed to be a SIGMA-type vessel? And yes, I think it's far easier to fit a second hangar into a 6 to 7,000 ton vessel than it is to fit even a single hangar into a 056.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you are finally acknowledge that it's possible to add hangar to a small vessel, that's progress for you that's for sure. As we have seen the 056 is already highly modularized in terms of construction method, which provides the basis of a completely modular design. China has already exhibited the capability to adapt a common hull and develop different variants from it, from the 053H2G hull that lead to the larger F22P. Also if we compare 056 and Pattani class it's highly possible that the former is a simplified version of that OPV, which has a hangar and a 1440t full displacement. It's not a big mystery to design a ship that can be stretched to fit more equipment, it's certainly not something unique to the Sigma, the Saar 4 was stretched into the Saar 4.5 back in the 80s. I don't think 056 is as versatile as the Sigma in terms of being easily scaleable or having a vast selection of standardized mission modules, but developing two variants (standard and ASW) on the same basic hull will not be a problem.

hmmwv said:

I'm glad you are finally acknowledge that it's possible to add hangar to a small vessel, that's progress for you that's for sure. As we have seen the 056 is already highly modularized in terms of construction method, which provides the basis of a completely modular design. China has already exhibited the capability to adapt a common hull and develop different variants from it, from the 053H2G hull that lead to the larger F22P. Also if we compare 056 and Pattani class it's highly possible that the former is a simplified version of that OPV, which has a hangar and a 1440t full displacement. It's not a big mystery to design a ship that can be stretched to fit more equipment, it's certainly not something unique to the Sigma, the Saar 4 was stretched into the Saar 4.5 back in the 80s. I don't think 056 is as versatile as the Sigma in terms of being easily scaleable or having a vast selection of standardized mission modules, but developing two variants (standard and ASW) on the same basic hull will not be a problem.

Click to expand...

When did I ever deny that it was possible to add a hangar to a small vessel (assuming its displacement is increased)? I did not even deny it for the 056 itself, either on this page or any other page. I also have said earlier in this very thread that this ship would be a nice ASW ship if it (already) had a hangar/embarked helo and a TAS, neither of which it has regardless of how much diatribe wolfie puts out. I simply question your assumptions when you said all that was needed was to stretch the thing out and stick a hangar in. It's not that easy. You are also making these unequal comparisons between vessels that are pretty much like each other only in their sharing of the word "corvette". Yes, we all know that Chinese naval construction is capable of modular construction, but that does not mean it is capable of SIGMA-type modularity or that the 056 was built to have SIGMA-type modularity. And modularity also does not mean a given ship design has any flexibility built into it in terms of being able to increase its displacement lengthwise. We just don't know what the 056 design is able to do at this point. This is what I have been saying all along. This is why I said you are introducing a deus ex machina into the debate: fixing a problem (no room for a hangar) by positing the future existence of a larger variant that shazzam!.... has room for a hangar. You're essentially assuming this class is capable of a larger displacement "056B ASW variant". Maybe, maybe not. Nobody on this forum knows. Therefore once you propose it, nobody can reasonably debate it. We don't even know that the PLAN even wants a 056 with a larger displacement and a dedicated hangar.

no_name said:

So then I guess point 3 implies that the current type 056 does not even have torpedoes launch capabilities, in other words no effective counter for submerged threats?

The type 037-II class missile boat is at 520 tonnes, so more than twice means the current type 056 is more than 1040 tonnes at least, probably somewhat more.

If the increase in striking range applies to missiles we're looking at at least 500+ Km range. Maybe they need third party targeting for this strike capability?

Click to expand...

1. the context of Chinese words usually don't have direct translation to English and vise versa, and in some hindsight that might actually mean "upcoming" instead of "in 2 batches" as I previously understood...in that case, ASW mission package will be included in this batch. Besides, the ASW torpedo launcher PLAN uses is size comparable with the Whitehead type commonly found in Western world's navies, well that should give you some idea how big that is, if the photos I took onboard a 054A FFG not enough.

Still, the 056 will be significantly smaller than that of 054A, layout arrangement will be different...if the 056 reach IOC status before the next openhouse in 2013 then there's a good chance it'd make its public debut in the Labor Day openhouse event in May next year...thus why I said we can settle the dispute then, with photographic evidence (if I can sneak some pics, that is...unless you people would accept my verbal testimony, hehehe...)

2. the tonnage guessing now rest between 1000-1500 metric ton, so that falls within the estimate.

3. in theory, helicopter can provide over-the-horizon targeting for the ship, but to utilize such reach they might as well install cruise missiles...

MwRYum said:

Still, the 056 will be significantly smaller than that of 054A, layout arrangement will be different...if the 056 reach IOC status before the next openhouse in 2013 then there's a good chance it'd make its public debut in the Labor Day openhouse event in May next year...thus why I said we can settle the dispute then, with photographic evidence (if I can sneak some pics, that is...unless you people would accept my verbal testimony, hehehe...)

Click to expand...

Are you referring to whether there are torpedo launchers on board or a TAS on board? I think we already have relatively strong photographic evidence for the former and definitive photographic evidence against the latter. I would really be interested in seeing that middle part of the ship sandwiched between the passageways going forward from the helipad. If that section of the ship houses anything other than tube-shaped storage receptacles for torpedo-sized objectives (like a conference room or mess hall or sleeping quarters or whatever), then the 056 will be unable to rearm any ASW helos that land. I'm thinking the passageways are actually already too narrow to push torps on rollers through them anyway.