056 class FFL/corvette

Do not get embroiled in labels and ideology definition. Why must someone follow exactly exactly communism or capitalism but not take elements from both? We are assuming that terms like communism, capitalist, once defined by fore-bearers, cannot be changed and that they are correct for eternity, that is absurd.

If one thing people should have learned from Deng, it is that pragmatism is the best approach to political problems, and that implies dropping labels like communism and capitalism, I doubt Deng would try to pigeon hole his policies under a name, he made do with socialism with chinese characteristics as a compromise to please power base.

Get one hundred people to define communism and you may get 100 different definitions. It is a pointless endeavor to focus on ideology and dogma for the sake of themselves rather than problem solving, this is supposed to be China's strong point over many other countries in this world.

Mao was brilliant in politics but terrible in economics, so lets just say it is entirely possible to make rational decisions based on ignorant information and assumptions that one has.

So lets return to topic.

The original model show them as the old design, so the new one is probably pretty new developments push ahead of schedule rather than because they couldn't make deadlines with an older improved design.

ChinaGuy said:

By your definition, since Carl Max never explicitly defined crapping in communism, therefore anyone who takes a dump can't be a communist. Well, Ok, you win the argument. If not communists, what are the Chinese communists ? Do you know of any authority that agrees with your labelling ? For instance, does CIA state the Chinese as non-communists ? Maybe the MI5/6 ?

The Chinese education system and scientific methods are good enough to produce the 056, and it's only a start. So don't be too quick to write them off.

Click to expand...

No, that would be by *YOUR* definition. You are the one saying that everything a communist does must be communism, so logically, the communist cannot do anything that is *NOT* communism.

LOL @ CIA, MI5/6. Are those the only western government agencies you know? Are they now authorities in economics?

If you can't understand the difference between what somebody calls themselves, and what they actually do, then there's no point arguing with you.

The Chinese education system has serious flaws, but pointing out those flaws does not mean writing them off. You would do well to drop the knee-jerk responses.

Do not get embroiled in labels and ideology definition. Why must someone follow exactly exactly communism or capitalism but not take elements from both? We are assuming that terms like communism, capitalist, once defined by fore-bearers, cannot be changed and that they are correct for eternity, that is absurd.

Click to expand...

Well there is not a single economic system in the world that is actually capitalist or communist. These are just models drawn up by theorists and economists. Almost all major economies today are hybrid systems incorporating both public and private sectors, with varying levels of openness and state control. Ideologies are just ideologies. Rather than assign a label to each economy, it makes more sense in my opinion to discuss them based on more meaningful and specific metrics and attributes, such as level of state control, level of international trade, level of welfare provided, government budget, tax rates, etc...

I suggest a mod move this discussion into a new thread possibly? I think this is a non-political subject meriting additional discussion, just not in this thread.

EDIT: I did go ahead and make a new thread. Please continue all discussions not related to 056 here: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=6117&referrerid=27

Hope a mod will move previous posts at a time convenient for him/her.

no_name said:

The original model show them as the old design, so the new one is probably pretty new developments push ahead of schedule rather than because they couldn't make deadlines with an older improved design.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the bow changes are functional or aesthetic. I would guess the former, but I'm not sure what sloping them outwards instead of inwards helps with. Perhaps to help displace more of a bow wave to the sides? IDK

I would say it is more likely functional because they took the trouble of removing an already built bow on at least two of the ships to replace them with new ones.

It'll be interesting to see if they would change the funnel design on these two ships as well.

solarz said:

The Chinese education system has serious flaws, but pointing out those flaws does not mean writing them off. You would do well to drop the knee-jerk responses.

Click to expand...

When I switched from a Chinese school to an English school, I was seen as a math genius in the latter. I was fairly average in the Chinese school. From my personal experience, the Chinese education system was superior as they produced more capable and better disciplined students.

On technical and discipline front, I believe Chinese sailors operating on a 056 will beat any equivalent western ship. Equipment maybe important, but people operating the equipment is even more important in the outcome of any engagement.

Of course if there is a contest of singing sea shanties, I believe the Chinese sailors will lose. The Chinese eduction system makes no provisions for that.

The implementation of a new mod before the original had even set sail is very unusual for any navy, never mind the PLAN.

I think the bow changes are mostly minor and aesthetic (might help a little with RCS), but the funnel change is a big improvement in terms of functionality as it should help to improve the ship's IR and radar signatures.

Looking at the design again, especially when you compare just how high the aft of the 056 is (even higher than the much larger 054A), I do wonder if it might have some top weight concerns. That may be why the original design went without the IR suppression funnel, and also why they opted for a UAV hanger when it should have been perfectly feasible, space wise, to make it into a full helo hanger, and may be why they originally opted for the more basic (and lightweight) funnel design, and designing a brand new 8 round FL3000 launcher instead of using the existing ones as seen on the Varyag.

Ship design, like design in general, is all about compromises and rationing options. We know that they have a RIB hanger on the port side, but surely they did not make all those sacrifices just to allow them to launch and recover a single RIB, and it also begs the question of just what they are using the rest of the extra space for. For example, even with the RIB hanger, there should be more than enough room to squeeze a triple torpedo launcher on the same deck on the port side, and there is no question about room on the starboard. Why place the torpedo launchers in the hanger?

ChinaGuy said:

When I switched from a Chinese school to an English school, I was seen as a math genius in the latter. I was fairly average in the Chinese school. From my personal experience, the Chinese education system was superior as they produced more capable and better disciplined students.

On technical and discipline front, I believe Chinese sailors operating on a 056 will beat any equivalent western ship. Equipment maybe important, but people operating the equipment is even more important in the outcome of any engagement.

Of course if there is a contest of singing sea shanties, I believe the Chinese sailors will lose. The Chinese eduction system makes no provisions for that.

Click to expand...

That is ignorant. American education is more balanced, whereas Chinese education is more specialized. Also the quality of Chinese education varies greatly depending on the particular school, because of the testing system that is implemented as early as primary school which determines which secondary schools and universities the students can attend. Also there is much disparity between the quality of education between urban and rural regions. Therefore, it is pointless to say either system is superior to the other. Also, American universities are capable of drawing talent from all over the world.

This is all irrelevant when it comes to crew quality. In China, the view of, "Good iron do not go into nails," is still prevalent, so you do not see the brightest and most talented going into the navy, at least not among the enlisted men. Not saying that is the case in the USN, but neither side has the advantage here. I will agree with you when it comes to discipline, but in term of technical proficiency, the USN has advantages in terms of operational experience, longer terms of service, and more modern training methods. The PLAN has made great improvements in these area, but most of its shiniest toys are still new, and it still has a long ways to go before catching up to the USN in those fields. It takes a lot more time to gain experience and expertise than it is to build new ships. These are things that cannot be rushed by simply pouring in the money and investment.

Come on guys, you know it's gone too far when I come and ask you guys to stay on topic.