056 class FFL/corvette
- Thread starter dingyibvs
- Start date
- Status
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Did you somehow read somewhere that a small UAV could not fit inside those passageways? This point has already been covered. It is also utterly irrelevant to the main issues with a UAV hangar on board the current version of 056.
Okay is it just me or is that a plastic door similar to one's used in office buildings for bathroom/toilets/washrooms?
Whatever became of watertight integrity?
It looks like some of the ship's contractors are used to making offices and not ships.
I read a fascinating book recently ( in Dutch, my wife must have it somewhere ) about the the inheritance of Western ideas from the Greeks and the Romans, but also from the Babylonians and the Muslims. It showed that ideas that would lead to democracy came from the Muslims, together with the concept of the University. They developed it in the 8th and 9th century without reference to Athens. The notions that Western values derived from Greek antiquity was part of the Prussian reforms, and ideology, reaction to the defeat by Napoleon in 1806, that let also to the Gymnasium.
MwRYum
Major
Agree. China have bought a certain amount of dual-use model of the S-100 and developing domestic copy / local-made model of comparable size. Given the size of the PLAN naval aviation (especially their rotary-wing division) is still too small for what it need to be, it's logical that the 056 corvette have UAV handling capability, and exploit such capability extensively for its various mission profiles.
Like I said, if they debut the 056 as early as 1st half of 2013, we'll see their mission packages in Hong Kong, and I'll do what I can to cover the story.
Mysterre
Banned Idiot
Nothing more special than Microsoft Paint that comes standard with every PC.
This debate about whether they can store UAVs on the ship is becoming old. The two torpedo rooms are indeed large enough for UAVs, but in their current forms they are occupied by torpedo tubes which require a large area to be able to swing outward to fire. Having said that, that space has the potential to become a hangar since it's wide and tall enough, and already has a garage door, but you will have to remove the torpedo tubes. If PLAN wants to do it they can remove, say, the starboard side tubes and put a UAV there while retaining basic ASW capabilities by leaving the port side tubes in place.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Well I have already given you plenty of very good reasons, such as to have a storage area for munitions, equipment and parts to service any helos that land on the helipad as well as to serve as a hanger for small UAVs to help mitigate not having full sized helos embarked at all times.
Now, if all you are doing is ignoring arguments you don't like, then I will see no point in discussing this with you further.
The structural integrity suggestion was put forward to counter your original suggestion that it would have been possible to cut half of the middle support away to make the opening bigger for a large UAV. The two doorways already account for around half the width of the hanger, and if you cut away much of the middle support, there would be precious little left to support the rear of the hanger.
Structural integrity is of particularly more import to small ships, because unlike their larger cousins, it would be far more likely and common for a large wave to crest over top of a small corvette compared to a larger frigate or destroyer. Thus, the roof of the hanger would not only need to be able to support it's own weight, but also be able to withstand a large wave crashing down on it. Just how big of a wave it can withstand would be down to the margins the designers decide to give it, which in turn would decide what kind of storm such a ship can ride through and which it needs to steer clear of.
What four walls? I have never seen any pictures to indicate any internal walls in the hanger. I hope you do realize that just because you drew them on a picture does not make them there in reality.
So the comments you made about a dipping sonar and torpedo carrying UAV were what exactly?
Well, here is that word that all designers know and which you loath - compromise.
The hanger is not just a hanger, it is also where the torpedo launchers are housed. That changes the requirements compared to if it was just a hanger.
Having one big door in the middle would mean that there is no direct access to the torpedo launchers from the helipad. When you consider just how close to the rear wall of the hanger those torpedo launchers are placed, that presents a bit of a problem for loading and maintenance.
Now, you can load them from the front of the torpedo launchers I suppose, but that would mean that you need to keep an area at least the length of the torpedos themselves (almost certainly more as you need room to safely maneuver them) in from of the torpedo launchers free at all times. Why waste all that precious space when instead, you can put doors behind the torpedo launchers so that when it comes time to reload them, you can push the fresh torpedos onto the helipad, and have all the space you could want to maneuver and position them, and just slip those bad boys straight into the tubes?
To address your second point, I have not been arguing for two places at the same time. I have always said that the space immediately behind the rear control rooms would be perfect, however, it is also perfectly possible and feasible to have the UAVs parked deeper in the hanger. They are alternatives suggestions.
Which is why I suggested that one of them could be used for the control station for UAVs. Funny you cannot remember that now, yet seem to remember that just fine when you wanted to mock my suggestion. Pick and choose much?
So which other warship have vents in the rear wall that are that big?
That's reaching, desperately so. Which other warship has such a design feature?
When someone tries this hard to come up with implausible suggestions to try to cast doubt on a far more logical suggestion, odds are that someone has an agenda other than trying to uncover the truth of the matter.
Really? You have absolutely no clues as to what those windo...sorry, holes, might be used for? Are you sure?
Please, go have a look at ship hanger design especially smaller corvette classed ships. There is always significant structural support measures in place, even on the newest ships which benefit most from modern materials sciences and CAD.
Unless you want to come out and claim that you know better than the designers of the 056, I would suggest you stop obsessing about how you might have designed it, and instead focus on trying to understand why the designers made the design choices they have.
Have you read what I wrote? Having a set of smaller rolling doors for reloading the torpedo launchers and a separate standard standard hatch would not hinder either reloading of torpedos or crew movement if that was all that was intended. On the contrary, having two sets of doors would have it far easier for crew to move to and from the helipad because they would not need to wait for the doors and wind up and down every time the pass.
However, as I have stressed multiple times now, the reason they designed those doors to be as wide as they have is to allow rapid reloading of helos that do land on the helipad, and has a welcome secondary benefit of being perfectly suited to moving small UAVs to and from the helipad.
That is a logical fallacy.
I am not saying 'the 056 will 100% definitely have a UAV hanger', what I am saying is that, from the design decisions and general layout and common sense, I think it is extremely likely that the 056 will house small UAVs in it's hanger.
I am saying that the PLAN has UAVs that would fit just fine through the large doors, there is clearly space for them to house such UAVs if so desired, there is a clear operational benefit to having them onboard, and there looks to be specific design choices made to accommodate UAVs, like the unusually large control room.
If either of us had definitive proof, there would not been any need for this discussion would there?
Because we don't have proof, we need to look at the evidence available to us and try to find the most logical explanations to explain those design choices and that is what I have been trying to do. What have you been trying so hard to do?
Thus far, you have been able to come up with zero credible alternative suggestions for the design choices that the ship designers have made.
If you have an alternative theory for what the designers made certain design choices, I would welcome them. But at the very least vet them in your mind before dumping them here first. Because right now, the suggestions you are making just look like hastily concocted wild ideas you are just throwing out there to try to avoid having to contemplate the ideas I have been suggesting.
That does not feel like the product of rational thought and logical argument, but rather of pride.
Everyone can have bad ideas or make bad calls, there is no shame in that. What is disappointing is for someone to refuse to accept any alternatives because they feel they are wholly invested in a snap call they made long ago and now feel like they need to defined that call beyond all reason and logic to save face.
The fact that the outside of the ship indicates that rear area is longer than the torpedo tubes in no way requires the passageway to extend all the way from the garage doors to the doors right next to the aft mast. In fact the passageways could terminate just forward of the torpedo launchers like this:
This gives that big room even more room, say if they need a real CIC, or a conference room, or something else. There is simply no NECESSARY reason for the passageways to keep extending forward once they are past the front of the torpedo launcher.
You seemed to have put some effort into drawing that diagram, which makes it all the more disappointing. If you had spent half the time you did drawing that thinking through what you are suggesting, I think you would have realized how nonsensical if is to suggest that anyone would put the ship's CIC there.
CICs are typically buried deep within a ship to provide maximum protection, and are also situated close to the primary sensors and weapons so that cables don't need to run needlessly far, both to save on costs and also to help minimize the risks of battle damage cutting those cables.
The hanger is just about the worst place you can think of to put the CIC on a ship. Not only is it extremely expose with only walls of the hanger to protect it, it is extremely close to the main smoke stack, which will be a magnet for any heat seeking missiles. In addition, the hanger is about as far away from mean sensors and weapons as it is possible to get (with the exception of the FL3000 launcher I guess), increasing the length of cabling required as well as making them more vulnerable to possible battle damage by running them all the way along the ship.
The CIC will either be on the bridge, or below decks near the central mass. It's pretty standard in warship design and it's that way for very good reason.
The suggestion of a conference room is even more fanciful. So much so that I am struggling not to mock it, so I will just not bother to say any more on that bright idea.
When you analyses a design, you need to consider the design as a whole as well as it's purpose, strengths, weaknesses, role etc.
Now, having devoted a disproportionately large part of the ship to having a full sized helipad, is it remotely likely that the designers would not bother to include any space for munitions, aviation fuel, spares and equipment to allow them to refuel, rearm and generally make best use of any helos that do land?
There is absolutely no good reason to put the CIC or conference room in the hanger at the expense of the entire propose of having a helipad in the first place.
Except the problem is, there is no good reason to put a large room there.
Really? Take another look at the design. The helipad is unusually big for a ship of it's size. What other ship design devotes as much deck space (in meters and as a proportion of the ship) to a helipad and cannot re-arm them?
The very design of the hanger doors is a clear indication that they designed the hanger to allow rapid access to both sides of a helo with sizable loads. Does not take much of a leap to imagine what those loads might be.
As for UAVs, well the PLAN already operates such small UAVs on their ships. That is a fact that you will have to accept. if they are operating such UAVs on ships that have full sized helos, why wouldn't they use such UAVs to supplement the 056 which has no embarked helo? Embarking such UAVs would only need 2-3 square meters of deck space per UAV max. Even if they did not specifically design the ship to take them, that is the kind of space they can very easily find and set aside in the hanger of the size on the 056.
It is amusing that you are accusing me to having preconceptions for calling something that looks like a hanger, is designed like a hanger, positioned exactly where you could expect a hanger to be, and have doors like a hanger as a hanger. OTOH, your far fetched suggestions that they would put a CIC or conference room there is based entirely on abstract logical deduction?
Pointless hair splitting and already addressed.
How exactly is anything I have suggested 'untenable' by any stretch of the imagination? The only suggestions that are untenable are the far fetched ones you are dreaming up that have no purpose, reason or basing in reality.
Which does not explain why the doors need to be that wide does it?
As I have pointed out before, the torpedos need to be first moved onto the helipad from racks or magazines in order to load them into the launchers without needlessly wasting internal space. There is no need for helicopters to deposit fresh rounds, and the fact that you keep referring to such shows you have not fully appreciated the reasoning behind the design of those doors.
Again, pointless hairsplitting. The Freedom class LCS can carry two Seahawks, but it only has one hanger door. What does that say about the LCS' ability to carry two helicopters? Absolutely nothing.
Normally, a warship would not have enough width to design a hanger other than one that has direct access to the helipad, it is also convenient do have such a direct path. But there is absolutely no reason why a hanger cannot house something just because it needs to make a turn to get access to the helipad.
- Status