056 class FFL/corvette

Bltizo said:

I'd like to see a pair of these 30mm RWS mounts on every new large PLAN surface combatant developed. Good for anti piracy, and also good for low sitting asymmetrical threats. USN has mounted a pair of similar RWSs upon their ticos I think, and RN have them on excellent high sitting positions on their Type 45s too.

Click to expand...

Mk 38 Mod 2 25mm auto cannons are also being placed aboard US Navy Arleigh Burke destroyers too, as well as other vessels.

Here's a pic of one aboard the USS Mason DDG-87


Here's another aboard another Burke:


The US Navy has over 250 of these guns deployed on its vessels all around the world.

Bltizo said:

I'd like to see a pair of these 30mm RWS mounts on every new large PLAN surface combatant developed. Good for anti piracy, and also good for low sitting asymmetrical threats. USN has mounted a pair of similar RWSs upon their ticos I think, and RN have them on excellent high sitting positions on their Type 45s too.

Alas, it appears 052D won't be equipped with RWS, and though it may never have to face such threats, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

These mounts do not look like they need deck penetration. They could probably be installed on any warship with just a few hours of work by the ship's own maintenance staff.

chuck731 said:

These mounts do not look like they need deck penetration. They could probably be installed on any warship with just a few hours of work by the ship's own maintenance staff.

Click to expand...

not to get off topic but the Phalanx seewhiz was a maintenance nightmare! Everyone hated the r2d2.. why? because many a XOs or captains on smaller ships like destroyers or frigates would deny liberty to the entire ship until the maintenance is completed and system fully functional. Not sure if reliability has improved in never versions but the block 0 and block 1 required a LOT of TLC.
Navyreco may vouch! maybe bd too.

chuck731 said:

The energy needed to keep the ship lit and heated or air conditioned, the bilge and ballast pumps going, and the crew's food cooked and shower hot is call hotel load.

When a gas turbine powers warship is underway, twice as much energy comes out as heat in the exhaust stacks as sent through the propeller to propel the ship. So the heat energy released with engine exhaust absolutely dwarf the energy needed to support hotel load. Using engine exhaust to power hotel load won't make an appreciable dent in the thermal signature at the stack. But It probably will make the ship significantly more complicated and maintenance intensive, however.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. However, if there is that much heat energy in the exhaust that powering the entire hotel load won't make any appreciable dent, I'd say it's completely worth it if it supplies all the heat for hot water. It be one bird one stone but still a bird. I don't see it anymore complicated than a solar water heating system.

Bltizo said:

I'd like to see a pair of these 30mm RWS mounts on every new large PLAN surface combatant developed. Good for anti piracy, and also good for low sitting asymmetrical threats. USN has mounted a pair of similar RWSs upon their ticos I think, and RN have them on excellent high sitting positions on their Type 45s too.

Alas, it appears 052D won't be equipped with RWS, and though it may never have to face such threats, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

That thing weights @ 1500kg dry (ie. w/o munitions), mount a pair of them means 1500kg at both side's high above the centre of gravity...ok that shouldn't be too big a deal yet it might cause problems to those older PLAN boats that has a narrower body. Since it's also a crew-served weapon then it can't be mount in a way like the Type 730 or R2D2 does, and due to its bulk it could narrow the walkway if not planned correctly - on the 056 corvette for instance, the room occupied by that thing makes it only one man can squeeze through at a time (alright, a fat guy like me with camera and gear and tripod is wrong to compare with a fit fighting sailor wearing a lifejacket that slightly bulk up his built...but you get the point).

MwRYum said:

That thing weights @ 1500kg dry (ie. w/o munitions), mount a pair of them means 1500kg at both side's high above the centre of gravity...ok that shouldn't be too big a deal yet it might cause problems to those older PLAN boats that has a narrower body.

Click to expand...

Well I was only talking about larger warships anyway. No reason to refit onto jianghus or ludas near their end of life.
Adding a pair of these onto 052C/D's mid hull section, port and starboard shouldn't present a challenge.

Where did you get the 1.5 ton figure from, out of interest? (even though it'll have a negligible impact on seaworthiness on most ships larger than an 056)

Since it's also a crew-served weapon then it can't be mount in a way like the Type 730 or R2D2 does,

Click to expand...

I'm aware that the gun has a single seat on the mount itself (so crew served probably isn't as accurate as "single man" served), but I was under the impression it could also be fired remotely from within.

And even being a crew served weapon, it can still be mounted in the same locations a ciws could be, as the main limitation for mount placement is deck penetration and deck area. and H/PJ-17 doesn't look much bigger than a Type 730.

and due to its bulk it could narrow the walkway if not planned correctly - on the 056 corvette for instance, the room occupied by that thing makes it only one man can squeeze through at a time (alright, a fat guy like me with camera and gear and tripod is wrong to compare with a fit fighting sailor wearing a lifejacket that slightly bulk up his built...but you get the point).

Click to expand...

Yes, but that goes for... well, anything.
Obviously one would try their best to plan it correctly, and it's not like there's only nanometers for room for error

Totoro said:

Pretty much all of the PLAN's medium sized or larger vessels that've seen over the decades have followed that principle. The only exception I can think of is 056 class, but that's a much smaller, cheaper and simpler ship for simpler tasks. And even with that numerous changes were seen on successive vessels of the class.

Click to expand...

I moved this quote over from the 054A thread to keep discussion in their proper silos.

Absolutely, while I love the 056, I don't consider it to be anything revolutionary for the CN. It really is a condensation of all the lessons learned over the past decade from developing the other platforms and the 056 is merely reaping the fruits of those labor. The 056 is meant to be a work horse and it makes sense not being anything revolutionary. But it sure does update the capability vs the 037s and would make any ASEAN navy think twice even if they did field larger/better units. Quantity is its own quality. With a standardized VLS system, I would love to see a variation of 056 sport the smaller depth, single 8 cell VLS unit but don't believe it's draft can accommodate the length of the YJ-83s unless they decide to enlarge it.

If there are deck penetration issues, you could elevate VLS system (see: Type 23 Frigate). Not a elegant solution, but works.

IMO the purpose of the 056 is to have a low-cost Corvette or Light Frigate that's budget friendly. If you add an 8-cel VLS with quad-packed MRSAM, that would give the ship better local area air-defense capability, but also increase the cost significantly.

Based on export pricing for Thailand, the "054T" is $333 million, and the Pattani OPV is $50 million. The weapon & sensor systems installed on the 056 will likely make it more expensive than OPV configuration, but not too much.

There are many areas on the 056 that can be improved. VLS, helicopter hanger, towed sonar, better ASW weapons, better CIWS, larger HQ-10 launcher with more missiles, etc. But after you add these up, the ship won't be cheap anymore.

adeptitus said:

If there are deck penetration issues, you could elevate VLS system (see: Type 23 Frigate). Not a elegant solution, but works.

IMO the purpose of the 056 is to have a low-cost Corvette or Light Frigate that's budget friendly. If you add an 8-cel VLS with quad-packed MRSAM, that would give the ship better local area air-defense capability, but also increase the cost significantly.

Based on export pricing for Thailand, the "054T" is $333 million, and the Pattani OPV is $50 million. The weapon & sensor systems installed on the 056 will likely make it more expensive than OPV configuration, but not too much.

There are many areas on the 056 that can be improved. VLS, helicopter hanger, towed sonar, better ASW weapons, better CIWS, larger HQ-10 launcher with more missiles, etc. But after you add these up, the ship won't be cheap anymore.

Click to expand...

I think with the Type 23, the Harpoons still don't go into the VLS. I suppose an 056 can have such a config too. You're right about the extras adding to the cost so I doubt this will happen. However, I'm curious in what application would the smallest of the Chinese standardized VLS system ever be used then.

joshuatree said:

I think with the Type 23, the Harpoons still don't go into the VLS. I suppose an 056 can have such a config too. You're right about the extras adding to the cost so I doubt this will happen. However, I'm curious in what application would the smallest of the Chinese standardized VLS system ever be used then.

Click to expand...

The smallest VLS specified by GJB 5860-2006 document is 3.3 meters, I *think* it should fit on a 056, but I do not believe it'd be cheap.

The cheapest small VLS systems that I can think of is the $24 million Israeli Barak VLS, and the $30 million South African Umkhonto VLS. These (export) prices are from 2007 or earlier and includes 8 cell VLS with FCS, but the missiles are SRSAM and not quad-packed. Even if the Chinese Navy had something similar, the cost is likely ~50% of the 056's cost. And if you wanted better VLS systems with quad-packed MRSAM, that would be even more expensive.