Should PN go for,Chinese Type 056 Corvettes ?

[Penguin]

You can Buy some Good Type 23 Frigates from British.... They will be adding much Bigger Punch

None currently available for sale. There are some Type 22 Batch 3's however.

 

[Penguin]

I think four of these would be great for patrolling Sir Creek areas and Gwadar to deal with anti-piracy missions.

Frigates should be more utilized to expand naval projection along with Submarines.

PN seriously lacks surface combatants.........Type 21s are joke. They were taken out by Argentine A4s in 1982.......this is 2012.......30 years....WTF!

Don't see how Type 056 would be a significant improvement relative to Type 21: significantly smaller, still marginally armed. Main advantages: new, relatively cheap.

 

[hurt]

#2 056

 

[Kompromat]

Thread title edited.

 

[aliaselin]

056 use an 8 cell SAM laucher － FL3000N，which is better than the f22p used HHQ7. So I don't think its self-defence capability is worse than f22p. However, since f22p is much larger than 056, it may be upgraded to HH16 or Chinese version of ESSM several years later

 

[cirr]

HDS in Shanghai will start work on 3 Algerian corvettes/frigates in 2013 with the programme designation “C28A”。

It might be worth of a look by the PN。

 

[aliaselin]

HDS in Shanghai will start work on 3 Algerian corvettes/frigates in 2013 with the programme designation “C28A”。

It might be worth of a look by the PN。

It is said that this one is only an Algerian version of F22p

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Simply put this is the only ship Pakistan should get 2-3 of these Units should be ideal

 

[Penguin]

056 use an 8 cell SAM laucher － FL3000N，which is better than the f22p used HHQ7. So I don't think its self-defence capability is worse than f22p. However, since f22p is much larger than 056, it may be upgraded to HH16 or Chinese version of ESSM several years later

How is FL3000N better than HHQ7?

WHat makes you think F22P can accommodate HHQ16 (+why bother with 054A available)?

 

[applesauce]

How is FL3000N better than HHQ7?

WHat makes you think F22P can accommodate HHQ16 (+why bother with 054A available)?

FL3000N is significantly newer and has much greater capabilities than the HHQ7
HHQ7 need guidence from the ship at all times, FL3000N has a combined sensor(on the missile itself, and it can be directed by multiple different ship sensors meaning it has good survivability) and is fire and forget allowing a single launcher to fire at multiple targets without staying on one target for any significant amount of time. meaning a single fl3000n can enagage mutiple target quickly and/or send multiple missile out to one target, and that is in addition to being able to engage newer threats such as supersonic missiles and low flying threats. while the HHQ7 is much more limited in all those areas. the only advantage HHQ7 has is range, but FL3000N was always meant to be a point blank/short range defence, with the medium range defence being HHQ16 for the time being and long range being HHQ9 currently.

however with the construction of the new type052D destroyers there are definitely new long range/medium range missiles coming given the new VLS on board.


F22p shouldnt bother with the current HHQ16,given that we have the newer vls and associated new missile is coming, everyone fully expects a new system on board the next frigate design(possibly 054B)

 

[Penguin]

FL3000N is significantly newer

FM-90 missile is much newer than original Crotale copy.

greater capabilities than the HHQ7

Such as?

HHQ7 need guidence from the ship at all times

Inherent in any CLOS guided missile (Barak and Sea Wolf are also CLOS, are they poor systems?)

FL3000N has a combined sensor(on the missile itself, and it can be directed by multiple different ship sensors meaning it has good survivability) and is fire and forget allowing a single launcher to fire at multiple targets without staying on one target for any significant amount of time. meaning a single fl3000n can enagage mutiple target quickly and/or send multiple missile out to one target, and that is in addition to being able to engage newer threats such as supersonic missiles and low flying threats. while the HHQ7 is much more limited in all those areas. the only advantage HHQ7 has is range, but FL3000N was always meant to be a point blank/short range defence, with the medium range defence being HHQ16 for the time being and long range being HHQ9 currently.

As I understand it, FL3000 is IRH + RFH and essentially fire and forget. Which means all it needs is initial info from a surveillance/traking radar. No elop or radar director needed, no radar illuminator needed. But that in itself doesn't make the missile performance better. It does allow rapid successive engagement of different targets coming in on different vectors. Still, a VLU would be even greater to tackle that kind of attack (and I see no reason why you couldn't fire either HQ7 and then guide the missile in the correct direction). THe issue of HQ7 is not the launcher though but the single fire control channel. THen again, HQ7 has much greater range and that somewhat compensates for this particular shortcoming.

F22p shouldnt bother with the current HHQ16,given that we have the newer vls and associated new missile is coming, everyone fully expects a new system on board the next frigate design(possibly 054B)

What 054B....?

Point is, why shoehorn in a chinese VLU when there is a bigger and better Chinese ship available that already has it. It is different in relation to some Western VLUs as the nations that could provide the VLU (e.g. US, South Africa, France) are not likely to also provide a complete frigate.

 

[applesauce]

FM-90 missile is much newer than original Crotale copy.

but still over 10 years older than the fl3000n, not to mention the fm-90 is an upgrade of an old missile while the fl3000n is newly designed.

Such as?

that what we'll be talking about below

Inherent in any CLOS guided missile (Barak and Sea Wolf are also CLOS, are they poor systems?)

ahh but heres the thing, those are being replaced by newer missiles that are autonomously guided. there is a reason for that, and that is all the advantages i have said already, multiple target engagement at a very fast rate which also means much greater protection against saturation attacks that something like the sea wolf would have great trouble against. case in point the aster on the new type 45's and the US navy's use of the sea-ram. not to mention newer missiles are design to be able to combat low flying anti-ship missiles something which the HQ7 has a rather mediocre performance against.

As I understand it, FL3000 is IRH + RFH and essentially fire and forget. Which means all it needs is initial info from a surveillance/traking radar. No elop or radar director needed, no radar illuminator needed. But that in itself doesn't make the missile performance better. It does allow rapid successive engagement of different targets coming in on different vectors. Still, a VLU would be even greater to tackle that kind of attack (and I see no reason why you couldn't fire either HQ7 and then guide the missile in the correct direction). THe issue of HQ7 is not the launcher though but the single fire control channel. THen again, HQ7 has much greater range and that somewhat compensates for this particular shortcoming.

first part is correct, but again, heres another advantage of the FL3000N, it is also capable of being directly guided by the ship in addition to being capable of being fire and forget, and not only that, it can be controlled by are greater number of ship sensors than the HQ7, meaning any benefits the HQ7 might have from using ship sensors the FL3000N has as well and more. and longer range is true but its range is not long enough to be an area defence weapon, and the limit of attacks on one or 2 targets at a time is a sever and perhaps deadly handicap when faced with multiple incoming targets, where as the FL3000N can engage all incoming target as quickly as it can fire and ammo limits allow. now combine all this with the greater success chance of the FL3000N against targets and its greater maneuverability, especially against other maneuvering low flying targets,means that Fl3000N is superior in nearly every-way even if the range is shorter.

What 054B....?

just a placeholder name for the next frigate china may make, we know that a new universal VLS has been developed for the 052D meaning its only logical to put that universal in the next generation frigate as well. thus pakistan might as well wait a bit longer for the next gen system rather than the current HQ16, as that system would be vastly supiorer to the currently system being able to fire many different missiles allowing one ships to be outfitted for any role the navy deem necessary.

Point is, why shoehorn in a chinese VLU when there is a bigger and better Chinese ship available that already has it. It is different in relation to some Western VLUs as the nations that could provide the VLU (e.g. US, South Africa, France) are not likely to also provide a complete frigate.

i dont avocate the F-22p be fitted with the hq-16. in a hurry the Pakistan could get the 054A which would be a vast upgrade for them, but i was saying if time is not super tight, then it may be better to wait for the new VLS to become available or they could make do with the FL3000N in their next version of F-22P as its superior to the HQ7(in nearly every way, and range doesn't make much difference in this case) and is already developed in many versions(cell numbers, with or without auto-reloaders) and on top of that it doesn't penetrate the deck(some versions), meaning as long as the ship remains balanced, weight wise, its relatively easy to add the FL3000N

 

[Fsjal]

Would be nice to see the Type 056 sailing in Hungyan Island.

 

[Penguin]

@applesauce: What missile is Israel (or India, for that matter) replacing Barak with???

A modernized Crotale NG (New Generation) version entered production in 1990 and it uses the new VT-1 missile. This is also available in VL version (quadpacked in Sylver Vertical Launching System A-35). The hypervelocity VT1 missile was introduced as an upgrade to the Crotale Naval point defence system. The French Navy uses its existing eight-cell Compact launcher systems to fire VT1 from its La Fayette-class frigates (Crotale CN2), while the Royal Navy of Oman employs a lightweight eight-round pedestal launcher aboard its two Project 'Muheet' corvettes (as part of a version branded as Crotale Naval New Generation). It still uses command-to-line-of-sight (CLOS) guidance using a Ku-band radar/IR/TV director. Haven't seen France rushing to replace it.

Also, it is a bit unfair to do a straight comparison between FL3000N and HQ7/FM90 against the AShM threat as only the former was designed for the CIWS role. That is why there are no gun-based CIWS aboard the Type 56, just 2x remote control single 30mm cannon and why there are 2x 30mm gatling firing units on board the F22P. You need to look at self-defence capability of a ship as a complete system.

You say that FL3000N is also capable of being directly guided by the ship in addition to being capable of being fire and forget, and that it can be controlled by are greater number of ship sensors. Essentially you are saying it is ALSO using CLOS? If so, there must be a reason for including that option (e.g. there are instances in which that mode is preferable to IRH/RFH). ANd which additional sensors specifically are you referring to on Type 056 (clearly it takes a cue from the main air search radar, but what else)? Lets not confuse 'being queued' and 'being controlled', because those are different things.

 

[hurt]