# China's New Type 056 Corvette



## Nomenclature

Recent Chinese military forums are abuzz with rumors about the new Type 056 corvette. The discussed has been quite heated on whether China needs a new 1,500 -2,000 ton corvette. 

Although some well-informed posters has stated the construction of new corvette has already began, many still doubt the existence or at least usefulness of such ships.

Anyway now the mystery is solved after some sharp-eyed poster on FYJS digged up this new photo from University of Hong Kong website showing the deputy commander of the PLA garrison presenting a model as a gift to the Vice-Chancellor of HKU.






????

I have to say this is one of the most unexpected ways a new class of PLAN warship has been revealed.

Anyway now we know the design of this new corvette I'm interested in people's opinion on the design itself or its usefulness to PLAN.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Dragon Emperor

I'd say it's useless for blue-water missions but idle for coast guard/patrol and littoral missions.


----------



## yangtomous

it is very important for PLAN.between 022 and 054 ,just one type vessel that is 037 .056 is urgently need by China. it should built more than thirties to patrol east China sea and south China sea.the max speed must more than 32knot .that is the submarine fastest speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

I think the corvette should have anti-submarine capabilities.


----------



## oct605032048

interesting that the major-general is in a Army uniform.


----------



## no_name

The ship somewhat resembles the sigma class corvette


----------



## Nomenclature

It seems most military enthusiasts on Chinese forums I visit are disappointed by the design. Some of them were expecting a 2,500+ tons ship like India's Kamorta class. This 056 is probably no more than 1,200-1,500 tons. Others are complaining about not enough ASW or not enough guns (just one 76mm gun, no AK-630 CIWS or smaller guns). No helo hangar is another complaint.

Still it's an improvement over the 500t 037-II currently stationed in HK. 

I wonder what's people's opinion on the lack of a hangar? or the absence of AK-630 or smaller guns? Is the single missile based FL-3000N CIWS enough for close range air-defense? Is just having one 76mm gun going to cause troubles for fighting pirates/engaging in low-intensity conflict (where using anti-ship missiles maybe inappropriate)?

Aboard weapon systems identified so far:
1 76mm main gun
1 FL-3000N missile based CIWS
4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
HQ-10 surface-to-air missiles
Whatever carried by the helo
(possible torpedo launcher for ASW?)


----------



## oct605032048

it has been said that photo was shot during the commander of the PLA forces in Hong Kong paying a visit to the headmaster of the Hong Kong University. That make sense why the man was in the Army's uniform.


----------



## no_name

76mm gun is actually overkill for pirates I believe, they usually use machine guns and oerlikon cannons. It doesn't look like it has room fro HQ-10.


----------



## gypgypgyp

no_name said:


> 76mm gun is actually overkill for pirates I believe, they usually use machine guns and oerlikon cannons. It doesn't look like it has room fro HQ-10.



I don't think China has enough budget to build a class ship specify to anti-pirate. So there is no such during the design.


BWT 056 is a low level ship, the main focus is sheap and build a lot. 054A is too expensive for PLAN, they can't afford large number of it. The fisrt 054A cost more than 220 million USD.


----------



## Nomenclature

no_name said:


> 76mm gun is actually overkill for pirates I believe, they usually use machine guns and oerlikon cannons. It doesn't look like it has room fro HQ-10.



yeah, no HQ-10 then, I was doubtful about it but a whole bunch of people seems to think there is. Besides the space constrain equipping HQ-10 will probably push the cost too high.


----------



## Nomenclature

gypgypgyp said:


> I don't think China has enough budget to build a class ship specify to anti-pirate. So there is no such during the design.
> 
> 
> BWT 056 is a low level ship, the main focus is sheap and build a lot. 054A is too expensive for PLAN, they can't afford large number of it. The fisrt 054A cost more than 220 million USD.



I agree budget is a major concern. I was expecting a bit too much for a mass-production corvette. Still I think at the end they'll find places to fit in some small autocanons, otherwise this will be the only conventional shaped corvette with only one gun... 

Type 056 is more than capable of replacing old 037 corvettes (fewer anti-ship missiles and guns, but better air-defense and a helicopter at least double the tonnage). 

I wonder how many of these ships will be built. As there exists more than 150+ 037 of various variants, it will probably bleed PLAN dry to attempt a 1:1 replacement. 

Another question is whether they'll be used to replace those ancient Jianghu (early Type 053) frigates. They're similar in size but more modern and potent than Jianghu. Replacing Jianghu with 056 will see a major drop in number of PLAN frigates though, but replaces them with 054A will cost way too much. 

I guess we just have to accept a fleet of 50+ frigates is no longer possible?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## no_name

Pound for pound, the type 056 is probably better than the Jianghu. How well can Jianghu survive an air attack or sea attack is doubtful. And corvette frigate distinction is probably in names in this case as the Jianghu is not significantly larger than the type 056.


----------



## Dragon Emperor

gypgypgyp said:


> I don't think China has enough budget to build a class ship specify to anti-pirate. So there is no such during the design.
> 
> 
> BWT 056 is a low level ship, the main focus is sheap and build a lot. 054A is too expensive for PLAN, they can't afford large number of it. The fisrt 054A cost more than 220 million USD.



China can afford to buy as many Type 054As that it wants once China's economy reaches two-thirds of USA's economy. If USA can afford to buy 50+DDGs with the economy it has now, then once China reaches USA's GDP level, China can also have 50 Type 052D DDGs.


----------



## razgriz19

Dragon Emperor said:


> China can afford to buy as many Type 054As that it wants once China's economy reaches two-thirds of USA's economy. If USA can afford to buy 50+DDGs with the economy it has now, then once China reaches USA's GDP level, China can also have 50 Type 052D DDGs.



china's military budget is expected to be $78 billion this year....

US military budget is MORE THAN $700 BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!
$$$719.2 BILLION TO BE PRECISE..

see the difference....?

Government Spending Chart in United States 2000-2020 - Federal State Local

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BigTree.CN

Warship with a displacement of 1,500 -2,000 tons, well, that is pathetic.

Even Japan Coast Guard is better armed than that, it has more than ten vessels with a displacement of over 4000 tons.


----------



## CardSharp

BigTree.CN said:


> Warship with a displacement of 1,500 -2,000 tons, well, that is pathetic.
> 
> Even Japan Coast Guard is better armed than that, it has more than ten vessels with a displacement of over 4000 tons.



It all depends, bigger isn't always better but what is the mission requirement that the PLAN wants this ship to fulfill? I am still not clear on this point.


----------



## no_name

Probably south china sea.
It is nimble enough against kilos and hopefully not as screwed should you lost one or two of these. It is also big enough for endurance and carrying torpedo capable helicopters. It also have good air defense for its size.

Lets just wait and see which fleet this thing goes to.


----------



## CardSharp

no_name said:


> Probably south china sea.
> It is nimble enough against kilos and hopefully not as screwed should you lost one or two of these. It is also big enough for endurance and carrying torpedo capable helicopters. It also have good air defense for its size.
> 
> Lets just wait and see which fleet this thing goes to.



Tis a good guess. Both the range, size, and configuration suggests such a role.


----------



## gypgypgyp

razgriz19 said:


> china's military budget is expected to be $78 billion this year....
> 
> US military budget is MORE THAN $700 BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!
> $$$719.2 BILLION TO BE PRECISE..
> 
> see the difference....?
> 
> Government Spending Chart in United States 2000-2020 - Federal State Local



Actually you should look at the government income instead expense.

US federal government has revenue 2165 billion USD in 2010. state + local government 2444 billion USD in 2010. Total number is 4451 billion


China government total revenue in 2009-2010 is 10.8 trillion RMB. equivalent to 1612 billion USD.

It's just a different view about how to spend money rather than US has 10 time capacity of China


More info

US government total debt 16.635 trillion USD

China government total debt at the end of 2009 is 15.7 trillion RMB(2343 billion USD)

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a


----------



## cloneman

I have no idea why they want to build such a small ship.Maybe its just a model.Lets wait until the real one comes out.


----------



## Nomenclature

It could potentially be a good model to export, esp as it uses Chinese FL-3000N instead of the Russian AK-630 as in Type 022 FAC. If China can manage to sell a Z-9 with each ship then it's even better.


----------



## cloneman

This ship definatelly doesnt fit the PLAN&#180;s need.Pepole even argue if the 022 is useful.If its for the coast guard,then its too heavilly armed.I dont think any coast guards ship will need heavy anti ship missiles or anti air missile.Still we need to wait untile the real ship comes out.


----------



## no_name

Would Pakistan be interested in having such ships in their navy?

I have this crazy idea of having a larger type 071 type ship carrying a couple of high speed cushion boats with anti-ship missiles. Wonder if you can make those stealthy.


----------



## no_name

no_name said:


> 76mm gun is actually overkill for pirates I believe, they usually use machine guns and oerlikon cannons. It doesn't look like it has room fro HQ-10.



Lol gonna have to eat my words. Apparently on another forum HQ-10 is the name of the missile carried by the FL-3000N, and FL-3000N is the name for the system(?)


----------



## meispig2

the budeget ...


----------



## Nomenclature

no_name said:


> Lol gonna have to eat my words. Apparently on another forum HQ-10 is the name of the missile carried by the FL-3000N, and FL-3000N is the name for the system(?)




New photo showing FL-3000N/HQ10 fitted on the ex-Varyag. 







Looks like PLAN is quite satisfied with the FL-3000N's performance, to have it installed on everything new from corvettes to aircraft carrier.

I wonder what will happen to Type 730 though. Are we going see it being phased out on new ships or are we going to see a mixture of both 730 and FL-3000N.


----------



## maxx

How do missile based point defense stack up to CIWS?

I think smaller ships like this corvette is quite useful for coastal defense. While you have your larger ships engaging enemy planes, your corvettes could target incoming ASMs. 

While smaller and cheaper, larger number of boats can be built and send out to sea doing anti-sub patrol. There'll be more boats continuously at sea. Two 056 can probably cover larger sea area than a single 054.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cloneman

maxx said:


> How do missile based point defense stack up to CIWS?
> 
> I think smaller ships like this corvette is quite useful for coastal defense. While you have your larger ships engaging enemy planes, your corvettes could target incoming ASMs.
> 
> While smaller and cheaper, larger number of boats can be built and send out to sea doing anti-sub patrol. There'll be more boats continuously at sea. Two 056 can probably cover larger sea area than a single 054.



Yes,thats true.The small 056 also could be a good platform to train the crews.So this design will be still useful for the PLAN though I really dont like this small ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nomenclature

maxx said:


> How do missile based point defense stack up to CIWS?
> 
> I think smaller ships like this corvette is quite useful for coastal defense. While you have your larger ships engaging enemy planes, your corvettes could target incoming ASMs.
> 
> While smaller and cheaper, larger number of boats can be built and send out to sea doing anti-sub patrol. There'll be more boats continuously at sea. Two 056 can probably cover larger sea area than a single 054.



Advantages missile based CIWS (FL-3000N/HQ-10) has over gun based CIWS (AK630, Type 730)

1) Much better at defending against supersonic missiles. 

2) (Comparing to 730 esp) Probably cheaper as it uses data feed from the ship instead of having its own complete set of radar and fire control. Likely requires less deck penetration, so easier to install. 

I think it's safe to conclude FL-3000N/HQ-10 is a better air defense system than AK-630 otherwise PLAN won't use HQ-10 on Type 056 while using AK-630 on smaller and cheaper Type 022 FAC. 

Another thing I'm interested in is whether Type 054A will be refitted with a FL-3000N/HQ-10 on top of the helo hangar to remove the blind spot of its point defense at the back.

On the other hand, it's very interesting to note that some Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes were produced without any gun-based CIWS and completely relay on missile based close range air defense. But later the U.S. Navy made the decision to refit all those Phalanx-less Burkes with Phalanx by 2013. 

One of the reason cited for going back to gun-based CIWS was its ability to engage incoming smaller vessels. Americans obviously have much more experience in naval operations and if they decided more guns to fire upon small ships are necessary, PLAN should take notice and put that into consideration when designing their new ships. I'm kind of uneasy about single 76mm gun + missile CIWS concept on the 056 model.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## no_name

Nomenclature said:


> One of the reason cited for going back to gun-based CIWS was its ability to engage incoming smaller vessels. Americans obviously have much more experience in naval operations and if they decided more guns to fire upon small ships are necessary, PLAN should take notice and put that into consideration when designing their new ships. I'm kind of uneasy about single 76mm gun + missile CIWS concept on the 056 model.



Yes would be helpful for example if Iran decides to attack US navy ships with small attack boats.

Also suicide boats like the cole incident.


----------



## CardSharp

no_name said:


> Yes would be helpful for example if Iran decides to attack US navy ships with small attack boats.
> 
> Also suicide boats like the cole incident.



There was a Marine general who score great success in a pre-iraq war games as the leader of the red force (enemy). He had all of his small craft (suicide small boats planes) assets moving in random patterns around the US fleet, this apparently overwhelmed the US tracking. 

Then at a given signal they all launched attacks (coinciding with missile and airforce attack) and 80 something &#37; of the US fleet was sunk and the rest damaged.

PS found the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

The name of the General was Paul K. Van Riper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

Here is some articles on the Millennium Challenge 2002

*Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf
*


> During the summer of 2002, in the run-up to President Bush's invasion of Iraq, the US military staged the most elaborate and expensive war games ever conceived. Operation Millennium Challenge, as it was called, cost some $250 million, and required two years of planning. The mock war was not aimed at Iraq, at least, not overtly. But it was set in the Persian Gulf, and simulated a conflict with a hypothetical rogue state. The "war" involved heavy use of computers, and was also played out in the field by 13,500 US troops, at 17 different locations and 9 live-force training sites. All of the services participated under a single joint command, known as JOINTFOR. The US forces were designated as "Force Blue," and the enemy as OPFOR, or "Force Red." The "war" lasted three weeks and ended with the overthrow of the dictatorial regime on August 15.
> 
> At any rate, that was the official outcome. What actually happened was quite different, and ought to serve up a warning about the grave peril the world will face if the US should become embroiled in a widening conflict in the region.
> 
> As the war games were about to commence on July 18 2002, Gen. William "Buck" Kernan, head of the Joint Forces Command, told the press that the operation would test a series of new war-fighting concepts recently developed by the Pentagon, concepts like "rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, operational net assessments," and the like. Later, at the conclusion of the games, Gen. Kernan insisted that the new concepts had been proved effective. At which point, JOINTFOR drafted recommendations to Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on the experiment's satisfactory results in such areas as doctrine, training and procurement.
> 
> But not everyone shared Gen. Kernan's rosy assessment. It was sharply criticized by the straight-talking Marine commander who had been brought out of retirement to lead Force Red. His name was Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, and he had played the role of the crazed but cunning leader of the hypothetical rogue state. Gen. Van Riper dismissed the new military concepts as empty sloganeering, and he had reason to be skeptical. In the first days of the "war," Van Riper's Force Red sent most of the US fleet to the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
> 
> Not all of the details about how Force Red accomplished this have been revealed. The Pentagon managed to keep much of the story out of the press. But a thoroughly disgruntled Van Riper himself leaked enough to the Army Times that it's possible to get at a sense of how a much weaker force outfoxed and defeated the world's lone remaining Superpower.1
> 
> The Worst US Naval Disaster Since Pearl Harbor
> 
> The war game was described as "free play," meaning that both sides were unconstrained, free to pursue any tactic in the book of war in the service of victory. As Gen. Kernan put it: "The OPFOR (Force Red) has the ability to win here." Much of the action was computer-generated. But representative military units in the field also acted out the various moves and countermoves. The comparison to a chess match is not inaccurate. The vastly superior US armada consisted of the standard carrier battle group with its full supporting cast of ships and planes. Van Riper had at his disposal a much weaker flotilla of smaller vessels, many of them civilian craft, and numerous assets typical of a Third World country.
> 
> But Van Riper made the most of weakness. Instead of trying to compete directly with Force Blue, he utilized ingenious low-tech alternatives. Crucially, he prevented the stronger US force from eavesdropping on his communications by foregoing the use of radio transmissions. Van Riper relied on couriers instead to stay in touch with his field officers. He also employed novel tactics such as coded signals broadcast from the minarets of mosques during the Muslim call to prayer, a tactic weirdly reminiscent of Paul Revere and the shot heard round the world. At every turn, the wily Van Riper did the unexpected. And in the process he managed to achieve an asymmetric advantage: the new buzzword in military parlance.
> 
> Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats. Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red's prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines. The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Yet, the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.
> 
> If the games had been real, it would have been the worst US naval defeat since Pearl Harbor.
> 
> What happened next became controversial. Instead of declaring Force Red the victor, JOINTFOR Command raised the sunken ships from the muck, brought the dead sailors back to life, and resumed the games as if nothing unusual had happened. The US invasion of the rogue state proceeded according to schedule. Force Red continued to harass Force Blue, until an increasingly frustrated Gen. Van Riper discovered that his orders to his troops were being countermanded, at which point he withdrew in disgust. In his after-action report, the general charged that the games had been scripted to produce the desired outcome.
> 
> Later, Van Riper also aired his frustrations in a taped-for-television interview: "There were accusations that Millennium Challenge was rigged. I can tell you it was not. It started out as a free-play exercise, in which both Red and Blue had the opportunity to win the game. However, about the third or fourth day, when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command at that point began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint. You might say, 'Well, why didn't these concepts live up to the expectations?' I think they were fundamentally flawed in that theyleaned heavily on systems analysis of decision-making. I'm angered that, in a sense, $250 million was wasted. But I'm even more angry that an idea that has never been truly validated, that never really went through the crucible of a real experiment, is being exported to our operational forces to use.
> 
> What I saw in this particular exercise and the results from it were very similar to what I saw as a young second lieutenant back in the 1960s, when we were taught the systems engineering techniques that Mr. [Robert] McNamara [Secretary of Defense under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson] had implemented in the American military. We took those systemsto the battlefield, where they were totally inappropriate. The computers in Saigon said we were winning the war, while out there in the rice paddies we knew damn well we weren't winning. That's where we went astray, and I see these new concepts potentially being equally ill-informed and equally dangerous."2
> 
> "We didn't put you in harm's way purposely. It just...happened."
> 
> As a result of Van Riper's criticism, Gen. Kernan, the JOINTFOR commander, faced some pointed questions at a subsequent press briefing. In defending the operation, the general explained the embarrassing outcome as due to the unique environment in which the war simulation, by necessity, had been conducted:
> 
> Q: General, one thing that Van Riper made much of was the fact that at some point the blue fleet was sunk.
> 
> Gen. Kernan: True, it was.
> 
> Q: I want to set-aside for a moment the allegation that the game was rigged because the fleet was "re-floated." I mean, I understand, I've been told that happens in war games.
> 
> Gen. Kernan: Sure.
> 
> Q: And I'm curious. In the course of this experiment or exercise, your fleet was sunk. I'm wondering if that did teach you anything about the concepts you were testing or if that showed anything relevant.
> 
> Gen. Kernan: I'll tell you one of the things it taught us with a blinding flash of the obvious, after the factAnd of course, it goes back to live versus simulation, and what we were doing. There are very prescriptive lanes in which weconduct sea training and amphibious operations, and these are very, obviously, because of commercial shipping and a lot of other things, just like our air lanes. The ships that we used for the amphibious operations, we brought them in because they had to comply with those lanes. Didn't even think about it.
> 
> Now you've got basically, instead of being over the horizon like the Navy would normally fight, and at stand-off ranges that would enable their protective systems to be employed, now they're sitting right off the shore, where you're looking at them. I mean, the models and simulation that we put together, it couldn't make a distinction. And we didn't either, until, all of a sudden, whoops, there they are. And that's about the time he attacked. You know?
> 
> The Navy was just bludgeoning me dearly because, of course, they would say, 'We never fight this way.' Fair enough. Okay. We didn't mean to do it. We didn't put you in harm's way purposely. I mean, it just, it happened. And it's unfortunate. So that's one of the things that we learned"3
> 
> Gen. Kernan's nuanced defense was that the simulation had necessarily been conducted in the vicinity of busy sea lanes, hence, in the presence of live commercial shipping; and this required the Navy to "turn off" some of its defenses, which it would not have done in a real wartime situation. All of which is probably true, but the general's remark that in a real Gulf war the fleet would be deployed differently, in a stand-off manner, with its over-the-horizon defenses fully operable, was a misrepresentation of the actual situation in the Persian Gulf, today. The US Navy's biggest problem operating in Gulf waters are the constraints that the region's confined spaces impose on US naval defenses, which were designed for the open sea. The Persian Gulf is nothing but a large lake, after all, and in such an environment the Navy's over-the-horizon defenses are seriously compromised.4 Nor can the Navy withdraw to a safe distance, so long as its close-in presence is required to support the US occupation forces in Iraq. The serious implications of this simple fact for a possible future conflict, for instance, involving Iran, have never, to my knowledge, been discussed in the US press.
> 
> Gen. Kernan's remark was not a misstatement. He repeated himself again, later in the same interview, while fielding another question:
> 
> Q: As a follow-up...Van Riper also said that most of the blue Naval losses were due to cruise missiles. Can you talk about that and say how concerned you are about that?
> 
> Gen. Kernan: "Well, I don't know. To be honest with you, I haven't had an opportunity to assess...what happened. But that's a possibility, once again, because we had to shut off some of these self-defense systems on the models that would have normally been employed. That's a possibility. I think the important thing to note is that normally the Navy would have been significantly over-the-horizon. They would've been arrayed an awful lot differently than we forced them to because of what they had to do for the live-exercise piece of it....Yeah, I think we learned some things. The specifics of the cruise-missile piece...I really can't answer that question. We'd have to get back to you."5
> 
> Safely Over-the-Horizon?
> 
> Gen. Kernan's remarks are surprising, because at the time he made them, in August 2002, as he well should have known, at least two separate studies, one by the US Government Accounting Office (GAO,) based on the Navy's own data, and another by an independent think-tank, had already warned the Office of the Navy about the growing threat to the US fleet posed by anti-ship cruise missiles.6 As recently as 1997 some forty different nations possessed these awesome weapons. By 2000 the number had jumped to 70, with at least 100 different types identified, and a dozen different nations actively pursuing their own production and research/development programs.
> 
> While the numbers are not available for 2004, there is little doubt that the technology has continued to spread rapidly. And why are anti-ship cruise missiles so attractive? The answer is that they are relatively simple to develop, especially in comparison with ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles can be constructed from many of the same readily available parts and components used in commercial aviation. They are also reliable and effective, easy to deploy and use, and are relatively inexpensive. Even poor nations can afford them. One cruise missile represents but a tiny fraction of the immense expenditure of capital the US has invested in each of its 300 active warships. Yet, a single cruise missile can sink or severely disable any ship in the US Navy.
> 
> According to the GAO report, "the key to defeating cruise missile threats is in gaining additional reaction time," so that ships can detect, identify and destroy the attacking missiles. The thorny problem, as I've pointed out, is that the Navy's long-range AWACs and intermediate-range Aegis radar defense systems are significantly less effective in littoral (or coastal) environments, the Persian Gulf being the prime example.
> 
> The other important factor is that cruise missile technology itself is racing ahead. The GAO report warned that the next generation of anti-ship missiles that will begin to appear by 2007 will be faster and stealthier, and will also be equipped with advanced target-seekers, i.e., advanced guidance systems. In fact, one of these advanced anti-ship cruise missiles is already available: the Russian-made Yakhonts missile. It flies at close to Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound), can hit a squirrel in the eye, and has a range of 185 miles: enough range to target the entire Persian Gulf (from Iran), shredding Gen. Kernan's glib remark that in a real war the US expeditionary force will stand-off in safety "over the horizon" while mounting an amphibious attack. Nonsense. Henceforth, in a real Gulf war situation there will be no standing off in safety. The Yakhonts missile has already erased the concept of the horizon, at least, within the Persian Gulf, and it has done so without ever having been fired in combat---yet.
> 
> Gen. Kernan should have known also that, according to Jane's Defense Weekly and other sources, Iranian government officials were in Moscow the previous year (2001), shopping for the latest Russian anti-ship missile technology.7 By their own admission the Russians developed the Yakhonts missile for export. No doubt, it was high on Iran's shopping list.
> 
> The 2000 GAO report's conclusions were not favorable. It stated that for a variety of reasons the Navy's forecasts for upgrading US ship defenses against cruise missile attack are overly optimistic. The Navy's own data shows that there will be no silver bullet. The technology gap is structural, and will not be overcome for many years, if at all. US warships will be vulnerable to cruise missile attack into the foreseeable future, perhaps increasingly so.
> 
> But the GAO saved its most sobering conclusion for last: It so happens that the most vulnerable ship in the US fleet is none other than the flagship itself, the big Nimitz-class carriers. This underscores the significance of Force Red's victory during Millennium Challenge. Just think: If Van Riper could accomplish what he did with Silkworms, the lowly scuds of the cruise missile family, imagine what could happen if the US Navy, sitting in the Gulf like so many ducks, should face a massed-attack of supersonic Yakhonts missiles, a weapon that may well be unstoppable.
> 
> It would be a debacle.
> 
> So, we see that the 2002 US war games afforded a glimpse of the same military hubris that gave us the Viet Nam War and the current quagmire in Iraq. The difference is that the peril for the world today in the "Persian Lake" is many times greater than it ever was in the Gulf of Tonkin

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CardSharp

Also from the Army times 


*War games rigged? 
*

General says Millennium Challenge 02 &#8216;was almost entirely scripted&#8217;

By Sean D. Naylor
Times staff writer


> The most elaborate war game the U.S. military has ever held was rigged so that it appeared to validate the modern, joint-service war-fighting concepts it was supposed to be testing, according to the retired Marine lieutenant general who commanded the game&#8217;s Opposing Force.
> That general, Paul Van Riper, said he worries the United States will send troops into combat using doctrine and weapons systems based on false conclusions from the recently concluded Millennium Challenge 02. He was so frustrated with the rigged exercise that he said he quit midway through the game.
> 
> He said that rather than test forces against an unpredictable enemy, the exercise &#8220;was almost entirely scripted to ensure a [U.S. military] &#8216;win.&#8217; &#8221;
> 
> His complaints prompted an impassioned defense of the war game from Vice Adm. Marty Mayer, the deputy commander of Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va. The command, which sponsored and ran the war game, is the four-star headquarters charged with developing the military&#8217;s joint concepts and requirements.
> 
> &#8220;I want to disabuse anybody of any notion that somehow the books were cooked,&#8221; Mayer said.
> 
> The Defense Department spent $250 million over the last two years to stage Millennium Challenge 02, a three-week, all-service exercise that concluded Aug. 15. The experiment involved 13,500 participants waging mock war in 17 simulation locations and nine live-force training sites.
> 
> Set in a classified scenario in 2007, the experiment&#8217;s main purpose was to test a handful of key war-fighting concepts that Joint Forces Command had developed over the last several years.
> 
> Gen. William &#8220;Buck&#8221; Kernan, head of Joint Forces Command, told Pentagon reporters July 18 that Millennium Challenge was nothing less than &#8220;the key to military transformation.&#8221;
> 
> Central to the success of the war game, Kernan said, was that the U.S. force (or Blue Force) would be fighting a determined and relatively unconstrained Opposing Force (otherwise known as the OPFOR or Red Force).
> 
> &#8220;This is free play,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The OPFOR has the ability to win here.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Not so,&#8221; Van Riper told Army Times. &#8220;Instead of a free-play, two-sided game as the Joint Forces commander advertised it was going to be, it simply became a scripted exercise. They had a predetermined end, and they scripted the exercise to that end.&#8221;
> 
> Van Riper, who retired in 1997 as head of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, is a frequent player in military war games and is regarded as a Red team specialist. He said the constraints placed on the Opposing Force in Millennium Challenge were the most restrictive he has ever experienced in an ostensibly free-play experiment.
> 
> Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue, and on several occasions directed the Opposing Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue. It even ordered him to reveal the location of Red units, he said
> 
> &#8220;We were directed &#8230; to move air defenses so that the Army and Marine units could successfully land,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We were simply directed to turn [the air-defense systems] off or move them. &#8230; So it was scripted to be whatever the control group wanted it to be.&#8221;
> 
> Retired Ambassador Robert Oakley, who participated in the experiment as Red civilian leader, said Van Riper was outthinking the Blue Force from the first day of the exercise.
> 
> Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders, negating Blue&#8217;s high-tech eavesdropping capabilities, Oakley said. Then, when the Blue fleet sailed into the Persian Gulf early in the experiment, Van Riper&#8217;s forces surrounded the ships with small boats and planes sailing and flying in apparently innocuous circles.
> 
> When the Blue commander issued an ultimatum to Red to surrender or face destruction, Van Riper took the initiative, issuing attack orders via the morning call to prayer broadcast from the minarets of his country&#8217;s mosques. His force&#8217;s small boats and aircraft sped into action
> 
> &#8220;By that time there wasn&#8217;t enough time left to intercept them,&#8221; Oakley said. As a result of Van Riper&#8217;s cunning, much of the Blue navy ended up at the bottom of the ocean. The Joint Forces Command officials had to stop the exercise and &#8220;refloat&#8221; the fleet in order to continue, Oakley said.
> 
> Mayer said the war game&#8217;s complexity precluded it being a completely free-play exercise.
> 
> &#8220;In anything this size, certain things are scripted, and you have to execute in a certain way, or you&#8217;ll never be able to bring it all together,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Gen. Van Riper apparently feels he was too constrained. I can only say there were certain parts where he was not constrained, and then there were parts where he was in order to facilitate the conduct of the experiment and certain exercise pieces that were being done.&#8221;
> 
> In contrast to Kernan&#8217;s emphasis that &#8220;the OPFOR has the ability to win,&#8221; the admiral said the exercise &#8220;wasn&#8217;t about winning or losing.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;It was about can we better plan, better organize, and make quicker, better informed decisions,&#8221; he said. &#8220;That is really a different question, rather than the rolling of the dice outcome of whether it was a Blue or a Red thumbs up.
> 
> &#8220;Blue play and Red play was merely to facilitate the experiment and enable it to look at the different pieces. It was not to see who would win.&#8221;
> 
> But by preventing the Opposing Force from employing the full range of its capabilities, Van Riper said, Joint Forces Command sacrificed intellectual rigor on the altar of expedience. In an Aug. 14 e-mail he sent to &#8220;professional friends&#8221; &#8212; a copy of which was obtained by Army Times &#8212; Van Riper expressed bitter frustration with what he viewed as the experiment&#8217;s failure to challenge the command&#8217;s future war-fighting concepts, of which he acknowledged he had been &#8220;a vocal critic.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Unfortunately, in my opinion, neither the construct nor the conduct of the exercise allowed for the concepts of rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, or operational net assessment to be properly assessed,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;&#8230; _t was in actuality an exercise that was almost entirely scripted to ensure a Blue &#8216;win.&#8217; &#8221;
> 
> Van Riper said this approach ran counter to his notion of how an experiment should function. &#8220;You don&#8217;t come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. You see how the thing plays out,&#8221; he said.
> 
> Retired Army Col. Bob Killebrew, an experienced war-game participant who did not take part in Millennium Challenge, echoed this view. &#8220;If you want a true research game, one that really tests things and stresses concepts, Red has to be allowed to win,&#8221; he said.
> 
> But as the war game developed, Van Riper said it became apparent to him that Joint Forces Command officials had little interest in putting their new concepts to the test.
> 
> &#8220;I could see the way the briefings were going &#8212; that these concepts were going to be validated,&#8221; he said.
> 
> Navy Capt. John Carman, Joint Forces Command spokesman, said the experiment had properly validated all the major concepts. The command already was drafting recommendations based on the experiment&#8217;s results in such areas as doctrine, training and procurement that would be forwarded to Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said.
> 
> This is exactly what Van Riper feared would happen. &#8220;My main concern was we&#8217;d see future forces trying to use these things when they&#8217;ve never been properly grounded in any sort of an experiment,&#8221; he said.
> 
> A retired colonel familiar with the JFCOM concepts said Van Riper&#8217;s concerns were well-founded. &#8220;I don&#8217;t have a problem with the ideas,&#8221; said the colonel, who declined to be identified. &#8220;I do have a problem with the fact that we&#8217;re trying to suggest somehow that we&#8217;ve validated them, and now it&#8217;s time to pay for them. We&#8217;re going to buy them &#8212; that&#8217;s bullshit.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;[Van Riper] will refuse to have his name associated with any notion of validation,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And I am completely sympathetic with him and understand him and agree with him.&#8221;
> 
> Van Riper said he became so frustrated during the game that he quit his position as Opposing Force commander halfway through.
> 
> He did so, he said, to avoid presenting one of his Opposing Force subordinates with a moral dilemma. That subordinate was retired Army Col. George Utter, a full-time Joint Forces Command employee who, as the Opposing Force chief of staff, was responsible for taking Van Riper&#8217;s commands and making them happen in the simulation.
> 
> But several days into the exercise, Van Riper realized his orders weren&#8217;t being followed.
> 
> &#8220;I was giving him directions on how I thought the OPFOR ought to perform, and those directions were being countermanded by the exercise director,&#8221; Van Riper said. The exercise director was Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Smith, Utter&#8217;s real-life boss at Joint Forces Command.
> 
> Matters came to a head July 29. &#8220;That morning I&#8217;d given my guidance for what was to happen, and I found that [Utter] had assembled the staff and was giving them a different set [of instructions] based on the exercise director&#8217;s instructions to him.&#8221;
> 
> To save Utter from having to choose between following the orders of his commander in the war game and obeying those of Smith, Van Riper stepped down as the Opposing Force commander. However, the retired Marine, who was participating in the exercise on a contract with defense giant TRW, stayed on at the war game as an adviser.
> 
> Van Riper said that when he discovered Smith was countermanding his orders July 29, he immediately raised objections with both Smith and retired Army Gen. Gary Luck, a senior adviser to Joint Forces Command who was serving as the Blue Force commander. Van Riper said they told him they would meet with him later that day to discuss the issue, but then failed to follow through. &#8220;They never met with me at any time in the exercise,&#8221; he said.
> 
> So Van Riper said he told his Opposing Force staff that from now on they were to take their orders from Utter, not from him.
> 
> Carman said Joint Forces Command had no record of Van Riper having quit as Opposing Force commander. But Van Riper said that in addition to announcing it to his staff, he had made it very clear in a 20-page report he submitted to the command.
> 
> Van Riper said the blame for rigging the exercise lay not with any one officer, but with the culture at Joint Forces Command. &#8220;It&#8217;s an institutional problem,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It&#8217;s embedded in the institution.&#8221;
> 
> He was highly critical of the command&#8217;s concepts, such as &#8220;effects-based operations&#8221; and &#8220;rapid, decisive operations,&#8221; which he derided as little more than &#8220;slogans.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;There&#8217;s very little intellectual activity,&#8221; Van Riper said about Joint Forces Command. &#8220;What happens is a number of people are put into a room, given some sort of a slogan and told to write to the slogan. That&#8217;s not the way to generate new ideas.&#8221;
> 
> There ought to be more open debate over the new concepts, Van Riper said. He said he had told command officials repeatedly that they should vet new concepts with a process similar to that used in academia, in which &#8220;people have to present papers and defend their papers.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;In the process, good ideas stand the test of the cauldron they&#8217;re put in, and come forth, and the ones that aren&#8217;t so good get killed off,&#8221; Van Riper said. &#8220;I haven&#8217;t seen anything killed off down there [at Joint Forces Command]. They just keep generating.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;I completely disagree with that,&#8221; Mayer said. &#8220;That&#8217;s his opinion. In my view, we have thoroughly looked at these.&#8221;
> 
> In his e-mail, Van Riper told colleagues he was speaking out to pre-empt a repeat of what happened after he participated in another Joint Forces Command exercise, Unified Vision 2001. Following that exercise, &#8220;my name was included in post-experiment materials stating that the concept of rapid decisive operations had been validated &#8212; a mistruth at best,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;I wanted to set the record straight with my professional friends early this year.&#8221;
> 
> Van Riper&#8217;s single-mindedness can sometimes rub other experiment participants the wrong way, said a retired Army officer who has played in several war games with the Marine.
> 
> &#8220;What he&#8217;s done is he&#8217;s made himself an expert in playing Red, and he&#8217;s real obnoxious about it,&#8221; the retired officer said. &#8220;He will insist on being able to play Red as freely as possible and as imaginatively and creatively within the bounds of the framework of the game and the technology horizons and all that as possible.
> 
> &#8220;He can be a real pain in the ***, but that&#8217;s good. But a lot of people don&#8217;t like to sign up for that sort of agitation. But he&#8217;s a great guy, and he&#8217;s a great patriot and he&#8217;s doing all those things for the right reasons.&#8221;_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CardSharp

For those who are too lazy to read the whole articles (interesting though they may be) Here is the highlight 




> The war game was described as "free play," meaning that both sides were unconstrained, free to pursue any tactic in the book of war in the service of victory. As Gen. Kernan put it: "The OPFOR (Force Red) has the ability to win here." Much of the action was computer-generated. But representative military units in the field also acted out the various moves and countermoves. The comparison to a chess match is not inaccurate. The vastly superior US armada consisted of the standard carrier battle group with its full supporting cast of ships and planes. Van Riper had at his disposal a much weaker flotilla of smaller vessels, many of them civilian craft, and numerous assets typical of a Third World country.
> 
> But Van Riper made the most of weakness. Instead of trying to compete directly with Force Blue, he utilized ingenious low-tech alternatives. Crucially, he prevented the stronger US force from eavesdropping on his communications by foregoing the use of radio transmissions. Van Riper relied on couriers instead to stay in touch with his field officers. He also employed novel tactics such as coded signals broadcast from the minarets of mosques during the Muslim call to prayer, a tactic weirdly reminiscent of Paul Revere and the shot heard round the world. At every turn, the wily Van Riper did the unexpected. And in the process he managed to achieve an asymmetric advantage: the new buzzword in military parlance.
> 
> Astutely and very covertly, Van Riper armed his civilian marine craft and deployed them near the US fleet, which never expected an attack from small pleasure boats. Faced with a blunt US ultimatum to surrender, Force Red suddenly went on the offensive: and achieved complete tactical surprise. Force Red's prop-driven aircraft suddenly were swarming around the US warships, making Kamikaze dives. Some of the pleasure boats made suicide attacks. Others fired Silkworm cruise missiles from close range, and sunk a carrier, the largest ship in the US fleet, along with two helicopter-carriers loaded with marines. The sudden strike was reminiscent of the Al Qaeda sneak attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Yet, the Navy was unprepared. When it was over, most of the US fleet had been destroyed. Sixteen US warships lay on the bottom, and the rest were in disarray. Thousands of American sailors were dead, dying, or wounded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Nomenclature

Drawing based on the 056 model from the well-known former _Modern Warship_ illustrator Dong Xu:







¡¾HSHÊ×·¢¡¿ÖøÃû»æÍ¼Ê¦Ù¡ÐñÐÂ×÷--056ÐÍÇá»¤²ÊÉ«ÏßÍ¼ - º£Ñó½¢Í§¿Æ¼¼·¢ÉÕ°æ - HSHÉÏº£·¢ÉÕÓÑÂÛÌ³ - Powered by Discuz!


----------



## Nomenclature

report from Jane's



> Jane's Defence Weekly
> 
> Model suggests PLA Navy Type 056 corvette in the offing
> 
> Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
> Washington, DC
> 
> During a courtesy visit to Hong Kong University on 4 November, Major General Wang Junli of the Hong Kong People's Liberation Army (PLA) Garrison presented Professor Lap-Chee Tsui, a vice-chancellor of the university, with a model of what may be a new PLA Navy corvette.
> 
> Featured on the Hong Kong University website, the model bears the number "056" where the pennant number would be placed, suggesting that this new ship may be called the Type 056. The presentation may also indicate that this new corvette could replace or supplement the six Type 037 Houjian 528 ton YJ-1 (C-801) ASM-armed fast-attack craft based in Hong Kong since 1997.
> 
> While no official details have been released, the model shows the "Type 056" to displace about 1,500 to 2,000 tons, is fin-stabilised for high-seas operations and is likely to be powered by diesel engines. The version presented is armed with a 76 mm main gun on the fore deck, four YJ-2 or YJ-3 (C-802/3) ASMs amidship and a FL-3000N SAM launcher aft. Similar to the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), the FL-3000N is a development of the Luoyang TY-90 AAM, is fin-guided in contrast to RAM and has a 9 km range.
> 
> The launcher featured on the "Type 056" appears to be the 24-missile launcher first seen at the 2008 Zhuhai Airshow. There is a deck for a medium-size helicopter but apparently there is no hanger. It also features a bow-mounted sonar and it is likely that a carriage of torpedoes may convey a limited anti-submarine capability.
> 
> Motivations for the PLA to build a new less-expensive corvette-size combatant include a requirement to increase ship numbers to better enforce territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea, plus a desire to update its export offerings. The Type 056 would give the PLA the ability to offer an inexpensive but capable combatant that would fill a gap between its 1,463-ton Offshore Patrol Vessel, two of which were sold to Thailand, and the 3,200 ton F-22P class frigate, four of which have been sold to Pakistan


----------



## Penguin

Dragon Emperor said:


> I'd say it's useless for blue-water missions but idle for coast guard/patrol and littoral missions.



Ever noticed that during port visits to China, the IN typically sent a Delhi or Rajput class destroyer, an auxiliary oiler replenishment ship and ... a Khukri or Kora class corvette? That should tell you something.


----------



## Penguin

BigTree.CN said:


> Warship with a displacement of 1,500 -2,000 tons, well, that is pathetic.
> 
> Even Japan Coast Guard is better armed than that, it has more than ten vessels with a displacement of over 4000 tons.



The German navy disagrees: Braunschweig (K130) class.
Class overview
Operators: German Navy
Built: 2004&#8211;2007
In commission: 2008&#8211;
Planned: 10
Completed: 5
Active: 5
General characteristics
Type: Corvette
Displacement: 1,840 tonnes (1,810 LT)
Length: 89.12 m (292 ft 5 in)
Beam: 13.28 m (43 ft 7 in)
Draft: 3.4 m (11 ft 2 in)
Speed: 26 knots (48 km/h/30 mph)
Range: 4,000 nmi (7,400 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h/17 mph)[1]
Endurance: 7 days; 21 days with tender
Complement: 65 : 1 commander, 10 officers, 16 chief petty officers, 38 enlisted
Sensors and
processing systems: &#8226; TRS-3D multifunction radar
&#8226; 2 navigation radars
&#8226; MSSR 2000 i IFF system
&#8226; MIRADOR electro-optical sensors
&#8226; UL 5000 K ESM suite
&#8226; Link 11 and Link 16 communications
Electronic warfare
and decoys: &#8226; 2 &#215; TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System) decoy launcher
&#8226; UL 5000 K ECM suite
Armament: &#8226; 1 &#215; Otobreda 76 mm gun
&#8226; 2 &#215; MLG 27 mm autocannons
&#8226; 2 &#215; 21-cell RAM launcher
&#8226; 2 &#215; 2-cell launcher with RBS-15 Mk.3 surface-to-surface missiles
&#8226; Mine laying capability

I'ld say this ship is in many ways equal or even better equipped than F22P ...


----------



## CardSharp

^^^^^^^

The German navy has about 2 metres of coast line to guard against the mighty nation of Denmark.


----------



## spin666

CardSharp said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> The German navy has about 2 metres of coast line to guard against the mighty nation of Denmark.



You my friend need to recheck your geography info. 

On Price,Size and Armament this ship's design fit very well with china's long coast line and it's booming trade(sea line defence/patrol). Like patroling the Somalin coast,it's way too costly to put DDG or even FF for the long run. A mission like Somalia would be nice for an LCS, and which 056 Corvette would also fit. 

Only problem with be it has no CIWS emplacement,as it's kind of odd choose for LCS. hard to engage small craft with just your 76mm or 12.7HMG.


----------



## akinkhoo

gypgypgyp said:


> It's just a different view about how to spend money rather than US has 10 time capacity of China


I think you miss the point, it isn't saying that China can't afford it, but the navy with it's current budget can't afford it. IF the budget is change, they argument would make sense, but that has not happened and this ship is still being built... understand?

either way I don't believe the purpose of these ship are just purely anti-pirate or are they design with only warfare in mind, these ship help increase coverage which is more useful in non-war environment. to civilians it not like they can tell it corvette or frigate, it has a psychological impact of getting people used to seeing chinese ship sail up and down the sea.


----------



## aimarraul

[/IMG]


----------



## aimarraul




----------



## Determined Tiger

China should import German or French techs for upgrading these warships!!!


----------



## no_name

It is too small for a heli hanger, but maybe they will have one for unmanned heli type UAV?


----------



## Akasa

Determined Tiger said:


> China should import German or French techs for upgrading these warships!!!



That would result in a degradation of the PLA Navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

@Cardsharp

Thank you for that fascinating set of notes about the war games in which van Riper was a participant.

Several conclusions seem to have emerged:
1. Do not fiddle the rules of your games; it is constraining enough to model reality, and further distortions due to fiddling the rules is creating too much distortion.
2. Do not fiddle the trends; these show which combination of doctrine, strategy, tactics, equipment and armament might work in real life. 
3. The US Navy doesn't know how to fight the Iranians at sea.
4. The Yakhonts missile is remarkably effective  .

That aside, what is the issue with the Type 056 Corvette? Is the gradual reduction of ordnance in the sequence destroyer=> frigate=> corvette=> offshore patrol vessel an insufficient model for China's current and projected maritime needs?


----------



## Determined Tiger

SinoSoldier said:


> That would result in a degradation of the PLA Navy.



Who know if you do it silently behind the back door!? 

Admitting reality is always better than self overestimated about our might, there would be no chances when we are in real battles!?


----------



## Akasa

Determined Tiger said:


> Who know if you do it silently behind the back door!?
> 
> Admitting reality is always better than self overestimated about our might, there would be no chances when we are in real battles!?



Admitting reality is different from being lazy and stopping the industries. Besides, what major systems does Germany or France have that the PLAN doesn't (and don't say engines, because Ukraine has solved that problem)? What do they have that the PLAN hasn't surpassed?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## homing28



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## NeutralCitizen

homing28 said:


>



Thought this was the Type 52 my mistake.


----------



## NeutralCitizen

I got the 52 and 56 wrong ok lol.


----------



## zulfiqar74

razgriz19 said:


> china's military budget is expected to be $78 billion this year....
> 
> US military budget is MORE THAN $700 BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!
> $$$719.2 BILLION TO BE PRECISE..
> 
> see the difference....?
> 
> Government Spending Chart in United States 2000-2020 - Federal State Local



Iam sure china can expand its budget to 700 billion as it has better economy and man power and funds but i think there are other factors to consider. All the chinese money is invested in the US so the americans have the advantage to expand their defence budget. so if chinese take all their funds out US the US economy will collapse china will suffer a lot but they will still be stable comparing to the US..

Iam sure china can make a decent corvette if they want, they have made 4000 ton to 7000 tons decent warships i think this is just an offshore petrol ships they are calling a corvette just to psych the naval community rather then a full fledge 3000 ton corvette targeting those small island around the east china sea and saving the cost of sending a larger ship. if you are going to spend money on making a 3000 ton corvette it would be stupid as china could mass produce type 53 light frigate with better surface to air and equipments...... thats my 2 paisas there.....


----------



## cirr

3rd 056 584 seen at WC in Wuhan:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

5th&#65288;2nd from HP&#65289;Type 056 Corvette ready for launch tomorrow 19.08.2012&#65306;


----------



## Nishan_101

I think PN should look towards producing 5 of these at KE&SWs but with Two sets of Four AShM launchers and later produce 6 of these, to have total of 11 till 2022.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

*Chinese Type 056 corvette*





The Chinese Type 056 corvette is approximately 1,500 tons and 90 meters long. It carries eight C-803 anti-ship missiles. The C-803 has a Mach 2 supersonic terminal phase. Also, it has a FL-3000N SAM unit (under the blue tarp in the picture).










FL-3000N (Chinese RIM-116 RAM) on another ship

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Naval-Weapon-Systems/FL-3000N-China.html

"FL-3000N (China), Surface-to-air missiles

*Type*
Short range air defence system

*Development*
The FL-3000N ('Feibao') short range air defence system was first displayed at the 2008 Zhuhai Air Show and has been developed by the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC). It is a ship self-defence weapon designed particularly to counter saturation attacks. The system employs both passive Radio Frequency (RF) and Imaging Infra-Red (IIR) guidance and is a fire and forget weapon. The fire-control system is reported to be capable of controlling two launchers simultaneously and missiles can be launched at intervals of three seconds in salvos. The missile is stabilised in flight rather than rolling as does the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) with which it has been compared. Development of the system is thought to be complete and at least one system has been installed in the ex-Russian Federation aircraft carrier Shi Lang (ex-Varyag) which is being reconstructed in Dalian for the PLA Navy. It is thought likely that up to four systems will be installed. A model of a possible new PLA Navy corvette (tentatively designated Type 056) has also been shown with an FL-3000 launcher fitted aft."

[Note: Thank you to Greyboy2 for the pictures.]


----------



## cirr

*19.08.2012&#65292;a fine and boiling day in Shanghai*&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

To go with 2 of this&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Front and Rear&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

056 HD1 and HD2 facing each other&#65306;






More pics from today's launch&#65306;





















Now looking forward to the launch of the 6th ship at HP&#65306;the HP2.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 帅的一匹

Will Pakistan Navy consider 056 corvette in the near future?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

6th &#65288;HP2&#65289;Type 056 covette readying herself for launch&#65288;which is now under way&#65289;last night&#65306;






HP3 see behind HP2&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

PLA navy is building warship at incredible speed. How many 056 corvettes gonna be delivered?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## grey boy 2

wanglaokan said:


> PLA navy is building warship at incredible speed. How many 056 corvettes gonna be delivered?



40 056 (056&#36731;&#25252;&#26159;&#20316;&#20026;&#36817;&#28023;&#24033;&#36923;&#21453;&#28508;&#33328;&#20351;&#29992;&#65292;&#21544;&#20301;&#23567;&#65292;&#36896;&#20215;&#20302;&#65292;&#36866;&#21512;&#22823;&#25209;&#37327;&#21046;&#36896;&#12290;&#30446;&#21069;&#30475;&#22269;&#20869;&#29983;&#20135;&#36895;&#24230;&#30830;&#23454;&#24456;&#24555;&#65292;&#21322;&#24180;&#22810;&#19979;&#27700;5&#33368;&#12290;&#26410;&#26469;&#35013;&#22791;&#25968;&#37327;&#21487;&#33021;&#36798;&#21040;40&#33368;&#12290
ä¸*å½è½»æ¤ç¬¬äºèä¸æ°´ 056å»ºé*ç¥é - åè¿·æåµ - æ°é»ä¸»è®ºå - æ°é»è®ºå - è¾è®¯æ°é»_è¾è®¯ç½

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anarchy 99

wanglaokan said:


> PLA navy is building warship at incredible speed. How many 056 corvettes gonna be delivered?


 
We gotta thank Obama for that, that pivot to Asia was the best thing to happen to PLA modernization.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

HP1 and HP2 seen shoulder 2 shoulder&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

It is a good gift to Vietnam and philippine

Please as much as possible

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

The Nth &#65288;LN2&#65289;Type 056 corvette&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

The Nth&#65288;HD3&#65289;Type 056 corvette&#65288;15.09.2012&#65289;&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

A lot more 056 sections found ashore HPS:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

The 7th&#65288;WC2) Type 056 corvette launched at WC on 25.09.2012&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hk299792458

cirr said:


> The 7th&#65288;WC2) Type 056 corvette launched at WC on 25.09.2012&#65306;



25th of *October*, not September...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

1st 056&#65288;HD1&#65289; began sea trials on 06.11.2012&#65306;






10th(HD3) 056:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hk299792458

The 1st *Type 056* corvette started it's first sea trial on November 6th 2012. Only in this year, just between May and October, chinese shipyards have already launched *7* ships of this class, a very surprising efficiency and capacity... 

And I dare to say that the final number of this class of corvettes launched in 2012 will probably reach 10...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## seven7seven

I think China are being very smart with their defense expenditure. They're obviously playing the numbers game at the moment to counter the US' pivot towards them and building lots of cheaper ships with minimum, but very capable combat ability is a smart way of placing boats in the water, as soon as possible. On their own, they of course would be no match for the US fleet or even other regional naval powerhouses, like Korea and Japan, but as a swarm, which is how I would expect them to be used, they would give any opposing navy something to think about. Given how relatively cheap they are and the rate China are putting them out, these new corvettes will give China ample coverage of modern naval warships to patrol their near coasts.

China, as a nation playing catch up to other naval powers, have played it smart and not put all their eggs into the metaphorical one basket. China could have easily fallen into the trap of building massive destroyers and cruisers with equal or greater armaments, and bankrupt themselves to field enough of them to cover their vast coastline. Building smaller ships with modern capabilities like this 056 and the 054A frigates is exactly what China needs to do right now, to get their modern warship numbers up. This strategy is the most economically sensible way of modernising and strengthening China's navy, along with gradually building up their numbers of modern destroyers and eventually more aircraft carriers and even cruisers. 

Here in the West, people seem to look on at China's military build up with great suspicion, but if I were in their shoes, I'd be doing the exact same thing, given the US' history of military interference around the World. Good on China for their impressive ascension both economically and militarily.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## hk299792458

New photo for this very first sea trial...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## hk299792458

An another Type 056 corvette, the 2nd of serial which is constructed in Guangzhou, has also started it's first sea trial.

So far, 7 ships of this class have been launched in this year and 2 have started sea trials...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

hk299792458 said:


> An another Type 056 corvette, the 2nd of serial which is constructed in Guangzhou, has also started it's first sea trial.
> 
> So far, 7 ships of this class have been launched in this year and 2 have started sea trials...


----------



## hk299792458

Some photos of sea trial, I don't know which one is it...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kobiraaz

wanglaokan said:


> It is a good gift to Vietnam and philippine
> 
> Please as much as possible



China has opened a new production line of type 056 in Wuhan for Bangladesh Navy besides their 056 production line in Guangzhou and in Shanghai

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sweetgrape

The second 056 start its sea trial.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

At least they should mount a CIWS on it, or some AK630.

056 is better join the China Surveilliance fleet than PLAN
The only bright point is that it carrys 4 C803 anti ship missile. 056 is a good one to deal with Vietnam in SCS.


----------



## hurt

wanglaokan said:


> At least they should mount a CIWS on it, or some AK630.
> 
> 056 is better join the China Surveilliance fleet than PLAN



HQ-10&#12288;is a CIWS



kobiraaz said:


> China has opened a new production line of type 056 in Wuhan for Bangladesh Navy besides their 056 production line in Guangzhou and in Shanghai



more one in dalian


----------



## 帅的一匹

hurt said:


> HQ-10&#12288;is a CIWS



Only 8 or 9 missile mounted on HQ10 laucher, i think it would be better to install a goalkeep in the front part of 056.
Why not this one?




&#23545;&#20102;056&#19978;&#26377;&#27809;&#26377;&#23433;&#35013;&#21453;&#28508;&#23548;&#24377;&#65311;&#36830;&#20010;&#21453;&#28508;&#28779;&#31661;&#24377;&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#23433;&#35013;&#65292;&#35201;&#26159;&#22312;&#21335;&#28023;&#30896;&#21040;&#29492;&#23376;&#30340;&#28508;&#33351;&#35813;&#21643;&#21150;&#65311;&#20854;&#23454;&#23436;&#20840;&#21487;&#20197;&#25226;&#25490;&#27700;&#37327;&#20570;&#21040;2200&#21544;&#24038;&#21491;&#65292;&#25226;&#21151;&#33021;&#20877;&#20570;&#20840;&#19968;&#28857;&#12290;&#25105;&#20204;&#22269;&#23478;&#23601;&#24046;&#37027;&#20040;&#28857;&#38065;&#65311;&#28023;&#20891;&#37027;&#24110;&#20154;&#31616;&#30452;&#26159;&#26080;&#35821;&#12290;&#20687;056&#36825;&#22411;&#20570;&#28023;&#30417;&#33337;&#21544;&#20301;&#37117;&#26174;&#24471;&#23567;&#65292;&#22312;&#21335;&#28023;&#25112;&#22791;&#25191;&#21220;&#21151;&#33021;&#21448;&#22826;&#21333;&#19968;&#19981;&#33021;&#38450;&#31354;&#21448;&#19981;&#33021;&#21453;&#28508;&#12290;&#27450;&#36127;&#20154;&#23478;&#28180;&#33337;&#24046;&#19981;&#22810;&#12290;&#26082;&#28982;&#27494;&#22791;&#19981;&#34892;&#37027;&#23601;&#35013;&#22791;&#20010;50&#33368;&#20945;&#20945;&#25968;&#21543;&#65281;


----------



## hurt

wanglaokan said:


> Only 8 or 9 missile mounted on HQ10 laucher, i think it would be better to install a goalkeep in the front part of 056.
> Why not this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#23545;&#20102;056&#19978;&#26377;&#27809;&#26377;&#23433;&#35013;&#21453;&#28508;&#23548;&#24377;&#65311;&#36830;&#20010;&#21453;&#28508;&#28779;&#31661;&#24377;&#20063;&#27809;&#26377;&#23433;&#35013;&#65292;&#35201;&#26159;&#22312;&#21335;&#28023;&#30896;&#21040;&#29492;&#23376;&#30340;&#28508;&#33351;&#35813;&#21643;&#21150;&#65311;&#20854;&#23454;&#23436;&#20840;&#21487;&#20197;&#25226;&#25490;&#27700;&#37327;&#20570;&#21040;2200&#21544;&#24038;&#21491;&#65292;&#25226;&#21151;&#33021;&#20877;&#20570;&#20840;&#19968;&#28857;&#12290;&#25105;&#20204;&#22269;&#23478;&#23601;&#24046;&#37027;&#20040;&#28857;&#38065;&#65311;&#28023;&#20891;&#37027;&#24110;&#20154;&#31616;&#30452;&#26159;&#26080;&#35821;&#12290;&#20687;056&#36825;&#22411;&#20570;&#28023;&#30417;&#33337;&#21544;&#20301;&#37117;&#26174;&#24471;&#23567;&#65292;&#22312;&#21335;&#28023;&#25112;&#22791;&#25191;&#21220;&#21151;&#33021;&#21448;&#22826;&#21333;&#19968;&#19981;&#33021;&#38450;&#31354;&#21448;&#19981;&#33021;&#21453;&#28508;&#12290;&#27450;&#36127;&#20154;&#23478;&#28180;&#33337;&#24046;&#19981;&#22810;&#12290;&#26082;&#28982;&#27494;&#22791;&#19981;&#34892;&#37027;&#23601;&#35013;&#22791;&#20010;50&#33368;&#20945;&#20945;&#25968;&#21543;&#65281;



Can goalkeep shoot 2-3 targets of the time ? 
DO you think about who Saturation attack for so small ship?

&#21518;&#38754;&#32972;&#30528;6&#21457;&#21453;&#28508;&#40060;&#38647;&#21602;&#65292;&#20320;&#27809;&#30475;&#35265;&#65311;
&#25509;&#30340;&#23601;&#26159;037&#65292;&#32769;&#27743;&#28246;&#30340;&#39046;&#28023;&#21644;&#32463;&#27982;&#21306;&#24033;&#36923;&#25252;&#28180;&#30340;&#27963;&#65292;&#21344;&#30340;&#26159;&#23548;&#25252;&#33351;&#30340;&#32534;&#65292;&#20570;&#37027;&#20040;&#22823;&#24178;&#20160;&#20040;&#65292;&#32780;&#19988;&#36825;&#20010;&#21544;&#20301;&#24050;&#32463;&#23436;&#20840;&#21487;&#20197;&#22312;&#21335;&#28023;&#20840;&#22495;&#36716;&#24736;&#20102;&#12290;
&#33267;&#20110;&#20316;&#25112;&#33021;&#21147;&#65292;10&#20844;&#37324;&#30340;&#38450;&#31354;&#33539;&#22260;&#36824;&#19981;&#22815;&#65311;6&#21457;&#21453;&#28508;&#40060;&#38647;&#19981;&#22815;&#65311;&#21335;&#28023;&#21608;&#22260;&#27604;&#36825;&#25112;&#26007;&#21147;&#39640;&#30340;&#33328;&#33351;&#26377;&#20960;&#33368;&#65311;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

&#22914;&#26524;&#26377;&#21453;&#28508;&#33021;&#21147;&#37027;&#36824;&#20945;&#27963;&#65292;&#25972;&#20010;&#21335;&#20013;&#22269;&#28023;&#30340;&#21046;&#31354;&#26435;&#37117;&#26159;&#21681;&#20013;&#22269;&#30340;&#12290;


----------



## Penguin

wanglaokan said:


> Only 8 or 9 missile mounted on HQ10 laucher, i think it would be better to install a goalkeep in the front part of 056.


Consider Goalkeeper's max rate of fire is 4200 round per minute, or 70 rounds per second. The weapon fires for about 0.2 seconds per engagement i.e. it fires 14 round bursts. Maximum burst size is 1,000 rounds, which takes some 14 seconds. The ammunition load is 1190 rounds on the mount, in a below-deck magazine. This is enough for 85 short bursts of 14 rounds. Reload time is 9 minutes (reloading is done below deck) 

Goalkeeper can track 32 targets and prioritizes 4. It can deal with 2 pairs of sea skimmers about 5 seconds apart (2 missiles followed by 2 more 5 seconds later). 

Total reaction time against a Mach 2 (= 680m/s) sea skimmer is about 5,5 seconds from automatic detection through to start of engagement at 1500m, continuing to optimum kill probability at 300m . It follows that to engaging and kiling a supersonic missile may take about 1.8 seconds, during which time 9 burst may be fired, expending 126 rounds. Magazine capacity allow for 9 such engagements. 

World Naval Weapon Systems, 5 Ed. - Norman Friedman - Google Boeken

At these ranges, incoming missile debris can still cause damage. Using a missile for CIWS has the advantage of being able to engage the inbound track further out due to the missile CIWS having longer range than the Gun CIWS. If 1 hit can typically be achieved per missile carried, then I would think defensive capability is comparable.



wanglaokan said:


> Why not this one?



It is bigger and therefor heavier and possibly also more expensive (remember, 056 is meant a low cost patrol asset).

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Cost&#65292;cost&#65292;cost&#12290;

Cost is always an issue&#65292;even if and when you are a $100 trillion economy.


----------



## sweetgrape



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rechoice

wanglaokan said:


> At least they should mount a CIWS on it, or some AK630.
> 
> 056 is better join the China Surveilliance fleet than PLAN
> The only bright point is that it carrys 4 C803 anti ship missile. 056 is a good one to deal with Vietnam in SCS.



we have to do more for our navy to defend counter aggressive neighbor.


----------



## Pakchina

Rechoice said:


> we have to do more for our navy to defend counter aggressive neighbor.



Better for the vietcongs to invest in their economy to feed its growing population thereby preventing under age vietnamese boys and girls to prostitute for the US, UK and Australian male sexual predators. Better also for the vietcong to ask for compensation from the US for the mass killings of vietnamese women and children by chemical weapons during the US bombings campaign of the Vietnamese war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

Rechoice said:


> we have to do more for our navy to defend counter aggressive neighbor.



No matter what you all do is useless. 

Can you afford a USD 20 billion military budget annually? Anything less than that , its better you all give up South China sea and build a better relationship with China. It will be the best defence.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Fsjal

Rechoice said:


> we have to do more for our navy to defend counter aggressive neighbor.



Does Vietnam have any stealthy ships. If so, name them.



Pakchina said:


> Better for the vietcongs to invest in their economy to feed its growing population thereby preventing under age vietnamese boys and girls to prostitute for the US, UK and Australian male sexual predators. Better also for the vietcong to ask for compensation from the US for the mass killings of vietnamese women and children by chemical weapons during the US bombings campaign of the Vietnamese war.



The Vietnamese are gonna be filled with hot air.



Beast said:


> No matter what you all do is useless.
> 
> Can you afford a USD 20 billion military budget annually? Anything less than that , its better you all give up South China sea and build a better relationship with China. It will be the best defence.



Vietnam Navy is not powerful enough to counter China's awesome rise

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 7freedom7

sweetgrape said:


>


Goddame beautiful in those HDR pictures.



Rechoice said:


> we have to do more for our navy to defend counter aggressive neighbor.



Might aswell join force with China to explore the resources and follow the paycheck China offers you.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Penguin

hurt said:


> Can goalkeep shoot 2-3 targets of the time ?



Goalkeeper: Goalkeeper has two radar sub-systems, one to find threats and another to track and engage them, which operate together to identify and prioritise targets, and engage the highest priority one. The 2D I band search radar, which can handle up to 18 targets at once, generates a threat picture which the gun system uses to identify and prioritise threats. The system has identify friend or foe (IFF) functionality to rule out friendly traces. The tracking radar operates in both I band and K band to enable quick acquisition on the threat bearing. Data from both the I band and K band return signals indicate target range and can be used to identify, and respond to the use of, electronic countermeasures (ECM). The dual band system also reduces the effect of clutter, which can mask the target at low altitude. A camera system on the assembly provides a visual fallback for the system operator. The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronised to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m. Continuous search with track-while-scan ensures rapid engagement of the next priority target in multitarget scenarios.

I don't think FL3000N will be much (if at all) faster... it can't engage 2-3 targets at a time, only in quick succession.


----------



## hurt

Penguin said:


> Goalkeeper: Goalkeeper has two radar sub-systems, one to find threats and another to track and engage them, which operate together to identify and prioritise targets, and engage the highest priority one. The 2D I band search radar, which can handle up to 18 targets at once, generates a threat picture which the gun system uses to identify and prioritise threats. The system has identify friend or foe (IFF) functionality to rule out friendly traces. The tracking radar operates in both I band and K band to enable quick acquisition on the threat bearing. Data from both the I band and K band return signals indicate target range and can be used to identify, and respond to the use of, electronic countermeasures (ECM). The dual band system also reduces the effect of clutter, which can mask the target at low altitude. A camera system on the assembly provides a visual fallback for the system operator. The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronised to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m. Continuous search with track-while-scan ensures rapid engagement of the next priority target in multitarget scenarios.
> 
> I don't think FL3000N will be much (if at all) faster... it can't engage 2-3 targets at a time, only in quick succession.



Plz tell me How long Goalkeeper can continue shooting?How long Goalkeeper until it get a missle ?


----------



## sweetgrape

Sub Naval gun for 056--H/PJ15 30mm AM Naval gun

















The gun mounted on 885 depot ship

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Penguin

hurt said:


> Plz tell me How long Goalkeeper can continue shooting?How long Goalkeeper until it get a missle ?



This system can track up to thirty targets, engaging the four most urgent. It will minimize the salvo length to engage as many targets as possible and - as explained - is able to deal with two pairs of sea-skimming missiles as little as five or six seconds apart.

Rate of fire: 70 rounds/second (4,200 rounds/minute)
The weapon typically fires for about 0.2 seconds per engagement = 14 rounds
Ammo stowage on mount 1,190 rounds = 85 engagements.
This is likely scenario for subsonic missiles.

Supersonic target example (The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronised to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m. ):
mach 2 = 680.58 m / s
1500-300=1200m 
1200/680,58=1,76 seconds of continuous firing 
x 70 rounds/second = 123 rounds (counts as ~ 9 'engagements' as far a ammo use concerned)
1190/123= 10 such targets can be engaged in sequence 
(> 8 rounds of FL3000N on Type 056, which require some time to que and to lock on, before they can be fired and forgetten...)

5.5s-1.8s=3.7s is time spend by the system on handing over from detection to tracking radar, doing IFF and deciding to fire. The system is first cue-ed by a larger radar e.g. Smart-S, which detects missiles ate longer ranges. Next, on mount surveillance rader takes over, which then hands downs to on mount tracking radar.

It ought to be similar for a Chinese Type 730 ciws mount (now compare Type 056, F22P, Type 054A ;-)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

Fsjal said:


> Does Vietnam have any stealthy ships. If so, name them.


Russian Gepard type

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hurt

Penguin said:


> This system can track up to thirty targets, engaging the four most urgent. It will minimize the salvo length to engage as many targets as possible and - as explained - is able to deal with two pairs of sea-skimming missiles as little as five or six seconds apart.
> 
> Rate of fire: 70 rounds/second (4,200 rounds/minute)
> The weapon typically fires for about 0.2 seconds per engagement = 14 rounds
> Ammo stowage on mount 1,190 rounds = 85 engagements.
> This is likely scenario for subsonic missiles.
> 
> Supersonic target example (The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile such as the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the firing synchronised to start the engagement at a range of 1,500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m. ):
> mach 2 = 680.58 m / s
> 1500-300=1200m
> 1200/680,58=1,76 seconds of continuous firing
> x 70 rounds/second = 123 rounds (counts as ~ 9 'engagements' as far a ammo use concerned)
> 1190/123= 10 such targets can be engaged in sequence
> (> 8 rounds of FL3000N on Type 056, which require some time to que and to lock on, before they can be fired and forgetten...)
> 
> 5.5s-1.8s=3.7s is time spend by the system on handing over from detection to tracking radar, doing IFF and deciding to fire. The system is first cue-ed by a larger radar e.g. Smart-S, which detects missiles ate longer ranges. Next, on mount surveillance rader takes over, which then hands downs to on mount tracking radar.
> 
> It ought to be similar for a Chinese Type 730 ciws mount (now compare Type 056, F22P, Type 054A ;-)



LOL,13 rounds get one subsonic missiles,great weapon. 

Our 730 Waste 2 seconds per engagement&#12290;

It has been calculated for different target speed, the same premise of weapon system accuracy, in order to ensure the full route at least hit probability of the situation, the number of artillery projectiles effectively intercept section basically consistent. Well, with the increase of the incoming missile flight speed, artillery firing rate should also be a corresponding increase.
intercept 1.5 times the speed of sound missile firing rate to 5597 rounds/min, 2 times the speed of sound 6713 rounds/min. , three times the speed of sound to 8386 rounds/min, 4 times the speed of sound, will have to 9579 rounds/minute &#8230;


----------



## hurt

Penguin said:


> Russian Gepard type



The Vietnam People's Navy like a The Caspian Flotilla that a Lake Navy.


----------



## hurt

Penguin said:


> It ought to be similar for a Chinese Type 730 ciws mount (now compare Type 056, F22P, Type 054A ;-)



Type 056 only with HQ-10.


----------



## cirr

A new Type 056 FFG is fast approaching launch&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

The two 056s launched at LNS in 2012&#65306;







Two more under construction in 2013 at the same shipyard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gentelman

no_name said:


> Would Pakistan be interested in having such ships in their navy?
> 
> I have this crazy idea of having a larger type 071 type ship carrying a couple of high speed cushion boats with anti-ship missiles. Wonder if you can make those stealthy.



well i was hoping soo but maybe PN willnot be intrested in this....
they will wait for a bit better and capable version of these...
well a long way to goo...
we r inducing more and improved F-22Ps...the agreement is signed..
then i suppose we r looking for destroyers...
after destroyers hadbeen induced then i suppose a better version of this ship will be out..
maybe then PN will consider it..
well i hope PN get J-11Bs...to replace their Mairages.....
i viewed a Pn fighter pilot pic testing J-11B...


----------



## cirr

HD #3&#65288;10th in all&#65289;&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

hurt said:


> It has been calculated for different target speed, the same premise of weapon system accuracy, in order to ensure the full route at least hit probability of the situation, the number of artillery projectiles effectively intercept section basically consistent. Well, with the increase of the incoming missile flight speed, artillery firing rate should also be a corresponding increase.
> intercept 1.5 times the speed of sound missile firing rate to 5597 rounds/min, 2 times the speed of sound 6713 rounds/min. , three times the speed of sound to 8386 rounds/min, 4 times the speed of sound, will have to 9579 rounds/minute



Destroying a supersonic missile at as little as 300m from the ship leaves significant room for damage due to incoming missile debris. Then again, CIWS is a last-ditch weapon and I suppose debris-damage is still preferable to a full-on hit.



hurt said:


> Type 056 only with HQ-10.



I know it has HQ-10 and 2 single 30mm. Point is to compare last ditch defences agains AShM (what ever particular system or systems that constitutes in these classes). Type 054 would rely on 4 AK630.


----------



## Penguin

hurt said:


> The Vietnam People's Navy like a The Caspian Flotilla that a Lake Navy.



The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed inland body of water on Earth by area, and variously classed as the world's largest lake or a full-fledged sea. The Southern Caspian is the deepest, with oceanic depths of over 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). The Caspian sea has a surface area of 371,000 km2, compared to 436,400 km2 for the Black Sea (excl Sea of Azov) with a maximum depth of 2,212 m. It is comparable in size to but deeper than the Baltic Sea (377,000 km², 459 m) and both larger and deeper than e.g. the Persian Gulf (251,000 km2, 90m). 

Closer to China, the Yellow Sea (excluding the Bohai, which is approximately 78,000 km2) has an area of about 380,000 km2 (150,000 sq mi) and its depth is only 44 meters (144 ft) on average, with a maximum of 152 meters (500 ft).The Sea of Japan has a surface area of about 978,000 km² (377,600 sq mi), a mean depth of 1,752 m (5,748 ft) and a maximum depth of 3,742 m (12,276 ft). 










Gepard 3.9 compares favourably to Type 059 and Type 053H3. It compares to F22P and would give Type 054 a run for its money. The latter two ships have the advantage of a longer range SAM and helicopter hanger. However, Vietnam may receive an improved version, which addresses that deficiency with VLS and hangar.


----------



## hurt

Penguin said:


> The Caspian Sea is the largest enclosed inland body of water on Earth by area, and variously classed as the world's largest lake or a full-fledged sea. The Southern Caspian is the deepest, with oceanic depths of over 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). The Caspian sea has a surface area of 371,000 km2, compared to 436,400 km2 for the Black Sea (excl Sea of Azov) with a maximum depth of 2,212 m. It is comparable in size to but deeper than the Baltic Sea (377,000 km², 459 m) and both larger and deeper than e.g. the Persian Gulf (251,000 km2, 90m).
> 
> Closer to China, the Yellow Sea (excluding the Bohai, which is approximately 78,000 km2) has an area of about 380,000 km2 (150,000 sq mi) and its depth is only 44 meters (144 ft) on average, with a maximum of 152 meters (500 ft).The Sea of Japan has a surface area of about 978,000 km² (377,600 sq mi), a mean depth of 1,752 m (5,748 ft) and a maximum depth of 3,742 m (12,276 ft).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gepard 3.9 compares favourably to Type 059 and Type 053H3. It compares to F22P and would give Type 054 a run for its money. The latter two ships have the advantage of a longer range SAM and helicopter hanger. However, Vietnam may receive an improved version, which addresses that deficiency with VLS and hangar.



Plz tell me How large of The Caspian Sea is belong to Russian?

It is true that Gepard 3.9 compares favourably to Type 056 and Type 053H3. but 056 will builded 40 as corvette,053H3 is old type frigate.
It only a job that Use 2-4 Gepard 3.9s to against PLAN.


----------



## cnleio

It's ture, China 056 class corvette just a cheap warship in PLAN, to win by deploying large numbers of 056 in South of China Sea.
30-40x 056 class corvettes vs 4x Gepard 3.9s, what's the result? 
China building many 056 class corvettes only wanna send more pressures to small Navy countires around China. If in real battle, there'r PLAN 054A/052B/052C warships and submarines behind these cheap 056 class corvettes.


----------



## cirr

It takes just one JH-7B with 4 stand-off supersonic anti-ship YJ-12s to take out all 4 Gepard 3.9s in the South China Sea&#12290;

Then the 056s can act bullies to what remains of the Vietnamese Navy&#12290;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## shuttler

Take a look at the vast expanse of SCS then you know how useful these 056 corvettes are!
The corvettes are proving a good compromise of cost vs coverage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gooo

Type 056 corvettes are there to do a specific role of guarding Chinese territories. It's not there for the heavy fighting. No point arming it to the max. 

If the type 056 comes under attack by any regime, the other big boys will be deployed like type 054A/B frigates, type 052C/D destroyers and future type 055 cruisers.

Then we will soon have type 095 SSN and type 041 SSK.

We also have capital ships like type 071/A LPD, future type 075 LHD and future aircraft carriers.

Don't forget we have our marine surveillance ships patrolling SCS and ECS.
Not to mention type 022 patrol boats.


----------



## Gyp 111

Type-056 Corvette


----------



## cirr

#3 056 from HPS launched&#65306;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## sweetgrape

The first 056 with Number 582


----------



## hurt




----------

