SinoDefence Forum

adeptitus

@_@ Those Type 21 Frigates are very well built ships! Even after taking multiple 500 and 1000 lb bombs dropped from Argentine aircraft, they stayed afloat until the following day. The Type 42 destroyers, in comparison, sank in 20 min after being hit.

If it was just a single incident, we could attribute it to a fluke. But in the Falklands war there was 2 Type 21 Frigates and 2 Type 42 Destroyers that were sunk. Both Type 21 Frigates stayed afloat for a day vs. both Type 42 Destroyers went under quickly.

Obi Wan Russell

Ahem. HMS Sheffield stayed afloat for several days after being hit by an Exocet, and sank under tow to South Georgia where she was to have been loaded onto a heavy lift ship (in a similar manner to HMS Nottingham's ungraceful return from Australia a few years ago after running aground on a reef) for return to the UK. Bad weather caused water to flood in through the missile hole on her starboard side, otherwise she would have survived to return home for a thorough forensic examination, although salvage was probably out of the question.

HMS Coventry sank after receiving several direct hits from 1,000lb bombs dropped by Argentine A-4 Skyhawks which effectively blew out the bottom of her hull. No ship her size could have survived that, and the Type 21s received fewer bombs than Coventry. Also, the Amazon class had aluminium superstructures which melted in the heat of the fires started by the explosions, as aluminium melts at 600degrees C. Steel by comparison melts at around 1500degrees C so is preferred for warship superstructures generally.

__________________
"Without Organic Airpower at Sea (Aircraft Carriers), you don't have a Navy, You have a Coast Guard!"

chicket9

The PLAN in the coming years will have a very fine 054A...but the next ship down will only be a Haiqing or Houjian and a huge bunch of Type 022s. Lets look at Italy. The Italian corvette in service is armed with SSM and SAM, thus it serves very well as a balanced coastal patrol asset, yet capable of limited ocean adaptability and some punch in defensive/offensive weaponry.

PLAN thus in its new development of ships, has tended to ignore this 'niche' between frigate and fast attack craft.

Not that PLAN lacks money or shipyards to do it...in fact China could easily build a corvette ship, with greater ease than the current destroyer or frigate programme. A corvette/OPV sized vessel for PLAN has several advantages:

1) Cheaper than the Type 054A...which is a rather expensive ship
2) Better armed and equipped than average PLAN gun boats
3) Better suited for multi-role missions for both littoral and limited sea duties, whereas a frigate might be too large, or a gun boat too small and short ranged to go further out to sea.
4) Larger hull, means more capability and potential
5) Aviation capable...might not have a hangar, but even helideck facilities are of tremendous advantage out on patrol.
6) Future investment...when PLAN is ready to operate further out, these ships will form the core of CHina's littoral patrol/defense.
7) Acquisition of OPVs/Corvettes can help reduce the declining but still large number of fast attack craft, as well as putting less strain on 054A programme to replace all Jianghus, afterall, Jianghu was a coastal defense ship.

China does have options...especially the Russian designed corvette. I regard this ship as too heavily armed and oversized for any OPV role in PLAN, and you might as well just go for the 054A, as the Russian design is more of an offensive platform.

But China could certainly learn from European patrol craft and OPVs, as well as the new S. Korean and Indian vessels. You will find most of these ships are flexible in their role...most don't even carry their full standard weapons fit unless in wartime which their size could permit, but their use is more so in their better seakeeping and longer legs, resulting in longer enduranced patrols. One such ship is the RN's Castle class, which simply has a helideck stretching on its after half of the hull...and it has great potential to carry other weapons.

My proposal of a PLAN OPV/Corvette:

Around 1100 tons
80-90 m in length
Helideck aft with refueling facilities
Up-to-date real time data integration with coastal or fleet command
Hull room for sonar (only fitted if an ASW version is needed)
Crane
27 knots
2500 nautical miles
Complement: 70 + 15 spare

Armament:
There will be a main turret, of 76mm, though this should be able to be replaceable with 37mm and Type 730 CIWS.
A standard SAM should be fitted facing aft, standard fit would be a RAM-type defensive missile using the Type 90 missile; OR a 4x4 arrangement of HQ7, perhaps going to lack automatic reload capability, but at least provides a proven and very capable self-defense system.
Space mid and aft deck: capable of being fitted with either 4-8 YJ83 SSMs, ASW torpedo launchers, an SAR launch and other rescue gear, a submersible or special ops craft, etc.
Also space permitted for self defense countermeasures and additional 0.50 cal machine guns; ASW role may allow towed sonar, depth charges or ASW mortars/rockets.

Proposed number:
To build at least 30 ships. 10 per fleet.

This number would fit perfectly, considering the substantial size of the PLAN, and probably up to 20 new multi-role frigates (eg Type 054A). But each corvette could effectively replace 3 FACs...meaning Hainan and Haiqing could be replaced at a higher rate.

joshuatree

Hi chicket9, I had posted a somewhat similar thread a little while back, and it seems the general consensus is that PLAN wants to focus more on a frigate rather than OPV/corvette. I actually agree with you that this niche could be useful. Instead of 1100 tons, I rather see a size of 2000 tons to give it more endurance and blue water capability so it can be used with future carrier/destroyer/frigate task forces. And I would say you could even reduce the complement down to 60 people. The less crew, the cheaper to operate and the less loss of lives if the vessel is lost.

Gollevainen

Well one important note to your question: Corvettes are NOT OPVs, there are more like direct counterparts to each and many maritime agency has gone into real trouple when they have short sigthed tryed to compine these two task mere the basis that both require similar size hulls. The task where OPVs and corvettes each are mented are too different and requires way too different things from the engineroom that there isent any sense to compine these tasks.
OPVs are coast guard long edurance vessels or naval units with similar, non military task of ocean surveilance, anti-broachin/piracy/resource-survey/pollution/immigration/defector tasks, Search & rescue and other typical lawenforcment tasks. To complish this they require Good seakeeping, good range and stable enough platform for various civil surveilance equipment that isent desinged for harsh military conditions. Their pirmary operational scene is Offshore, eq. high oceans and therefor economicality comes priority when discussed of their porpulsion solutions.

Where as corvettes really are either small ASW units for coastal escort, or flotilla leaders for FACs of various compination. There have been also ships that tryes to compine all this functions and become some sort of small frigates, but usually these ships cannot field SAM, SSM, Helicopter and effective sensor suite all in one, and good size for the ship of this purpose is something around 110-121 meters and over 2,000 tons...like Chinese Jianghus, which arent frigates as in western sence, but guardships (SRKs) in eastern one.

And besides, Chinese maritime safety agency allready operates nice collection of OPVs and I remember I discussed with you about the nature of corvettes few weeks back.

__________________