Corvette/Light frigate thread (056A, sub-4000t FFLs)
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Not much of a change since the original picture 6 months ago. Aft deck less cluttered but the hut-like structure still there.
Given that before the corvette hull was outboard to a 054A and now it's 072II could there be a specific reason to keep it at a distance from the pier?
Given that before the corvette hull was outboard to a 054A and now it's 072II could there be a specific reason to keep it at a distance from the pier?
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Self-explanatory.
Kinda wish the 054B could've been designed to more resemble that. Just look at those lines and angles!
热烈庆祝海军舰船综合全电力推进系统项目试验平台下水.
just kidding.
We MIGHT be stumbling onto something related to those bolded phrases above.
This "mini-Zumwalt" integrated test platform FFL is likely to be testing a new type of CODAG or CODLAG propulsion system alongside (slanted) sideway intakes for the propulsion system, among other things.
Posted by @伏尔戈星图 on Weibo.
Maybe a non-popular take, but i think the designers might of got it a tiny bit incorrect for the new corvette and frigate. Since the Ukrane war started, it seems suicide uav boats are the new threat and modern ships should have more GUNs or Hellfire like missiles as part of defending itself and capital ships. The type-54a had 2 ciws reduced to 1 (i assume it can attack sea crafts) and the type-56 had 2 side guns reduce to smaller guns and maybe to non on this ship.
Speaking of CIWS, they aren't limited to just rotary cannon-type ones (Type 1130, Phalanx), but also missile-based ones (HHQ-10, RIM-116), alongside DEW-type (laser, microwave etc) CIWS in the coming years.
For the Hellfire-like missiles - The PLAN has the HHQ-10.
In the meantime, I believe there are good reasons as to why the 056/A FFLs aren't equipped with Type 730 CIWS - One of which I believe is cost, given how the 056/A FFLs were meant to be procured cheaply, rapidly and in large numbers (and the onboard armaments actually do cost a significant portion of a warship's price tag). Besides, there's the H-PJ/26 76mm fully-automatic gun, two H-PJ/17 30mm remote-controlled autocannons, alongside two more QJZ-89 heavy machine guns. I suppose that's sufficient close-range and point-blank armament for a 1440-ton warship.
Meanwhile, for the 054A FFGs - Having a Type 730 or Type 1130 on both sides of the FFG should be packing enough firepower against surface targets at point-blank ranges. Needless to say, there're also heavy machine guns stored inside the ship, which can be easily brought onto and mounted on deck when necessary.
Last edited:
The black sea battles proved nothing of the kind. At the utmost it proved that a fleet, long neglected and unmodernised, confined to a tiny space, with limited port facilities, and many fixed points to defend, may have trouble with small suicide USVs... when they are supported by an untouchable ISR network. You can usually spot at least one recon UAVs overflying dangerously close to Crimea at any given time, and a cool dozen or so flying over the Western Black Sea.
And their success had been extremely underrated anyway. They've been able to stop approximately none of Russia's Black Sea traffic, had been unable to stop the Black Sea Fleet from launching Kalibrs whenever convenient, and each attack takes months of planning, work once, and then the Russians come and blow up a bunch of stuff in retaliation.
You don't win a naval war by taking a pot shot and then scarpering, you have objectives in service of the greater operational and strategic situation, and you win by achieving them in a efficient and effective manner. Ukraine appears to have no naval strategy beyond PR ones, and they are unable to stop any of the Russian naval operations, ergo...
Full version of one of the papers posted above (Propeller-Shaft-Hull Coupling System of Surface Ship Based on Dynamic Stiffness Method), if anyone's interested.
Posted by @Captain小潇 on Weibo.
