055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

antiterror13

Brigadier
My point is that something as large as the DDG 1000 can have the same powerplant as an Independence class LCS. Therefore, engines are a very rough indicator of displacement.

Its very obvious that 055 is a DDG or cruiser, there is no indication I have read that 055 would be LCS ... I am really confused with your logic
 

Tyloe

Junior Member
Speaking about 'a year ago', does anyone still remember the photo of the l-band radar that was posted in this thread? Are there any updates to that radar test structure?
 
:eek:o_Oo_O

Say wut now?

it seems to me the writer (dvan0) meant that while the LCS Independence is propelled by 2*12205 hp diesels (details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) plus 2*29500 hp gas turbines

(details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

which is 83,410 hp for about 3000 tons of displacement, the Zumwalt displacing about 15000 tons gets 104,000 hp

(details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

... but of course the propulsion types are different (CODAG x IEP), the maximum speed requirements are different etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kwaigonegin

Colonel
it seems to me the writer (dvan0) meant that while the LCS Independence is propelled by 2*12205 hp diesels (details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) plus 2*29500 hp gas turbines

(details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

which is 83,410 hp for about 3000 tons of displacement, the Zumwalt displacing about 15000 tons gets 104,000 hp

(details in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

... but of course the propulsion types are different (CODAG x IEP), the maximum speed requirements are different etc.

ok that makes more sense however it's not comparing apples to apples. One uses blades the other waterjets. Huge difference in power load generation.

I do however see where he is coming from now. In general that is correct because a ships power 'not counting external power load' has more to do with the ship's hull resistance than the size.

Once a ship is free sailing power requirements are not as crucial to move it.

But that's just one of 100 other variables to consider ship's propulsion. There is the engine shaft power, number of blades, blade revolution needed and a billion other things all comes into play..,. and of course like I said above huge difference between waterjets and screws.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scratch

Captain
I've just had a question coming up on my mind. Don't remember reading about this recently in all the ship threats.
Is there anything interesting ongoing in chinese naval gun ammunition right now? Any kind of extended range stuff like base bleed or even RAP?
Or maybe some kind of smart guidance / fuzing?
And, finally, do chinese naval guns have a secondary AA role as well?

All the info as I read it seem to indicate the 055 using the same 130mm DP gun as the Type 052D.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I've just had a question coming up on my mind. Don't remember reading about this recently in all the ship threats.
Is there anything interesting ongoing in chinese naval gun ammunition right now? Any kind of extended range stuff like base bleed or even RAP?
Or maybe some kind of smart guidance / fuzing?
And, finally, do chinese naval guns have a secondary AA role as well?

All the info as I read it seem to indicate the 055 using the same 130mm DP gun as the Type 052D.

Yes, there are persistent rumours that there are a variety of smart and extended range rounds that have been developed for the PJ38 130mm gun. No confirmation as of yet, but it's obviously not hard to believe given this technology isn't exactly groundbreaking.

---

there were some other photos associated with the one a-man posted. I posted them about a year ago but I suppose it's time for a refresher. Note the CGI while good quality, has a few places wrong. For instance there's no indication Z-15 will be navalized, the integrated mast geometry is inaccurate, YJ-18 is simply shown as 3M-54E which isn't the case in real life... etc

oLHNaYf.jpg


jmGCR4H.jpg


bY5dQSR.jpg


tUaPjOH.jpg


MSeOyzt.jpg
 

shen

Senior Member
honjian from CDF posted this a while ago.

basic research initiated during the ninth five years plan (1996-2000). project formally launched in 2004. still in development.
 

Attachments

  • 084008fes5od7g5tdotspc.jpg
    084008fes5od7g5tdotspc.jpg
    50.4 KB · Views: 77
  • 083914hhxcbeowec3yhevz.jpg
    083914hhxcbeowec3yhevz.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 68
ok that makes more sense however it's not comparing apples to apples. One uses blades the other waterjets. Huge difference in power load generation.

I do however see where he is coming from now. In general that is correct because a ships power 'not counting external power load' has more to do with the ship's hull resistance than the size.

Once a ship is free sailing power requirements are not as crucial to move it.

But that's just one of 100 other variables to consider ship's propulsion. There is the engine shaft power, number of blades, blade revolution needed and a billion other things all comes into play..,. and of course like I said above huge difference between waterjets and screws.

well I think the main point of that post was
Therefore, engines are a very rough indicator of displacement.
but different example(s) could've been given like:
(since I read a book about it haha) the WW2 Italian cruiser Alberico da Barbiano, during the contract speed trials, while displacing 5680 tons developed 123,479 hp (and more than 42 knots!),
and this was almost the same power as of their Roma battleship (128,000 hp; 46000 tons) ... since both ship were sunk more than 70 years ago, they're less controversial than the USN LCSs and Zumwalts, aren't they?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top