055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Thanks to Bltizo and Plawolf for making my point clearer.
As they both have pointed out, the application in the cutters are not necessarily the same propulsion systems which are going to be used in the navy ships, but are practice, trials for future navy ships.
One has to start somewhere, somehow. There is always a first time for everything. No matter how much one try in the lab, one has to put it for the first time in a practical real world application. The first steam engine, the first nuclear powered ship etc.
It is not wise to put an IEPS in 055 without intensive trial, no matter how long. So trying IEPS in real life application in a smaller cutter is a good start since the power requirement is lesser, operational demand is lesser. The next step would be put in a bigger cutter/utility ship, that probably China has already done in the last few years. If I were to speculate, I would wonder if the 12000t cutters are equipped with IEPS.
Plus, there is nothing forbidden for the cutters to use an IEPS designed according to naval standard and requirement. Actually it is cheaper to do so through dual purpose project.
As they both have pointed out, the application in the cutters are not necessarily the same propulsion systems which are going to be used in the navy ships, but are practice, trials for future navy ships.
One has to start somewhere, somehow. There is always a first time for everything. No matter how much one try in the lab, one has to put it for the first time in a practical real world application. The first steam engine, the first nuclear powered ship etc.
It is not wise to put an IEPS in 055 without intensive trial, no matter how long. So trying IEPS in real life application in a smaller cutter is a good start since the power requirement is lesser, operational demand is lesser. The next step would be put in a bigger cutter/utility ship, that probably China has already done in the last few years. If I were to speculate, I would wonder if the 12000t cutters are equipped with IEPS.
Plus, there is nothing forbidden for the cutters to use an IEPS designed according to naval standard and requirement. Actually it is cheaper to do so through dual purpose project.
Just good practice. I would think it likely that the 12k cutters are so equipped. It would not be tested as it would be in a real naval vessel but it is the best intermediate step available and is another reason why these ships were built at this time.
Rumours are the same as they've been for the last year or so, which is that some state of early construction (possibly steel cutting) began in late 2014/early 2015.
Given that they're almost definitely building the 055s within JN's building halls, it may take until the end of this year or even later until we actually have visual identification of the first 055 when its bow starts peeking out of the hall.
I think it's quite funny how we are still at the point when China still needs to test all their stuff before applying it on the important stuff.
It's also kind of baseless.
A Type055 with the speculated tonnage without modern propulsion system like IEPS is not "playing it safe" but just a plain subpar design in the propulsion department.
Can't say I agree with that -- the need to "test" subsystems is reflective of an industry's mastery and familiarity of the subsystem in question. Considering IEPS was still somewhat relatively new to the Chinese shipbuilding industry as well as the Chinese Navy, it makes sense that they would seek to carry out risk reduction first. This is simply reality.
Furthermore, we have not reached a point in international naval shipbuilding where IEPS is anywhere near considered to be standard. Even the USN's Zumwalt class is their first class of surface combatant with IEPS, and Flight III Burke which will make up the bulk of their foreseeable future surface combatant procurement will retain a relatively conventional COGAG configuration.
Therefore I see nothing wrong with the initial batch of 055s using COGAG propulsion.
IEPS for surface combatant propulsion internationally is still considered quite cutting edge.
I don't think anyone would claim the Burke III's propulsion is cutting edge but for this day and age I think you would be hard pressed to say they cannot still be considered reasonably modern.
The point is that we have not yet reached a point in naval propulsion internationally, where we can have the gall to call anything other than IEPS or COGLAG as "subpar," simply because there aren't that many surface combatants out there with IEPS and COGLAG or equivalents to begin with. In many respects the European navies are on the leading edge in this regard, but the point still remains that this kind of propulsion technology is far from the norm for international navies.
Thus, I reiterate my previous point, that I see nothing wrong or "subpar" if 055 uses COGAG propulsion, especially if it is only the first batch.
- Status