055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[MwRYum]

Certainly there are downsides, but wouldn't they be greatly offset by the huge amount of space saved? I mean, I'm sure putting a whole new type of VLS on the 052Ds has plenty of risks involved, but it's done because of the significant benefits they bring. I can't imagine risks associated with the reliability of a door or rearrangement of the garage space are significant enough to outweigh the benefits of saving enough space to add another 32-64 VLS.

Those VLS were first trialed out on dedicated testing vessels before install for real on 052D, and then in more numbers on the projected 055 due to the latter's larger hull size.

Still, what you suggest is nothing more than dead weight and lacking in terms of reliability. Besides, having VLS that close to the propulsion compartment? I wonder how many cardinal rules of warship designs you just blissfully violated.

 

[Blitzo]

Those VLS were first trialed out on dedicated testing vessels before install for real on 052D, and then in more numbers on the projected 055 due to the latter's larger hull size.

Still, what you suggest is nothing more than dead weight and lacking in terms of reliability. Besides, having VLS that close to the propulsion compartment? I wonder how many cardinal rules of warship designs you just blissfully violated.

I don't think that would be a major problem in of itself -- after all, it would just be placing more VLS aft, which would sit over top of the shafts of a destroyer with most conventional propulsion configurations.

That already exists for existing destroyers, from most Burke variants with aft VLS, as well as 052D itself.

There are definitely good reasons for why an extending hangar isn't a very good idea, but the goal to place additional VLS more aft probably isn't one of them.

Certainly there are downsides, but wouldn't they be greatly offset by the huge amount of space saved? I mean, I'm sure putting a whole new type of VLS on the 052Ds has plenty of risks involved, but it's done because of the significant benefits they bring. I can't imagine risks associated with the reliability of a door or rearrangement of the garage space are significant enough to outweigh the benefits of saving enough space to add another 32-64 VLS.

I think the biggest argument against a dedicated "extending" hangar is that a hangar is used for a variety of things other than only being used for a helicopter. It's also used to hold quite a deal of additional maintenance equipment which may be more difficult to .

Another major reason against an "extending" hangar is that it will effectively limit a ship to only embarking a single helicopter, and cannot embark more than one at any one time.
The general ruggedness and reliability of the overall hangar+helipad overall is at greater risk as well with an extendable hangar.

Generally speaking I think the compromises of an extending hangar for a surface combatant's aviation complement is probably too great to consider it as optimal.

that said, extending hangars do exist for naval ships which lack hangars, but I think they are generally considered as inferior to ships with dedicated hangars.

 

[by78]

It's grainy, but there appears to be a large hull under construction in the left shed. Does anyone know what it might be?

(4999 x 3333)

 

[FORBIN]

Extremely difficult to see in more with shadow despite good pic more easy see the bikes and a new SIGINT or tracking ship.

Waiting 2017

 

[mangjitok]

It's grainy, but there appears to be a large hull under construction in the left shed. Does anyone know what it might be?

(4999 x 3333)

it's not look like new construction, i look it's like a renovation. from the big dome with old paint and the behind dome with new paint, the two worker using masker, maybe applying paint layer with sprayer.

 

[joshuatree]

Certainly there are downsides, but wouldn't they be greatly offset by the huge amount of space saved? I mean, I'm sure putting a whole new type of VLS on the 052Ds has plenty of risks involved, but it's done because of the significant benefits they bring. I can't imagine risks associated with the reliability of a door or rearrangement of the garage space are significant enough to outweigh the benefits of saving enough space to add another 32-64 VLS.

The issue about saving space.....that would be a major reason why the type 055 would displace a lot more tonnage than the 052D, to create the space needed for the desired number of VLS and permanent hangar. At some point, the designers would agreed X number of VLS is enough for this vessel.

A good example of a retractable hangar that you are suggesting would be the US Coast Guard's Hamilton class. But their displacement is in the 3000 ton range where space harder to come by and their duties are less intense than the navy. They did not continue with a retractable hangar in their Legend class replacement.

 

[Jeff Head]

I cannot wait to see a confirmed picture of a Type 055 building.

That will be exciting.

 

[Blitzo]

it's not look like new construction, i look it's like a renovation. from the big dome with old paint and the behind dome with new paint, the two worker using masker, maybe applying paint layer with sprayer.

He's not talking about that ship -- the ship you're referring to is yuanwang 7, a space event monitoring ship, or possibly a SIGINT ship (hard to tell with so many ships there).

By78 is talking about the dark, barely visible shadow in building hall 1.

 

[Jeff Head]

He's not talking about that ship -- the ship you're referring to is yuanwang 7, a space event monitoring ship, or possibly a SIGINT ship (hard to tell with so many ships there).

By78 is talking about the dark, barely visible shadow in building hall 1.

Yes...as seen here:



But the bow does not seem to be angled enough for a Type 055. Hard to say from this pic.

 

[mangjitok]

i'm sorry about that... miss understanding , he was true (by78), there's something being built in the dark space, i can only see the scaffolding vague