055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

大新闻-Big News:055

View attachment 28456

No doubt this is some kind of military vessel given the reduced RCS hull shaping, but I'm fairly certain this cannot be the 055 hull. It is simply too small. I count at most 2 and a half decks below the hull 'crease', assuming the crease happens at the helicopter deck level which is the case for all of the latest PLAN principal combatants except the Type 056, like the 054A, 051C, and 052B/C/D. Large ships like the 055 should have at least 3 to 4 decks below the helicopter deck in their main hull section. Where the 055 only has about 2.5 decks below the crease is probably going to be directly beneath the helicopter landing pad where the screws are, but then there are obviously no decks above the landing pad, and there are 2 visible decks above the crease in this photo along the entire length of the hull section. There is also no part of the 055's structure that has 2 decks above the crease for such an extended portion of the ship's structure such as we can see in this photo. We see it only at the part of the 055 beneath the funnels and beneath the radar panels which in my estimation constitutes less than 1/4 of the total length of the 055. Whatever ship this is, the two decks above the crease seem to run for the majority of the length of the ship, unless it's going to have some abnormally long length:beam ratio.

To my eyes this is a frigate-sized hull. Type 054B?

 

[Blitzo]

No doubt this is some kind of military vessel given the reduced RCS hull shaping, but I'm fairly certain this cannot be the 055 hull. It is simply too small. I count at most 2 and a half decks below the hull 'crease', assuming the crease happens at the helicopter deck level which is the case for all of the latest PLAN principal combatants except the Type 056, like the 054A, 051C, and 052B/C/D. Large ships like the 055 should have at least 3 to 4 decks below the helicopter deck in their main hull section. Where the 055 only has about 2.5 decks below the crease is probably going to be directly beneath the helicopter landing pad where the screws are, but then there are obviously no decks above the landing pad, and there are 2 visible decks above the crease in this photo along the entire length of the hull section. There is also no part of the 055's structure that has 2 decks above the crease for such an extended portion of the ship's structure such as we can see in this photo. We see it only at the part of the 055 beneath the funnels and beneath the radar panels which in my estimation constitutes less than 1/4 of the total length of the 055. Whatever ship this is, the two decks above the crease seem to run for the majority of the length of the ship, unless it's going to have some abnormally long length:beam ratio.

To my eyes this is a frigate-sized hull. Type 054B?

No, that suspected 055 module is definitely far too large to be frigate sized.

If one compares this module with pictures of the 10,000 ton coast guard cutter from two or so years ago which was assembled in the same location, when we account for the slightly different angles of the photos, we can see that the suspected 055 module is actually quite large, with a beam that is at least the beam of the 10,000 ton cutter and probably larger, and gives a sense of just how long it could be when considering the potential length/beam ratio of such a surface combatant (far larger than frigate sized).



Looking at the suspected 055 module, I think that there are structures on the ground which obscure the view of the bottom of the 055's hull -- i.e.: its keel. If the ground structures were removed, I think we would see three solid decks, maybe three and a half decks, below the hull's freeboard deck/hull crease, which would be consistent with what would be expected for 055.

More importantly, there's been no rumours about 054B being built at JNCX at all, whereas there's been consistent rumours that we will be seeing 055 at JNCX in the upcoming months as well as fairly consistent rumours that the pics of modules we've been seeing is 055, so it is more likely than not at this stage, that the hull we're seeing under assembly is 055.

 

[Iron Man]

No, that suspected 055 module is definitely far too large to be frigate sized.

If one compares this module with pictures of the 10,000 ton coast guard cutter from two or so years ago which was assembled in the same location, when we account for the slightly different angles of the photos, we can see that the suspected 055 module is actually quite large, with a beam that is at least the beam of the 10,000 ton cutter and probably larger, and gives a sense of just how long it could be when considering the potential length/beam ratio of such a surface combatant (far larger than frigate sized).

View attachment 28855

I think you are seriously misjudging the relative sizes of the beams here. It is very clear that the cutter's beam is not only wider, but significantly so. As soon as I figure out how to load a picture on this forum, I will post a comparison up. But rest assured that the cutter is definitively wider than the hull in question. Now that I've compared it closely and can see that is not even remotely similar in beam to a 10,000 ton cutter hull, it actually makes my case even stronger than before.

Looking at the suspected 055 module, I think that there are structures on the ground which obscure the view of the bottom of the 055's hull -- i.e.: its keel. If the ground structures were removed, I think we would see three solid decks, maybe three and a half decks, below the hull's freeboard deck/hull crease, which would be consistent with what would be expected for 055.

All you need to do is look at the curvature of the hull. Once the hull starts curving inwards the way you see in that photo, the bottom of the boat is not far below. You're not going to get three full decks below the crease, not to mention that a large displacement ship like the ~12,000 ton 055 is almost certainly going to be 3.5 to 4 decks below that crease.

More importantly, there's been no rumours about 054B being built at JNCX at all, whereas there's been consistent rumours that we will be seeing 055 at JNCX in the upcoming months as well as fairly consistent rumours that the pics of modules we've been seeing is 055, so it is more likely than not at this stage, that the hull we're seeing under assembly is 055.

You should have been able to pick up on the tongue in cheek nature of my 'assertion' of a 054B hull. Regardless of the "rumours" this hull is almost certainly not that of the 055.

 

[Iron Man]

Here you go. Time to man up!

 

[Blitzo]

I think you are seriously misjudging the relative sizes of the beams here. It is very clear that the cutter's beam is not only wider, but significantly so. As soon as I figure out how to load a picture on this forum, I will post a comparison up. But rest assured that the cutter is definitively wider than the hull in question. Now that I've compared it closely and can see that is not even remotely similar in beam to a 10,000 ton cutter hull, it actually makes my case even stronger than before.

Err I think you missed an important part of my post (bolded):
"If one compares this module with pictures of the 10,000 ton coast guard cutter from two or so years ago which was assembled in the same location, when we account for the slightly different angles of the photos, we can see that the suspected 055 module is actually quite large"

In other words, directly comparing the photos by overlapping them aren't very useful when the photos are taken from different angles, and in the comparison we do have and which you did, we can see that many structures in the foreground do not correspond in terms of relative distance between the two photos, meaning that will also have an affect on the perceived beam, if we don't mentally correct for the difference in angles.

I've depicted this below using your comparison pic, by pointing out the difference in relative distance between a few foreground features, namely the distance between the edge of the blue pier and the far edge of the middle concrete pier.

The distances between the structures in the foreground are quite a bit greater for the picture of the coast guard cutter vs the picture of the suspected 055 module. Considering the distance of the photographer to the actual subject and considering the difference in angle between the two photos, I believe that the difference in angle has led to the suspected 055 module's beam to appear smaller relative to the coast guard cutter than it actually is. However it's difficult to truly judge it without being there ourselves and knowing the relative angles of all the structures to try and accurately mentally judge it.



The most reliable way to tell the suspected 055 module's beam will be via satellite photos, and the difference in angle perspective between the photos which we have, make me unable to rule out that the suspected 055 module's beam is too small to disqualify it from being the 055.

All you need to do is look at the curvature of the hull. Once the hull starts curving inwards the way you see in that photo, the bottom of the boat is not far below. You're not going to get three full decks below the crease, not to mention that a large displacement ship like the ~12,000 ton 055 is almost certainly going to be 3.5 to 4 decks below that crease.

"Not far below" can be at least half a deck's height which we cannot see, which if added to what we see in these pictures, can quite reasonably depict three decks below the freeboard deck level.
Four decks below the freeboard is unlikely, I agree.

You should have been able to pick up on the tongue in cheek nature of my 'assertion' of a 054B hull.

I apologize, but you haven't made many posts here so I don't know enough about your background knowledge to tell if you're joking or if you're serious.

Regardless of the "rumours" this hull is almost certainly not that of the 055.

I think the mild potential discrepancy in the draft of the ship (deck levels below freeboard) and the beam of the ship can be potentially clarified with unobscured pictures and also satellite pictures (which don't have the problem of different photo angles

Unless we have more clear pictures to definitively invalidate the possibility of these modules of being 055, and/or unless the previously reliable, big Chinese boards stop insisting that these modules are for 055, then at this stage I think it is prudent to assume that these have a possibility, if not a high possibility of being the 055 we've all been waiting for.

 

[Iron Man]

I think you have proven my point even more strongly with your photo comparison. In order to 'narrow' your gap in the cutter photo to the same length as that in the mystery hull photo, which to be honest is minimal to begin with, the cutter photographer would have to shift to his left and retake the photo from a new position. If he shifts left and retakes the photo, the beam of the cutter will appear even wider than it is in the current photo because he will be more perpendicular to the stern face than in the original photo, making the significant disparity between the beam of the cutter and that of the mystery hull even more apparent. It is now obvious to me that there is simply no way in heaven or in hell that this mystery hull is that of the 055, unless that cutter happens to have a very wide beam, like 26-27 meters or more. Outside of that possibility, the mystery hull is definitely some kind of frigate. I would even be tempted to call it an escort hull except that there appears to be 2 decks above the crease, making this more likely to be a frigate than a corvette.

 

[latenlazy]

I think you have proven my point even more strongly with your photo comparison. In order to 'narrow' your gap in the cutter photo to the same length as that in the mystery hull photo, which to be honest is minimal to begin with, the cutter photographer would have to shift to his left and retake the photo from a new position. If he shifts left and retakes the photo, the beam of the cutter will appear even wider than it is in the current photo because he will be more perpendicular to the stern face than in the original photo, making the significant disparity between the beam of the cutter and that of the mystery hull even more apparent. It is now obvious to me that there is simply no way in heaven or in hell that this mystery hull is that of the 055, unless that cutter happens to have a very wide beam, like 26-27 meters or more. Outside of that possibility, the mystery hull is definitely some kind of frigate. I would even be tempted to call it an escort hull except that there appears to be 2 decks above the crease, making this more likely to be a frigate than a corvette.

Notice that in a comparison of the two pictures the reference length (which I will henceforth refer to as a standard ruler) is shorter for the picture of the mystery module relative to the cutter, just like the beam length of the mystery module is shorter than the beam length of the cutter module. If you shifted reference point in order to match standard ruler lengths, a concurrent increase in the length of the standard ruler will also result in an increase of the length of the beam length.

Angle differences can also be created from using lenses of different focal lengths or photos taken at different distances. I wouldn't be so certain about the assertions you're making. Also consider that while assessing beam length involves complications with regard to the angle of the picture, the same can't be said for height, and he'd modules look *much* taller than a type 52.

 

[Blitzo]

I think you have proven my point even more strongly with your photo comparison. In order to 'narrow' your gap in the cutter photo to the same length as that in the mystery hull photo, which to be honest is minimal to begin with, the cutter photographer would have to shift to his left and retake the photo from a new position. If he shifts left and retakes the photo, the beam of the cutter will appear even wider than it is in the current photo because he will be more perpendicular to the stern face than in the original photo, making the significant disparity between the beam of the cutter and that of the mystery hull even more apparent.

I actually think the cutter photographer would have to shift right to make the angle correct, considering the other "longer" distances in the cutter photo (such as the distance between the edge of the white building and the edge of the blue pier being longer in the cutter photo), as the blue pier is more in the foreground to the concrete pier in space... but like I said, it's difficult to truly know how all the different angles of the various structures in the foreground are meant to relate to each other without being there.

that's why I'm not willing to make any big confident calls on photographs where different angles or perspective, or different lenses (as latenlazy said) can come into play, and why I'd like to wait for satellite photos of the modules first.

I'm cautious because we've been burned many times before by issues of angle and perspective despite supposedly "obvious" or "fool proof" photo comparisons...

It is now obvious to me that there is simply no way in heaven or in hell that this mystery hull is that of the 055, unless that cutter happens to have a very wide beam, like 26-27 meters or more. Outside of that possibility, the mystery hull is definitely some kind of frigate. I would even be tempted to call it an escort hull except that there appears to be 2 decks above the crease, making this more likely to be a frigate than a corvette.

Ooh okay, well we'll see in a few months I suppose, if you're that confident.

I myself am far from willing to say "no way in heaven or in hell" for or against it being 055, or even to use such a phrase for most sorts of PLA watching prediction in general.
The strongest phrase I'd ever be willing to venture to use is "almost definitely," and even that would require a heap of consistent and enduring big shrimp rumours over a period of a few years at least.

 

[Iron Man]

I actually think the cutter photographer would have to shift right to make the angle correct, considering the other "longer" distances in the cutter photo (such as the distance between the edge of the white building and the edge of the blue pier being longer in the cutter photo), as the blue pier is more in the foreground to the concrete pier in space... but like I said, it's difficult to truly know how all the different angles of the various structures in the foreground are meant to relate to each other without being there.

No the cutter photographer would definitely have to shift to the left. See below:

The second perspective is that of a photographer shifting to the left. Note that the apparent length of the rectangle (green) is less than in the first photo.

Ooh okay, well we'll see in a few months I suppose, if you're that confident.

Actually you helped me become more confident since it forced me to make a detailed comparison. Like I said, there is a possibility that if the cutter is actually very wide, like 26-27m or more, then maybe that mystery hull could be the 055. If you can identify that cutter class (I can't) and can provide its dimensions, it would help quite a bit with the analysis. But outside of that possibility, that hull is some kind of frigate, or less likely some kind of corvette.

 

[latenlazy]

No the cutter photographer would definitely have to shift to the left. See below:

The second perspective is that of a photographer shifting to the left. Note that the apparent length of the rectangle (green) is less than in the first photo.View attachment 28870


Actually you helped me become more confident since it forced me to make a detailed comparison. Like I said, there is a possibility that if the cutter is actually very wide, like 26-27m or more, then maybe that mystery hull could be the 055. If you can identify that cutter class (I can't) and can provide its dimensions, it would help quite a bit with the analysis. But outside of that possibility, that hull is some kind of frigate, or less likely some kind of corvette.

Depending what you're trying to argue with that diagram there are some potential problems here.

1) You're not comparing necessarily two objects with identical lengths.

2) Regardless of whether you step to the left or the right to change the angular frame of reference, the point is that a standard ruler in one picture is shorter than another relative to the same height, and changing angles to increase the length of that standard ruler relative to height to get the same length to height ratio will also increase the length of the bow for the mystery module.

The point about the angle of the pictures is not about whether the module's bow looks longer or shorter than the cutter's based on where you're standing. It's about figuring out the length of the two bows relative to each other using their relationship to the dimensions of a known fixed object. What matters is that the relative dimensions of the reference object you're using is clearly being affected by the angle of the reference point, which means whatever change in angle you need to make to ensure that the reference object between the two pictures have the same relative dimensions (let's use length to height ratios), the same change in relationship between length and height of the reference object will also change the relationship between the height of the reference object and the length of the object you're interested in measuring.