055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[FORBIN]

Comparison time for the more powerful combattants

4th
AB, Atago, Kongo about 96/104 cell's and missiles in canisters, 1 x 127 mm, 2 Ciws guns, 0/2 Helos

3nd
Ticonderoga : 130 cell's and missiles in canisters
Type 055 : 112/124 cell's a little litle less as Ticonderoga but get HQ-10, helos same number.






2th
KDX-III Sejong the Great, 144 cell's and missiles in canisters, 1 RAM, 1 x 127 mm, 1 Ciws gun , 2 helos

1st
But unique or almost Velikiy later Nakhimov modernized for 2018 normaly again better armed but in fact one in one other category Battle Cruiser with some armor IIRC some parts up to 80 mm
Velikiy, 244 SA-N-6/9/20, SS-N-19, 2 x 130 mm, 6 Ciws with 12 guns and 192 SAM SR with relaoads , 3 helos

2 others close : 5th
Zumwalt a little unusual, very modern, radars, stealth but not AEGIS get " only " 80 cell's different arrangements for to be less vulnerable, 2 x 155 mm, no Ciws, no TL, 2 helos.

Slava : 80 " big " missiles SAN-6/SS-N-12 + 40 SA-N-4, 2 x 130 mm, 6 Ciws guns, 1 helo but less modern sensors, more old.

 

[Jeff Head]

Technically it is Aegis...but many people use it like an acronym (including me) and I do not feel that there is anything really wrong with that.

The fact is, when it comes to the system as a battle management system, it really has become a more or less defacto standard that is used by far more vessels and nations than any other similar system.

 

[Jeff Head]

I always thought Aegis is simply a reference to greek mythology, not an acronym of anything.

AEGIS (or Aegis if you prefer) is a name for the US developed battle management system used on its Burke class DDGs and Ticonderoga CGs. it is also used by five other nations on their major surface combatant DDGs or FFGs.

Outside of the US, here are the current vessels who have or soon will have AEGIS as their Defense Management system:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- 3 x Hobart AEGIS DDGs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- 4 x Kongo, 2 + 2 x Atago AEGIS DDGs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- 5 x Nansen AEGIS FFGs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- 3 + 3 KDX III AEGIS DDGs

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- 7 x F100 AEGIS FFGs

Now, in the US there are also the following:

28 x Flt I & II Burke, 37 + 8 Flt IIA Burke AEGIS DDG, , 22 Tico AEGIS cruiser

So, internationally there will be 29 AEGIS vessels, and the US will have another 95 AEGIS vessels.

That will make 124 AEGIS combatants world-wide.

From my perspective it has become a defacto standard, so I do not mind capitalizing all of it.

 

[Janiz]

AEGIS (or Aegis if you prefer) is a name for the US developed battle management system used on its Burke class DDGs and Ticonderoga CGs. it is also used by five other nations on their major surface combatant DDGs or FFGs.

Yes, but the only ones that have BMD capabilities are US Navy and JMSDF. And that's what makes it special. Otherwise it's 'just' a powerful anti-aircraft radar with superior capabilities to anything other system created so far in history. But the main aim was BMD capabilities from the start. And not many have been invited to meet requirements by the US government. So far only Japan.

 

[Iron Man]

View attachment 31035

That 055 CG shows a slightly different VLS configuration from the inserted captions, namely 80 cells forward and 48 cells aft. It could very well be 64+64, but the aft 64 cells would have to be rotated 90 degrees in relation to the forward bank of cells. You could even get 160 cells to fit onto that ship IMO:

 

[Jeff Head]

Yes, but the only ones that have BMD capabilities are US Navy and JMSDF. And that's what makes it special. Otherwise it's 'just' a powerful anti-aircraft radar with superior capabilities to anything other system created so far in history. But the main aim was BMD capabilities from the start. And not many have been invited to meet requirements by the US government. So far only Japan.

Korea has just been granted that right for the additional KDX IIIs. Others like Spain, Norway, and Australia are seeking it for their FFGs.

We shall see. I think Australia and Spain in particular have a good chance.

But it is getting well OT now, so let's get back to the Type 055 and take any more of this over to the Burke, or AEGIS-like thread in the World Military Forum here on SD.

 

[Jeff Head]

That 055 CG shows a slightly different VLS configuration from the inserted captions, namely 80 cells forward and 48 cells aft. It could very well be 64+64, but the aft 64 cells would have to be rotated 90 degrees in relation to the forward bank of cells. You could even get 160 cells to fit onto that ship IMO:
View attachment 31045

I have seen two different configurations showing 64 and 64, each has them rotated one way or the other:






We shall have to wait and see.

 

[Iron Man]

I have seen two different configurations showing 64 and 64, each has them rotated one way or the other:
View attachment 31050
We shall have to wait and see.

This CG has been modified to increase the rear VLS bank to 64 cells at the expense of hangar space, which would no longer accurately represent what is currently seen on the Wuhan mockup.

 

[Jeff Head]

This CG has been modified to increase the rear VLS bank to 64 cells at the expense of hangar space, which would no longer accurately represent what is currently seen on the Wuhan mockup.

As I say, we will just have to wait and see how they configure it and whether they get to 128 cells or not.

Because of what appears to be less room between the aft funnel and the hanger deck house on the mock-up, many believe only 48 will fit there.

I am not sure 80 will fit forward.

That's why some are saying 112 cells (64 + 48)

We will just have to wait and see.

 

[Blitzo]

This is based of course on your assumption that the main deck of the 055 is actually one deck higher than currently seen in the Wuhan mockup. IMO the more time that passes without such a modification being observed in the mockup, the less likely this will actually be the case.

That would be assuming that we would see such a modification on the mock-up in the first place.
I've always held the belief that the mock up is not a fully representative replication of the entire ship, and that only certain parts of the ship are fully representative of the ship's geometry, or relative height and positions of certain features of the ship.

One obvious example of this, is that the main platform deck is not the freeboard deck, and that the actual freeboard deck is indicated by the helipad/deck level on the mock up instead (like roughly drawn below)... which I think you've agreed with in the past:


Another major belief I have, is that only the grey painted parts of the ship are representative while the white painted parts are mock up exclusive (I think we've discussed that before). Therefore, if we want to look at the 055 mock up for "useful" signs of what the real ship looks like, I think we need to ignore all the white painted parts of the mock up, and only include the gray painted parts, the helipad deck level, and the weapons emplacements, all of which are likely to be representative of the geometry of the ship in their respective areas, but also more importantly should reflect accurate "relative distance" to each other. Taking only those characteristics of the mock up, I think we are left with a far more liberal and but also sensible base to extrapolate what the actual ship may look like:


====


Finally, as for the "continuous deck" (what you call the "main deck") being one deck higher than the platform deck of the mock up -- yes that is obviously a natural consequence of my aforementioned assumptions.

(I'll just describe the "continuous deck"/"main deck" so we're all clear on what it means -- I assume we are talking about the decks between the aft/helipad and the bow, which is continuous and is above the freeboard deck but below additional topside structures like the hangar, the bridge/superstructure, etc... and that these deck level/s are "continuous," i.e.: they are consistently one deck level or two deck levels high, depending on the ship. The "continuous deck" on a surface combatant can often be seen by the "inwards cant" of the topside deck which usually delineates the freeboard deck from the continuous deck above it)

One (among quite a few) tantalizing reason why I think the suspected 055 hull modules may indeed be for 055, is that we can see the hull to have a "continuous deck" which is two levels high (which we've discussed in the past), and such a configuration is consistent with my belief that the "continuous deck" of 055 is probably two deck levels high rather than the one deck level that would be suggested on the mock up.
Now obviously for me this is a kind of confirmation bias and a self feeding theory... however when all of these premises are taken together I think I have a viable case to put forward.