055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Jura The idiot]

...
Iron Man
and
Bltizo

(now I'll go through specifics of what you've been posting here since yesterday evening ...

... and I see the main point this way:

the simple classification

...


Or, if we simply look at pictures, I think it displays the two ships with different degrees of RCS management.

disputed (inconsistencies; counter-examples)

an interesting read anyway!

 

[delft]

Which leads me to suggest again that enclosed foredecks are possibly not primarily for RCS reduction and may have a crew safety/comfort component which outweighs stealth considerations. In other words, you may get some minimal stealth benefit from a (partially enclosed) foredeck but the real reason may be the crew.

Makes sense. I remember two sailors being killed on the foredeck of a RN Leander class frigate in the Mediterranean by a freak wave about half a century ago.

 

[damitch300]

Makes sense. I remember two sailors being killed on the foredeck of a RN Leander class frigate in the Mediterranean by a freak wave about half a century ago.

Thetis class also has this for the crew.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I think my original post was lost in all the clutter of proceeding posts arguing what is essentially semantics. LOL

I believe that ships like the 055, FREMM etc uses what is now 'standardized' building designs for new ship's mast which is enclosed. They certainly do offer a somewhat reduce RCS however it is certainly not a reduction where the entire ship can be reclassified as a new 'stealth' warship since these ships are not purposefully design to be all aspect stealth like the Zumwalt where stealth was considered a big part of the design requirements.

Perhaps if you compare just the masts then I agree that these modern enclosed masts can technically/categorically be considered a newer generation but not when taken the ship in it's entirety.

The bigger and more practical question that needs to be asked is (since we're talking warships here) will the reduction in the mast's RCS make any noticeable difference in the return RF from a modern day radar?

My personal opinion is no, not really. The 055 will light up almost the same as a Burke or any other warships with traditional 'open' mast and antennas. Like I said unless the other ship uses 1950s or 1960s search radar it doesn't really make much of a difference.

Personally I think a ship can only be considered a newer 'generation' of stealth IF all or most of her sensors, panels etc are truly integrated into the superstructure like the Zumwalt and all external mounts, protrusions etc are purposely hidden like gun mounts, barrels, CIWS etc.

RCS reduction is always considered in most modern warship designs however it is not the primary design requirement UNLESS specifically stated so like the Zumwalt.

 

[jacksprat]

I sometimes wonder about at this RCS reduction stuff, especially as it relates to the type 055 program, which is going be a pretty large platform which will be hard to to minimize. It seems to my very simple mind that enclosed masts, shaped hulls also add as much value to fuel efficiency via less wind and water resistance as much as lessening radar returns. sort of the same way they design cars for fuel savings and increases in performance. may have to do with both issues.

 

[Iron Man]

I think my original post was lost in all the clutter of proceeding posts arguing what is essentially semantics. LOL

I believe that ships like the 055, FREMM etc uses what is now 'standardized' building designs for new ship's mast which is enclosed. They certainly do offer a somewhat reduce RCS however it is certainly not a reduction where the entire ship can be reclassified as a new 'stealth' warship since these ships are not purposefully design to be all aspect stealth like the Zumwalt where stealth was considered a big part of the design requirements.

Perhaps if you compare just the masts then I agree that these modern enclosed masts can technically/categorically be considered a newer generation but not when taken the ship in it's entirety.

The bigger and more practical question that needs to be asked is (since we're talking warships here) will the reduction in the mast's RCS make any noticeable difference in the return RF from a modern day radar?

My personal opinion is no, not really. The 055 will light up almost the same as a Burke or any other warships with traditional 'open' mast and antennas. Like I said unless the other ship uses 1950s or 1960s search radar it doesn't really make much of a difference.

Personally I think a ship can only be considered a newer 'generation' of stealth IF all or most of her sensors, panels etc are truly integrated into the superstructure like the Zumwalt and all external mounts, protrusions etc are purposely hidden like gun mounts, barrels, CIWS etc.

RCS reduction is always considered in most modern warship designs however it is not the primary design requirement UNLESS specifically stated so like the Zumwalt.

It wasn't really a semantics discussion at all. If you really want to talk semantics however, then we need to carefully differentiate between "enclosed" masts and "integrated" masts. Enclosed masts shield a conventional rotating radar by surrounding it within a radar absorbent mast structure. Integrated masts use flat panel antennae/radars in multiple frequencies that fit flush on the sloping wall of the mast. Incidentally, the Horizon, Daring, and Aquitaine/FREMM classes have NEITHER of these types of masts. They all also have no net topside clutter reduction because every sensor they need is present and exposed topside in one form or another, whether that be the main mast, the secondary mast, or the weather deck.

Here is an "enclosed" mast:




Here is an "integrated" mast:




IMO the 055 most likely will either have a semi-integrated mast, i.e. some structures will be sunk into the mast and made flush with it, while other structures may still stick out or sit on top of the forward deckhouse, or it will just be a straight up conventional mast.

I sometimes wonder about at this RCS reduction stuff, especially as it relates to the type 055 program, which is going be a pretty large platform which will be hard to to minimize. It seems to my very simple mind that enclosed masts, shaped hulls also add as much value to fuel efficiency via less wind and water resistance as much as lessening radar returns. sort of the same way they design cars for fuel savings and increases in performance. may have to do with both issues.

IMO the degree of stealth achieved by the Zumwalt is probably not worth the cost, and I have to agree with Jura that situational awareness in the Western Pacific and South China Sea may soon evolve into a state of mutual awareness where both sides know where each other's ships are most or even all of the time. Individual ship stealth is still useful in this case however because of its benefits against radar-guided antiship missiles in the terminal homing phase. I don't think we're ever going back to a time with vertically-sloped warships getting built.

 

[Jura The idiot]

LOL! I thought I would get ignored completely after

... I can't see why it should matter to reduce ships' RCS below let's say Burke/Type 052D level(s) ... please enlighten me
...

... but there's a sort of reaction in:

...



IMO the degree of stealth achieved by the Zumwalt is probably not worth the cost, and I have to agree with Jura that situational awareness in the Western Pacific and South China Sea may soon evolve into a state of mutual awareness where both sides know where each other's ships are most or even all of the time. Individual ship stealth is still useful in this case however because of its benefits against radar-guided antiship missiles in the terminal homing phase. I don't think we're ever going back to a time with vertically-sloped warships getting built.

not useful against IR anyway (by the way according to F-35 sales talk F-35Cs may get the Norwegian NSM AShM), so to cut the long story short, I think it's an ILLUSION to try to hide at sea these days (the Bismarck didn't make it to Brest, did she? LOL) and the USN outsmarted itself with the Zumwalts (it's not just "stealth":
Yesterday at 6:14 PM

USNI News Updated: USS Zumwalt Sidelined in Panama Following New Engineering Casualty

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

plus they ran out of resources:

a little bit
Sep 9, 2014

...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...

big way
Nov 7, 2016

... New Warship’s Big Guns Have No Bullets
source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) and I think the Chinese with Type 055 may find a good cost/performance by not trying to 'transform the battlefield'

EDIT
oh and just not to forget how INNOVATIVE Western Navies can now be:
Nov 16, 2016

Friday at 8:42 PM

... related:
Royal Navy to lose missiles and be left only with guns

source, dated 15 November 2016 • 4:13pm,:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(that Friday at 8:42 PM
links to Jane's in case one thought I had posted some tabloid info)

 

[delft]

LOL! I thought I would get ignored completely after
... but there's a sort of reaction in:

not useful against IR anyway (by the way according to F-35 sales talk F-35Cs may get the Norwegian NSM AShM), so to cut the long story short, I think it's an ILLUSION to try to hide at sea these days (the Bismarck didn't make it to Brest, did she? LOL) and the USN outsmarted itself with the Zumwalts (it's not just "stealth":
Yesterday at 6:14 PM

plus they ran out of resources:

a little bit
Sep 9, 2014


big way
Nov 7, 2016
) and I think the Chinese with Type 055 may find a good cost/performance by not trying to 'transform the battlefield'

EDIT
oh and just not to forget how INNOVATIVE Western Navies can now be:
Nov 16, 2016

(that Friday at 8:42 PM
links to Jane's in case one thought I had posted some tabloid info)

OT
I've no time to follow many threads and Zumwalt is one of the neglected ones. But if money is lacking for shells for its big guns it would be better to take those out. That would leave a weight allowance for plenty of 57 mm or even 120 mm close in guns.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...
RCS management. ...

It wasn't really a semantics discussion at all.
...

care to comment on this one:

?
(it's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I know you know, the link is for delft

 

[Jura The idiot]

OT
... or even 120 mm close in guns.

your kidding reminded me of an interesting question, which I posed where it would be on topic
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/modern-ciws-anti-missile-systems-deployed-and-in-development.t4350/
Modern CIWS & Anti-Missile Systems (Deployed and in development)

what's your opinion on large-caliber (2"+ so if hits, is able to take down an incoming missile _for sure_) CIWS as compared to small-caliber (due to a high rate of fire able to create so called cone-shaped cloud)?
shoot!