055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

I understand your argument and certainly agree that RCS consist of the sum of all parts therefore each part plays an individual role.

With that being said my argument was in regards to the enclosure itself on whether it gives a meaningful reduction to the total RCS of the 055 that justifies additional costs, additional moving parts, additional engineering and other overhead.

Nothing is free and there is no such thing as not having a downside.. Everything has a downside. The question is if it's worth it or in this case gives a meaningful reduction in RCS to make any difference. In my view there may be other things that may contribute in a more meaningful manner than the enclosure.

We don't yet know how stealthy the other parts of the ship will be.

It may well be that the other parts of the ship (despite its conventional flared hull design) will be stealthy enough such that having a stealthy gun shroud is a sensible design choice.

 

[Iron Man]

I am real -- and I think both raj47 and insignius do not really know what they're talking about when they refer to "AGS-type".
I.e.: is it a new gun entirely or a gun shroud, or an AGS type gun shroud etc?

Because for many people when they think "AGS" they think "stealthy gun shroud". I don't assume that people immediately understand it also encompasses "advanced ammunition resupply system" and "new navy calibre with dedicated type of long range guided shell" or "requirement of high sustained firing rate for NGFS".
Especially knowing raj47 as I do through his many posts over on CDF.

Even in raj's original twitter post he mentioned the 055 as maybe having "new stealthy gun just like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

enclosed advance gun system". And then goes on to say, calibre as "130/155mm" which I think any reasonable person would interpret as meaning the same gun as 052D (130mm) or maybe a new gun (155mm). Obviously out of the two one is more realistic than the other.
But for the purposes of comparison to "AGS" is he talking about having the same calibre and similar characteristics to AGS, or merely just 130mm having a similar stealthy, AGS type shroud? Taking the tweet as a whole, I interpret the latter.

I am taking their statements at face value, which means when they say AGS-type gun, they are thinking it comes with most or all of the bells and whistles that the actual AGS comes with. If all they mean is a new barrel shroud and a more angular main gun, then I still disagree but wouldn't care that much one way or the other.

Well that would've had to assume that the level of the wuhan mock up's foredeck was meant to be representative of the same level as 055, which we only really received strong indication/confirmation of once we had clear pictures of the bow a few months ago.

But I digress.

I feel like we've had this conversation before. Well I think you already know my thoughts on this issue.

 

[Mirabo]

I understand your argument and certainly agree that RCS consist of the sum of all parts therefore each part plays an individual role.

With that being said my argument was in regards to the enclosure itself on whether it gives a meaningful reduction to the total RCS of the 055 that justifies additional costs, additional moving parts, additional engineering and other overhead.

Nothing is free and there is no such thing as not having a downside.. Everything has a downside. The question is if it's worth it or in this case gives a meaningful reduction in RCS to make any difference. In my view there may be other things that may contribute in a more meaningful manner than the enclosure.

All I can say is, I do not know enough on the topic of radar detection to give you a satisfactory answer. I don't know how significantly an enclosed mount will help reduce the overall RCS. Do excuse me.

Even in raj's original twitter post he mentioned the 055 as maybe having "new stealthy gun just like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

enclosed advance gun system". And then goes on to say, calibre as "130/155mm" which I think any reasonable person would interpret as meaning the same gun as 052D (130mm) or maybe a new gun (155mm). Obviously out of the two one is more realistic than the other.

While I am not familiar with RAJ47, I have to say as an observer that his communication is appalling. As someone who dabbles in a fair bit of naval history as a hobby, I attach a great importance to clear, concise facts and arguments. I like to know exactly what X refers to, what X is capable of and what X is used for.

So, when I see "new stealthy gun" I think of a stealthy gun mount. When I see "enclose advance gun system" I think AGS complete with special ammunition and fire control and all the bells and whistles. When i see 130mm I think 130mm, when I see 150mm I think 150mm.

However, when I see all of that jumbled into the same line... All of this is self-contradictory! How can someone who posts information like this be considered an acceptable source? Please understand my confusion as I've always relied mainly on Chinese sources, the gold standard as you call it, and little else!

 

[Blitzo]

While I am not familiar with RAJ47, I have to say as an observer that his communication is appalling.

No disagreements there...

 

[Blitzo]

I am taking their statements at face value, which means when they say AGS-type gun, they are thinking it comes with most or all of the bells and whistles that the actual AGS comes with. If all they mean is a new barrel shroud and a more angular main gun, then I still disagree but wouldn't care that much one way or the other.

I am open to insignius clarifying his position. If he's suggesting that 055 will actually have an entirely new gun then I obviously agree that there are no indicators for that.

If he's merely talking about having a gun shroud, then that is a possibility which I think we have a few indicators to support.

 

[kwaigonegin]

All I can say is, I do not know enough on the topic of radar detection to give you a satisfactory answer. I don't know how significantly an enclosed mount will help reduce the overall RCS. Do excuse me.

e!

You're alright man .. I am no expert in RCS myself. My professional opinion is it is not a significant reduction given the total RCS unlike the Zumwalt which is many order of magnitudes more stealthy as a whole therefore any reduction in RCS however slight yields a more significant meaningful purpose.

No different than aircraft .... sticking a golf ball to a f-18 is not that big of a deal compared to sticking it to a f22.

 

[Jura The idiot]

LOL four pages of "adding superstealthy gun"? heck why not, have fun but

Nov 22, 2016

OK just a general thought now:
I think in a not that distant future, (most of) the World Oceans will become 'digital battlefield' and both sides will have 'situational awareness' for example all around Philippines, like Sanya to Guam/Guam to Sanya any routes (I'm specific as we're discussing Zumwalts and Type 055 differences here, not because of warmongering or something) so I can't see why it should matter to reduce ships' RCS below let's say Burke/Type 052D level(s) ...

 

[Blitzo]

LOL four pages of "adding superstealthy gun"? heck why not, have fun but

Nov 22, 2016

Reducing RCS is always valuable, as it allows you to reduce the maximum detection range of an opposing force's radars and it is a form of passive countermeasure against radar guided missiles to reduce their maximum detection/tracking range and effectiveness.

The question is what degree of stealth vs what degree of cost for a particular level of stealth should be sought. Considering the trends of many current warships and some foreseeable warship designs in the pipeline I think a certain common level of stealth vs practicality/cost has been attained by most navies around the world.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Reducing RCS is always valuable, as it allows you to reduce the maximum detection range of an opposing force's radars and it is a form of passive countermeasure against radar guided missiles to reduce their maximum detection/tracking range and effectiveness.

The question is what degree of stealth vs what degree of cost for a particular level of stealth should be sought. Considering the trends of many current warships and some foreseeable warship designs in the pipeline I think a certain common level of stealth vs practicality/cost has been attained by most navies around the world.

LOL in a way I answered Nov 22, 2016:

...

I'm not saying "RCS reduction" is a bust, but I think it would be useful if for example some Navy in south-east Asia tried its luck and lobbed two AShMs without mid-course correction, this type of situations, not against a peer

one more thing: warships like Zumwalt (and presumably Type 055) to me are electric power plants afloat, so their detection would have little to do with "RCS of a fishing boat" (that's how Zumwalts are sold to the public though)

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-245#post-425583

 

[Insignius]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Type 055 number 4 (Dalian's 2nd hull) possibly spotted.

Big shrimp claims that 5th hull (Shanghai 3rd) will come out soon as well, and more than 8 hulls of the initial batch are on order and will probably appear soon.

China obviously is fully committed in building a fleet of large tonnage surface combattants.