055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

Quite the heated discussion up there, gents. Let's put our differences to rest momentarily, for I come bearing gifts.

I don't usually post speculative CG photos, but I feel that this one is worth sharing because it originated from Haohan Defence, which is one of our more reliable sources for visual material, including photographs.

The post also comes with estimated specifications, but bear in mind that this is all completely imaginary, made up by the CG creator! I just thought it'd be interesting to share:

"中国海军055型大型导弹驱逐舰，舰长182.6米，舰宽20.9米，吃水7.2米，满载排水量13200吨，112单元通用垂直发射系统，H/PJ-38型单管130毫米舰炮（被新型电磁炮替代的可能也不小），红旗10近程防空导弹系统，1130近程防御火炮系统，两座三联装反潜鱼雷发射器，4座726-4多功能干扰弹发射系统，双波段相控阵雷达，一体化桅杆及综合射频系统，燃燃联合动力系统，双独立直升机库，舰壳声呐系统，主被动拖曳声呐系统。"

TRANSLATED:

"The Chinese Navy's 055 Large Guided Missile Destroyer, length 182.6 m, beam 20.9 m, draft 7.2 m, full load displacement 13,200 tons, 112 VLS cells, H/PJ-38 130 mm gun (may be upgraded with electromagnetic railgun [?!?!?!]), HQ-10 short-range SAM, Type 1130 CIWS, 2x triple ASW torpedo launchers, 4x Type 726-4 multipurpose decoy rocket launcher systems, dual band radar, integrated mast and fire control system, Combined Gas and Gas (COGAG) propulsion, two separate helicopter hangars, hull-mounted sonar and towed sonar array."

As with all speculation, take these specs with a grain of salt, although the majority of these specs seem reasonable enough. What surprised me was the suggestion that the 055 may be equipped with a railgun in the future, which is unimaginable today. However, given that the PLAN had several major breakthroughs in EM technology in recent years, it's not completely out of the question either.

Again, bear in mind that these specs are the result of the CG creator's imagination, but I think this could give us some discussion fuel for the next couple of days.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wonder if his dimensions are also a result of his own speculation. To be honest, on GE, my own measurement of 055's length and beam are a bit smaller than his listed dimensions.

If they are, then tbh I am not sure how useful his own speculation is. I mean, the dimensions and specs are close to what we've suspected for the last two years or so, but we're at a stage of 055's construction where I think we should start to be expecting much more legitimate and non-speculative numbers for simple things like 055's length, beam, and basic things like VLS count.

 

[Iron Man]

Of course I haven't given any new information, I wanted to confirm that you understand the logic that I've put forward over the course of this strain of discussion.

"Why not" is basically just the answer I wanted this whole time for this part of the discussion, so long as XYZABCDEFGHIJK advancements are in the pre-specified subsystems that I've brought up before (those same subsystems whose advancements you once associated with "meh").

I have said something like why not like 3 or 4 pages ago, did you somehow miss it or did you see it and wanted to continue arguing?

On the other hand, all you get with the "why not" is really a "maybe, maybe not", which is all you can ever hope for here given that you lack any concrete information of any kind on any subsystem, whether mentioned previously or not. Am I wrong here? Which means again, your statement is as meaningful a statement as "5 is greater than 4". Which is to say, not so meaningful.

You asked me what the point of arguing over something so inconsequential was.

My answer was that I was not deliberately entering this discussion knowing we would end up talking about something so inconsequential, but we were led here due to disagreements in certain other opinions.


As for this: "The whole point that I wanted to make was that the 055's rapid production was not an indication of advancing design and production technologies due to the relatively non-revolutionary nature of the 055 design compared to the 052D as well as the relatively short period of time between the appearance of these two designs, and your response this whole time was that the 055's rapid production is a more compelling demonstration of existing design/production technologies? How would that be any kind of consequential response to what I said? I just don't even understand your train of thought anymore."

My response is consequential, because it does two things:

1: on one hand, it agrees with your point, in that it acknowledges that 055 and 052D likely had access to similar/same advancements in design/computing/etc, which likely assisted both of their development and production process. (The phrase "more compelling" part of my response acknowledges that 052D's manner of production was also an example that those advancements likely existed and played a role in its production, but that 055's manner of production is a more compelling display for those advancements, see below)

2: on the other hand, it disagrees with your point, by emphasizing that 055's manner of production right now was quite different to 052D's at a similar stage of its production (in terms of 055 having a higher initial rate of production vs 052D's initial rate of production, and also emphasizing that 055 is a clean sheet hull design whereas 052D was a derivative of an existing proven hull), and that 055's manner of production is therefore more compelling proof that those advancements took place compared to 052D's manner of production.


And I think it's important to clarify this as well -- the advancements I'm referring to that assisted both 055 and 052D's production, are advances relative to an earlier era when those technologies were very immature, which I believe is also what subotai is referring to. I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that advancements occurred in the intervening few years between 052D's production/development and 055's production/development, and in previous posts I have also expressed this as well.


So, when you say "055's rapid production was not an indication of advancing design and production technologies due to the relatively non-revolutionary nature of the 055 design compared to the 052D as well as the relatively short period of time between the appearance of these two designs"....

... My response is that 055's rapid production (or using my term, "manner of production") is indeed not any meaningful indication of advancement in design/production technology relative to when 052D was produced... but I am also saying 055's manner of production is an indication of advancement in design/production technology relative to the earlier era where those technologies (specifically in modelling/computing) were likely far less mature (pre 2010 years, at the very least), and 055s manner of production is also the most compelling evidence of those advancementd we have seen compared to the manner of production of other Chinese Navy ships in the last few years (including but not limited to 052D).

Wow. JFC.

Anyway, so basically I said that the "055 does not represent an advancement of design/production technologies over the 052D", and you responded over the next 4,5 (6?) pages with essentially "well, the 055 exemplifies said technologies which have, admittedly, not advanced". Well your dissertation here fails to convince me that your tangent adds anything of significance to my point. Not that I even really agree that the 055's production rate is some kind of exemplification of previous design/production technologies over the 052D anyway, but I care so little about this point that it's not worth another 6 pages.

BTW, I think you're almost certain to be wrong about the higher rate of production of the 055 vs the 052D. Maybe you're somewhat right in a general ephemeral indirect sense given that the 055 is larger and a newer design, but by pure numbers and dates, I'm willing to bet you're just not going to end up being right. Between August 2012 and July 2013 THREE 052D's were launched into the water (the first 3). That's 321 days from the first launch to the third launch. You think the first 3 055's can beat this schedule? At the VERY least you don't currently have the right or the evidence to assume that the 055 is being produced at a higher rate than the 052D was.

 

[latenlazy]

Nope, not at all contradictory. My conclusions are based solely on externally visible and known to be likely to exist features of the 055: the universal VLS modules, the radar, the CIWS/HHQ-10, the main gun, the countermeasures, etc., whereas Bltizo's conjectures are about internal subsystems and software and are purely hypothetical and undemonstrable externally. I wouldn't even call them straight "analogs", whatever you mean by this. I would just call them "the same exact thing until proven otherwise", because they look exactly the same as the same systems found on the 052D. Which means the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they look the same but are in fact different/better, not on me to demonstrate that they are the same.

Ehhh...but the point is:

1) They don't look exactly the same. We have not seen even mockups of the 055's VLS, unless I'm missing something, and the entire mast structure on the mockup suggests that even if certain radars are shared, the addition of radars in excess of what the 052Ds imply that the overall system in aggregate will be different.

2) Stuff like radars and countermeasures *aren't* visibly discernible. They are defined by their software and subsystems, not by their physical appearance. You can have two pieces of hardware that look superficially similar, but that alone doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't imply that you can confidently conclude they are functionally identical.

You should have read more closely because this exact point about increased size and payload has already been addressed. The ESM mast has also already been addressed. We have SOME confidence presuming that at least ONE of its systems (ESM) will at least be different, if not better.

You're going to have to forgive me for not reading everything, since your exchanges have gone quite long.

 

[Blitzo]

I have said something like why not like 3 or 4 pages ago, did you somehow miss it or did you see it and wanted to continue arguing?

You may have said something like that, but most if not all times you said it, were accompanied by a statement about how I do not have evidence for whether 055 would have those advancements or not, or statements of a similar vein.
I continued to argue, because I wanted to emphasize that it doesn't matter if 055 will have those advancements or not, and it doesn't matter whether I have evidence for or against it, because that was not the foundation of my argument.

On the other hand, all you get with the "why not" is really a "maybe, maybe not", which is all you can ever hope for here given that you lack any concrete information of any kind on any subsystem, whether mentioned previously or not. Am I wrong here? Which means again, your statement is as meaningful a statement as "5 is greater than 4". Which is to say, not so meaningful.

I have not changed my position for this particular strand of discussion over the last many pages.
Yes, my position has been as meaningful as saying "5 is greater than 4" and that's why I've been so consistent in repeating it, so you make sure how simple and basic my position actually is.

Wow. JFC.

Anyway, so basically I said that the "055 does not represent an advancement of design/production technologies over the 052D", and you responded over the next 4,5 (6?) pages with essentially "well, the 055 exemplifies said technologies which have, admittedly, not advanced". Well your dissertation here fails to convince me that your tangent adds anything of significance to my point. Not that I even really agree that the 055's production rate is some kind of exemplification of previous design/production technologies over the 052D anyway, but I care so little about this point that it's not worth another 6 pages.

Actually the last 4-6 pages were also a longer way of me saying that your response to subotai was a misunderstanding of his position -- the advancements he described (advancements that have matured vs when they were not mature) are not the advancements you thought he described (supposed advancements between 052D and 055).

So sure, your point isn't wrong, and it's quite correct, but I don't think your point is the assertion he was making to begin with.
It's only in the last three pages or so when I realized this is the case -- before that I was under the impression that the two ideas of "advancement" were the same thing, when they're actually quite different. This misunderstanding was the cause of much of the initial pages of disagreement.

BTW, I think you're almost certain to be wrong about the higher rate of production of the 055 vs the 052D. Maybe you're somewhat right in a general ephemeral indirect sense given that the 055 is larger and a newer design, but by pure numbers and dates, I'm willing to bet you're just not going to end up being right. Between August 2012 and July 2013 THREE 052D's were launched into the water (the first 3). That's 321 days from the first launch to the third launch. You think the first 3 055's can beat this schedule? At the VERY least you don't currently have the right or the evidence to assume that the 055 is being produced at a higher rate than the 052D was.

Depends on how it's measured.
Right now, at the time when the first 055 had yet to be even launched (maybe 3-4 months away at most), is equivalent to May 2012 for when the first 052D had yet to be launched, and is the "initial production rate" I'm referring to. [Aka, the "straight off the bat" production rate that they initiate with (I think I used that phrase quite a few times in the discussion), along with 055's status as a new clean sheet hull for a large surface combatant, both of which which is relevant for the assertion that subotai made.]
At that similar point of production for 052D in May 2012, only one 052D would have been in the final assembly stage of the first 055 was now, and another in stages where initial assembly would've begun, and importantly, only at a single shipyard and production at a second shipyard would take nearly three years later to occur. Whereas for 055 as we know, is being built at two shipyards with a few months to half a year at most separating their stages, based on satellite imagery.

Obviously once production for 055 progresses over a year or two, the 052D will likely end up having a higher rate of production measured across that span of time, not least due to its status as a smaller ship.

 

[Iron Man]

1) They don't look exactly the same. We have not seen even mockups of the 055's VLS, unless I'm missing something, and the entire mast structure on the mockup suggests that even if certain radars are shared, the addition of radars in excess of what the 052Ds imply that the overall system in aggregate will be different.

2) Stuff like radars and countermeasures *aren't* visibly discernible. They are defined by their software and subsystems, not by their physical appearance. You can have two pieces of hardware that look superficially similar, but that alone doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't imply that you can confidently conclude they are functionally identical.

We do not know that they have added any radars over and above what's present on the 052D. That is an assumption on your part. Those empty holes in the main mast represent unknown entities at this point, to be filled in by ECM, coms, IFF, or yes, possibly a radar. We just don't know. What we DO know is what is already visible on the ship, on the Wuhan mockup, or what we can reasonably assume will be present, i.e. the same VLS as on the 052D. And what we see so far is stuff that looks just like what's on the 052D. Yes, technically we don't know that two pieces of hardware that superficially look the same also function the same, but like I said, I think it's completely reasonable to put the onus of proof on you to demonstrate that two pieces of identical-looking equipment actually function differently even thought they look the same, NOT on me to prove that they function the same even though they look the same.

You may have said something like that, but most if not all times you said it, were accompanied by a statement about how I do not have evidence for whether 055 would have those advancements or not, or statements of a similar vein.
I continued to argue, because I wanted to emphasize that it doesn't matter if 055 will have those advancements or not, and it doesn't matter whether I have evidence for or against it, because that was not the foundation of my argument.

I have not changed my position for this particular strand of discussion over the last many pages.
Yes, my position has been as meaningful as saying "5 is greater than 4" and that's why I've been so consistent in repeating it, so you make sure how simple and basic my position actually is.

The reason I've been trying to get you to get more specific is precisely because otherwise you're not really saying anything, and also why I keep emphasizing that you CAN'T really saying anything more specific on this issue because you are talking about things that are unknowable at this stage of the 055's timeline. Basically you're admitting that for the last several pages you've been refusing to make any consequential statements about the capabilities of the 055 vis a vis the 052D. "If there are a bunch of unquantified advancements in one or several unquantified number of subsystems, we'd get a (052D-sized) 055 that is more warfighting capable than the 052D" as is consequential a statement as you can make. Ok then, "why not, maybe", for the nth time.

Actually the last 4-6 pages were also a longer way of me saying that your response to subotai was a misunderstanding of his position -- the advancements he described (advancements that have matured vs when they were not mature) are not the advancements you thought he described (supposed advancements between 052D and 055).

So sure, your point isn't wrong, and it's quite correct, but I don't think your point is the assertion he was making to begin with.
It's only in the last three pages or so when I realized this is the case -- before that I was under the impression that the two ideas of "advancement" were the same thing, when they're actually quite different. This misunderstanding was the cause of much of the initial pages of disagreement.

I think it is fair to requote him on this one:

"There is another aspect to this which is hard to prove, but could also make big changes to what we are seeing. That is the use of super computers, modeling and simulation. China has been pouring massive money into this space for decades and we could be seeing the fruition of this as a large amount of one design come out, showing confidence in the model."

A fair reading of this statement suggests that the 055 is the "fruition" of the emerging design/production technologies that China has been pouring money into for decades, and thus by implication NOT the 052D or the time that the 052D was initially produced. What he said later in post 2673 did not do anything to change this obvious conclusion of his first statements. You would have to twist grammar, common sense, and logic massively to come to some other kind of conclusion. So my point is exactly on point, no "misunderstanding" of anything here.

Depends on how it's measured.
Right now, at the time when the first 055 had yet to be even launched (maybe 3-4 months away at most), is equivalent to May 2012 for when the first 052D had yet to be launched, and is the "initial production rate" I'm referring to. [Aka, the "straight off the bat" production rate that they initiate with (I think I used that phrase quite a few times in the discussion), along with 055's status as a new clean sheet hull for a large surface combatant, both of which which is relevant for the assertion that subotai made.]
At that similar point of production for 052D in May 2012, only one 052D would have been in the final assembly stage of the first 055 was now, and another in stages where initial assembly would've begun, and importantly, only at a single shipyard and production at a second shipyard would take nearly three years later to occur. Whereas for 055 as we know, is being built at two shipyards with a few months to half a year at most separating their stages, based on satellite imagery.

Obviously once production for 055 progresses over a year or two, the 052D will likely end up having a higher rate of production measured across that span of time, not least due to its status as a smaller ship.

So if I understand you correctly you think the three 055's are starting out with a bang but will actually be launched slower than the 052D. If that's the case, how does that help your assertion that the production rate of the 055 is faster than the 052D? It doesn't matter how fast you are perceived to start out if you can't deliver the goods using the metric that actually matters: launch date. I don't really care how many ways you can devise various means of "measuring" production rate, I only care about the time between when the first ship and the third ship hits the water. BTW, I'm too lazy right now (and it's too late in the evening) to go back and confirm your assertions for the 052D's initial timelines, but I don't grant you accuracy in your statements here.

 

[latenlazy]

We do not know that they have added any radars over and above what's present on the 052D. That is an assumption on your part. Those empty holes in the main mast represent unknown entities at this point, to be filled in by ECM, coms, IFF, or yes, possibly a radar. We just don't know. What we DO know is what is already visible on the ship, on the Wuhan mockup, or what we can reasonably assume will be present, i.e. the same VLS as on the 052D. And what we see so far is stuff that looks just like what's on the 052D. Yes, technically we don't know that two pieces of hardware that superficially look the same also function the same, but like I said, I think it's completely reasonable to put the onus of proof on you to demonstrate that two pieces of identical-looking equipment actually function differently even thought they look the same, NOT on me to prove that they function the same even though they look the same.

But that's kinda my point? Unless the Type 055 is somehow different, a ship's electronic suite is usually an integrated system. Not knowing some components of the system also means not knowing much about the system as a whole, period. You can't really make any conclusions about capability of a system if you can only identify some of its pieces.

What makes your assumptions about the VLS reasonable? You asked for evidence of claims earlier, so I ask for yours.

Part of my point is that not a whole lot actually looks that identical between the 055 and 052D, and that the parts that do are component and not holistic. The point is that any platform's "war fighting" capabilities can't be ascertained by singular equipment. So long as we're talking about whole systems and holistic capabilities, I do not think the onus of proof is sitting where you think it is...regardless of what the individual equipment might be, you have to be able to show the *system* as a whole is either the same or different.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Err don't be so amazed, you've been on this forum for a while now.

good comment, it made me think about what I had been doing here for three and a half years ... I think I basically was just looking at pictures to be able to for example tell Type 052D from C, recognize Type 054 by the silhouette, which is really not much LOL!

Chinese military watching is highly dependent on credible rumours from forums, satellite imagery, and lots of inference, logic and common sense.
Western and Russian naval and military projects and announcements do not have an equivalent for most big ticket Chinese military projects. It's just the way it is.

I wonder how the Chinese economy enters this (hope you know I don't naysay the buildup of Chinese Navy!), as I've noticed Western naval programs are job programs at the same time, for example if the Chinese somehow reshuffle military orders between shipbuilders if those became overwhelmed/vacant etc. but yeah, any info on this would be classified and unavailable

 

[Iron Man]

But that's kinda my point? Unless the Type 055 is somehow different, a ship's electronic suite is usually an integrated system. Not knowing some components of the system also means not knowing much about the system as a whole, period. You can't really make any conclusions about capability of a system if you can only identify some of its pieces.

What makes your assumptions about the VLS reasonable? You asked for evidence of claims earlier, so I ask for yours.

Part of my point is that not a whole lot actually looks that identical between the 055 and 052D, and that the parts that do are component and not holistic. The point is that any platform's "war fighting" capabilities can't be ascertained by singular equipment. So long as we're talking about whole systems and holistic capabilities, I do not think the onus of proof is sitting where you think it is...regardless of what the individual equipment might be, you have to be able to show the *system* as a whole is either the same or different.

Nah, I don't think so. What we can identify definitively so far are the main gun (same), AESA MFR (same), CIWS (same), SRSAM (same), countermeasures rocket launchers (same). What we can reasonably infer to be the same are the gas turbine engines and the universal VLS; if you disagree I would like to ask you to provide evidence that the PLAN has developed any kind of other VLS or naval GT recently that might be present on the 055. You and I both know that this particular VLS (the one seen on the 052D) will almost certainly be on the 055, but you are casting doubt here merely for the sake of arguing this thread. Same goes for the GT. In any case, these systems already identified are easily, as far as hardware goes, the prime movers of a surface combatant. You are saying that just because they look the same doesn't mean they function the same. Ok fine, but really, the burden of proof IS on you to demonstrate that they look the same but somehow function differently on the 055, whether part of some "integrated" "system" or otherwise. If you somehow disagree with that, it doesn't matter to me either way, but I think the average person wouldn't agree with you that the burden of proof isn't on you.

 

[SanWenYu]

I wonder how the Chinese economy enters this (hope you know I don't naysay the buildup of Chinese Navy!), as I've noticed Western naval programs are job programs at the same time, for example if the Chinese somehow reshuffle military orders between shipbuilders if those became overwhelmed/vacant etc. but yeah, any info on this would be classified and unavailable

Nowadays, it's just not possible to hide such big events completely though.

I believe all the major Chinese shipbuilders (or either their holding companies or some of their subsidaries) are public. Such big changes in revenue will be reflected in their quarter or annual files, one way or other.

There are also component suppliers. There might be traces in their files, too, if they are also public.

 

[Blitzo]

The reason I've been trying to get you to get more specific is precisely because otherwise you're not really saying anything, and also why I keep emphasizing that you CAN'T really saying anything more specific on this issue because you are talking about things that are unknowable at this stage of the 055's timeline. Basically you're admitting that for the last several pages you've been refusing to make any consequential statements about the capabilities of the 055 vis a vis the 052D. "If there are a bunch of unquantified advancements in one or several unquantified number of subsystems, we'd get a (052D-sized) 055 that is more warfighting capable than the 052D" as is consequential a statement as you can make. Ok then, "why not, maybe", for the nth time.

It would be entirely illogical for me to try and make anymore consequential or specific statements about what 055's capabilities because no one knows what it will really be like for a long while.

Instead, what I'm arguing for is the principle that the subsystems I mentioned can produce advancements in a new warship class's warfighting capabilities even if it retains the same weapons/radars/propulsion as an existing class of warship, as a matter of general principle.

From there, once that general principle/premise is settled, that backs up my conclusion which is merely to apply that principle to 055, in full knowledge that what 055's advancements in those regions are unquantifiable.

I think it is fair to requote him on this one:

"There is another aspect to this which is hard to prove, but could also make big changes to what we are seeing. That is the use of super computers, modeling and simulation. China has been pouring massive money into this space for decades and we could be seeing the fruition of this as a large amount of one design come out, showing confidence in the model."

A fair reading of this statement suggests that the 055 is the "fruition" of the emerging design/production technologies that China has been pouring money into for decades, and thus by implication NOT the 052D or the time that the 052D was initially produced. What he said later in post 2673 did not do anything to change this obvious conclusion of his first statements. You would have to twist grammar, common sense, and logic massively to come to some other kind of conclusion. So my point is exactly on point, no "misunderstanding" of anything here.

Actually, there is a misunderstanding -- because while it is correct to interpret his statement that he sees 055 as the "fruition" of these technologies, it does not exclude 052D as having also benefitted from those technologies.
That is entirely consistent with my position that the 055 is "more compelling evidence" of the advancement of those technologies, and that 052D benefitted from those same or similar degree of advancements, but its manner of production is a far less compelling display of the fruition of those technologies compared to the manner of production of 055 we are seeing.

So then, how to reconcile the idea that the "fruition" of the advancements in design/tech/etc is attributed to 055 as described by him, with the idea that the advancements had also existed before 055 probably as early as 052D's production or earlier? Well as I've written, it's because of 055's manner of production that we've seen (rate of initial production/outset production + it being a clean sheet hull design + along with I suppose the fact that it is also the largest surface combatant from the Navy they've ever produced) -- in other words, 055s manner of production is very impressive, creating the most convincing display of those advancements, relative to previous classes of warship's manners of production.

So if I understand you correctly you think the three 055's are starting out with a bang but will actually be launched slower than the 052D. If that's the case, how does that help your assertion that the production rate of the 055 is faster than the 052D?

My assertion is not that the production rate of 055 is faster than the 052D, it is that the "rate of initial production" aka production of the ships at the outset of production, is faster than that of the 052D at its outset of production.

It doesn't matter how fast you are perceived to start out if you can't deliver the goods using the metric that actually matters: launch date. I don't really care how many ways you can devise various means of "measuring" production rate, I only care about the time between when the first ship and the third ship hits the water. BTW, I'm too lazy right now (and it's too late in the evening) to go back and confirm your assertions for the 052D's initial timelines, but I don't grant you accuracy in your statements here.

"Rate of initial production" is the term I have used, as well as the phrase "straight off the bat".
In other words, the number of ships that they have started to produced at the initiation of production of this warship class, along with the number of sites they are producing them at.

As for 052D, the dates for all their launches are well tabulated in wikipedia (as well as many other Chinese ship classes) and photo confirmation of sighting modules for new ships for DL and JN can be seen in number of threads over at CDF.