055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Salty_Waters]

I didn't get which destroyer you're talking about



29+24+9+13 is 75, so I'm wondering what your "bunch of different items" is

I've got the numbers from an interview at Blohm & Voss Naval Yard for german "frigate" F-124 Sachsen-class, wich is actually a destroyer type regarding size, equipment and mission profile, but declassed to frigate due to different reasons.

I know, there are some figures missing... I remember the bunch including conservation, "furnitures" pantry stores equipment, rescue and evac equipment, piping and not ship related extra.

Can be that the numbers included spare part packages. Anyhow, that bunch seems to be to high for me... I am sure i didn't get the exact numbers these days.

But nevertheless, that numbers should demonstrate the share. It was not my point to talk that class in particular.

Happy with that?

 

[Jura The idiot]

I've got the numbers from an interview at Blohm & Voss Naval Yard for german "frigate" F-124 Sachsen-class, wich is actually a destroyer type regarding size, equipment and mission profile, but declassed to frigate due to different reasons.

I know, there are some figures missing... I remember the bunch including conservation, "furnitures" pantry stores equipment, rescue and evac equipment, piping and not ship related extra.

Can be that the numbers included spare part packages. Anyhow, that bunch seems to be to high for me... I am sure i didn't get the exact numbers these days.

But nevertheless, that numbers should demonstrate the share. It was not my point to talk that class in particular.

Happy with that?

as of now, I don't have even a private theory of what your point is

let me ask you here:

...

regarding my posts #2793 and #2800

Both CGI’s (the ones with IEP) ...

what are "Both CGI’s (the ones with IEP)"?

this is
#2793 Salty_Waters, Wednesday at 8:34 PM

View attachment 36680
according to that picture my question:

has anyone profound information for the propulsion system. In recent articles I read about electric propulsion system. And if I have a closer look at that cg, I see that the shaft is in a strange angle to the gas turbines. That angle it won't connect to somehow collector gearbox. Next strange thing, the forward set of turbines have the same orientation than the afterward set, and the same symmetric orientation around the centerline of the ship. How should a shaft get there? Starboard tubbiness starboard shaft, and for port the other side, but no collector gearbox. So again my question, does anyone have some solid info about the propulsion system?

containing one CGI, and this is
#2800 Salty_Waters, Thursday at 5:10 PM

Thank you for your reply. But, it was not a speculation about a speculation. A simple: no I don't have further information about that and you won't find any would have been an appropriate answer, at least more polite than teaching me if an question is legit or not. For me the question is legit enough due to several reasons and I appreciate well thought answers from that great community.

But I take it as your kind of welcome to a newbee...

But let's get to the reasons for me to put that question on the board.
1. Within the last two years there where two CG's depicting the 055 with IEP. I've not seen an other chinese class where CG showed that config. There where illustrations with conventional configuration as well, I had to admit.
2. That concept was already realized by chinese shipbuilding companies in the past. It was done with commercial vessels (Ferries in corporation with ABB) and if I am not wrong, it was realized in a research vessel.
3. Some deeper web research reveals different scientific works and graduation works since 2008 on chinese universities f.e. the Wuhan University dealing with the special issues regarding IEP.
4. In 2013 Wuhan research institute for maritime electric propulsion announced mayor breakthrough in developing IEP, in that context they announced the 054B to be an IEP propelled vessel.

So far to the let's say facts... I know, they are all just hints that something is going on and that china is eager to use that key technology. But I think that these points, keeping in mind all the advantages of that technology especially applied on 055, legitimate my question.

containing no CGI, that's why I'm asking about "both" EDIT I mean can you also post the other CGI of Type 055 featuring an IEP

 

[FORBIN]

Here is something more to scale:
View attachment 36772

See u a reason why 055 have " only " for a big Cruiser in fact 112 silos for missiles why only 48 in back ? big hangar for 2 big helos just an idea ...?

 

[Salty_Waters]

as of now, I don't have even a private theory of what your point is

let me ask you here:

what are "Both CGI’s (the ones with IEP)"?

this is
#2793 Salty_Waters, Wednesday at 8:34 PM
containing one CGI, and this is
#2800 Salty_Waters, Thursday at 5:10 PM
containing no CGI, that's why I'm asking about "both" EDIT I mean can you also post the other CGI of Type 055 featuring an IEP

in post #2800 i was referring to two CGI's that where presented within the last two years. Depicting 055 with IEP. My fault, should have posted the older CGI as well. Here you go.

 

[Salty_Waters]

as of now, I don't have even a private theory of what your point is

my point is: It is not the hull and it's steal structure that makes naval shipbuilding the challenging job. It is the complex system integration of weapons, sensors and combat management/ship management system. The share I presented should highlight the big share of electronics and weapons on a naval vessel, by almost half the acquisition cost. That is a number to be easily transferred to other complex naval vessel classes. To be fair, the costs are not representing the complexity of the work to be done at all. But it gives a good impression where the risks are.

ironman stated, if I understood him correctly, that 052C and 052D where so much the same classes, that there is no need for further design evaluation... I disagree on that, because electronics and weapons on that both classes are not the same... therefore PLAN took well calculated risk in building almost two hulls of the 052D in the same time, before the first is evaluated properly. Thus highlighting, that China is more self-confident with naval shipbuilding than years before.

but I think, it should be read in context with the original posts. maybe the point becomes clear.

 

[Jura The idiot]

in post #2800 i was referring to two CGI's that where presented within the last two years. Depicting 055 with IEP. My fault, should have posted the older CGI as well. Here you go.

View attachment 36782

thanks; to my untrained eye the machinery arrangements are the same though:

 

[FORBIN]

Salty_Waters u make me curious allow me a question u use by ex datas for German Sachsen for do a comparison in fact try know what Chines hide ? for what purpose ?

 

[Salty_Waters]

thanks; to my untrained eye the machinery arrangements are the same though:

absolutely, that's what I saw as well.
That is no indication, that IEP will be used, but that the graphic designers don't have a better idea what might be. anyway.

 

[Salty_Waters]

Salty_Waters u make me curious allow me a question u use by ex datas for German Sachsen for do a comparison in fact try know what Chines hide ? for what purpose ?

Nope I don't draw a line from Sachsen class acquisition cost share to what might be an engine config in 005. That would be total nonsense. I was referring to an answer that I made to a statement earlier. I a reply ironman was so kind to question my answer. and thats why I took the share argument.

To get things straight for you and others that might stumble on that now, I will put the quotes together later... that should clear the fog.

 

[Jura The idiot]

my point is: It is not the hull and it's steal structure that makes naval shipbuilding the challenging job. It is the complex system integration of weapons, sensors and combat management/ship management system. The share I presented should highlight the big share of electronics and weapons on a naval vessel, by almost half the acquisition cost. That is a number to be easily transferred to other complex naval vessel classes. To be fair, the costs are not representing the complexity of the work to be done at all. But it gives a good impression where the risks are.

ironman stated, if I understood him correctly, that 052C and 052D where so much the same classes, that there is no need for further design evaluation... I disagree on that, because electronics and weapons on that both classes are not the same... therefore PLAN took well calculated risk in building almost two hulls of the 052D in the same time, before the first is evaluated properly. Thus highlighting, that China is more self-confident with naval shipbuilding than years before.

but I think, it should be read in context with the original posts. maybe the point becomes clear.

don't worry, I'm trying to get to your point, just ... in the part I already asked about Today at 2:05 PM (because I didn't know what you meant by "a destroyer" specifically; you then answered you had referred to the Sachsen class), the context is:

...
regarding my statement in #2801

...

so let's see again
#2801 Salty_Waters, Thursday at 5:15 PM

That's what I thought earlier as well.

But looking at the building process of the 052D and the 054A reality teached me something different. Both classes had at least the second unit already in production before the first was in water or even well tested. With the 054A it where 4 first units. China has changed in that way, they are much more self confident in the shipbuilding programs, for good reasons. That's my lesson from that named classes.

And these classes had new features the predecessor hadn't.

nevertheless testing the IEP in a land based setup already happened. I'll provide images if I can find them again. Experiences with that concept where already made. To admit, on civilian vessels, but thoroughly evaluated by the technical institutes in china.

well you were talking about Type 052D and 054A which are evolutions of Type052C and 054, right?