055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

I do not think so.

Late last year fzgfzy suggested that the order for the first batch of 055s may end up being larger than initially thought, with the first batch having been stated before as being 8 ships.

From over 8 ships, you would not have to go very far to reach double digits.

I don't think so. fzgfzy said 8 ships for the first batch, not 10, not 11, not 12. So essentially your "strong indicators" is your own personal opinion which you personally extrapolated upwards from an actually very specific sub-10 prediction by a big shrimp.

No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is based on a presumed conjecture. I questioned the soundness of the conjecture. If the basis of your point was so dependable then incumbents would never be overtaken in anything, and we know that to be untrue. You made an absolute claim. I challenge the confidence of the claim.

I didn't make any "absolute claim", certainly not about mature vs new systems. Saying that you would "absolutely" be more apprehensive about flying in a new C919 than in a mature 737 or A320 is right on the money though, and is absolutely true. This is not a claim that mature systems are invariably better than new systems. On the other hand, that you try to beat down a straw man here only serves to validate my argument even more. A betting man bets on the mature system over the new system if he doesn't have any evidence to the contrary.

there's a detail which I noticed but didn't understand: why a Tico cruiser mark 41 has in fact just 122 (2*61) cells?
(yes, I used google now, even checked wiki but didn't find the answer in the first page)

Actually, Ticos that are undergoing refit are having those cranes removed, so each newly modernized Tico that comes out of drydock has 128 cells. I believe this is the same case with Flight I ABs. I find it hard to believe this information is somehow difficult to find. Just google "ticonderoga cruiser modernization crane" and look at how many hits you get all saying the same thing.....

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think so. fzgfzy said 8 ships for the first batch, not 10, not 11, not 12. So essentially your "strong indicators" is your own personal opinion which you personally extrapolated upwards from an actually very specific sub-10 prediction by a big shrimp.

fzgfzy said there would be 8 ships for the first batch, from about 2015 onwards, but early this year he specifically wrote:
"fzgfzy 发表于2017-2-10 23:52

大猫只能告诉你们，我当年说的是首批8条55，现在可以说，但是那是当年的数字了。"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Which when reading it directly says mean that the number for the first batch now is different to his yesteryera's limits of 8 ships, and which many people interpreted to mean the first batch being greater than 8. Now, you could contest such an interpretation (like even arguing that it could mean the first batch will be smaller than 8), but I think my description of saying "strong indications" that the first batch may be in the double digits is perfectly defendable.

If I written something like the first batch of 055s "will definitely be" built in double digits or something that suggests it's 100% going to happen or that it's virtually confirmed to happen, then I think your critique would be more valid.

Actually, Ticos that are undergoing refit are having those cranes removed, so each newly modernized Tico that comes out of drydock has 128 cells. I believe this is the same case with Flight I ABs. I find it hard to believe this information is somehow difficult to find. Just google "ticonderoga cruiser modernization crane" and look at how many hits you get all saying the same thing.....

Not that I don't believe you, but I wasn't able to find any articles about the VLS being removed in a modernization, though there have been some articles about those being planned or intended

One article I did find was this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which wrote about the VLS Ticos "These ships are to be refitted with the strike-down crane deleted, adding six missiles to the total load-out."
another:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

" major upgrade/life extension, the Cruiser Conversion Program (CCP), is in the planning stages. This project would extend the life of these ships to 40 years, allowing the oldest units to serve until 2020. CCP probably will include AEGIS upgrades (bringing all ships to a common baseline), removal of the VLS reload cranes (providing 6 additional VLS cells), replacement of CIWS by ESSM, addition of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)"

and also here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Consequently, the strike-down crane is no longer offered as part of the system, and it continues to be removed from the Ticonderoga class ships."


... but I wasn't able to find any news article that wrote that a specific modernization programme was completed either for a single ship or multiple ships of the class which mentions that replacement of the crane occurred. Could you provide some articles about this?

edit: I found a neat picture of USS Bunker Hill (the first VLS Tico) and its aft VLS block on the ship's facebook page, taken in May 2015

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and it seems to show the crane VLS module to still be there (on the left side of the photo, third block away), which corresponds to the same location of the crane VLS module on other photos of Tico class cruisers

Maybe USS Bunker Hill has not received the upgrade while others of its class has, but I think it is also possible and maybe even likely that the tico modernization programme didn't include a replacement of the VLS crane module... or is there some kind of new/recent modernization fit that includes replacing the VLS crane module?

 

[Iron Man]

fzgfzy said there would be 8 ships for the first batch, from about 2015 onwards, but early this year he specifically wrote:
"fzgfzy 发表于2017-2-10 23:52

大猫只能告诉你们，我当年说的是首批8条55，现在可以说，但是那是当年的数字了。"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Which when reading it directly says mean that the number for the first batch now is different to his yesteryera's limits of 8 ships, and which many people interpreted to mean the first batch being greater than 8. Now, you could contest such an interpretation (like even arguing that it could mean the first batch will be smaller than 8), but I think my description of saying "strong indications" that the first batch may be in the double digits is perfectly defendable.

If I written something like the first batch of 055s "will definitely be" built in double digits or something that suggests it's 100% going to happen or that it's virtually confirmed to happen, then I think your critique would be more valid.

Correct, this not actually any kind of "strong indicator" to me that a double digit build is going to happen. A strong indicator would be a definitive statement of a double digit first batch build, which he could have just straight out said instead of his current statement. Here he is intentionally being obtuse about his prediction and any adjustments thereto either up or down.

Not that I don't believe you, but I wasn't able to find any articles about the VLS being removed in a modernization, though there have been some articles about those being planned or intended

One article I did find was this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which wrote about the VLS Ticos "These ships are to be refitted with the strike-down crane deleted, adding six missiles to the total load-out."
another:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

" major upgrade/life extension, the Cruiser Conversion Program (CCP), is in the planning stages. This project would extend the life of these ships to 40 years, allowing the oldest units to serve until 2020. CCP probably will include AEGIS upgrades (bringing all ships to a common baseline), removal of the VLS reload cranes (providing 6 additional VLS cells), replacement of CIWS by ESSM, addition of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)"

and also here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Consequently, the strike-down crane is no longer offered as part of the system, and it continues to be removed from the Ticonderoga class ships."

... but I wasn't able to find any news article that wrote that a specific modernization programme was completed either for a single ship or multiple ships of the class which mentions that replacement of the crane occurred. Could you provide some articles about this?

I'm not sure which articles would split hairs as you are demanding here and specifically mention crane deletion as a completed component of the modernization of individual ships, though the last article that you cited states that "multiple ships of the class" are in fact having their cranes removed: "Consequently, the strike-down crane is no longer offered as part of the system, and it continues to be removed from the Ticonderoga class ships."

edit: I found a neat picture of USS Bunker Hill (the first VLS Tico) and its aft VLS block on the ship's facebook page, taken in May 2015

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... and it seems to show the crane VLS module to still be there (on the left side of the photo, third block away), which corresponds to the same location of the crane VLS module on other photos of Tico class cruisers

Maybe USS Bunker Hill has not received the upgrade while others of its class has, but I think it is also possible and maybe even likely that the tico modernization programme didn't include a replacement of the VLS crane module... or is there some kind of new/recent modernization fit that includes replacing the VLS crane module?

Convenient that you chose Bunker Hill out of all the Ticos to use as an example. It is currently set to be the very first to be decommissioned or mothballed out of all the VLS Ticos in 2 years time and will almost certainly NOT have its cranes replaced with any modernization, which would have already happened for Bunker Hill long before talk of crane deletion even surfaced (which AFAIK has been in the works only in the last several years).

 

[Blitzo]

Correct, this not actually any kind of "strong indicator" to me that a double digit build is going to happen. A strong indicator would be a definitive statement of a double digit first batch build, which he could have just straight out said instead of his current statement. Here he is intentionally being obtuse about his prediction and any adjustments thereto either up or down.

A definitive statement from him about the numbers would be more than a "strong indicator" but in the "virtually confirmed" category.
There are only two ways to interpret his statement either that the first batch will be less than his yesteryear statement of 8 ships, or more than 8 ships. I think it's quite reasonable to interpret if not strongly suggested by the way he's written his phrase that it is more than 8 ships.
Then, from there it's a simple question of asking if the first batch is more than 8 ships, how many more is it? If it's more than one ship then it fulfills my previous statement, and so we have to consider whether the new first batch estimate is only one additional ship versus his previous estimate or more than one.

Also, given the early state of the 055 programme relatively speaking and given any changes of the 055's first batch order size would've likely occurred fairly recently I would not expect him to be willing to state such a calibre of information so early. Similar to past programmes like 052D, we will likely get more solid and updated numbers as the programme proceeds, maybe some time after the first 055 is launched if the original 052D build up to post launch era was anything to go by.

I'm not sure which articles would split hairs as you are demanding here and specifically mention crane deletion as a completed component of the modernization of individual ships, though the last article that you cited states that "multiple ships of the class" are in fact having their cranes removed: "Consequently, the strike-down crane is no longer offered as part of the system, and it continues to be removed from the Ticonderoga class ships."

I think I was asking quite reasonably for some evidence to confirm just what the state of the Tico class crane situation is.
Such a modification itself is not exactly minor one, and I imagine would've been described in some articles for Tico class ships that undergo modernization or as part of the Tico class modernization programme in a more official capacity such as via a USN press release, a USNI news report, a defence industry daily article or write up, or any number of other sites or blogs that closely follow USN-industry developments that I'm sure would've mentioned a VLS modification like that.

Convenient that you chose Bunker Hill out of all the Ticos to use as an example. It is currently set to be the very first to be decommissioned or mothballed out of all the VLS Ticos in 2 years time and will almost certainly NOT have its cranes replaced with any modernization, which would have already happened for Bunker Hill long before talk of crane deletion even surfaced (which AFAIK has been in the works only in the last several years).

Sigh, you know, if you want to express skepticism then that is fine, but why do you have to make it sound like I deliberately chose USS Bunker Hill due to some kind of underhanded motivation? FYI I chose the USS Bunker Hill because it was the first VLS Tico that came to mind, probably because it is the first VLS tico of the class.

Here's a photo from January this year of USS Port Royal, the youngest Tico class cruiser.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

edit, and in case you think i'm only choosing the oldest and youngest VLS tico (for some reason, not sure why you'd think that), here's the aft vls of USS Anzio, a tico in the middle of the age group taken in January 2016. It's not as clear as the other two photos but you can see the presence of the same crane lid in the module sitting in the same position:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So with these photos together with the lack of clear articles from USN news releases or industry news sources, I think I more than have a strong case to cast some skepticism towards whether Ticos really have had their crane VLS module replaced, and that it would be very reasonable to request some definitive articles that state whether such a modification was undertaken or done in ships.

 

[Iron Man]

A definitive statement from him about the numbers would be more than a "strong indicator" but in the "virtually confirmed" category.
There are only two ways to interpret his statement either that the first batch will be less than his yesteryear statement of 8 ships, or more than 8 ships. I think it's quite reasonable to interpret if not strongly suggested by the way he's written his phrase that it is more than 8 ships.
Then, from there it's a simple question of asking if the first batch is more than 8 ships, how many more is it? If it's more than one ship then it fulfills my previous statement, and so we have to consider whether the new first batch estimate is only one additional ship versus his previous estimate or more than one.

Also, given the early state of the 055 programme relatively speaking and given any changes of the 055's first batch order size would've likely occurred fairly recently I would not expect him to be willing to state such a calibre of information so early. Similar to past programmes like 052D, we will likely get more solid and updated numbers as the programme proceeds, maybe some time after the first 055 is launched if the original 052D build up to post launch era was anything to go by.

And yet it wasn't so long ago that we were talking about only 4 ships in the first batch, so I don't grant you by any means that the most reasonable interpretation is double-digit first batch production. He didn't even have to state "double digit first batch production". "More than 8 in the first batch" would have sufficed, and yet he didn't say even that.

I think I was asking quite reasonably for some evidence to confirm just what the state of the Tico class crane situation is.
Such a modification itself is not exactly minor one, and I imagine would've been described in some articles for Tico class ships that undergo modernization or as part of the Tico class modernization programme in a more official capacity such as via a USN press release, a USNI news report, a defence industry daily article or write up, or any number of other sites or blogs that closely follow USN-industry developments that I'm sure would've mentioned a VLS modification like that.

And yet you did get exactly this information (unambiguously stated even) in an article that you cited, which I just pointed out to you.

Sigh, you know, if you want to express skepticism then that is fine, but why do you have to make it sound like I deliberately chose USS Bunker Hill due to some kind of underhanded motivation? FYI I chose the USS Bunker Hill because it was the first VLS Tico that came to mind, probably because it is the first VLS tico of the class.

Here's a photo from January this year of USS Port Royal, the youngest Tico class cruiser.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

edit, and in case you think i'm only choosing the oldest and youngest VLS tico (for some reason, not sure why you'd think that), here's the aft vls of USS Anzio, a tico in the middle of the age group taken in January 2016. It's not as clear as the other two photos but you can see the presence of the same crane lid in the module sitting in the same position:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So with these photos together with the lack of clear articles from USN news releases or industry news sources, I think I more than have a strong case to cast some skepticism towards whether Ticos really have had their crane VLS module replaced, and that it would be very reasonable to request some definitive articles that state whether such a modification was undertaken or done in ships.

You would have a case if you could demonstrate that these photos were taken AFTER a modernization that was done within the last several years. Here's an article indicating four ships undergoing modernization between 2015 and 2016: "USS Cowpens and USS Gettysburg into modernization in fiscal 2015, and Vicksburg and Chosin will go in sometime in 2016." I can't find post-modernization photos for these cruisers, but if you can find one for any of them (or any of the others) that shows they still have cranes, then that would constitute evidence that recent modernization does not include crane removal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just as an aside, USS Anzio is schedule to undergo modernization THIS year, and USS Port Royal's date is not even set....

 

[latenlazy]

I didn't make any "absolute claim", certainly not about mature vs new systems. Saying that you would "absolutely" be more apprehensive about flying in a new C919 than in a mature 737 or A320 is right on the money though, and is absolutely true. This is not a claim that mature systems are invariably better than new systems. On the other hand, that you try to beat down a straw man here only serves to validate my argument even more. A betting man bets on the mature system over the new system if he doesn't have any evidence to the contrary.

Would you make that bet between a 787 and a 747? How about a Mustang and a Tesla? I wouldn't. Your analogy doesn't necessarily generalize.

 

[Engineer]

I think those putting Ticos and Kirovs on par with 055 underrate the significance of broad spectrum advancement in systems over the past 35(!)yrs.

Space Launch System (SLS) vs. Falcon Heavy is another example of "mature and refined over decades of experience" vs. "upstart clean-sheet design" that clearly favours the latter. It is not that Aegis is necessarily inferior to its Chinese equivalent, but rather this assumption that we should credit Aegis with some unquantifiable (and seemingly perpetual) advantage on account of its greater maturity that is in question.

They call it maturity, but really they are just grasping at straws trying to justify having a legacy system. They can't accept the US not being ahead of everybody in everything. So, when it comes to the Aegis System, they literally say being behind is being ahead.

Legacy systems aren't as effective as modern systems, that is the fundamental law. Sure, Aegis went through many upgrades, but those upgrades are made with the intention of supporting a legacy system in the first place. Trade off has to be made when implementing new techniques and incorporating new development such that the legacy system can handle. In short, the upgrades aren't going to be as effective as a clean sheet design. It is like trying to make a 486 PC rival a modern PC via upgrades, which is simply an impossibility.

 

[Blitzo]

And yet it wasn't so long ago that we were talking about only 4 ships in the first batch, so I don't grant you by any means that the most reasonable interpretation is double-digit first batch production.

And it wasn't so long ago before we were talking about only 4 ships in the first batch that the existence of the 055 programme itself was still under some contention.
New information and new developments can come quickly in PLA watching. I'm not sure how that is relevant.

He didn't even have to state "double digit first batch production". "More than 8 in the first batch" would have sufficed, and yet he didn't say even that.

A better question is why should he have to? Deliberate ambiguity is part and parcel for big shrimps statements, especially for newer developments when they are stated.
Instead, let's take a step back and think what his statement means -- is it that there will be more than 8 ships or less than 8 ships? Given what we see of the 055 programme right now as well as the Chinese Navy's overall trajectory in the foreseeable future, which may be more likely?

And yet you did get exactly this information (unambiguously stated even) in an article that you cited, which I just pointed out to you.

Yes, however I was not able to find any other more recent articles regarding this modernization programme, particularly for which ships have undergone it.

You would have a case if you could demonstrate that these photos were taken AFTER a modernization that was done within the last several years. Here's an article indicating four ships undergoing modernization between 2015 and 2016: "USS Cowpens and USS Gettysburg into modernization in fiscal 2015, and Vicksburg and Chosin will go in sometime in 2016." I can't find post-modernization photos for these cruisers, but if you can find one for any of them (or any of the others) that shows they still have cranes, then that would constitute evidence that recent modernization does not include crane removal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just as an aside, USS Anzio is schedule to undergo modernization THIS year, and USS Port Royal's date is not even set....

Okay, so my question is now in two parts -- is there a name for a modernization programme that includes the VLS crane replacement, and has this modernization programme already occurred? Putting it another way, are there certain ships that you would like to put forward as examples that you believe definitely have undergone this crane modernization?

But okay, seeing as you listed those four ships, I'll have a look and search for those photos. I'd like to note that I'm aware of the modernization programme meant for those four ships, but I was never able to read into any detail about what it was meant to constitute beyond aegis combat system upgrades, and I definitely cannot recall any mention of replacing the VLS crane.
Also, I'm not sure if you're saying "only" those four ships have potentially had VLS crane replacement, or if other ships have as well... nor have you articulated when such a VLS replacement may have occurred.

btw, here's an article from the usn about the USS cowpens undergoing the modernization you spoke of, and is the sort of article I was talking about which includes details of the modernization it was to undergo. it does not make any mention of a VLS replacement... of course the best evidence would be a clear photo of the bow or aft VLS block, and I'll try and hunt one down, but I think right now the balance of evidence is not looking that great for the "VLS crane replacement has occurred" argument...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The modernization process will include major upgrades, including the Aegis weapon system with naval integrated fire control-counter air (NIFC-CA) capability, SPQ-9B multipurpose radar, electro-optical sight system, AN/SQQ-89A(V)-15 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) suite with multi-function towed array (MFTA) and significant hull mechanical and electrical (HM&E) upgrades."

edit: USS Cowpens and Gettysburg won't finish upgrades and rejoin the USN fleet until 2020!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And again, from navytimes which is another very credible usn affiliated news site, details the upgrades again, which again don't mention a VLS upgrade.

So at this stage, is it logical for me to assume that you think the cruisers as part of the "CG phased modernization programme" that the Cowpens, Gettsburg and other cruisers will be going through is where you think the VLS replacement will occur?
In that case, I would like to ask where you read that the VLS replacement will be part of that upgrade process (because I haven't been able to find it), and also to ask whether that means all Tico cruisers before this modernization programme thus definitively do still retain their original VLS crane modules?

When Cowpens and Gettysburg rejoin the fleet in 2020, they will have a brand new combat system and have undergone a soup-to-nuts overhaul of their mechanical and electrical systems, Leonard wrote. That includes:

• The installation of AEGIS baseline 9a, the latest and greatest version of the operating system that integrates the ship's primary weapons systems and sensors.
• Naval integrated fire control-counter air, a system that links up airborne sensors that extend the range and lethality of the ship's anti-air missiles.
• SPQ-9B multipurpose radar, designed to track incoming anti-ship missiles and other low-flying threats out to the horizon.
• Cooperative engagement capability, which will allows the ship to shoot a threat being tracked by another platform.
• AN/SQQ-89A(V)-15 anti-submarine warfare suite with multi-function towed array, allowing the ship to better hunt subs at different depths.
• Multiple upgrades to the hull, mechanical and electrical plants.

 

[Iron Man]

And it wasn't so long ago before we were talking about only 4 ships in the first batch that the existence of the 055 programme itself was still under some contention.
New information and new developments can come quickly in PLA watching. I'm not sure how that is relevant.

It is relevant in stating that you don't have rights to any default assumptions here, which to be perfectly honest, you really don't.

A better question is why should he have to? Deliberate ambiguity is part and parcel for big shrimps statements, especially for newer developments when they are stated.
Instead, let's take a step back and think what his statement means -- is it that there will be more than 8 ships or less than 8 ships? Given what we see of the 055 programme right now as well as the Chinese Navy's overall trajectory in the foreseeable future, which may be more likely?

The more you hype his ambiguity the less of an argument you have for any kind of insinuation that he implied greater than 8, or even worse double-digit. And your argument that what we see of the program so far portends more or less than 8 ships is utterly irrelevant, since we are NOT talking about total ships in program (which is clearly what you are implying with your "Chinese Navy's overall trajectory in the foreseeable future"), which I personally do believe will end up being more than 8 (double digits even), but rather FIRST BATCH production, which isn't even remotely the same thing, so I don't like that you are now trying to conflate the two.

Yes, however I was not able to find any other more recent articles regarding this modernization programme, particularly for which ships have undergone it.

Okay, so my question is now in two parts -- is there a name for a modernization programme that includes the VLS crane replacement, and has this modernization programme already occurred? Putting it another way, are there certain ships that you would like to put forward as examples that you believe definitely have undergone this crane modernization?

But okay, seeing as you listed those four ships, I'll have a look and search for those photos. I'd like to note that I'm aware of the modernization programme meant for those four ships, but I was never able to read into any detail about what it was meant to constitute beyond aegis combat system upgrades, and I definitely cannot recall any mention of replacing the VLS crane.
Also, I'm not sure if you're saying "only" those four ships have potentially had VLS crane replacement, or if other ships have as well... nor have you articulated when such a VLS replacement may have occurred.

btw, here's an article from the usn about the USS cowpens undergoing the modernization you spoke of, and is the sort of article I was talking about which includes details of the modernization it was to undergo. it does not make any mention of a VLS replacement... of course the best evidence would be a clear photo of the bow or aft VLS block, and I'll try and hunt one down, but I think right now the balance of evidence is not looking that great for the "VLS crane replacement has occurred" argument...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The modernization process will include major upgrades, including the Aegis weapon system with naval integrated fire control-counter air (NIFC-CA) capability, SPQ-9B multipurpose radar, electro-optical sight system, AN/SQQ-89A(V)-15 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) suite with multi-function towed array (MFTA) and significant hull mechanical and electrical (HM&E) upgrades."

edit: USS Cowpens and Gettysburg won't finish upgrades and rejoin the USN fleet until 2020!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And again, from navytimes which is another very credible usn affiliated news site, details the upgrades again, which again don't mention a VLS upgrade.

So at this stage, is it logical for me to assume that you think the cruisers as part of the "CG phased modernization programme" that the Cowpens, Gettsburg and other cruisers will be going through is where you think the VLS replacement will occur?
In that case, I would like to ask where you read that the VLS replacement will be part of that upgrade process (because I haven't been able to find it), and also to ask whether that means all Tico cruisers before this modernization programme thus definitively do still retain their original VLS crane modules?

I now have to provide you a proper name for this modernization program? No, I really don't have to. Not at all. All recent mentions of crane deletion have only been in the last several years, so obviously whatever modernization program that is most recently and currently active for the Ticos is the modernization program that is relevant as far as crane deletions are concerned.

Let's recognize that YOU have the burden of proof here, not me. We have multiple articles on the internet from recent years all saying the same things about crane deletion, with at least one article (from 2014) UNAMBIGUOUSLY stating that cranes are actively being deleted as Ticos come in for modernization. All you can cite is some articles that didn't mention crane deletion one way or the other, which is not any actual contrarian evidence, just logical fallacy repackaged as evidence. To be perfectly honest crane deletion is not exactly very sexy, and not mentioning whether it happened or not is not exactly a score for your side. Really the only way for you to have any kind of point is if you found a photo post-recent modernization that shows cranes still present, or excepting that, an article unambiguously stating that cranes were NOT in fact deleted with the most recent modernization program, in which case we would have to weigh the merits and veracity of said article against the rest of the articles which state otherwise.

 

[Jura The idiot]

[quoted the following post with the picture deleted:]

there's a detail which I noticed but didn't understand: why a Tico cruiser mark 41 has in fact just 122 (2*61) cells?
(yes, I used google now, even checked wiki but didn't find the answer in the first page)

Actually, Ticos that are undergoing refit are having those cranes removed, so each newly modernized Tico that comes out of drydock has 128 cells. I believe this is the same case with Flight I ABs. I find it hard to believe this information is somehow difficult to find. Just google "ticonderoga cruiser modernization crane" and look at how many hits you get all saying the same thing.....

there're two things: the first one is minor, which is at the time of posting what you quoted above I had been unaware of 'the crane issue' ... later I repeated the search, posted Yesterday at 4:19 PM

just to finish with Today at 7:34 AM

after a little bit longer google search:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

five-cells array(s):
:

:

so for Type 055 the number to beat is 122 heheh

the second thing is major though, LOL maybe google is somehow blocked in the Czech Rep. but your assertion of Ticos getting six cells back seems to be fanboish (of course I would retract if you provided a link demonstrating Ticos now have 128 cells ready to use ... from what I read/saw, 128 is, ehm, wishful thinking, but I might be wrong)

LOLOL now just to show I did the homework:

now
Iron Man
a Tico with one-hundred and twenty-EIGHT cells ready to use at present: