055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Janiz said:
If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.
Click to expand...
30-60 is more than enough? That's why KDX-3 has 80 tubes devoted entirely to SM-2s? And 16 more devoted entirely to VLA? Clearly "more than enough" is a totally relative term, and the Korean Navy is not really agreeing with you here. Also, I have no idea why you think being heavily armed has any kind of relation to how many "strikes" will take a ship out of action. Clearly the USN is stupid then with its massively armed Burkes and Ticos. Even the undergunned Zumwalt beats your "30-60" with its 80 cells. Clearly the designers of the Kirovs, the Kongo/Atagos, the 052D, must all of them be nitwits with their OPed arsenals when they should have realized that "30-60" was more than enough. And as I mentioned before, the Daring was designed for 64 cells but only built with 48 because of financial constraints, so I guess we should include the designers of the Daring as nitwits as well.

Totoro said:
Shouldn't inakes go closer to the bow, and exhaust closer to the stern? Unless we are talking about electric drive, where there is no need to connect the exhaust end of the turbine to the shaft?
Click to expand...
Intakes for a COGAG setup can occupy several locations depending on the particular setup. Probably the most efficient would be intake/exhaust/exhaust/intake going from stern to bow (or bow to stern).
 
Deino

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Janiz said:
If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.
Click to expand...

OMG ..... hope you know what you are talking about .. :eek::eek::eek:
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
So the turbine and gearing layout is then likely similar to Burke destroyer. Two rear turbines in the middle of the ship facing the bow, and two front turbines each to the side of the ship facing the stern. And gearing between them linking them to one shaft each per side of the ship.

Intakes for forward turbine pairs are then likely to be on top of those side structures protruding after the bridge.
 
J

Janiz

Senior Member
Iron Man said:
30-60 is more than enough? That's why KDX-3 has 80 tubes devoted entirely to SM-2s? And 16 more devoted entirely to VLA? Clearly "more than enough" is a totally relative term, and the Korean Navy is not really agreeing with you here. Also, I have no idea why you think being heavily armed is has any kind of relation to how many "strikes" will take a ship out of action. Clearly the USN is stupid then with its massively armed Burkes and Ticos. Even the undergunned Zumwalt beats your "30-60" with its 80 cells. Clearly the designers of the Kirovs, the Kongo/Atagos, the 052D, must all of them be nitwits with their OPed arsenals when they should have realized that "30-60" was more than enough. And as I mentioned before, the Daring was designed for 64 cells but only built with 48 because of financial constraints, so I guess we should include the designers of the Daring as nitwits as well.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't call them all nitwits but some of them might be in that group (yes, SK mainly). Post a list of original requirements that those warships were all built for (missile defence\land attacking capabilities. Making a list of 'this has got more!' without stating or realising the reason standing behind those numbers is pointless. And making a warship for pure 'it has to have more VLS than xxx class destroyer!' reasons is a pure stupidity.
 
F

Franklin

Captain
Latest images Type 055

type-055-28-jpg.406627


type-055-29-png.406632
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Janiz said:
If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.
Click to expand...

Two words: saturation attacks. Gotta survive them, and hit back, multiple times.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Janiz said:
If you want to fight at sea you don't need 100 missiles. Sejong has so much because it's sheduled to attack land based targets in case of war with North Korea. 30-60 VLS tubes is more than enough for a modern warship. Unless it's tasks are somewhat different from 'classical' approach, like in case of Korean destroyer.

It's not WWII of who's more 'heavily armed', now one or two strikes should take you out of action. That's all you need.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I've heard someone complaining about a weapon having too much firepower.

Your scenario only works when you are fighting a toothless opponent, like a chihuahua, who can only mount a few weak attacks.

When you face against a peer/near peer opponent who has a lot of assets to employ, it's bad bad bad idea to be ill-prepared. And not having enough missiles/bullets would be considered as very much ill prepared
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top