055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


...
"The radar array surface of 055’s radar is significantly larger than ..."

I'm wondering if anyone posted the dimensions (like those marked in red and blue):
vD6Y.jpg

yet please?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
the array is likely a round, so the diameter of the array is the same as the blue

the diameter of the array is the blue array Jura drew... but the array is most likely square, but when describing the dimensions of a square array, it makes sense to describe its width and height as a "diameter" even though it doesn't accurately represent the full area of the array, because the word "diameter" is also a fair way to describe it for hexagonal arrays or octagonal arrays.

putting it another way, it really depends on whether the array of a radar is actually square, hexagonal or octagonal etc, but it would be difficult to try and accurately compare the "size" of all different arrays to one another based on array size as that would need an accurate measure of each array's surface area which is impossible to measure without knowing what the radar looks like under the cover... so a "diameter" measurement is the easiest one to go by even if it isn't 100% accurate.

Ovqb4wL.gif
 
Last edited:
gee ... I would've thought it had been obvious I was after the area of panels Today at 9:11 AM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ignore the headline, but this part is interesting

...
"The radar array surface of 055’s radar is significantly larger than ..."

I'm wondering if anyone posted the dimensions (like those marked in red and blue):
vD6Y.jpg

yet please?

but OK taking this graphics:
obqVj.jpg

of an AN/SPY-6(v) (of a Burke Flight III)
while assuming the panel is an octagon with the span (shown in green, twice) of 4.2 m

(so that
"Flight III’s radar array surface though 0.6 meters greater than the old radar, has a diameter of only 4.2 meters."
from the link I quoted again above;
3.7 m, which would correspond to "12 octagon" from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is shown for example in:
8d0a6-elec_an-spy-1_variants_operations_lg.jpg

)

and considering
  1. area = 2*(1+sqrt(2))*(side)^2;
  2. area = 2*side*span
then combining 1. and 2. gives:
side = 0.41421 (of course rounded) *span

so a side of such an octagon would be about 1.74 m, its area about 14.6 m^2 (I checked using both 1. and 2. so that I don't screw up)

meaning: if the panel of a Type 055 is a square, its side needs to be at least 3.8 m for that panel to be bigger than the above octagon
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Not impressed by this article, which seems to follow the same crude logic that because 055 is >10,000 tons and has >100 cells it is therefore a cruiser and therefore analogous to USN's Ticonderoga class.

I know we've been through this argument before, but this is such nonsense. Start with the fact that the only reason Ticonderoga is labelled a "cruiser" in the first place is because US Congresscritters wanted more "cruisers" to match the scary Soviet cruisers, and USN obliged by reclassifying some upcoming destroyers as cruisers. Add to this the fact that Ticonderoga is old. By the time the first 055 is commissioned in 2019, the first half-dozen Ticos will have reached retirement age (yes, I know the non-VLS units were retired early, but that's the point -- even if they hadn't been, the class would've started to retire by now anyway). The idea that the characteristics and labels of these 1980s warships, built on a 1970s hull, can serve as a useful basis of comparison for a clean-sheet design in 2020, is just ludicrous. The chronological gap between Ticonderoga and 055 is larger than the gap between the Essex class carriers of WW2 and the Nimitz-class.

And the silliest thing is that this evolution of warship design (in part towards bigger hulls with lower crewing requirements) is plainly apparent even within USN itself. The Arleigh Burke Flight III is larger than a Tico, yet is apparently still a destroyer. It is larger than a Tico, yet not only carries fewer missiles, but also lacks the former's command spaces and second 5" gun. One can only conclude, using the crude logic favoured by those who think that 055 is some special "cruiser
type, that the US Navy has simply forgotten how to build ships and has actually regressed since 1983. In fact, you have to wonder why USN doesn't go back to building what is so obviously a superior design that manages to pack more missiles and more guns into a smaller ship with room left over for command amenities.

Alternatively, one can acknowledge the blindingly obvious -- that warships are getting bigger across the board -- and therefore the corollary: that 055 is not some special "cruiser" type, but simply what a clean-sheet large surface combatant looks like in the 21st century. 055 is to 2020 what Arleigh Burke was to 1990.
tbh I think the article doesn't really do much of an analysis of what the 055 actually is or its capabilities or even dimensions... instead it tries to use the 055 as a way for talking about China's overall evolving power projection capabilities and/or potential future naval doctrine. For such a purpose, it doesn't really matter that the 055 is actually closer to 13,000 tons or not, nor is it that important that he's using an increasingly antiquated and flawed displacement based method of trying to categorize surface combatants into roles.
Yes, we have gone over this tired argument before. You have several errors in this post (like Flight III vs Tico displacement) which I'm sure if we go line by line will result in another 10 pages of ego tripping. Suffice it to say that this post (these two posts) represents your opinion rather than your making a statement of some kind of heretofore unacknowledged fact of ship classification.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
"The radar array surface of 055’s radar is significantly larger than ..."

I'm wondering if anyone posted the dimensions (like those marked in red and blue):
vD6Y.jpg

yet please?
Unless the deck height of the 055 is significantly taller than the deck height of the 052D, they are approximately the same size, if not exactly the same size.

052D vs 055.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top