055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Jura The idiot]

inspired by
Iron Man

View attachment 40316

I took a look at properly armed warships (not a misery like this:

View attachment 40323

):

the square represents 1.0 k-displacing Project 21631 (so called Buyan-M with eight so called Kalibrs: if you want to nitpick or don't know what I talk about, please skip reading this); 8 tubes in total

the circle symbol represents 2.5 k-displacing Project 20385 (8 Kalibrs, 16 cells of so called Redut: again, don't nitpick!); 24 tubes in total

the upward-pointing triangle symbol represents 3.6 k-displacing Incheon-II (8 Korean AShMs, 16 cells Korean VLS); 24 tubes in total

the downward-pointing triangle symbol represents 4.0 k-displacing Project 11356 (8 Kalibrs, 16 cells of so called Shtil: again, don't nitpick!); 32 tubes in total

the diamond symbol represents 4.1 k-displacing Type 054A (32 cells VLS; 8xC-803); 40 tubes in total

the left-pointing triangle symbol represents 5.4 k-displacing Project 22350 (16 Kalibrs, 32 cells of Redut: don't start nitpicking here); 48 tubes in total

the right-pointing triangle symbol represents 5.5 k-displacing KDX-II (32 cells of Mk 41 VLS, 32 cells of Korean VLS, 8 Korean AShMs); 72 tubes in total

the hexagon symbol represents 7.5 k-displacing Type 052D (64 cells VLS); 64 tubes in total

the star symbols represents 11.0 k-displacing KDX-III (80 cells of Mk 41 VLS, 32 cells of Korean VLS, 16 Korean AShMs); 144 tubes in total

and finally, the speculative pentagon (sorry! LOL) symbol represents 12 k-displacing Type 055 with 128 cells VLS, 128 tubes in total

as you can see, these ships MORE OR LESS follow the trend of eleven tubes per one thousand metric tons of full displacement; they're WARSHIPS

 

[vesicles]

inspired by
Iron Man

I took a look at properly armed warships (not a misery like this:
):

the square represents 1.0 k-displacing Project 21631 (so called Buyan-M with eight so called Kalibrs: if you want to nitpick or don't know what I talk about, please skip reading this); 8 tubes in total

the circle symbol represents 2.5 k-displacing Project 20385 (8 Kalibrs, 16 cells of so called Redut: again, don't nitpick!); 24 tubes in total

the upward-pointing triangle symbol represents 3.6 k-displacing Incheon-II (8 Korean AShMs, 16 cells Korean VLS); 24 tubes in total

the downward-pointing triangle symbol represents 4.0 k-displacing Project 11356 (8 Kalibrs, 16 cells of so called Shtil: again, don't nitpick!); 32 tubes in total

the diamond symbol represents 4.1 k-displacing Type 054A (32 cells VLS; 8xC-803); 40 tubes in total

the left-pointing triangle symbol represents 5.4 k-displacing Project 22350 (16 Kalibrs, 32 cells of Redut: don't start nitpicking here); 48 tubes in total

the right-pointing triangle symbol represents 5.5 k-displacing KDX-II (32 cells of Mk 41 VLS, 32 cells of Korean VLS, 8 Korean AShMs); 72 tubes in total

the hexagon symbol represents 7.5 k-displacing Type 052D (64 cells VLS); 64 tubes in total

the star symbols represents 11.0 k-displacing KDX-III (80 cells of Mk 41 VLS, 32 cells of Korean VLS, 16 Korean AShMs); 144 tubes in total

and finally, the speculative pentagon (sorry! LOL) symbol represents 12 k-displacing Type 055 with 128 cells VLS, 128 tubes in total

as you can see, these ships MORE OR LESS follow the trend of eleven tubes per one thousand metric tons of full displacement; they're WARSHIPS

This is absolutely awesome! When in doubt, do a plot. Nothing beats a linear regression! This is the most conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as more/less dense missile tubes compared to tonnage. They are always linearly correlated.

A little nitpicking. The only thing left is an R2 value...

 

[Iron Man]

This is absolutely awesome! When in doubt, do a plot. Nothing beats a linear regression! This is the most conclusive evidence that there is no such thing as more/less dense missile tubes compared to tonnage. They are always linearly correlated.

A little nitpicking. The only thing left is an R2 value...

Here is one with an R^2 value:



R^2 is 0.0014, which means there is essentially no correlation between "missile density" and year of commission. My average missile density comes out to 8.5 tubes/metric ton.

Incidentally, my original graph was not a comparison of total missiles to tonnage, but a comparison of missile density to year of commission, as the claim was that over time missile density has decreased as more modern ships are being designed.

inspired by
Iron Man

I took a look at properly armed warships (not a misery like this:
):

The thing is that these blank panels where missiles might have been are taken into account by my graph, which lists the maximum designed number of tubes, not the actually deployed number of tubes. So photographically these ships might be "miserable" looking, but on paper they have achieved their intended maximum potential.

 

[Blitzo]

Thinking something is self-evident is not the same as thinking something is one's own opinion. For example, "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West" is not an opinion, while "the sun is closer to red than it is to yellow" is an opinion. When you say that something is self-evident, you are NOT making a statement of opinion, you are essentially saying that something is so obvious that whoever disagrees with you is a moron.

I think the disagreement is in the terms you're choosing to describe it versus what I would use.

For example, when I say something is self evident, I'm saying I think the subject matter in question is obvious or easy to see. I'm making no statement about anyone who may disagree with my interpretation of the subject to be a moron or not.

For example, you think there are "flaws" in the current frigate/destroyer/cruiser classification system that are "self-evident". I don't see flaws in the system, I see flaws in the decision-makers of various navies that classify their ships in certain ways for almost invariably political reasons. In the past, ships were classified both based on tonnage and more recently, also based on role (with the advent of missiles, computers, and datalinked networks). Both tonnage and role influence each other to a significant extent. Smaller ships like frigates took on duties like ASW and local AAW, while larger destroyers took on roles like fleet AAW and land attack, and still larger cruisers took on roles like fleet command and ballistic missile defense. You have exceptions like the Zumwalt that is not expect to have any fleet command duties but is rather designed to infiltrate into the littorals without necessarily having any fleet backup, hence the hyperattention to stealth and shore bombardment (both of which have since been somewhat diluted due to money issues), hence its designation as a destroyer. I don't see any problem with the way the ship classification system was/is set up; these roles reflect the natural consequence of how different-sized ships fit into certain roles better than other sizes. You think people abuse the system, so therefore the system is broken. I just don't see that way.

I have no problem with your opinion here even though it is different to mine.

 

[Iron Man]

I think the disagreement is in the terms you're choosing to describe it versus what I would use.

For example, when I say something is self evident, I'm saying I think the subject matter in question is obvious or easy to see. I'm making no statement about anyone who may disagree with my interpretation of the subject to be a moron or not.





I have no problem with your opinion here even though it is different to mine.

Shocking. Yet another agree to disagree moment.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Here is one with an R^2 value:

View attachment 40332

R^2 is 0.0014, which means there is essentially no correlation between "missile density" and year of commission. My average missile density comes out to 8.5 tubes/metric ton.

Incidentally, my original graph was not a comparison of total missiles to tonnage, but a comparison of missile density to year of commission, as the claim was that over time missile density has decreased as more modern ships are being designed.

I once again acknowledge the quantification Yesterday at 10:59 PM
was inspired by your chart, and I thank you for it

on a technical side: the line from Yesterday at 10:59 PM COULD work pretty well right from a tiny

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

up to the modernized Kirovs (but I'm not saying they'll have 28*11=308
tubes once refurbished! the space would be there though:

OK according to this fanart)

since there was just a non-military nitpick, I opened the file now:
the sum of squares is 50970.86 in total, of residuals: 1573.14, so
1-1573.14/50970.86 = 0.9691

here though:

The thing is that these blank panels where missiles might have been are taken into account by my graph, which lists the maximum designed number of tubes, not the actually deployed number of tubes. So photographically these ships might be "miserable" looking, but on paper they have achieved their intended maximum potential.

I found your joke upsetting (sorry) as it's a naturalistic view of the current Western attitude (yeah "potential" "promise" "eventually" "should the need arise" "ultimately" ... instead of paying!);

I'm kinda

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so yes, I'm afraid in Northern Atlantic, Western Pacific, or somewhere else, the time will come for an encounter (which the German Imperial Navy had referred to as Der Tag, actually had one: May 31, 2016), and in the end of that long day, the side with empty tubes will be limping home (or worse)

 

[Iron Man]

I found your joke upsetting (sorry) as it's a naturalistic view of the current Western attitude (yeah "potential" "promise" "eventually" "should the need arise" "ultimately" ... instead of paying!);

I'm kinda

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so yes, I'm afraid in Northern Atlantic, Western Pacific, or somewhere else, the time will come for an encounter (which the German Imperial Navy had referred to as Der Tag, actually had one: May 31, 2016), and in the end of that long day, the side with empty tubes will be limping home (or worse)

Unfortunately for the European navies, they just don't have the money to realize their naval aspirations. At least they have some fiscal responsibility compared to the US, which is now running up to $20 trillion in debt and still rising. Trump increased the military budget to something like $630 billion with money the US doesn't have. A day of reckoning is coming.

 

[Deino]

 

[Jura The idiot]

there's

'Tubes per 1k
metric tons'

column in

View attachment 40332

which basically shows
East (plus South Korea) / West (of course including Japan)
separation; I know the USN would be above the average:

My average missile density comes out to 8.5 tubes/metric ton.

but that's not the point

the point is the factor of around 11 Yesterday at 10:59 PM
is not that different from the most recent Western plans I noticed:

#1
Belharra if "ultimately" fitted with the "potential" A50 16-cell VLS, which I marked in the red ellipse below, would have 32 Asters + 8 Exocets; 40/4.5 is 8.9

#2
Type 26 if indeed fitted with Mk 41 VLS with 24 cells, which I marked in the red ellipse below (and nothing to shoot off these cells Monday at 7:08 PM), would have 24 of these plus 48

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

cells;
72/8 is nine again

the remaining question is if they "eventually" get to 9

 

[FORBIN]

View attachment 40335

Very capable !
If someone could translate it would be great