055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

I'm asking because the Type 052D's pattern of procurement might tell us a lot about how the PLAN might approach the 055's.

Well the plain fact of the matter is that the first 052D was launched in 2012 and yet we still have no idea what the "procurement pattern" of the 052D is, especially how many are supposed to be built on average per year over how long a period of time to give us a total class build number. The point is that "3 per year x3 years = 90 eventual ships" is not a realistic assumption to make.

 

[Iron Man]

Why do you think the 055's 112 VLS count, or a smaller than expected displacement, make a dual class vs triple class structure more likely?

I think it's slightly more likely for the simple reason that cell count is a rough indication of overall capability and a smaller 'spread' leaves less room in the middle for a ship class to have a meaningful existence. To illustrate what I mean let's hypothetically compress the 'spread' even more to 96 cells on the 055. The question becomes does a '052E' with 64-80 cells have a reason to exist in the context of an already existing 055 with only 96 cells? I would argue, possibly not. Asked a slightly different way, does a 7,500-8,500 ton max displacement ship have a reason to exist in the context of an already existing 10,000 ton max displacement ship? Again, I would say possibly not.

 

[kurutoga]

I think it's slightly more likely for the simple reason that cell count is a rough indication of overall capability and a smaller 'spread' leaves less room in the middle for a ship class to have a meaningful existence.

My impression is 052 series is intentionally produced to be twice the capacity of 054, and half of the capacity of 055, so it is close to power of 2s: 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128... ...

 

[Lethe]

A three-year construction record is enough to predict the next 30 years? LOL I don't think so. They're actually constructing FOUR 055s at a time right now, but unless you're a rabid fanboi you're not going to make assumptions about long term 055 projections based on this.

1) I don't care how many they are 'building' at a time, it is the rate of commissionings that tells the story.

2) I suggest you take note of the qualifications attached to my previous post.

 

[Iron Man]

1) I don't care how many they are 'building' at a time, it is the rate of commissionings that tells the story.

2) I suggest you take note of the qualifications attached to my previous post.

Oh really? Ok then, so the launch rate of 2-1-3-3-3 from 2012-2016 doesn't tell you the story of the 052D, but somehow the commissioning rate of 1-2-1-3 from 2014-2017 tells you the entire story??? Your tea-leaf reading powers are obviously far greater than mine.

 

[Lethe]

Oh really? Ok then, so the launch rate of 2-1-3-3-3 from 2012-2016 doesn't tell you the story of the 052D, but somehow the commissioning rate of 1-2-1-3 from 2014-2017 tells you the entire story??? Your tea-leaf reading powers are obviously far greater than mine.

Again, note the nuanced and qualified nature of my original post. I did not say that anything "tells the entire story" or that one could with confidence "predict the next thirty years" based on three years of ship commissionings. If you are going to make unnecessarily hostile and dismissive posts, you could at least refrain from mischaracterising my posts at the same time.

Oh really? Ok then, so the launch rate of 2-1-3-3-3 from 2012-2016 doesn't tell you the story of the 052D, but somehow the commissioning rate of 1-2-1-3 from 2014-2017 tells you the entire story??? Your tea-leaf reading powers are obviously far greater than mine.

The process of testing and crewing ships draws upon limited resources. If ships are built faster than they can be trialled and crewed, there will not be a linear correlation between launches and commissionings.

 

[Iron Man]

Again, note the nuanced and qualified nature of my original post. I did not say that anything "tells the entire story" or that one could with confidence "predict the next thirty years" based on three years of ship commissionings. If you are going to make unnecessarily hostile and dismissive posts, you could at least refrain from mischaracterising my posts at the same time.

The process of testing and crewing ships draws upon limited resources. If ships are built faster than they can be trialled and crewed, there will not be a linear correlation between launches and commissionings.

This answer of yours here does not jive with your previous post here:

If a commissioning rate of three or more destroyers per year is sustained for three or more consecutive years, I think it would be reasonable to say that PLAN is 'on track' for a fleet of 90+ destroyers.

90 / 3 = 30. That's 30 years at a rate of 3 per year. You may be technically right and production could last 31 years, which would make 30 years not the "entire story". In any case I personally am completely unable to predict the story of the 052D based on 4 years of commissionings. Any kind of story.

 

[dragoooons]

Oh really? Ok then, so the launch rate of 2-1-3-3-3 from 2012-2016 doesn't tell you the story of the 052D, but somehow the commissioning rate of 1-2-1-3 from 2014-2017 tells you the entire story??? Your tea-leaf reading powers are obviously far greater than mine.

No need for three question marks. These kinds of hostile exchanges decrease the quality of the forum. You could simply say: Your predictions are too ambitions based on currently available data.

 

[Iron Man]

No need for three question marks. These kinds of hostile exchanges decrease the quality of the forum. You could simply say: Your predictions are too ambitions based on currently available data.

The day has finally arrived when 3 question marks are a sign of "hostile exchanges". Your profile says you registered in 2014 but obviously you haven't been here very often. Get over yourself already.

 

[james smith esq]

The day has finally arrived when 3 question marks are a sign of "hostile exchanges".

I've heard that 4 question marks is equivalent to a throwing down of the gauntlet.