055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Deino]

Turns out the beam is between 21 and 22 meters, and the length is about 184 meters. That's a big ship. With those dimensions there's a lot of room for future growth in displacement.

Please don't take this as an offence, but may I ask why some always want bigger, larger, wider, more and so on !?? Maybe the current displacement is fine?
The same with this stupid discussion on 112 vs 128 VL-cells on the 055. For some it's indeed a matter of look or tragedy...

Do we play quartet game / Happy Family / Four some where indeed more is better?

Deino

 

[latenlazy]

Please don't take this as an offence, but may I ask why some always want bigger, larger, wider, more and so on !?? Maybe the current displacement is fine?
The same with this stupid discussion on 112 vs 128 VL-cells on the 055. For some it's indeed a matter of look or tragedy...

Do we play quartet game / Happy Family / Four some where indeed more is better?

Deino

I didn't say it was necessarily better. I just noted that with a hull of that dimension, we can usually expect, over the life of the design, for greater displacement growth as needed, since that's what often happens when ships get refit and updated with new power plants and capabilities. That's been pretty typical of many ship designs, at least for some navies. I thought the larger hull size was noteworthy because Blitzo (and maybe other people) had earlier estimates of the dimensions for beam and length at 20-21 meters by 180 meters (correct me if I'm wrong here bud).

 

[AndrewS]

Please don't take this as an offence, but may I ask why some always want bigger, larger, wider, more and so on !?? Maybe the current displacement is fine?
The same with this stupid discussion on 112 vs 128 VL-cells on the 055. For some it's indeed a matter of look or tragedy...

Do we play quartet game / Happy Family / Four some where indeed more is better?

Deino

In this case, the larger size of the Type-55 probably makes sense and is desirable.

With forthcoming changes to military technology (around lasers/railguns/EW which are electricity intensive), the trend is towards larger ships because hull volume and fuel are cheap compared to the cost of the weapons and sensor systems.

 

[Deino]

In this case, the larger size of the Type-55 probably makes sense and is desirable.

With forthcoming changes to military technology (around lasers/railguns/EW which are electricity intensive), the trend is towards larger ships because hull volume and fuel are cheap compared to the cost of the weapons and sensor systems.

Agreed and I surely did not want to offend @latenlazy, but in recent times I sometimes have the feeling it is a trend ... and IMO an annoying trend in several forums.

Deino

 

[latenlazy]

Agreed and I surely did not want to offend @latenlazy, but in recent times I sometimes have the feeling it is a trend ... and IMO an annoying trend in several forums.

Deino

Hey don't look at me. I'm only working off whatever pieces of actual data we can get our hands on. You know me. I'm a stickler for specificity over baseless conjectures.

 

[Deino]

Hey don't look at me. I'm only working off whatever pieces of actual data we can get our hands on. You know me. I'm a stickler for specificity over baseless conjectures.

Therefore I clearly mention You as being not meant in person and asked You even more in order to avoid any misunderstandings (since I know You !!!) not to take this as an offence.

Sorry that exactly that happened I eagerly wanted to avoid.

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

Deino

 

[Totoro]

I am personally getting 30% bigger width and 16% longer length. But width measurement may have a larger error as image is pretty low res.

If we take 052d dimensions to be 155 by 17 m, then 055 works out to roughly 180 m by 22 m.

 

[Iron Man]

It's perfectly valid to group Type-52C and Type-52D. There was a significant overlap in their construction, and they do both fulfill the same function of air defence destroyer in the same hull and cost roughly the same.

I left out 2010 and 2011, because that was the initial ramp up of Type-52C after a long pause in construction, partially due to the shipyard moving location.

As per a naval shipbuilding analysis, doubling ship production typically results in a 20% decrease in unit cost. That argues against only 1 ship per year for 2 shipyards, particularly since we saw a period when Jiangnan was the sole shipbuilder assembling a ship every 6months.

And my words are at least 3 Type-55 per year up to 2019.

If you look at previous posts from a while ago, I do consider that 2 shipyards could produce 4 per year, and that China could theoretically sustain this indefinitely. If that becomes the new normal, its no skin off my back as it backs up my projection of 50-60 AEGIS-type destroyers in the next 20 years.

Also, all the Type-52D have already been launched, and we see no evidence of any more being constructed. We only see the 3x Type-55 which are still to be launched in 2017-2018. So how can we see another 4x Type-52D being launched in 2018 afterwards?

And if you disagree with my "voodoo economics", then you will have to also argue with the commandant of the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. A few years ago, the graduating of midshipmen were addressed by Niall Ferguson, who said that by the time those midshipmen became admirals, the US Navy would almost certainly no longer be the world's largest.

Plus I do find your choice of Voodoo and LOL as not being the spirit of a professional discussion.

How convenient for you that it allegedly takes 2 years for that shipyard to "ramp up". As for PLAN being the world's largest, who says that this means 90+ Aegis destroyers? Ferguson could easily have referred to total number of ships including all surface combatants, or possibly even including subs. BTW if your feelings are hurt by "voodoo" and "LOL" then you really should get off the internet just saying.

Well I prefer to write something more subdued like that than "LOL" with multiple question marks or something.

Please. LOL and multiple question marks are orders of magnitude more benign than the rant you blasted in the J-20 thread a few months ago, so let's not start white knighting ourselves here.

Yes, Zumwalt is pretty much useless before railgun becomes practical.

The Zumwalt is almost totally useless until it successfully integrates SM-2 and ESSM. The railgun as envisioned for use on the Zumwalt is not really any kind of game-changer, however. Even when it's ready the Zumwalt will just become a glorified shore bombardment ship.

Please don't take this as an offence, but may I ask why some always want bigger, larger, wider, more and so on !?? Maybe the current displacement is fine?
The same with this stupid discussion on 112 vs 128 VL-cells on the 055. For some it's indeed a matter of look or tragedy...

Exact dimensions are important for guessing displacement, at least as far as my interest in dimensions are concerned. "Official" 055 displacement has been mentioned at "10,000 tons", and the question has been is this max displacement, "standard" displacement, or "normal" displacement. The larger the dimensions, obviously the less likely this is to represent max displacement. I'm not sold on these estimates though; I would like a much clearer photo if it can be had in the future.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

LOL first the Photoshop view to show I didn't make it up:

now briefly during my lunch break
for that Type 052D I read out
428-92=336 length
and
154-117=37 beam;
336/37 is about 9.08 which is reasonably close to
157/17 (in meters now), about 9.24, from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so ... for that Type 055:
428-42=386 length
and
97-55=42 beam;
L/B would be more than nine, I like that

assuming a Type 052D is indeed 157 meters long: (386/336)*157 is 180 m, but I get the beam lower than 20 m
OK I won't delete it LOL

 

[jobjed]

Exact dimensions are important for guessing displacement, at least as far as my interest in dimensions are concerned. "Official" 055 displacement has been mentioned at "10,000 tons", and the question has been is this max displacement, "standard" displacement, or "normal" displacement. The larger the dimensions, obviously the less likely this is to represent max displacement. I'm not sold on these estimates though; I would like a much clearer photo if it can be had in the future.

The figure of "10,000" has linguistic significance because the Chinese number system has a specific character for 10,000 like the Indians with "crore". Calling the 055 "10,000-tonne-class" (万吨级) rolls off the tongue really well in Chinese so it's probably something said for vernacular's sake and not anything technical.

In addition, pop3 has said calling the 055 10,000-tonne-class is understating its true displacement.