055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Lethe]

I wouldn't be surprised if China is lowballing 055 displacement for reasons of politics/optics. Recall that 055 is basically the first time that China is fielding something that is larger than and just as or more advanced than its contemporaries.

 

[latenlazy]

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

No problem. I'm mostly teasing. Mostly.

 

[jobjed]

I wouldn't be surprised if China is lowballing 055 displacement for reasons of politics/optics. Recall that 055 is basically the first time that China is fielding something that is larger than and just as or more advanced than its contemporaries.

No, calling it 10,000-tonne-class just plain sounds good. Calling it 12,000-tonne-class adds three more syllables which is a 100% addition over the alternative; 万吨级 vs 一万二千吨级.

It's the same reason why Western media calls it "Brexit" and not "British withdrawal from EU organisation."

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[latenlazy]

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

I got between 46 and 48 pixels for the beam ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

EDIT: I guess these pictures aren't as ideal as we originally thought. There's a slight discrepancy in beam width between the two 055 hulls. Angle and distortion might be playing a role here.

 

[Lethe]

No, calling it 10,000-tonne-class just plain sounds good. Calling it 12,000-tonne-class adds three more syllables which is a 100% addition over the alternative; 万吨级 vs 一万二千吨级.

It's the same reason why Western media calls it "Brexit" and not "British withdrawal from EU organisation."

That seems very plausible. But there could be additional factors behind the choice also, including optics. A 12,000 ton serially-produced destroyer could be seen as intimidating, escalatory, or as undermining the narrative of China's peaceful rise. Lowballing the type as "10,000 tons" undermines those arguments/narratives by bringing it back to the level already established and operated by USN/JMSDF/ROKN. One explanation does not have to come at the expense of another.

 

[jobjed]

That seems very plausible. But there could be additional factors behind the choice also, including optics. A 12,000 ton serially-produced destroyer could be seen as intimidating, escalatory, or as undermining the narrative of China's peaceful rise. Lowballing the type as "10,000 tons" undermines those arguments/narratives by bringing it back to the level already established and operated by USN/JMSDF/ROKN. One explanation does not have to come at the expense of another.

There most likely aren't additional factors behind the choice. CCTV is an organisation that calls the 052C "中华神盾" or Chinese Aegis; they're not one to push for false modesty. With how much they're calling for a military that needs to 能打仗，打胜战, and the plentiful media coverage of 国产第一艘航母, it's beyond the bounds of plausibility to suggest they're motivated by a desire to intentionally understate PLA capabilities in calling the 055 万吨级 and not 一万二千吨级.

 

[Iron Man]

Or a much simpler and less convoluted explanation could be that 10,000t is the "normal" displacement and 12-13,000t is the max displacement.

 

[jobjed]

Or a much simpler and less convoluted explanation could be that 10,000t is the "normal" displacement and 12-13,000t is the max displacement.

Why would that be the less convoluted explanation? The simplest explanation is 万吨级 sounds nice and 一万二千吨级 doesn't.

No naval insiders on Chinese BBS including pop3 and fzgfzy ever claimed 055 was 10,000-tonne-class BTW. Pop3 indicated 12,000t but I can't find his original post. He always gives normal displacement, not full, empty, or standard.

 

[AndrewS]

@Ironman

I'm calling out that your usage of "Voodoo" and "LOL" is not is in the spirit of professional discussion. If anything, I'm just a little tired of the response when factual or analytical errors are pointed out. It's not like you even try to defend your point of view, or point out why my analyses are incorrect.

And Niall Ferguson's address to the graduating class of the US Naval Academy makes it clear that he believes that the Chinese Navy will eventually have a large overmatch over the US Navy, otherwise his words would have been more measured.

The following Bloomberg article published yesterday has a good summary of that reasoning, which covers the military impact.

Who Has the World's No. 1 Economy? Not the U.S.
By the most measures, China has passed the U.S. and is pulling away.

"China is now in a position similar to that of the U.S. at about the turn of the 20th century -- a formidable superpower that just hasn’t yet felt any reason to exercise its dominance. Once the U.S. woke up to the need to throw its weight around, no one doubted its primacy."

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Iron Man]

Why would that be the less convoluted explanation? The simplest explanation is 万吨级 sounds nice and 一万二千吨级 doesn't.

No naval insiders on Chinese BBS including pop3 and fzgfzy ever claimed 055 was 10,000-tonne-class BTW. Pop3 indicated 12,000t but I can't find his original post. He always gives normal displacement, not full, empty, or standard.

Why wouldn't it be the less convoluted explanation? Because it "sounds" nice sounds to me like a tenuous reason to give such a number. In any case 12,000t as normal displacement would result in a max displacement at least as large as the Zumwalt, if not larger, and 055 definitely does not have the dimensions of that ship.

@Ironman

I'm calling out that your usage of "Voodoo" and "LOL" is not is in the spirit of professional discussion. If anything, I'm just a little tired of the response when factual or analytical errors are pointed out. It's not like you even try to defend your point of view, or point out why my analyses are incorrect.

And Niall Ferguson's address to the graduating class of the US Naval Academy makes it clear that he believes that the Chinese Navy will eventually have a large overmatch over the US Navy, otherwise his words would have been more measured.

The following Bloomberg article published yesterday has a good summary of that analysis.

The devil is in the details I always say, and that is why there is no need for me to rebut your gratuitously and morbidly generalized pseudo-analyses. I've asked you multiple times to go into the details, and you've each and every single last time refused to do so, because you know that when we put a spotlight on your sweeping grandiosities, they will evaporate under the scrutiny.

You can "call out" my voodoo and LOL as much as you want, I will only LOL that much harder. LOL