055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[AndrewS]

So here's something interesting on 055 procurement plans. While digging around old leaks I realized pop3 addressed this matter in one of his comments about the 055 back in 2014.



At least 4 055 by 2020. Start production of 055A with IEPS in 2020. 15+ by 2025, 30+ by 2030. He also included some details about the potential growth capacity of the design, including the ability to stretch the hull length to 200 meters with a displacement of 16000 tonnes. Keep in mind these leaks were in 2014, so plans could have changed (some of the details he discussed in the same leak seemed to have, like the beam being 23 m and the length being 186 m), but at least this should give us a rough idea of what the PLAN is thinking in terms of build pace.

I remember there was an article saying the initial proposal was for 20,000 tonnes, but which was reduced in light of the actual requirements.

Plus the thing to note is that in the 3 years since 2014, the Chinese economy (and presumably military spending) has increased by roughly 21%

 

[Jura The idiot]

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.

thanks

it seems I was the only one here who got L/B of nine plus
LOL

 

[Iron Man]

The people who are saying 万吨级 are news anchors and non-insiders. When literal insiders are indicating 12,000 tonnes normal, why are you still insisting on treating a vernacular phrase as a technical phrase?

Grumman says 14,800 tonnes, US Navy says 16,000 tonnes, guess former's standard and latter's full. That sounds about right for a ship that's the same length but 3m wider than the 055.

"12,000 tonnes normal" is NOT what anyone said, including pop3. Your claim that he "only" quotes normal displacement is belied by the fact that he uses the 10,000t figure as well, as indicated by latenlazy. The fact that he uses both is IMO most easily accounted for by assuming the lower quote to be normal and the higher quote to be full, a figure that slots in well between Ticonderoga and Zumwalt.

BTW, a ship of 14,800t standard will by no means be only 16,000t full. By way of some examples, the KDX-3 is 8,500/11,000t, Kongo is 7,500/9,500, Atago is 7,700/10,000, Slava is 10,000/12,500, and Kirov is 24,300t/28,000t. As you can see, the higher the standard displacement the larger the difference between standard and full displacement. Incidentally the Slava's dimensions are very similar to in beam but somewhat larger in length compared to the 055.

For context, in his longer writeup on the 055 he literally categorizes the PLAN's fleet structure as 1000吨级、4000吨级、6000吨级和10000吨级. Essentially, he's treating these round numbers as general weight classes. I don't think they're meant to denote the specific tonnages of the ships, so that's why the 10,000 tonnes figure is regarded as unspecific.

These are round numbers that underreport max displacement in 3 out of 4 ship classes, IMO; actually technically all 4 classes. Clearly 1,000t is not max displacement for the 056, nor is 6,000t max displacement for the 052D, nor is 10,0000t max displacement for the 055, whereas 4,000t is close to the max displacement for the 054A (but also not the max displacement). Not only that, would he actually permit himself to err by an entire 2,000t normal just to sound "sublime"? I'm not buying the "it's actually 12,000t normal but I will say 10,000t just to sound cool" argument here.

The devil is certainly not in the details when we're looking at if the PLAN is planning to build 90 destroyers in the next 30 years.

For that sort of timeframe, we look at overall requirements and financial/industrial capabilities, which argues for China doing so.

Hence there is no point in going over exactly how the Chinese navy plans to maintain a force of 90 destroyers, given that China should have a substantially larger military budget than the USA.

That is the issue you should be arguing against. Not nitpicking on irrelevant details.

Or taking as literal gospel, a newsreader stating that the Type-55 has a displacement of 10,000tonnes, when we can see that the physical dimensions of the Type-55 mean it should be a lot heavier.

Sorry, but the details of your claims are the MOST relevant, because anyone can talk a tall tale and make sweeping grandiose statements with barely relevant random numbers for "support", but most tall tales fall apart when put under a microscope. You have refused to do so even after multiple challenges from me, so I consider your claims as stillborn.

 

[latenlazy]

"12,000 tonnes normal" is NOT what anyone said, including pop3. Your claim that he "only" quotes normal displacement is belied by the fact that he uses the 10,000t figure as well, as indicated by latenlazy. The fact that he uses both is IMO most easily accounted for by assuming the lower quote to be normal and the higher quote to be full, a figure that slots in well between Ticonderoga and Zumwalt.

BTW, a ship of 14,800t standard will by no means be only 16,000t full. By way of some examples, the KDX-3 is 8,500/11,000t, Kongo is 7,500/9,500, Atago is 7,700/10,000, Slava is 10,000/12,500, and Kirov is 24,300t/28,000t. As you can see, the higher the standard displacement the larger the difference between standard and full displacement. Incidentally the Slava's dimensions are very similar to in beam but somewhat larger in length compared to the 055.


These are round numbers that underreport max displacement in 3 out of 4 ship classes, IMO; actually technically all 4 classes. Clearly 1,000t is not max displacement for the 056, nor is 6,000t max displacement for the 052D, nor is 10,0000t max displacement for the 055, whereas 4,000t is close to the max displacement for the 054A (but also not the max displacement). Not only that, would he actually permit himself to err by an entire 2,000t normal just to sound "sublime"? I'm not buying the "it's actually 12,000t normal but I will say 10,000t just to sound cool" argument here.

We're (at least I'm) not saying it was to sound cool, so much as it rolls off the tongue. It's a matter of linguistic convenience, not stylistic prose. Also, he *does* say in the same write up that the standard displacement is 12,000 tonnes. I think the same earlier leak where he talks about expected procurement might be able to tell us why he throws around both the 12,000 and 10,000 tonne figures. In that leak he said the empty displacement would be about 10,500 tonnes, the standard displacement would be 12,000 tonnes, and the max would be 13,000.

 

[Iron Man]

We're (at least I'm) not saying it was to sound cool, so much as it rolls off the tongue. It's a matter of linguistic convenience, not stylistic prose. Also, he *does* say in the same write up that the standard displacement is 12,000 tonnes. I think the same earlier leak where he talks about expected procurement might be able to tell us why he throws around both the 12,000 and 10,000 tonne figures. In that leak he said the empty displacement would be about 10,500 tonnes, the standard displacement would be 12,000 tonnes, and the max would be 13,000.

Can you link these quotes please.

 

[jobjed]

BTW, a ship of 14,800t standard will by no means be only 16,000t full. By way of some examples, the KDX-3 is 8,500/11,000t, Kongo is 7,500/9,500, Atago is 7,700/10,000, Slava is 10,000/12,500, and Kirov is 24,300t/28,000t. As you can see, the higher the standard displacement the larger the difference between standard and full displacement. Incidentally the Slava's dimensions are very similar to in beam but somewhat larger in length compared to the 055.

[\quote]

Take it up with the USN. They said 16k tonnes.

These are round numbers that underreport max displacement in 3 out of 4 ship classes, IMO; actually technically all 4 classes. Clearly 1,000t is not max displacement for the 056, nor is 6,000t max displacement for the 052D, nor is 10,0000t max displacement for the 055, whereas 4,000t is close to the max displacement for the 054A (but also not the max displacement). Not only that, would he actually permit himself to err by an entire 2,000t normal just to sound "sublime"? I'm not buying the "it's actually 12,000t normal but I will say 10,000t just to sound cool" argument here.

What's your point with the class nomenclature? Do you believe pop3 said it or not?

And yes, he most certainly will use 万吨级 in place of 一万二千吨级 for the sake of brevity and smoothness.

 

[Iron Man]

Take it up with the USN. They said 16k tonnes.

No need to "take it up" with anyone. I'll go with the builder's quote.

What's your point with the class nomenclature? Do you believe pop3 said it or not?

And yes, he most certainly will use 万吨级 in place of 一万二千吨级 for the sake of brevity and smoothness.

Please don't presume to speak for anyone else, including pop3.

I believe he did say 1,000/4,000/6,000/10,000, but what I don't believe is your interpretation of his numbers; do not assume they are one and the same.

 

[jobjed]

No need to "take it up" with anyone. I'll go with the builder's quote.

So you're discounting the USN's figures?

Please don't presume to speak for anyone else, including pop3.

I believe he did say 1,000/4,000/6,000/10,000, but what I don't believe is your interpretation of his numbers; do not assume they are one and the same.

Do you believe his commentary on those class designations? I.e. "higher than actual displacement, lower than actual displacement"?

 

[Iron Man]

So you're discounting the USN's figures?


Do you believe his commentary on those class designations? I.e. "higher than actual displacement, lower than actual displacement"?

I'm discounting that .mil website's figures, which could be maintained by some enlisted low ranking personnel for all I know. Or not maintained at all.

What is "actual displacement" and how confident do you know what he means by it? BTW please link to your sources.

 

[jobjed]

I'm discounting that .mil website's figures, which could be maintained by some enlisted low ranking personnel for all I know.

What is "actual displacement" and how confident do you know what he means by it? BTW please link to your sources.

Actual displacement = normal displacement. That's always been the case for pop3 and PLAN personnel.

Anyway, do you believe his commentary on class nomenclature vs actual displacement?