055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[kurutoga]

"r" now 0.81*0.58 which is about 0.47, so for 0.85 side assumed in:

the diameter of a missile would actually be about 40 (forty) cm

This introduces many more assumptions:

• What is the size of the fins? what is the diameter of the missile tube? The only thing I can find is some data saying HHQ9 has 44.6cm in size, but we do not know the fin/tube sizes.
  
• HHQ9 uses folding fins/stabilizers, and those fins were folded a the base
• The fins will open up only after the entire missile is out of the VLS cell
• While in my last post I assumed the minimal clearance of the missile fin (not folded version) would be around 10cm, we just still do not know what that clearance distance requirement is on the actual VLS system

It is not that I tried to doubt you, but unless you have a source, we just do not know. None of the pictures of this missile (even counting HQ9 or FD2000) suggested they have any hint of a folded fins.

If you think they can redesign HHQ9 or make a new missile to have folding fins, why don't they make a new missile that is just smaller than 42cm so it quad fits into the cells naturally?

 

[Iron Man]

stay on watch then, I go to bed now LOL

OMG, looking at this photo here, is it just me or do the fins actually look like they were designed to fold from the beginning???

 

[Iron Man]

This introduces many more assumptions:

• What is the size of the fins? what is the diameter of the missile tube?
  
• HHQ9 uses folding fins/stabilizers
• The fins were folded a the base
• The fins will open up only after the entire missile is out of the VLS cell
• While in my last post I assumed the minimal clearance of the missile fin (not folded version) would be around 10cm, we just still do not know what that clearance distance requirement is on the actual VLS system

It is not that I tried to doubt you, but unless you have a source, we just do not know. None of the pictures of this missile (even counting HQ9 or FD2000) suggested they have any hint of a folded fins.

If you think they can redesign HHQ9 or make a new missile to have folding fins, why don't they make a new missile that is just smaller than 42cm so it quad fits into the cells naturally?

Nice try attempting to move the goalposts, but I don't think I'm going to let you. First, let us acknowledge that you did not understand the concept of folding fins at all when you were responding earlier. Otherwise none of your earlier posts make any sense. Second, if you had bothered to read the pages of discussion prior to you entering the discussion, you would have read that folding fins has been a theoretical possibility; we have been talking about the theoretical limits of packing of a 45cm diameter missile body (which again does NOT have to be modeled as a "square") inside the confines of an 85cm square VL cell. Third, your latest photo of an FD-2000 is IMO HIGHLY suggestive of the very existence of folding fins in this type of missile, which is nothing more than the export version of the HHQ-9 used aboard 052C/D and presumably 055 ships. Here is an obvious folding joint highlighted by the red arrow:

 

[jobjed]

This introduces many more assumptions:

• What is the size of the fins? what is the diameter of the missile tube?
  
• HHQ9 uses folding fins/stabilizers
• The fins were folded a the base
• The fins will open up only after the entire missile is out of the VLS cell
• While in my last post I assumed the minimal clearance of the missile fin (not folded version) would be around 10cm, we just still do not know what that clearance distance requirement is on the actual VLS system

It is not that I tried to doubt you, but unless you have a source, we just do not know. None of the pictures of this missile (even counting HQ9 or FD2000) suggested they have any hint of a folded fins.

All fine and dandy. The objectionable aspect of your posts was your insistence that missiles are inherently square. They're not, as Iron Man's graphics showed. It's good that you no longer insist on their "inherent squareness."

If you think they can redesign HHQ9 or make a new missile to have folding fins, why don't they make a new missile that is just smaller than 42cm so it quad fits into the cells naturally?

Increase in radius allows for an increase in propellant quantity and sensor quality. Big radars are always more sensitive and powerful than smaller ones. Additionally, the increase in radius is not linearly proportional to the increase in volume, which is proportional to the square of the increase in radius. E.g. a 2-fold increase in radius results in a 2²-fold increase in volume, or 4-fold. So, no, if they have the ability to fit a larger missile, always go for that one because larger = better.

 

[kurutoga]

OMG, looking at this photo here, is it just me or do the fins actually look like they were designed to fold from the beginning???

Actually it is not. The silvery looking middle point is where the fin will turn slightly, in order to navigate the missile. The normal folded fins will collapse in the middle, not at the bottom.

It actually makes no sense to fold the fin at the base. Another note for @Jura for his modeling

 

[kurutoga]

All fine and dandy. The objectionable aspect of your posts was your insistence that missiles are inherently square. They're not, as Iron Man's graphics showed. It's good that you no longer insist on their "inherent squareness."



Increase in radius allows for an increase in propellant quantity and sensor quality. Big radars are always more sensitive and powerful than smaller ones. Additionally, the increase in radius is not linearly proportional to the increase in volume, which is proportional to the square of the increase in radius. E.g. a 2-fold increase in radius results in a 2²-fold increase in volume, or 4-fold. So, no, if they have the ability to fit a larger missile, always go for that one because larger = better.

I am sorry you did not read it carefully. What I said is the 4 fins + missile body/tube makes the missile cross section inherently square (or more precisely the cross section of the enclosure is square). The clearance requirement is then applied to that square enclosure

The fantasy of HHQ9 fins folding like a toy is not founded. I am sorry just can't see any source. Therefore I listed the assumptions for that scenario to work and each point will need to have solid support to prove the original argument of dual loading is feasible.

 

[jobjed]

I am sorry you did not read it carefully. What I said is the fins + tube makes the missile cross section inherently square (or more precisely the cross section of the enclosure)

I have no idea what you're on about. Draw it and post your picture.

Iron Man drew out his logic and I can see what he means.

The fantasy of HHQ9 fins folding like a toy is not founded. I am sorry just can't see any source.

It's not founded. We're not discussing the authenticity of the design, we're discussing the possibility of it.

Your insistence that it cannot be real because a missile's enclosure has to be square is confusing. Draw out your reasoning for why such a design is not feasible.

 

[kurutoga]

I have no idea what you're on about. Draw it and post your picture.

Iron Man drew out his logic and I can see what he means.

I will draw it when I get home. @Jura seems get what I said though.

 

[Iron Man]

Actually it is not. The silvery looking middle point is where the fin will turn slightly, in order to navigate the missile. The normal folded fins will collapse in the middle, not at the bottom.

It actually makes no sense to fold the fin at the base. Another note for @Jura for his modeling

Wrong. The yellow arrow points to the fin actuator. The silver joint indicated by the red arrow does not need to exist except for the purpose of folding the fin.



For comparison, here is the back end of a Harpoon:

I will draw it when I get home. @Jura seems get what I said though.

Don't fool yourself. There is nobody here so far who agrees with you.

 

[kurutoga]

Wrong. The yellow arrow points to the fin actuator. The silver joint indicated by the red arrow does not need to exist except for the purpose of folding the fin.

Why can't it have other purposes such as easier removal/replacement/storage? folding at the base/bottom of the stabilizer require more torque and I guess it is harder to get right than a middle of the fin folding design.

Just saying someone gets it does not mean that someone agrees with me, since I am not developing a theory just asking questions. You can't agree with questions. You can understand the questions. Jura understands my questions because he at least attempted to address it.

If anything, try provide sources for the assumptions I raised in #4861 for the dual-loading-folded-fin scenario to work. I raised these as assumptions and questions looking for sources, if someone does not agree with me these are assumptions/questions to consider, please tell me why. If you agree these are assumptions we need to prove, you should provide sources for each bullet point