055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[kurutoga]

what would be your "A" in the sense:

?

A is the clearance of the missile tube (the body without the fins), A = 425mm - R

 

[Iron Man]

View attachment 44056 Here is an illustration for people who had hard time understanding the issue. Assuming S = 850mm, on the single load situation (on the left) we have displayed three different situations when tube radius R is less than 1/2 S. In clock wise order, the first case is when the missile would load but clearance of fin, C, is less than 176mm. The second case is when clearance of fin, B, is 176mm. The third case is a folded fin with clearance 176mm. In this chart A is the clearance of the missile tube, A = 425mm - R

In the chart on the right we are using the second case from the left image as the simplest form. The chart on the right illustrates when attempting dual load and when E > 0.25 S = 425mm there is a potential fin clearance problem in the pink arrow area. Of course when E<= 0.25 S = 425mm it is standard quad load situation. D is the radius of the missile tube D<213mm .

When I say "potential" problem because I do not know the Chinese military clearance requirements. If you have more info please provide a source.

Sorry, but this is a terrible example. The missile in your graphic is so small it could already be quad-packed in an 85cm cell; why would you even need a diagonal divider in that case??? This all of course means you've missed the point entirely, as we all already knew. The point, AGAIN, has been essentially to ask: what is the largest diameter missile that can be dual-packed into an 85cm cell, assuming you can fold the missile's fins? The answer is definitely not the one you've given here.

 

[Jura The idiot]

A is the clearance of the missile tube (the body without the fins), A = 425mm - R

well I was in the process of editing the post you quoted, I would've made it more clear I specifically asked Iron Man, but it's OK, now I used your graphics to highlight (in red) the part whose length should be estimated (by anyone now LOL):

(said part is very thin as far as I understand Saturday at 8:05 AM

Here you go:
View attachment 43985
Each pixel in this graphic is 0.5cm.

)

a number, please:

 

[Iron Man]

If you want to ignore that missiles have fins/stabilizers that are sticking out, and insist on using a circle to model the missile cross section, you can design a honey comb pattern to use hexagon cells which can achieve higher packing ratio than using square cells such as those on 052D and 055.

Nobody is ignoring any fins or stabilizers, or is merely using a circle to model the missile cross section. These are useless straw man attacks which do nothing to advance your argument or defeat mine. Also, nobody needs to design any "honey comb pattern" VLS because the rest of us have already got everything figured out here.

 

[kurutoga]

well I was in the process of editing the post you quoted, I would've made it more clear I specifically asked Iron Man, but it's OK, now I used your graphics to highlight (in red) the part whose length should be estimated (by anyone now LOL):
(said part is very thin as far as I understand Saturday at 8:05 AM
)
a number, please:

I figured out how fins were folded in most common cases and the pictures were for illustration purposes only.

Since we were discussing very simplified forms it is by no means accurate in any way. 052D is rumored to have CCL so the possibility of dual loading is further reduced. However in my previous post I want to discuss within the same context, a simplified scenario (without considering the double circular walls of CCL).

 

[Jura The idiot]

I figured out how fins were folded in most common cases and the pictures were for illustration purposes only.

Since we were discussing very simplified forms it is by no means accurate in any way. 052D is rumored to have CCL so the possibility of dual loading is further reduced. However in my previous post I want to discuss within the same context, a simplified scenario (without considering the double circular walls of CCL).

I think if you provided the number I asked for in the post you quoted, I might be able to reshuffle Yesterday at 10:15 PM

"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

so, the number is:

(also

... here.

Iron Man might want to estimate it)

 

[Jura The idiot]

this is going to be my last post on this:

for a side of 85 cm, the theoretical maximum is about 49 cm Monday at 10:11 PM
and I took 90% of it, meaning the diameter of a missile would be 44 cm;
now, I'm not a Rocket Scientist (LOL!), but I think folded fins, tails, wings and whatever else is needed should fit

... It is a football shape (American football) ...

 

[FORBIN]

The potential clearance problem was caused by using a circle as the model for the missile cross section. In my opinion a square is a better model, because squares have the "corner" which is important to maintain the fin clearance.

If you want to ignore that missiles have fins/stabilizers that are sticking out, and insist on using a circle to model the missile cross section, you can design a honey comb pattern to use hexagon cells which can achieve higher packing ratio than using square cells such as those on 052D and 055.

Ok thanks ofc you can't explain writing but better use square missiles are in canisters...

 

[kurutoga]

Picture updated with more detailed comparison between round and square design-time models(in red). Explanations were made in #4878 and #4880

PS: uploaded the vector file too, in case anyone needs it

 

[FORBIN]

View attachment 44062 Picture updated with more detailed comparison between round and square design-time models(in red). Explanations were made in #4878 and #4880

PS: uploaded the vector file too, in case anyone needs it

Saying HHQ-9 body 45 cm ( very doubtfull ) with fins in canister the square do 50 cm ?
here you have last variants more big for longer range especialy HHQ-9B for 052D and later 055
I have yet mentionned this probability and often appear a weight of 1.3 t or 1.8 - 2 t as here ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

same for range here appear 100 km and more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Logicaly the last are more big