055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Klon]

In any case, if someone finds the origin of that quote, do let me know.

 

[latenlazy]

I think we had a similar discussion about this back on CDF -- I think we agreed that the early big shrimp rumours we had about 055 said 128 VLS once or twice, but we didn't know if that was part of their own assumptions/projections for what the ship would end up looking like vs conveying any access to internal information.

After all there were some other initial projections that also were wrong, like no. of CIWS platforms, no rotating VSR etc

I mean, it’s up in the air whether 128 was speculation, but pop3 seems intimately plugged into the projects he’s talked about where I normally don’t think anything he shares is his speculation unless he himself says so. If there was a range in his early estimates on the specs of the 055, my interpretation has always been that that’s a reflection of actual discussions being made about the design and not his own speculation.

 

[Blitzo]

I mean, it’s up in the air whether 128 was speculation, but pop3 seems intimately plugged into the projects he’s talked about where I normally don’t think anything he shares is his speculation unless he himself says so. If there was a range in his early estimates on the specs of the 055, my interpretation has always been that that’s a reflection of actual discussions being made about the design and not his own speculation.

I think things like confirming a project is real, giving ranges for displacement, and indicating when new ships may emerge, are all things which big shrimps like pop3 and fzgfzy do quite well.

But more intimate details like a ship's armament, sensors, powerplant etc, I've found tend to be a bit more variable, and while they are better than anything else we have access to before we see a new ship class emerge, I am not confident to think that their initial details about a ship's configuration are a reflection of access to solid information rather than a mix of semi solid information and their own extrapolation.

 

[latenlazy]

I think things like confirming a project is real, giving ranges for displacement, and indicating when new ships may emerge, are all things which big shrimps like pop3 and fzgfzy do quite well.

But more intimate details like a ship's armament, sensors, powerplant etc, I've found tend to be a bit more variable, and while they are better than anything else we have access to before we see a new ship class emerge, I am not confident to think that their initial details about a ship's configuration are a reflection of access to solid information rather than a mix of semi solid information and their own extrapolation.

Should we consider VLS count a matter of specs or intimate details?

 

[Iron Man]

It's possible future 055 variants will have more VLS, definitely, but I think 112 VLS cells in 055 isn't too curious.
Discussion about the VLS count seems to have the tone that 112 is a compromise or some sort of reduction from 128 VLS, but I'm not sure if we had any reason to think the Navy's original requirements for 055 was for 128 VLS to begin with?

For all we know the Navy's original requirements may have been 112 VLS.

I'm more confident that 128 was the starting number than 112, 128 being the precedent set by the KDX-III and Ticonderoga classes. There is no automatic requirement to follow in their footsteps of course, but 112 is certainly not the first number anybody on this forum or any other forum thought of, that's for sure. If you personally thought it you certainly didn't say it out loud. In that sense 112 is definitely more "curious" than 128.

 

[latenlazy]

I'm more confident that 128 was the starting number than 112, 128 being the precedent set by the KDX-III and Ticonderoga classes. There is no automatic requirement to follow in their footsteps of course, but 112 is certainly not the first number anybody on this forum or any other forum thought of, that's for sure. If you personally thought it you certainly didn't say it out loud. In that sense 112 is definitely more "curious" than 128.

Maybe they intend to include dual packing so they arrived at 112 as a more than sufficient number. Or maybe they thought 112 would be sufficient because their cells are larger, which might mean more capable missiles. It’s hard to know whether this was a trade off or optimization. Without more information you could make a case for either, I think.

 

[Iron Man]

Maybe they intend to include dual packing so they arrived at 112 as a more than sufficient number. Or maybe they thought 112 would be sufficient because their cells are larger, which might mean more capable missiles. It’s hard to know whether this was a trade off or optimization. Without more information you could make a case for either, I think.

You could make a case for either original design or later redesign. We'll never know at what point in the design process they froze the VL cell count at 112. I just have a sense that they started out with 128 in mind, probably some mental picture like "64 forward and 64 aft" with the aforementioned already existing ships in mind, and at some point in the design process decided it was not necessary or feasible to have that number of cells. That same decision point could have resulted in a branching off of the 055A design in which it was decided that 128 cells would be installed in the later variant, perhaps due to more room freed up by deleting the aft GTs.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm more confident that 128 was the starting number than 112, 128 being the precedent set by the KDX-III and Ticonderoga classes. There is no automatic requirement to follow in their footsteps of course, but 112 is certainly not the first number anybody on this forum or any other forum thought of, that's for sure. If you personally thought it you certainly didn't say it out loud. In that sense 112 is definitely more "curious" than 128.

I definitely agree that 112 was unexpected and that I thought 128 would be a more round number and in line with what the VLS armament of Sejong and Tico had set precedent for (though technically the total VLS equivalent for those ships would include things like slant launched ASHMs and in Tico's case some removed cells for reloading cranes).

But I'm not sure what the argument that the Chinese Navy's starting requirement for 128 would be, outside of a similar number to Sejong and Tico, and even that IMO is not that strong when thinking of the total number of VLS+ASHM count tower classes have

 

[Iron Man]

I definitely agree that 112 was unexpected and that I thought 128 would be a more round number and in line with what the VLS armament of Sejong and Tico had set precedent for (though technically the total VLS equivalent for those ships would include things like slant launched ASHMs and in Tico's case some removed cells for reloading cranes).

But I'm not sure what the argument that the Chinese Navy's starting requirement for 128 would be, outside of a similar number to Sejong and Tico, and even that IMO is not that strong when thinking of the total number of VLS+ASHM count tower classes have

I think it's more likely that the starting point was an even number of modules 8 + 8 forward and aft, even exclusive of the precedents set by other ships; it seems to be more likely to be the baseline starting point than 8 modules forward and 6 modules aft. IMO that is a number they more likely worked towards rather than started out with, basically for the same aesthetic/balance reasons that all of the rest of us thought of when the 055 was being discussed in the early days. It would have fit in nicely with the future conception of a 32 UVLS frigate + 64 UVLS destroyer + 128 UVLS "destroyer"/cruiser.

 

[Blitzo]

I think it's more likely that the starting point was an even number of modules 8 + 8 forward and aft, even exclusive of the precedents set by other ships; it seems to be more likely to be the baseline starting point than 8 modules forward and 6 modules aft. IMO that is a number they more likely worked towards rather than started out with, basically for the same aesthetic/balance reasons that all of the rest of us thought of when the 055 was being discussed in the early days. It would have fit in nicely with the future conception of a 32 UVLS frigate + 64 UVLS destroyer + 128 UVLS "destroyer"/cruiser.

I was hoping they would do that too, because it seemed logical and a nice round series of numbers to go from FFG to DDG to large DDG.


But my overall point is that I think we don't have any convincing indications or arguments either way for whether their original VLS requirement for 055 was 112 or 128, outside of a sense of "symmetry" and slight similarity to the VLS count of Tico and Sejong.



For posterity's sake, I've even played around with the idea that maybe the large DDG to DDG and DDG to FFG relationship for VLS equivalents, might be: (VLS equivalent x 2) - 16

054A VLS + AShM = 32 + 4 = 40
052D VLS = (40 x 2) - 16 = 64


052D VLS = 64
055 VLS = (64 x 2) - 16 = 112

But I'm mostly kidding lol.