antiterror13
Brigadier
huhhhh? the picture is extremely clear ... I am even able to count and see every UVLS
... are you sure your browser is ok? and visit the correct link?
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
huhhhh? the picture is extremely clear ... I am even able to count and see every UVLS
... are you sure your browser is ok? and visit the correct link?
Jura The idiot
General
LOL I think the issue is this erratic graphics:
showing ten 8-cell arrays in the bow and six 8-cell arrays at the stern (it can be accessed through Today at 11:48 AM post)
see?
This picture is plenty clear enough regarding the actual ship.
8 x8 cells forward = 64 forward cells.
6 x 8 cells mid-aft = 48 cells aft.
68+48 = 112 total VLS cells.
But, the Type 055 also has a 24 cell FL-3000N launcher, which, in essence ads another 6 "quad packed" cells that would have to be used on a US Ticonergoga to get the same CIWS missiles.
Anyhow, as far as actual VLS cells go, it has been clear to me for some time that we are talking about 112 cless.
I had some friends make a 3D model of the Type 55 from the pictures shown so far (including the one above) and now have a 1/350 model of the same (though the modeling of the VLS cells has the correct number, he was unable to get the symmetry right as shown on the actual ship.
...and here she is with a complete CSG, including the Type 055, 2 x Type 052D, 2 x Type 054A and 1 x Type 093, along with the Liaoning.
Last edited:
I agree Russia definitely doesn't *need* a full blown carrier group - but military spending is rarely rational. Can the US cite a rational need for ten carrier groups, or the British the honestly somewhat bizarre concept of two 70,000 ton STOVL carriers carrying 24 planes and a handful of whirlybirds a piece? The keeping up with the Jones' drive isn't rational, but is still very much a thing for post-Soviet Russia, and is no more (or less) rational than the others. The whole political narrative in Russia right now is that they are the rightful inheritors of Soviet superpower status and that they have been cheated and exploited by the west... and I don't think that's just propaganda - there is definitely a detectable strain of that belief informing Russian policy - were it not then the Kirovs and the Kuznetsov would have been pensioned off years ago.
That said, Russia's position isn't *enitely* irrational. Russia's ability to maintain relationships often depends on her ability to provide a counterweight ally to the west, as many of those relationships stem from the Soviet era - and in the more fragmented world she inherited from the USSR, a naval presence to provide that is more central now than it was back then - especially since Russia doesn't have a network of bases around the world, any naval presence she does send out will need to be more self contained than it's Soviet forebears, both in terms of endurance (less chance to refuel, as we saw with the Kuznetsov in Syria) and in terms of providing a rounded force without assistance from land based forces. While this could and really should take the form a re-imagined fleet based around destroyers, subs and smaller carriers or multirole vessels (something like the Clemenceau mixed with the Juan Carlos would seem well suited to Russia) she will always find it hard to give up on the sheer statement of power given by large capital ships.
China on the other hand, dependent on trade for her survival absolutely needs full carriers and DDGs to keep her sea lanes open, though it seems China's aim for a final fleet size is rather closer to a needs based reality than America's, and rather less... unique... than Britain's.
That CGI is clearly a really old one (relatively speaking). You can tell this by the incorrect hull crease which is depicted as being one deck higher than it actually turned out to be. Other definite errors include the mast-top rotating AESA, the COGAG (and therefore the stacks) configuration, and of course the number of VL cells. Other likely (but as of yet unconfirmed) errors include the Z-8/18-sized hangar, the exposed funnels, and the TACAN beacon. What I like that this CGI got right before any of the other CGIs I've seen is the placement of the RHIB garages, the lack of a rear VSR, and the clean foredeck.LOL I think the issue is this erratic graphics:
showing ten 8-cell arrays in the bow and six 8-cell arrays at the stern (it can be accessed through Today at 11:48 AM post)
see?
Russia won't ever buy a 055. Just like Russia won't ever buy a 054A. Or a Yuan SSK. Pride goeth before the fall, but that's just how the world turns.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Jura The idiot
General
now noticed the tweet
La photo de ce qu'il devrait être le 2e destroyer Type 055 en cours de construction au chantier naval Changxing Jiangnan à Shanghai.
Translated from French by
Picture of what it should be the 2nd Type 055 destroyer under construction at the shipyard of Jiangnan Changxing in Shanghai.
La photo de ce qu'il devrait être le 2e destroyer Type 055 en cours de construction au chantier naval Changxing Jiangnan à Shanghai.
Translated from French by
Picture of what it should be the 2nd Type 055 destroyer under construction at the shipyard of Jiangnan Changxing in Shanghai.
This picture is from October last year.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL! not the best week for me in this thread, on Thursday posted here Type 056 due to my cholesterol shock, yesterday the goofy seawaves.com stuff, now even EastPendulum repost failed me:
- Status