055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
In other words, the Type 055 could very well be the trigger for a 21st century destroyer race.
From what I can see Jura, the arm's race is already well underway. The progress made in railgun tech in recent times means that large caliber guns are suddenly relevant again, and in turn so are large platforms to mount those guns. In the near future it is possible for us to see a Type 055 or a Se Jong class touting more than 1 naval gun on it.
 
From what I can see Jura, the arm's race is already well underway.

as I said 28 minutes ago
Higgle
should be credited with "In other words, the Type 055 could very well be the trigger for a 21st century destroyer race."



The progress made in railgun tech in recent times means that large caliber guns are suddenly relevant again, and in turn so are large platforms to mount those guns. ...
what are the specifics of "The progress made in railgun tech in recent times" according to you?

I heard just about the Yangze River Cabin Feb 4, 2018
fe193782c97080b8a7493f1e3500df83-1.jpg


for the SDF record: I can't help to think what if it's just teasing (hope you see I was enthusiastic enough about the possibility it wasn't just teasing!!)
actually it'd be very funny if there was nothing inside that turret
Sep 22, 2017
(by the way how is the cabin doing?)

and about A POSSIBLE forty mil ($40m, laughable) for the US railgun May 8, 2018
Dec 7, 2017
now noticed, though, inside
HASC’s 2019 Bill Boosts Navy Spending, With Focus on Readiness and Pacific Operations
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"In support of technologies the military believes will be relevant in future Pacific operations, the bill also adds ..., an additional $40 million for electromagnetic railgun development, ..."
meaning it's not axed YET
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Somewhat off-topic, but in response to the comment regarding the Kirov-class cruisers...

There is a distinct possibility that we might see larger surface combatants become commonplace in the future. This isn't a topic that should be dismissed as a mere joke.

The Type 055's large dimensions, for instance, are necessitated by the large VLS cells compared to US systems, as well as needing to cram 112 of those onto a single ship. Another reason for its impressive size is that it needs to generate a metric ass-ton of energy, enough for IEP and railguns in future variants. Last-generation destroyers didn't need to be as big, because they didn't need huge powerplants for railguns, neither did they need to fit a lot of of large VLS modules.

So what happens when navies decide that 85 cm VLS cells aren't enough? Or when 60-80 MW of installed power isn't enough?

As an avid reader of naval history, I'm already seeing parallels to the dreadnought race of the early 20th century. Before WWI, the 12" gun was deemed sufficient and saw common use. It didn't take long before the Orion-class set the new standard to 13.5" guns, and soon after that, the famous Queen Elizabeth-class with their 15" rifles. Yet, not 6 years after the first was commissioned, the Japanese put the first 16.1"-gunned Nagato into service, and other navies scrambled to play catch-up.

Considering the above, the introduction of the Type 055 as the new 'standard' of destroyer in the Chinese Navy should be setting off alarm bells for rival naval powers. It can fire more missiles, and bigger missiles, with longer range and greater destructive power, than any other conventional destroyer in service, with a sensor suite that isn't necessarily top-notch but still highly capable -- and China is building 6-8 of these warships in just the first batch.

Logic dictates that as time goes on, navies will want to cram bigger and bigger missiles, and more of them, onto their surface combatants. We may not see anything like the Kirov in the next 10-15 years, but after that? It's not far-fetched at all to suggest that there might come a day, when navies want to go back to Soviet doctrine, and fit their cruisers with the future equivalent of the P-700. In other words, the Type 055 could very well be the trigger for a 21st century destroyer race.
"Arms race" is a bit much, especially if you are referring specifically to a destroyer design arms race. There is no reason to believe that VLS tubes are somehow going to keep getting bigger and bigger, especially since practically useable naval missiles are going to hit a maximum diameter and height after which it becomes ludicrous to put them on a ship; I think it is telling that no country has come out with any naval air-breathing missiles even remotely approaching the size of the P-700. And if you want more missiles in one ship, there's always the arsenal ship concept, which the PLAN actually seems to be looking into currently, while there is no known Kirov- or even Lider-sized ship that is currently in development or even under consideration. IMO the 055 itself is not necessarily some kind of dramatic game-changer and is not likely to be ringing any kind of alarm bells in any potential adversary's naval headquarters simply due to its design. What is actually likely to be ringing alarm bells is the sheer number of 055s being built currently as well as the likely total numbers they will be built in over the long term.
 

BunnyAtArm

Just Hatched
Registered Member
From what I can see Jura, the arm's race is already well underway. The progress made in railgun tech in recent times means that large caliber guns are suddenly relevant again, and in turn so are large platforms to mount those guns. In the near future it is possible for us to see a Type 055 or a Se Jong class touting more than 1 naval gun on it.
Your brain generated too much extra thought about EM guns. At least until next decade, a ship-born EM weapon which could overcome traditional large anti-surface missiles in pay load and range will not be exist. And at least for now, EM gun is been considered as a potential anti-aircraft weapon.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Somewhat off-topic, but in response to the comment regarding the Kirov-class cruisers...

There is a distinct possibility that we might see larger surface combatants become commonplace in the future. This isn't a topic that should be dismissed as a mere joke.

The Type 055's large dimensions, for instance, are necessitated by the large VLS cells compared to US systems, as well as needing to cram 112 of those onto a single ship. Another reason for its impressive size is that it needs to generate a metric ass-ton of energy, enough for IEP and railguns in future variants. Last-generation destroyers didn't need to be as big, because they didn't need huge powerplants for railguns, neither did they need to fit a lot of of large VLS modules.

Zumwalt class is even bigger than Type 055, displaces more, yet only has 80 cells, which are also smaller than the Type 055's. (.71m and 7.9m vs. .85m and 9m).
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
perhaps 055 is simply more efficient .....
That is most certainly not the case, the Zumwalt was built around an entirely different doctrine that the Type 055. It was envisioned to operate alone and for off shore support with dual 155mm guns, moreover it was also built to test out a new defense thinking called the PVLS in which the VLS doubles as some sort of space armor to absorb incoming missiles. This system puts the VLS all around the ship rather then clustered together, which reduce the overall number it can carry.
Comparing the Zumwalt to the Type 055 is like comparing apples to oranges. A more accurate comparison would be the Ticonderogas or the Sejeongs.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Your brain generated too much extra thought about EM guns. At least until next decade, a ship-born EM weapon which could overcome traditional large anti-surface missiles in pay load and range will not be exist. And at least for now, EM gun is been considered as a potential anti-aircraft weapon.
But EM also affords advantages that anti ship and surface missiles do not posses, they are much cheaper per shot, and their are generally less susceptible to CIWS and anti missile missiles.
 
But EM also affords advantages that anti ship and surface missiles do not posses, they are much cheaper per shot, and their are generally less susceptible to CIWS and anti missile missiles.
oh ... the cheapest spin of cheap railgun shots (similar is several cents per laser pulse LOL) ... anyway one more try, after Today at 6:53 AM when I quoted your fantasizing Today at 6:43 AM
and asked you, hombre:

what are the specifics of "The progress made in railgun tech in recent times" according to you?

I heard just about the Yangze River Cabin Feb 4, 2018
(by the way how is the cabin doing?)

and about A POSSIBLE forty mil ($40m, laughable) for the US railgun May 8, 2018
meaning it's not axed YET


muchas gracias por la información
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top