055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[foxmulder_ms]

deleted

 

[Solaris]

I have been thinking about your diagrams a lot. I have to say, the second configuration makes a lot more sense from the view of survivability. A missile that penetrates the hull would knock out two turbines in either case. In the first configuration, both turbines being hit are connected to two different shafts, so both shafts would get adversely affected. In the second configuration, the two turbines being hit are connected to the same shaft, so the other shaft wouldn't be affected at all.

It really depends on how much speed you would retain from battle damage. Would you retain more speed from one GT per shaft knocked out or 2 GT's from the same shaft knocked out. I don't know the answer to this question.

It still looks larger than Burke to me.

Now that I think about it some more, it looks like the sloping is greater than on the 052C/D, so this has the effect of making the base of the deckhouse larger and thus the beam, and thus the displacement. We'll just have to see I guess.

 

[Blitzo]

I think there are a few reasons why the displacement is easily going to be greater than 052D
There are the satellite photos of the foundations of the mockup, which even accounting for inaccuracy, is still a good deal larger than 052Ds often quoted beam of 18meters
Also, consider that what we see built right now may not represent the final overall beam, that is to say, there may be a chance that the mock up is only showing the top 3/4 of the ship's topside structures, meaning there would be another 1/3 of the existing height to account for and thus accompanying beam as well, as result of the angled sides.
And even if this ship is not significantly wider than 052D (let's say only two meters wider), it can still end up having a greater length which together would make it a larger displacement vessel.
But I'd say the most convincing case for why this mock up's deckhouse is indeed larger than 052D, is by eyeballing. If we find similar pics of 052D and scale the insiiduals or the doors, I think we can see the 055 mock up is about 1/4-1/3 longer (possibly wider) on the roof of the deckhouse which should provide a sense of the overall difference in volume. Even counting the windows of the command bridge can provide a sense of scale, for instance, 055's windows seem a little bit larger than 052Ds, however it has much wider separations between the windows which adds together for overall width (though that can be mitigated for by the deckhouse cant).
These newest photos show the port opening on the deckhouse for what is presumably the S band radar as well. That is something else we can use to scale with 052D. I think all of these comparisons, while individually are on shaky ground due, together, they convincingly show the mock up's deckhouse is a noticeable degree larger than 052D

We should also remember beam is only one factor in eyeballing displacement. There is length as well. So overall at this stage IMO there is no reason to doubt the 12k ton standard displacement claim for this ship.


---
Also, it looks like the S band array may only be fitted on the port side after all, given they seem to have started work on the aft mast and we see no holes on the starboard side. Of course, I still won't rule out the possibility that the starboard holes may simply be cut on a later date, but as time goes on if there remain no holes on the starboard side then it does look like they'll only be testing one side. Maybe the cost of the full thing is not worth a mere land based testbed.

 

[kroko]

I think there are a few reasons why the displacement is easily going to be greater than 052D
There are the satellite photos of the foundations of the mockup, which even accounting for inaccuracy, is still a good deal larger than 052Ds often quoted beam of 18meters

what are the coordinates of this struture in GE?

 

[Blitzo]

what are the coordinates of this struture in GE?

Here it is on google maps.

I don't have a computer handy right now to give the coordinates, but I think you can get that off google maps.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you use GE to measure the width of the foundation, it comes to 23m almost exactly


Edit: it's here 30.420238 114.262335

 

[no_name]

I think the platform is higher than the actual deck of the ship would be, if we assume the smaller raised surface in front of the bridge is for CIWS and compare it to the raised part of the type 052D it is lower.

But then I'm not sure what they built the extension out to the front for if not as some sort of reference for the ship's deck height.

 

[Blitzo]

I think the platform is higher than the actual deck of the ship would be, if we assume the smaller raised surface in front of the bridge is for CIWS and compare it to the raised part of the type 052D it is lower.

But then I'm not sure what they built the extension out to the front for if not as some sort of reference for the ship's deck height.

I do not think the front deck is a reference for deck height, but probably just extra space for them to mount any future modules or equipment that testing may require.

If it is deck height then the proportions of this ship would be completely off. So I agree, the platform is definitely higher than what the actual deck would be, relative tithe deckhouse

 

[kroko]

Here it is on google maps.

I don't have a computer handy right now to give the coordinates, but I think you can get that off google maps.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you use GE to measure the width of the foundation, it comes to 23m almost exactly


Edit: it's here 30.420238 114.262335

thanks.

regarding the width, hard to say for sure because that would require a better photo quality than we have at GE right now. I measured betwen 22,6 and 22,7 meters and that is counting with the whole fundations. Do we know if the pillars in the photos betwen them include the whole foundations? each foundation has 2 holes. How does each pillar fit into each one?

 

[Blitzo]

thanks.

regarding the width, hard to say for sure because that would require a better photo quality than we have at GE right now. I measured betwen 22,6 and 22,7 meters and that is counting with the whole fundations. Do we know if the pillars in the photos betwen them include the whole foundations? each foundation has 2 holes. How does each pillar fit into each one?

Well moving the mouse a pixel or two one way can yield a big difference whether it is 22.6m or 23m.

I'm not sure how the pillars fit into the holes, but I think the important dimension we want is the overall width, i.e. the distance between the outer edge of one foundation and the outer edge of the opposite foundation (or even better, we can use the square dig out for where the mock up sits on as a better indication of width). From the ground taken photos, we can see the pillars and more importantly, the width of the mock up itself, seems to correspond to the width of the GE width, whether it be for the foundations, or for the large square "trench" that the heavier mock up of the deckhouse will sit on.

So from that, I think we can get an estimate of the minimum beam of the ship. Chances are the real beam will be greater than what we measure because the widest point of the mock up right now probably isn't the widest point of the ship (the widest point on a ship is usually where the bottom of the deckhouse meets the deck, and in this case the deck is lower than the platform the mock up sits on).

Even accounting for the blurriness of GE and variation in mouse positioning, I think it would not be a stretch for everyone to agree the beam of the current mock up is significantly greater than 052C/D's 18 meters.

--

Edit: if we go only by the width between the central "holes" in each foundation square, then we may be looking at a slightly smaller width of the mock up than if we measured the outer edge of each foundation square. However, if we consider again that the final beam will be wider than the current mock up width, I think its overall beam will probably remain 23m.
An update for that area on GE will help us.

 

[no_name]

Some one worked out the model of that air conditioning unit (YORK YCAB-C) and its dimensions were 3271*2038*2418mm
The width facing camera is 2038mm, as reference.

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think people were misled to think the structure is smaller than it actually is because they think the concrete foundation raise at the base of the structure were step height or a bit more from the ground, when looking at the second close up pic it clearly isn't the case.