055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[luosifen]

Laser CIWS?

 

[Blitzo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508570052798259202

?

Not a DEW, probably just some sort of electro optic sensor.

Look at where it's placed, it's on the bridge side wings for observation. Nowhere near where you'd expect a DEW to be. Nor is the size or turret appropriate for a DEW.


Also, can we stop posting tweets from this guy.

Take some effort to put the pictures up by themselves and take some effort to write a question, if you have one.

 

[sferrin]

Laser CIWS?

SSLs aren't there yet.

 

[Tam]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508570052798259202

?

I agree that it looks like some EO, meant to cover the rear quadrants.

 

[BoraTas]

Not a DEW, probably just some sort of electro optic sensor.

Look at where it's placed, it's on the bridge side wings for observation. Nowhere near where you'd expect a DEW to be. Nor is the size or turret appropriate for a DEW.


Also, can we stop posting tweets from this guy.

Take some effort to put the pictures up by themselves and take some effort to write a question, if you have one.

I agree. It looks like DIRCM or some kind of long-range optic.

 

[Richard Santos]

I agree that it looks like some EO, meant to cover the rear quadrants.

Frankly, that looks excessively large for any reasonable EO. The big objective lense in the middle bottom look to have an aperture of at least 16-20 inches.

 

[lcloo]

Frankly, that looks excessively large for any reasonable EO. The big objective lense in the middle bottom look to have an aperture of at least 16-20 inches.

It doesn't look exceptionally big. The diameter of this thing is smaller than the gap between each step of the ladder at the far left of this photo.


It took quite a while for me to find its exact location because of its size which is comparable to the one on CIWS-1130.

 

[reservior dogs]

The concept of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships for the PLAN has always been a curious case for me.

Instead of submersible/semi-submersible arsenal ships, why not just:

1. Purpose-build surface-based Arsenal Ship, such as a larger version of the Kirov-class battlecruiser with hundreds of VLS missile cells; or

2. Purpose-build SSGNs, akin to the first 4 members of the Ohio-class SSGNs after their SSGN conversion; or

3. Convert the Type 094 SSBNs into SSGNs, similar in functionality as the first 4 member of the Ohio-class SSBNs, and let the newer Type 096 SSBNs armed with JL-3 SLBMs with truly sufficient range taking over the sea-based nuclear deterrent role?

What are the benefits of having submersible or semi-submersible arsenal ships? I just don't get it. Moreover, having the capability of semi-submersible/submersible just adds to the complexity and challenges to the technicalities and engineering of said arsenal ships, in my opinion.

So why not just stick with either a dedicated surface platform, or a dedicated underwater platform?

If you purposely build a sub as an arsenal ship, it needs to travel from port to area of combat, so the shape of the sub will look very similar to the other subs. This is suboptimal for a cheap arsenal ship. The reason for the submersion is for survivability from missiles in the combat zone. While traveling with other ships, it does not need this as the chances of being hit are much lower. The idea is that during the time when it submerges, it can only travel very slowly or not at all, but will be able to travel with the group in none combat situations. This allows for a better form factor for a cheap arsenal ship that maximize the missile load and optimize for a smaller power plant compared to a similar size sub.

 

[by78]

Nice screen captures.

 

[4Runner]

055 is freaking massive

Should have been 64+64 because I love the number 128 way better than 112.

Remove the 1130 in the front and remove the low-deck right in front of the rear. It would be a clean 128-looking and the best looking surface warship that has ever been built.