160 VLS? A railgun? Laser CIWS? This can't be a real design.
055 Large Destroyer Thread II
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
How is this possible to fit in on a 13k ton hull? Totally unrealistic
kwaigonegin
Colonel
It wouldn't. It would be more like 16-18k tons.
Just my opinion, but I really don't like the design, mostly because it's too big.
Too many VLS on a single ship = too many egg in one basket. 055's 112 VLS is good, maybe 16 more, and you can away quad-pack more mid range SAM or other smaller missiles.
Which is even more ironic imo when considering the hype for 100+ VLS on DDs.
VLS cells are the easiest, least relevant factor in modern surface combatant design since they can be easily offload to less expensive platforms.
Arsenal ships studies under SC-21 reinforces this.
The idea for segregrated sensors/munitions have been explored deeply under both JSF and SC-21. Early JSF studies actually considered UAS carrying munitions guided via CEC from pure sensor fighters.
So building cheap barges with minimal electronics ( tac comms, simple EW like SLQ-32v5, nav, point sensors/defense armanent) carrying 500+ VLS with large C3 DDs/CGs carrying the sensors to guide these.
Besides pushing for overcrowded VLS is actually not important much for PLAN vessels.
These ships would be operating close to home base meaning they could travel back and reload quick. While USN DDs would have to reload at overseas bases/ from resupply ships. Hence why the push for the reintroduction of the reloading crane.
Building more VLS would mean making more munitions to fill these cells. Empty cells mean dead weight. And then manteinance of these cells. Manteinance of munitions. Plus associated costs and infrastructures. Ramping up production to guarantee constant supply which can also lead to overspending. And when new munitions are introduced, large number of legacy rounds means either dumping thousands of unspent munitions or using both.
Which could lead to undesirable compromises.
Like the SPG-62 MSA illuminators on Burkes. Older Standards require these systems. They are cheap, sure, but consume real estate.
Moving the main search radars above the bridge is a good design, I think.
Seem so, but I never understood the engineering principles behind it.
Higher radar horizan I presume
That's it? no interference or other technical advantage?
Nah.
The SPY-3 panel on Zumwalt was moved up because having the bridge up high uses alot of internal space. Crew quarters are big.
In CW bridges are so high because of the infancy of panoramic digital electro-optics. So a wide window was to be preferred.
SPEIR and its equivalent permits multispectral viewing without having to use the Mk1 eyeball. Like how EO/IR turrets linked to HMCS helped A-10 and F-35 pilots. Or tankers you could say.
Realistically moving the mast up for a couple of metres increase in radar horizon is not worth the challenge of building one in the first place. The sensors on Zumwalt had a lot of problems related to maintenance. Food for though.
The primary driver is space usage reduction really. Maintenance-wise its much easier to have a high bridge as the crew gets constant access to the sensors than a low bridge.