Gallaghan36
Banned Idiot
I hope future Chinese DDGs are bigger(10,000tons and above) so that it will have more space to carry more VLS for more SAMs and LACMs. It should also have the most poweeful pahsed-array radar. Do you all agree?
Future PLAN Forecast Thread: Number, disposition, etc.
- Thread starter USAalltheway
- Start date
... Why not just say that we hope China will rule the freaking world...?
Really, dude there's a lot we want to happen for the PLA but there are numerous political, economic and technological barriers ahead and it's a waste of a post to say "oh it'll be nice if we had this and this in the future..."
Instead we should focus on and analyze what is probably under development and/or being fielded. That's the difference between sites like this and CDF, compared to other fanboy forums.
(Sorry for biting your head off, couldn't let this one pass)
No offense Gallaghan36 but I think your posts are too general for other people to draw meaningful conclusion on. :china:
SteelBird
Colonel
Moreover, why it arranges the elevators to be in the middle of the desk? I mean this would require the elevator to be larger than the total size the an aircraft while side mount elevators can be slightly shorter than the aircraft 'coz the tail of the aircraft can be left beyond the elevator as long as its landing gears are still in the elevator.
Do you have any idea what seaworthy is? The ship must be able to sail smoothly through the ocean with limited pitch and roll. Adding those weapons makes the ship top heavy and more prone to pitching and rolling in a normal sea state. More is not better.
But destroyers like the Arleigh Burke IIA class and King Sejong class are all about 10,000 tons fully loaded, with over a hundred missile cells -- surely that means there is a way to compensate for the danger of being top heavy.
(I'd mention the DDX again, as but I think that project's still in limbo for the moment so it won't be the best of cases)
There are a lot to think about, the Chinese missiles and VLS system are not as compact as American ones. China does not have the same powerplant and propulsion choices that American naval ship designers have at disposal. As for sea worthiness, we will see. I don't think China is that guilty yet of over-fitting a ship with too much sensors + weapons. I would give that title to the Israelis with Sa'ar V.
Early versions of Ticos have had hull problems because of their weight. Those problems were solved with the ABs which has a very, very similar hull.
Scroll down to Ticos on this page;
My son served on the USS Valley Forge CG-50 for a year. All of her VLS cells were empty because of hull issues and seaworthyness. She was reduced to "Drug interdiction" duty.
Last edited:
The Ticonderoga class was placing loads of missile cells, and an aegis radar on spruance class destroyers -- I can understand how those may have hull problems.
So assuming China had up to standard propulsion systems, and managed to miniaturize their missiles a little, a 10,000 ton destroyer isn't impossible (basically saying that destroyers at 10,000 tons aren't inherently doomed for hull failure... right?)