Chinese Type 055 Destroyer

sferrin said:
In the meantime we can't even control costs on the Burkes. (When the hull we actually need is the Zumwalt. The US continues making the Keystone Cops look like Sun Tzu.)
Click to expand...

Yep. Not to mention the persistence of the navy on the original LCS, then switched to a more confusing up-gunned version, and then now want to scratch it for a newer requirements. Ahem, did I also mention the UCLASS? Add to that the industry's climate we have now on the private sector side - I'm depressed.

PS. The zumwalt development was actually a pretty successful one on controlling cost and schedule until production got cut down to 3 and changing requirements at the final stage.
 
China's Type 055 Warship Larger, More Powerful Than Expected

"It has emerged that China's most advanced destroyer, the 10,000-ton-class Type 055, is larger than previously reported as the Chinese Navy recently revealed it has an actual displacement of more than 12,000 tons. Experts said on Friday that the difference between 10,000 and 12,000 tons could be huge and indicate the warship is even more powerful than expected.

In an introduction video for Nanchang, the first ship of its type, released by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy during the Spring Festival holidays, the service confirmed the ship has a displacement of more than 12,000 tons.

The warship was previously only vaguely referred to as China's first 10,000-ton-class destroyer, without information of its exact displacement."

 
If she does really use Integrated Electric Propulsion scheme, she would definitely have enough power for DEW or EM-railguns. With the latter tho may consume more space due to need to provide high capacity pulsed power storage.
 
Missile Cruiser to be precise... though I don't know what to call the 3 Zumwalts....
Can we bring back the aborted Destroyer-Cruiser classification???
 
Tzoli said:
Missile Cruiser to be precise... though I don't know what to call the 3 Zumwalts....
Can we bring back the aborted Destroyer-Cruiser classification???
Click to expand...
The idea of a command destroyer persists. The European navies had "flotilla leaders" that were very large (for their time) destroyers going into WW2, before 1975 the USN had "Frigates" which were classified as "DL "for Destroyer Leader. The Ticonderoga comes from that line, before the reclassification it would have been a DL and only gained its CG when the Navy realized it was too large of a step from existing DDGs to share their designation. Long way of saying the 055 exists in that same murky space where it's bigger and has more command facilities but isn't fundamentally different from the latter DDGs, so there's a case to be made either way.
 
Since nearly every country have their own classification system on how to call their ships, i dont think there is no real purpose in trying to Classify what Type-55 is. Just call it the way the origin country calls it. Even it is larger than CG-47 class and having similar firepower, Chinese call it destroyer..So be it.
 
Moose said:
The European navies had "flotilla leaders" that were very large (for their time) destroyers going into WW2, before 1975 the USN had "Frigates" which were classified as "DL "for Destroyer Leader.
Click to expand...

The British term for flotilla leaders was 'destroyer leader', however by WWII (and helped by growth in the size of destroyers to c2000t) we'd managed to shoehorn the leader functionality (Captain(D) and his staff and a couple of extra radios) into the basic design with a few tweaks. There was agonising over what to call the Tribals given their size and non-leader role, but the rest of the destroyer programme rapidly caught up with their size.

The French contre-torpilleurs were large destroyers without a leader role. They were eventually reclassified as light cruisers, but that seems to have been mostly a political measure as part of Franco-US interactions - easier to get the logistic support needed for a light cruiser. At c3000t they were right at the bottom of the cruiser weight band (only the UK's C class was close).

The US post WWII 'frigate' usage was always messy given everyone else used it for something fitting in under the destroyer weight band as a direct outgrowth of the UK WWII frigates.

The issues with the contre-torpilleurs and the US 'frigates' do show that you can need a consistent local classification just to avoid confusion, even if (or because!) the other guy calls their destroyers 'squadron mineships' (eskadrenny minonosets) or something similarly unique.
 
I know there's nothing like getting a good zinger in on a post from 7 months ago but he was absolutely correct.

Each cell contains a concentric exhaust system in "hot launch configuration," which can presumably be removed when cold-launching missiles of larger diameter.
 
That HHQ-9 looks interesting. I wonder if those are what i think they are. It's unlikely that they're radar fuze antenna tho, given that there appears to be two kinds of them, they might be datalink antenna.

HHQ-9Datalink.png

For comparison. the Russian 48N6 missile seeker had fuze antenna inside the nosecone while datalink antenna is embedded somewhere in tail.

The configuration shown in the Chinese missile seems more similar to US Standard series datalink antenna.
 
drejr said:
I know there's nothing like getting a good zinger in on a post from 7 months ago but he was absolutely correct.

Each cell contains a concentric exhaust system in "hot launch configuration," which can presumably be removed when cold-launching missiles of larger diameter.
Click to expand...
Which does nothing to support the point he was trying to make. I claimed larger cells mean you can support larger missiles. He claimed, "not so because exhaust system is part of the cell". If anything, his claim supports the notion that the cells are even more capable than we thought as they can support either hot or cold launch.

That said do you have any, you know, actual evidence supporting your claim of an integral hot-launch system? (Removable of course.)
 
sferrin said:
drejr said:
I know there's nothing like getting a good zinger in on a post from 7 months ago but he was absolutely correct.

Each cell contains a concentric exhaust system in "hot launch configuration," which can presumably be removed when cold-launching missiles of larger diameter.
Click to expand...
Which does nothing to support the point he was trying to make. I claimed larger cells mean you can support larger missiles. He claimed, "not so because exhaust system is part of the cell". If anything, his claim supports the notion that the cells are even more capable than we thought as they can support either hot or cold launch.
Click to expand...

This is a lot to read into a neutral post containing useful information.

That said do you have any, you know, actual evidence supporting your claim of an integral hot-launch system? (Removable of course.)
Click to expand...

ricebunny's post led me to the leaked technical standards for the system. It took a few seconds to find after I learned each cell contains its own exhaust vent in hot-launch configuration.
 
Last edited:
drejr said:
sferrin said:
drejr said:
I know there's nothing like getting a good zinger in on a post from 7 months ago but he was absolutely correct.

Each cell contains a concentric exhaust system in "hot launch configuration," which can presumably be removed when cold-launching missiles of larger diameter.
Click to expand...
Which does nothing to support the point he was trying to make. I claimed larger cells mean you can support larger missiles. He claimed, "not so because exhaust system is part of the cell". If anything, his claim supports the notion that the cells are even more capable than we thought as they can support either hot or cold launch.
Click to expand...

This is a lot to read into a neutral post containing useful information.

That said do you have any, you know, actual evidence supporting your claim of an integral hot-launch system? (Removable of course.)
Click to expand...

ricebunny's post led me to the leaked technical standards for the system. It took a few seconds to find after I learned each cell contains its own exhaust vent in hot-launch configuration.
Click to expand...
Great. Post a link.
 
sferrin said:
Great. Post a link.
Click to expand...

tOCPAx3.jpg


You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
 
drejr said:
sferrin said:
Great. Post a link.
Click to expand...

tOCPAx3.jpg


You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
Click to expand...
Eh, I screwed up. Just saw, "They contain their own hot gas exhaust vents in hot launch configuration." Never occurred to me they could set it up for hot OR cold. Pretty much every other VLS is either/or. So best of both worlds AND it allows larger missiles when cold launching.
 
Last edited:
stealthflanker said:
drejr said:
You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
Click to expand...

it's huge. Like compared to about 53 cm for Mk-41. 85 cm diameter even assuming 20 were used for the concentric exhaust. can still pack 65 cm diameter missile.
Click to expand...
AND it doesn't need to be setup for hot launch, potentially allowing even larger missiles. That's a YJ-18A there at 0:32. At 8.2m in length it's almost four feet longer than even a Mk57 cell could hold and about five and a half feet longer than a Mk41 cell could.

(Looking through old notes it looks like I already had the 850mm dia. Cell is 9 m deep.)

1602798484233.png
 
Last edited:
stealthflanker said:
drejr said:
You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
Click to expand...

it's huge. Like compared to about 53 cm for Mk-41. 85 cm diameter even assuming 20 were used for the concentric exhaust. can still pack 65 cm diameter missile.
Click to expand...

This is the canister diameter, not missile. it's still a lot bigger than Mk41 but the equivalent measurement is 25" or ~69 cm.
 
I'd imagine the 9 meter canister is for taking a 3M-54 as that's about the right size for the cruise/supersonic terminal ASM AUR. Probably similar to strike length Mk 41 and the Tomahawk I'd imagine he is built for that rocket explicitly.
 
drejr said:
stealthflanker said:
drejr said:
You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
Click to expand...

it's huge. Like compared to about 53 cm for Mk-41. 85 cm diameter even assuming 20 were used for the concentric exhaust. can still pack 65 cm diameter missile.
Click to expand...

This is the canister diameter, not missile. it's still a lot bigger than Mk41 but the equivalent measurement is 25" or ~69 cm.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the point here is that Type-55 VLS can carry bigger missile.
 
drejr said:
stealthflanker said:
drejr said:
You can even see exactly how yuge it is.
Click to expand...

it's huge. Like compared to about 53 cm for Mk-41. 85 cm diameter even assuming 20 were used for the concentric exhaust. can still pack 65 cm diameter missile.
Click to expand...

This is the canister diameter, not missile. it's still a lot bigger than Mk41 but the equivalent measurement is 25" or ~69 cm.
Click to expand...

Mk41 Cell -
Outer Width - 25" / 62 cm
Inner Width - 22"/ 55 cm

Mk57 Cell -
Outer Width - 28" / 70 cm
Inner Width - 25" / 62 cm

PLAN UVLS -
Outer Width - 85 cm / 33"
Inner Width - 76 cm / 30"

Inner width coincides with max missile diameter possible with non standard cells having thinner walls ( prototyped with Mk41). Standard cells provide lesser space inside.
 
Last edited:
PRC overheads are much lower and cost per, is much lower so they WILL be able to outbuild the USN. However that, is a cop out and the longer this goes on the longer it will take to provide a reasonable counter force to deter further expansion. Like the build up to WW2 all over again.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom