055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[latenlazy]

Can you link these quotes please.

Here:

吨位/尺寸/动力系统：
长186米，宽23米，长宽比约为8，远洋航行稳定性非常理想。吃水7.5米。
标准排水量10500吨，常用排水量12000吨，满载排水量13500吨

and here:

排水量的大小与舰船的使命任务有很大的关联，055型驱逐舰具有较大的排水量、较高的续航力、较长的自持力和全球适航性。预计该型号驱逐舰的正常排水量在12000吨左右，舰型为高平甲板、全燃动力、双轴、双调距桨的大型导弹驱逐舰，可搭载两架直升机。动力系统预计会采用国产QC280型燃气轮机的改进型，最大航速不低于30节。舰型会充分考虑隐身性设计和降低噪声特征、红外特征及电磁特征的设计，并具有良好的居住性和舰员生活保障条件。

Link to the above post:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-60#post-277706

You'll note that in the write up he constantly refers to the 055 with 万吨, but specifies in the quoted passage the actual standard displacement. In part II of the writeup (it's in the following post after the one I just shared) he lists the general displacement classes I shared earlier. I would have provided links to the first quoted section too, but it's from CDF.

 

[Blitzo]

Please. LOL and multiple question marks are orders of magnitude more benign than the rant you blasted in the J-20 thread a few months ago, so let's not start white knighting ourselves here.

I'm not sure which rant you're talking about, but in any case I think we can judge how reasonable each were perceived to be based on the number and breadth of interjections made by third parties.

But no big deal, we can all just keep on keeping on.

 

[Blitzo]

I didn't say it was necessarily better. I just noted that with a hull of that dimension, we can usually expect, over the life of the design, for greater displacement growth as needed, since that's what often happens when ships get refit and updated with new power plants and capabilities. That's been pretty typical of many ship designs, at least for some navies. I thought the larger hull size was noteworthy because Blitzo (and maybe other people) had earlier estimates of the dimensions for beam and length at 20-21 meters by 180 meters (correct me if I'm wrong here bud).

well the ratio of 055's length to 052D's length based on that picture is 1.165 based on my measurement, and 052D's length is variously quoted as between 155m and 157m, giving me a range of ~180m to ~183m depending on which measurement of 052D's length we use.

I don't quite get 184m, but I do think this latest photo should convincingly put 055's length in the class of "at least 180m" rather than "approaching 180m".

 

[Blitzo]

Here:



and here:



Link to the above post:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-60#post-277706

You'll note that in the write up he constantly refers to the 055 with 万吨, but specifies in the quoted passage the actual standard displacement. In part II of the writeup (it's in the following post after the one I just shared) he lists the general displacement classes I shared earlier. I would have provided links to the first quoted section too, but it's from CDF.

The first part of that write up is from here:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-44#post-275688

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

====

Tbh this entire discussion about 055 being called a "ten thousand ton" destroyer or whatever is a bit weird. Since 055 was launched and was covered by state media using that term, I've come across many (English language) sites seeming to assume that it means 055 displaces ten thousand tons full, rather than interpreting it as meaning 055 is in the ten thousand ton "weight class".

I suppose it never really crossed my mind before then that people would interpret it in that way, considering how ubiquitous the word "万" is in the Chinese language, and also considering that all the places who have been stating 055 as "ten thousand tons" were Chinese state media, whose reporting of displacement figures for Chinese warships have been variable over the years and whose description of certain projects have been framed in a way for maximum "symbolism" (for example often calling C919 as a "jumbo jet" despite only being a single aisle narrow body airliner).... but most importantly we've been following the 055 saga so long since the first initial rumours came out about it in 2013, that our expectations for what it would eventually become have mostly followed the rumours from big shrimps.

 

[Iron Man]

Actual displacement = normal displacement. That's always been the case for pop3 and PLAN personnel.

Anyway, do you believe his commentary on class nomenclature vs actual displacement?

Here:

and here:

Link to the above post:

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-60#post-277706

You'll note that in the write up he constantly refers to the 055 with 万吨, but specifies in the quoted passage the actual standard displacement. In part II of the writeup (it's in the following post after the one I just shared) he lists the general displacement classes I shared earlier. I would have provided links to the first quoted section too, but it's from CDF.

Hmm, he does seem to state 12,000t normal. On the other hand his quotes for the length and beam of the 055 seem somewhat larger than what we have been measuring, especially the beam. I wonder if his information is dated.

I'm not sure which rant you're talking about, but in any case I think we can judge how reasonable each were perceived to be based on the number and breadth of interjections made by third parties.

But no big deal, we can all just keep on keeping on.

I'm talking about this jewel:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-v.t7303/page-447#post-440681
I think any unbiased "third parties" would consider "god dammit", "irritating", "idiocy", and "stupidity" in reference to other peoples' posts as somewhat less "subdued" than "LOL" and "???" But whatever, we can all just keep on keeping on.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm talking about this jewel:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-20-5th-gen-fighter-thread-v.t7303/page-447#post-440681
I think any unbiased "third parties" would consider "god dammit", "irritating", "idiocy", and "stupidity" in reference to other peoples' posts as somewhat less "subdued" than "LOL" and "???" But whatever, we can all just keep on keeping on.

I think third parties who have been on SDF long enough to know how long of a chronic irritant the discussion about J-20's carriage or non-carriage of a gun, would feel similarly to the post and how warranted it was for the topic at hand.
[And even then, I think there is a difference between expressing frustration and expressing mockery towards someone else's opinion.]

Or we can look at the type of members who had responded (either through likes or supportive or critical replies) of these various respective posts, to judge how reasonable the "non-subdued" posts were in relation to the original topic at hand.

edit: phrasing

 

[Iron Man]

I think third parties who have been on SDF long enough to know how long of a chronic irritant the discussion about J-20's carriage or non-carriage of a gun, would feel similarly to the post and how warranted it was for the topic at hand.
[And even then, I think there is a difference between expressing frustration and expressing mockery towards someone else's opinion.]

Or we can look at the type of members who had responded (either through likes or supportive or critical replies) of these various respective posts, to judge how reasonable the "non-subdued" posts were in relation to the original topic at hand.

edit: phrasing

I see. So that's what you call it when you refer to other peoples' posts using terms like "idiocy" and "stupidity". Because you were "frustrated". Not "mockery" at all. Can you get any more ridiculous in the perverse defense of your indefensible rant? Stepping back to look at the larger picture: you aren't the paragon of virtue you are trying to portray in this thread, so being snide with me about my LOLs and ??? when you debase other people by calling them stupid and idiots and justifying it all by saying you are "frustrated", is really a sight to behold, I must say. In fact it is bordering on the utterly surreal.

 

[Deino]

Guys ... calm down and please leave all personnel issues.

Stay on topic and try to solve such issues via PM, Thank You.

Deino

 

[Totoro]

Beam, shape and length can give a fair insight into displacement - as one can make up a database of various cruisers and destroyers and they all seem to follow a similar path when it comes to ratio of beam, length and their displacement. Given what data is given for other ships and using the most common ratio modifier, 055's full displacement should be 12-13 thousand tons. Of course, PLAN might have wanted a ship with very small draft and then that guesstimate wouldn't apply, but given the similar role to all other cruisers and destroyers, it's just not likely draft ratio or hull shape is significantly different from other such ships.

 

[Blitzo]

Beam, shape and length can give a fair insight into displacement - as one can make up a database of various cruisers and destroyers and they all seem to follow a similar path when it comes to ratio of beam, length and their displacement. Given what data is given for other ships and using the most common ratio modifier, 055's full displacement should be 12-13 thousand tons. Of course, PLAN might have wanted a ship with very small draft and then that guesstimate wouldn't apply, but given the similar role to all other cruisers and destroyers, it's just not likely draft ratio or hull shape is significantly different from other such ships.

I also think that given 055's dimensions, and given what we know of other ships' displacements and dimensions, 12-13 thousand tons full seems fairly reasonable.

Obviously, there have been numerous things in pop3's original 2014 predictions that have not come to fruition, such as the precise dimensions, and certain subsystems (like no SMART L type VSR), and how 055's hangars are likely too small to carry Z-18s as well... but I do believe that the whole "ten thousand ton class destroyer" name that's been thrown around by state media and in BBSes and by some big shrimps, should reasonably be considered a shorthand vernacular term, and likely not a reflection of the ship's technical displacement at some level of loadedness.