055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


Status
Not open for further replies.

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
06.png


To follow up on #4880. This picture shows the efficiency of a hexagon shaped cell vs a square cell, with CCL.

In a square cell, the wasted area is larger than in a hexagon cell. The difference of wasted area is "red area - blue area" times two (because only the top half is shaded). Both a hexagon shaped cell array and a square shaped cell array can be packed in a given area. If indeed type 052D+ and type 055+ are using only CCL for hot launch, then they do not have to follow the traditional design of square cells.
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Saying HHQ-9 body 45 cm ( very doubtfull ) with fins in canister the square do 50 cm ?
here you have last variants more big for longer range especialy HHQ-9B for 052D and later 055
I have yet mentionned this probability and often appear a weight of 1.3 t or 1.8 - 2 t as here ...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


same for range here appear 100 km and more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Logicaly the last are more big
Again, we have been over this before. There are multiple ways to increase range without increasing the diameter of the missile. Perhaps you can explain to me how SM-1MR and SM-2MR are the exact same diameter but somehow the SM-2MR has more than double the range of SM-1MR. Logically the last do not have to be more big.

To follow up on #4880. This picture shows the efficiency of a hexagon shaped cell vs a square cell, with CCL.

In a square cell, the wasted area is larger than in a hexagon cell. The difference of wasted area is "red area - blue area" times two (because only the top half is shaded). Both a hexagon shaped cell array and a square shaped cell array can be packed in a given area. If indeed type 052D+ and type 055+ are using only CCL for hot launch, then they do not have to follow the traditional design of square cells.
You lost yourself in the weeds when you should have been looking at the forest. No ship designer is going to put something this ridiculous onto a ship. Hexagonal cells may make use of adjacent space most efficiently but they will still have to fit into a rectangle because the edges of the VLS module is going to zig-zag uselessly. All that space that you saved to pack them together is completely wasted (and more) at the edges. Hexagonal cells also make multi-packing extremely difficult.
 
View attachment 44062 ...

PS: uploaded the vector file too, in case anyone needs it
couldn't resist (I know I said I was done Today at 10:25 AM):
77e93f907fa9d5070b20294aa77e8181.jpg

(added, in green, the parts from Today at 10:25 AM chart; I'm sorry I didn't properly crop your chart, but I think the message is clear, and I don't care if it's not LOL it actually started as an exercise to give to my kid at some point Monday at 10:11 PM
finding the maximum diameter of each of the two circles inscribed in the unit square: ...
... solution hidden ...
now it's just taking time)

cheers
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
View attachment 44062 Picture updated with more detailed comparison between round and square design-time models(in red). Explanations were made in #4878 and #4880

PS: uploaded the vector file too, in case anyone needs it
A big point of disagreement seems to be based on how you guys choose to fold the fins. If the fins can only fold away from each other then your diagram would be correct and you’d get a smaller maximum diameter. If, however, you can fold two adjacent fins toward one another so that two fins point one way and two point the other, you come out with a rhomboid shape that can fit a larger maximum diameter.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
1.png

I am adding one more chart for @Jura and related to the question asked by @latenlazy that the folding position at the "base" or "bottom" is not optimal. For a given missile body diameter R, and fin length L, the folding fin is an optimization problem to achieve the minimal radius of enclosure RE If you also consider the thickness of fin, there is one optimal point where the folding should be implemented.

For discussion's sake I only use one simplified sample where R=40, L=40, the thickness of the fin is not considered. The goal is to find the optimal folding design that achieves the minimal radius of enclosure for the folded missile.

  • When no folding is made, RE = R + L = 80
  • When folded at the base, RE = 56.6 (use Pythagorean theorem)
  • When folded at 1/4 point, RE = 50, while this is not the mathematical optimal, it proves the optimal folding point exists and it is not folding at the base
In practice this is an engineering problem that can be solved by some simple calculation then test by simulation as well as on the actual product. So far I have not seen in a real missile that the folding was done at the base. However, if you can find such cases, maybe there were other reasons for that, not physical optimization.
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
View attachment 44073

I am adding one more chart for @Jura and related to the question asked by @latenlazy that the folding position at the "base" or "bottom" is not optimal. For a given missile body diameter R, and fin length L, the folding fin is an optimization problem to achieve the minimal radius of enclosure RE If you also consider the thickness of fin, there is one optimal point where the folding should be implemented.

For discussion's sake I only use one simplified sample where R=40, L=40, the thickness of the fin is not considered. The goal is to find the optimal folding design that achieves the minimal radius of enclosure for the folded missile.

  • When no folding is made, RE = R + L = 80
  • When folded at the base, RE = 56.6 (use Pythagorean theorem)
  • When folded at 1/4 point, RE = 50, while this is not the mathematical optimal, it proves the optimal folding point exists and it is not folding at the base
In practice this is an engineering problem that can be solved by some simple calculation then test by simulation as well as on the actual product. So far I have not seen in a real missile that the folding was done at the base. However, if you can find such cases, maybe there were other reasons for that, not physical optimization.
If you’re trying to figure out how to fold fins to fit the diagonal space of a square, a regular polygons isn’t the most optimal shape.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Every time I check cjdby, there's a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It seems he's saying that 055A is coming. There's also a poll about what improvements it will have. Here's a machine translation of the first post:

Eight years ago burst 055 was sprayed, and now almost see the basic six, sigh of love endless.

Much to say nonsense, 8 that is the previous plan, to be added to the bottom, but the good news is clear, 055A is there, so it is of little significance to discuss the number of 055.
In the 55A orders before, another Explosive touch, lists six references, of which there is accurate, I heard, but also my own scribbling, we vote to see (you can vote for 4 votes oh), after 55A out Now, quite interesting, for example, 16 years before the launch of the 3 ship carrier voted, who will think later PK ah, ha ha ha. If there are different options on the message, perhaps after the realization of it.
Multiple voting : (up to a maximum of 4), a total of 750 people to vote
From the end there are: 3 days 18 hours and 24 minutes
All electric power 27.96% (699)
2. Stronger long-range land attack cruise bomb 21.72% (543)
3. Rocket to help fly torpedo (sci-fi fish 10) 14.76% (369)
4 electromagnetic guns 11.00% (275)
5 ship invisible science fiction design 6.60% (165)
6. The hull front (arms) and rear (hangar) modular design, the target ship standard 17.96% (449)
 

jobjed

Captain
Every time I check cjdby, there's a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. It seems he's saying that 055A is coming. There's also a poll about what improvements it will have. Here's a machine translation of the first post:

Eight years ago burst 055 was sprayed, and now almost see the basic six, sigh of love endless.

Much to say nonsense, 8 that is the previous plan, to be added to the bottom, but the good news is clear, 055A is there, so it is of little significance to discuss the number of 055.
In the 55A orders before, another Explosive touch, lists six references, of which there is accurate, I heard, but also my own scribbling, we vote to see (you can vote for 4 votes oh), after 55A out Now, quite interesting, for example, 16 years before the launch of the 3 ship carrier voted, who will think later PK ah, ha ha ha. If there are different options on the message, perhaps after the realization of it.
Multiple voting : (up to a maximum of 4), a total of 750 people to vote
From the end there are: 3 days 18 hours and 24 minutes
All electric power 27.96% (699)
2. Stronger long-range land attack cruise bomb 21.72% (543)
3. Rocket to help fly torpedo (sci-fi fish 10) 14.76% (369)
4 electromagnetic guns 11.00% (275)
5 ship invisible science fiction design 6.60% (165)
6. The hull front (arms) and rear (hangar) modular design, the target ship standard 17.96% (449)

Nothing particularly new from the post, simply an affirmation 055A project's existence and its inevitable materialisation.

There is a slight piece of news from one of his replies further in the thread where he confirmed the existence of 054B but revealed the 052E doesn't exist yet. That entails either the 052D's production will continue for awhile or there will be a long gap between the ending of 052D production and beginning of 052E production, if it ever gets produced.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
There's also this from the 2018 prediction thread:
话我先放这,土共两条腿走路,54B改动力,55上武备。撸到后面55武备下放52,54B动力升52,搞个52E出来
Let me put this, the Earth two legs walk, 54B change power, 55 on the military. To the back 55 military decentralized 52,54b power up 52, make a 52E out
The translation is obviously pretty pained. I'd say its about the relationship of the changes to the variants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top