055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Dfangsaur]

Beautifully made with loving care Jeff.
Too bad I'm in China or I'd make you an offer to buy up your PLAN models. They'd never survive the trip to here.

I think you can try to pay someone to make a 3D model of it and 3D print it, it's probably gonna be quite a bit of work though

 

[Figaro]

Type 055 and 052D at Dalian

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[asif iqbal]

Come on guys get those launched !

 

[Jeff Head]

Beautifully made with loving care Jeff.
Too bad I'm in China or I'd make you an offer to buy up your PLAN models. They'd never survive the trip to here.

To date I have all of the following in 1/350 scale

CV-16, Liaoning
1 x Type 071
1 x Type 055 DDG
2 x Type 052D DDG
2 x Type 052C DDG
1 x Type 052B DDG
1 x Type 052 DDG
1 x PLAN Sovremmeny DDG
1 x Type 051 C DDG
1 x Type 051 B DDG
2 x Type 054A FFG
2 x Type 056 FFG
1 x Yuan SS
1 x Type 093 SSN

I arrange them into a full CV battle group, a full Amphib group, and a SAG all at the same time. All have been detailed with photo etch metal railing and sensors, etc.

 

[Figaro]

Six 055s

 

[Jura The idiot]

I'll now repost the pictures from
In front of the US Navy: the manufacturing infrastructure of the Chinese 055 destroyers
March 14, 2018

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

as I look at them:

 

[Jura The idiot]

from the link in the post right above:

the last one:

 

[Deino]

from the link in the post right above:

But isn't this again the typical US-panic-press?? To assume or even deliberately suggest the first 055 DDG is already operation is plain wrong, stupid and again a deliberately misleading post.

IMO it is even pure blatant propaganda.

 

[Jura The idiot]

But isn't this again the typical US-panic-press?? To assume or even deliberately suggest the first 055 DDG is already operation is plain wrong, stupid and again a deliberately misleading post.

IMO it is even pure blatant propaganda.

LOL I think you missed the question mark in the first picture of the post you quoted, and you didn't read the related article linked Today at 8:14 AM
"...
According to visual documentation, the destroyer may be undergoing the installation of new hardware and may not be operational at this stage.



As opposed to the operational declaration of the ship last July, The photographs from recent months show that, in fact, the construction of the vessel is not complete. ..."
etc.:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Deino]

LOL I think you missed the question mark in the first picture of the post you quoted, and you didn't read the related article linked Today at 8:14 AM
"...
According to visual documentation, the destroyer may be undergoing the installation of new hardware and may not be operational at this stage.



As opposed to the operational declaration of the ship last July, The photographs from recent months show that, in fact, the construction of the vessel is not complete. ..."
etc.:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Honestly I fully got that questionmark but my point is why putting a "??" behind something that is more than obvious? Is heaven blue, is the pope a catholic and are women wonderful? There's no need to put a questionmark behind facts and fact is for everyone with the slightest bit of common sense this ship is not ready.

I'm sure In a few weeks some other stupid report will be posted and pick up these images - maybe with thee questionmark removed - and tell us that the Chinese are so much dangerous ... and that 's why I think it is a deliberate misleading intention.

Anyway, just my 2 Cents.

Deino