There are a recent post where number of warships were listed/confirmed. I can't seem to find it anymore. Can anyone post it here if you come across.
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Easily found, just search for "tally" keyword.
052C/052D Class Destroyers
So if including these now 39 052Ds now visually confirmed under construction + in service & 14 (or 15?) 055s? Tally as of today: DDG In Active Service Sea Trials/Fitting Out/Under Construction (Visually Confirmed) Purported/Claimed (Unconfirmed) 055 8 5 3 052D/DG 27 9 3
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Appreciated; I should have used this keyword.
The LRASM has a passive ESM system that listens to radio frequency radiation and classifies it.
The great advantage of the LRASM is that it has characteristics that give it a great chance of penetrating the most advanced and dense defensive systems, such as being fully stealthy (radar, thermal and signal emission), being immune to GPS denial, having a seeker that is immune to interference, being able to implement a sea-skimming terminal trajectory, having high terminal maneuverability and being able to operate cooperatively with other missiles, in addition to being able to implement active ECM.
The technological concept chosen by the West, notably the USA, to penetrate advanced defensive systems is “stealth”, based on the maxim that says “if something can be detected, it can be destroyed”, therefore, stealth technology occupies a prominent place in the West in relation to offensive capability.
It is worth noting that the US decided to diversify its anti-ship capabilities and today it has the following OTH means:
Ship-launched:
Harpoon
NSM
SM-6
SM-2 Block IIIC
Tomahawk MST
–
Submarine-launched:
Harpoon
Tomahawk MST
Mk-48
–
Air-launched:
Harpoon
SLAM-ER
LRASM/LRASM-ER
JSOW-C1
Storm Breaker
Quicksink
JSM
HARM
AARGM
AARGM-ER
–
Land-launched:
NSM
Tomahawk MST
SM-6
–
Anti-ship weapons in advanced stage of development:
SM-6 Block IB
PrSM/S2
SiAW
“Sea Dragon” ??
Does anyone know why PLAN vessels are so thin? as in the beam width just seems abnormally low compared to wider hulls found on basically every other country's warships. This trend looks to have changed with the introduction of 054B, but even then it's beam is slightly less wide. compared to other ships of similar displacement and role. (6,000 Ton DD or FFG)
I would say that's mainly because of the lack of more powerful marine diesel and gas turbine engines that were available to the Chinese ship designers back then. Having a slimmer hull design (with higher length-to-beam ratio) is the main way to compensate for said deficiencies while still allowing those ships to achieve higher/intended speeds.
Of course, with more powerful and fuel efficient diesel engines (e.g. CS16V27) and gas turbine engines (e.g. CGT-30M, CGT-40M, CGT-50M, QC400, QC500) coming online right now and in the coming years, alongside the maturing of the IEPS system technologies (for certain warship types), next-generation surface combatants will have wider beams and a lower length-to-beam ratio.
Bit of a shame aesthetically speaking though. The slim and elegant look suits these ships very well.
I think (correct me if I’m wrong) the potential benefits will be greater,
-better seakeeping and stability
-better damage mitigation/resiliency (said to be a major problem for PRC military shipbuilding)
-higher tonnage and larger deck area
-unsure of effects on maneuverability (I know virginia class are unwieldy soda straws, but not sure of surface combatants)
-finally have dual hangars on more DDG than just 055.
—
I love the new look of the 054B actually, with its more rounded bow and smoother lines. Like a cross between a Formidable class and Mogami FFGX. It’s also gray, me likey.