Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)

[Dante80]

The main problem is the optimization point. CIWS tries to throw out as much ammo as possible, while keeping the mount without unnecessary weight up (inertia problem). I.e. it's built for high-rate automatic fire, but doesn't have all that much ammo.
Furthermore, specific installation limits angles dead ahead.

PLAN CIWS have adjustable/variable RoF cap, with different profiles . Going down to less than 1000 rpm.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The HQ-9 lineage was originally from Soviet SAMs, which did have less advanced radar electronics, so they compensated with a larger warhead and therefore larger missile.

But we can see that the H/HQ-9C is a significantly smaller missile.
And we also know that China does have world-class radar seekers on its AAMs.

It isn't just advancedness, it's the chosen setup.
There are engineering trade-offs involved, which broadly remainin consistent, either then or now.

IMHO, we're talking 3 different missiles in purpose.

HQ-9B family - full range atmospheric solution, also capable as a DP weapon(i.e. asuv/strike). Uses full cell.
HQ-9C - area high altitude/hypersonic ABM interceptor with extended footprint, but also capable enough within atmosphere. Increased volume(at least 2/cell), matching current trends.
555 - local catch-up, optimized for volume processing of atmospheric and small targets. Increased volume(4/cell).

PLAN CIWS have adjustable/variable RoF cap, with different profiles . Going down to less than 1000 rpm.

Yes, but the problem is that optimally this mission needs a very high accuracy, single shot capable gun with immediate switch of feed. 1000 is still a lot, both in waste and in complicating observating results of previous volley.
UAVs completely emptying CIWS (gun, missile) is a recurring problem over the last decade.

Ideal "close in" shell is IMHO a mix of a few 30mm and 12.7 turrets. In 2000-2010s it was KBA, but now IMHO Lionfish family is the benchmark.

 

[AndrewS]

It isn't just advancedness, it's the chosen setup.
There are engineering trade-offs involved, which broadly remainin consistent, either then or now.

IMHO, we're talking 3 different missiles in purpose.

HQ-9B family - full range atmospheric solution, also capable as a DP weapon(i.e. asuv/strike). Uses full cell.
HQ-9C - area high altitude/hypersonic ABM interceptor with extended footprint, but also capable enough within atmosphere. Increased volume(at least 2/cell), matching current trends.
555 - local catch-up, optimized for volume processing of atmospheric and small targets. Increased volume(4/cell).

The HQ-16 SAM has also gotten smaller, but still retains a fragmentation warhead.

 

[Tomboy]

Apparently, there are some news on the new DDG but he ain't saying it. Though he did tell us the new ship is expected to have many high-speed generators due to very high electrical demand, he also expected all new medium to large combatants to feature IEPS for more agile distribution of capacity but even then, the new DDG is expected to have an average electrical capacity 1.5 to 2 times that of Burke Flight III.

 

[latenlazy]

View attachment 178675
Apparently, there are some news on the new DDG but he ain't saying it. Though he did tell us the new ship is expected to have many high-speed generators due to very high electrical demand, he also expected all new medium to large combatants to feature IEPS for more agile distribution of capacity but even then, the new DDG is expected to have an average electrical capacity 1.5 to 2 times that of Burke Flight III.

Seems more and more likely we’re getting the 20k tonne cruiser.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

View attachment 178675
Apparently, there are some news on the new DDG but he ain't saying it. Though he did tell us the new ship is expected to have many high-speed generators due to very high electrical demand, he also expected all new medium to large combatants to feature IEPS for more agile distribution of capacity but even then, the new DDG is expected to have an average electrical capacity 1.5 to 2 times that of Burke Flight III.

The Burke Flight 3's power generation capacity for the ship's hotel load is 12 MW. An average of 1.5x to 2x that amount would mean an average power generation capacity of 18 MW to 24 MW.

 

[siegecrossbow]

View attachment 178675
Apparently, there are some news on the new DDG but he ain't saying it. Though he did tell us the new ship is expected to have many high-speed generators due to very high electrical demand, he also expected all new medium to large combatants to feature IEPS for more agile distribution of capacity but even then, the new DDG is expected to have an average electrical capacity 1.5 to 2 times that of Burke Flight III.

Power generation is not as big of a concern as cooling. Did he say anything about how that’s handled in a follow up post?

 

[00CuriousObserver]

View attachment 178675
Apparently, there are some news on the new DDG but he ain't saying it. Though he did tell us the new ship is expected to have many high-speed generators due to very high electrical demand, he also expected all new medium to large combatants to feature IEPS for more agile distribution of capacity but even then, the new DDG is expected to have an average electrical capacity 1.5 to 2 times that of Burke Flight III.

The "big news" here is the J-36 news, probably.