055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Roodog]

Thankyou Bltizo, and I agree with you but must add that if designing a vessel to be optimal in RCS then you must study the type of rader it is likely to want to evade from...each radar has its own bloom...something rarely talked about...but even modern AESA radars have their own blooms and so a ship design can counter these...as well as OTHRs...just a thought....the Chinese know what they are doing

 

[Iron Man]

My rhetorical question therefore is saying if Type 45 and co (surrogates for 055) are also "not really any stealthier" than Sejong and co, then why would they have bothered with the extent of RCS reduction design details that they did?

Of course, you do mention that these additional features are still enhancements, so I would consider that an acknowledgement that those enhancements do produce reductions in RCS returns.

Of course they produce reductions in RCS returns, or else they wouldn't have implemented them. Yet all of these are incremental, minimal, slim pickings, or your "negligible". If they weren't the earlier ships would already have incorporated them.

I disagree, and I do believe that there are sufficient differences in RCS reduction between the aforementioned surface warships to warrant acknowledging the difference in extent of RCS reduction, either in a categorical way (depending on one's metrics for a given category) but definitely in a continuous (or incremental) way.

Well it's either its own category (as you are trying to imply) or it's an incremental improvement over the 052D/Burke. You can't have both. Nobody would deny these are incremental improvements but to claim that the group of these taken together deserve their own category is just your personal opinion. You really can't legitimately advance beyond this without having specifics on exactly how much RCS reductions any of these features provide either individually or in aggregate. What's worse for you is that there is no definitive set of criteria that you can use to say any of the newer ships have x, y and z stealth features and therefore they are in the "1.5" stealth generation compared to Zumwalt's 2nd generation stealth. For example, the 055 has a (probably) semi-integrated mast. The FREMM, Lafayette, Zeven Provincien, Sachsen, and Daring all lack this feature. The Lafayette has a completely clean foredeck, while the FREMM and Daring have at most a 'semi-clean' foredeck, and the Sachsen and Zeven Provincien completely lack this feature. The FREMM and Sachsen have plenty of deckhouse antenna and other rooftop objects, while the Daring does not and the Lafayette and Zeven Provicien are in between. I could go on and on. Do you see a pattern here? I sure don't.

 

[Blitzo]

Of course they produce reductions in RCS returns, or else they wouldn't have implemented them. Yet all of these are incremental, minimal, slim pickings, or your "negligible". If they weren't the earlier ships would already have incorporated them.

I won't speculate among what constitutes incremental, minimal, slim pickings or negligible RCS improvements vs a ship without those design features to reduce RCS.

But I will interpret this as an acknowledgement that such design features do mean ships with those RCS reduction features will be more stealthy than those ships without, in relation to the original post that promprted me to get involved in this discussion (reply #2412)... even if the extent of those RCS reduction may be disagreed upon between us.

Well it's either its own category (as you are trying to imply) or it's an incremental improvement over the 052D/Burke. You can't have both.

Yeah, I think this is where some of the miscommunication is arising.

When I used the word "category" and "generation" in post #2413 I was grouping the ships based on the presence or lack of presence of common design features/RCS reduction features of the group of ships. I.e.: that Type 45/horizon/fremm etc were a category that all had a similar collection of broadly RCS reduction features which the likes of burke/sejong/052D etc lack.

The use of the word "category" was not to suggest a that there was a clear quantifiable reduction in RCS reduction that differentiates one group of ships from another, as that would suggest I had clear values in mind for categories of ships of all kinds, which obviously I would not be so ambitious as to suggest.

That is why I spent that paragraph at the end of my last post emphasizing the meaning of the original use of the word category, and explaining the use of the speech marks in when I first used that word a page or two back....

Nobody would deny these are incremental improvements but to claim that the group of these taken together deserve their own category is just your personal opinion. You really can't legitimately advance beyond this without having specifics on exactly how much RCS reductions any of these features provide either individually or in aggregate. What's worse for you is that there is no definitive set of criteria that you can use to say any of the newer ships have x, y and z stealth features and therefore they are in the "1.5" stealth generation compared to Zumwalt's 2nd generation stealth. For example, the 055 has a (probably) semi-integrated mast. The FREMM, Lafayette, Zeven Provincien, Sachsen, and Daring all lack this feature. The Lafayette has a completely clean foredeck, while the FREMM and Daring have at most a 'semi-clean' foredeck, and the Sachsen and Zeven Provincien completely lack this feature. The FREMM and Sachsen have plenty of deckhouse antenna and other rooftop objects, while the Daring does not and the Lafayette and Zeven Provicien are in between. I could go on and on. Do you see a pattern here? I sure don't.

see above.

 

[Iron Man]

But I will interpret this as an acknowledgement that such design features do mean ships with those RCS reduction features will be more stealthy than those ships without, in relation to the original post that promprted me to get involved in this discussion (reply #2412)... even if the extent of those RCS reduction may be disagreed upon between us.

You make it sound like this is some kind of victory or concession for you. It's not. If you think it is, please link and quote where I previously said they are somehow NOT enhancements to RCS reductions, however small.

When I used the word "category" and "generation" in post #2413 I was grouping the ships based on the presence or lack of presence of common design features/RCS reduction features of the group of ships. I.e.: that Type 45/horizon/fremm etc were a category that all had a similar collection of broadly RCS reduction features which the likes of burke/sejong/052D etc lack.

Except that they DON'T actually have a "similar collection of broadly RCS reduction features which the likes of burke/sejon/052D etc lack", as I have amply demonstrated for you in my last post. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to get down to the details. I'm down with this.

The use of the word "category" was not to suggest a that there was a clear quantifiable reduction in RCS reduction that differentiates one group of ships from another, as that would suggest I had clear values in mind for categories of ships of all kinds, which obviously I would not be so ambitious as to suggest.

That is why I spent that paragraph at the end of my last post emphasizing the meaning of the original use of the word category, and explaining the use of the speech marks in when I first used that word a page or two back....

see above.

See below.

I think the attention to minimizing RCS at the details of the ship like Type 45/horizon/fremm etc do put them in a separate category to burke/sejong/052D

Whether you can actually quantify the RCS reductions is irrelevant to the fact that you definitively place them in separate categories, an action which you have yet to justify even just on defining characteristics alone. Regardless, if those features did NOT actually provide a quantifiably distinct categorical improvement in RCS reduction, then your categorization is meaningless in any case. So this is an irrelevant dichotomy. In other words, you are categorizing these later ships separately not just because (you think) they possess certain RCS features in common, but also because you think together they provide a statistically significant difference in RCS compared to earlier ships, regardless of whether you can or cannot personally quantify them.

 

[Blitzo]

You make it sound like this is some kind of victory or concession for you. It's not. If you think it is, please link and quote where I previously said they are somehow NOT enhancements to RCS reductions, however small.

Victory or concession are such strong words.

I entered this discussion because I felt like the sentence "055 is not really any stealthier than a Sejong" was overreaching a bit in terms of logical, in context of the degree of RCS reduction 055 is expected to have.

In other words, I interpreted your statement as saying that the difference in stealthiness between 055 and Sejong is = 0, and I'm happy to leave the discussion if it's agreed that the RCS reduction measures and resulting difference in stealthiness 055 and Sejong is anything > 0 in favour of 055.

Of course this is all a bit academic given we're using type 45 and co as a surrogate for 055 in this case.

Except that they DON'T actually have a "similar collection of broadly RCS reduction features which the likes of burke/sejon/052D etc lack", as I have amply demonstrated for you in my last post. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to get down to the details. I'm down with this.


See below.

Whether you can actually quantify the RCS reductions is irrelevant to the fact that you definitively place them in separate categories, an action which you have yet to justify even just on defining characteristics alone.

Sure okay, well some of the key characteristics that I consider together include:
-enclosed foredeck, with anchoring equipment and associated other systems either below decks or enclosed when not in use (*)
-mast of an integrated design with sensors and antennae, and/or lack of an mast with exposed+scattered antennae (*)
-amidships deck which is elevated and integrated better with the rest of the ship's superstructures (deckhouse, smokestack, hangar structure) with either minimal exposed reflectors, or with low profile reflectors possibly shielded by the weatherdeck's wall (reflectors including things like boat davits, AShM launchers, torpedo tubes)
-reduced antennae and clutter aboard the deckhouse
-reduced railing (or removable railing) among exposed decks

The first two characteristics with asterixes (*) are features which I think are definite and key features for inclusion in my self defined category that are relatively easy to identify without much subjectivity.
The other three are more subjective because people can have differing standards for what constitutes "reduced railing" or "reduced antennae" or "better integrated" but needless to say examples that I have listed before (Type 45, FREMM, Horizon class etc) serve as guidelines for those three characteristics.

So yeah, those are the factors I have in mind for my category.
Of course, there are other ships which may approach the category, in terms of RCS reduction features, such as Gorshkov class, or de zeven provincien, or even 054A and Shivialik class if we want to be generous, but the reason for creating this "category" back in post #2413 was to bring together some of the key RCS reduction features that make for a useful touchstone or caricature for the RCS reduction features 055 may be expected to have (and what I believe it will likely have)

 

[Iron Man]

I entered this discussion because I felt like the sentence "055 is not really any stealthier than a Sejong" was overreaching a bit in terms of logical, in context of the degree of RCS reduction 055 is expected to have.

In other words, I interpreted your statement as saying that the difference in stealthiness between 055 and Sejong is = 0, and I'm happy to leave the discussion if it's agreed that the RCS reduction measures and resulting difference in stealthiness 055 and Sejong is anything > 0 in favour of 055.

Words are important, and I usually take care to choose words to express as precisely (or as loosely) what I am trying to say as possible. In this case "not really any stealthier" means to me their level of stealth is comparable. If one is slightly stealthier than the other it is certainly not worthy of meaningful discussion. "Not at all stealthier" would be a stronger claim of definitively no difference in stealth and what I would have used had I felt this was actually the case. Like I said before, what I see different in the 055 is a clean foredeck and semi-integrated mast. Who in their right mind would claim in light of these obvious structural differences that the difference in RCS is exactly "0"?

Sure okay, well some of the key characteristics that I consider together include:
-enclosed foredeck, with anchoring equipment and associated other systems either below decks or enclosed when not in use (*)
-mast of an integrated design with sensors and antennae, and/or lack of an mast with exposed+scattered antennae (*)
-amidships deck which is elevated and integrated better with the rest of the ship's superstructures (deckhouse, smokestack, hangar structure) with either minimal exposed reflectors, or with low profile reflectors possibly shielded by the weatherdeck's wall (reflectors including things like boat davits, AShM launchers, torpedo tubes)
-reduced antennae and clutter aboard the deckhouse
-reduced railing (or removable railing) among exposed decks

The first two characteristics with asterixes (*) are features which I think are definite and key features for inclusion in my self defined category that are relatively easy to identify without much subjectivity.
The other three are more subjective because people can have differing standards for what constitutes "reduced railing" or "reduced antennae" or "better integrated" but needless to say examples that I have listed before (Type 45, FREMM, Horizon class etc) serve as guidelines for those three characteristics.

Your two criteria with asterisks have literally just disqualified every last modern warship from your 1.5 stealth generation category. In other words, no warship belongs in your category. AFAIK there is only one warship (besides the Zumwalt) that currently has an integrated mast, the Holland OPV, and it's an OPV no less; I'm ignoring the San Antonio LPD obviously. And it doesn't have an enclosed foredeck. The Lafayette alone has a clean foredeck (discounting the main gun), while ships like the Daring and FREMM have significant structures sticking out of the foredeck itself and could really only be considered 'semi-clean'. There you have it. Integrated mast cannot be a criterion because it simply doesn't exist yet on almost any warship. Clean foredeck exists on only a few modern warships. There is literally no sine qua non for your proposed category.

As for the other minor criterion such as enclosed RHIB garages, reduced railing, and antenna clutter, they are present to varying incremental degrees, or not at all, depending on the ship, and IMO represent even more minimal improvements to RCS than the first two characteristics. There is really no one or two or three defining characteristic(s) of this category that can be used in a systematic fashion to distinguish 052D/Burke-era from Daring/FREMM/055-era ships.

 

[Blitzo]

Words are important, and I usually take care to choose words to express as precisely (or as loosely) what I am trying to say as possible. In this case "not really any stealthier" means to me their level of stealth is comparable. If one is slightly stealthier than the other it is certainly not worthy of meaningful discussion. "Not at all stealthier" would be a stronger claim of definitively no difference in stealth and what I would have used had I felt this was actually the case. Like I said before, what I see different in the 055 is a clean foredeck and semi-integrated mast.

Right, in that case then we go back to a few posts back where we essentially agreed to disagree about just how big of a RCS reduction difference there is between 055 to Sejong class, where I think the expected difference is notable enough that it is fair to call 055 "stealthier" (not "much more stealthier" but also not "only marginally stealthier" either -- just "stealthier") and you think the differences between the two are minimal, yes?

Who in their right mind would claim in light of these obvious structural differences that the difference in RCS is exactly "0"?

In regards to this point, I was careful to say "the RCS reduction measures and resulting difference in stealthiness". Obviously I wouldn't presume that you were saying the difference between the RCS after those structural differences between the ships to = 0.

Your two criteria with asterisks have literally just disqualified every last modern warship from your 1.5 stealth generation category. In other words, no warship belongs in your category. AFAIK there is only one warship (besides the Zumwalt) that currently has an integrated mast, the Holland OPV, and it's an OPV no less; I'm ignoring the San Antonio LPD obviously. And it doesn't have an enclosed foredeck. The Lafayette alone has a clean foredeck (discounting the main gun), while ships like the Daring and FREMM have significant structures sticking out of the foredeck itself and could really only be considered 'semi-clean'. There you have it. Integrated mast cannot be a criterion because it simply doesn't exist yet on almost any warship. Clean foredeck exists on only a few modern warships. There is literally no sine qua non for your proposed category.

Please re-read the phrasing of that characteristic:
"mast of an integrated design with sensors and antennae, and/or lack of an mast with exposed+scattered antennae (*)"

Mast of an integrated design is the only way I could think of, to describe a mast that is either an integrated mast (like i-mast) or having the various antennae "integrated" into it like Type 45 or Horizon. I.e.: the mast itself doesn't have to be an integrated mast but have its antennae integrated into its structure.

I also said and/or lack of a mast with exposed/scattered antennae, as either an addition or a substitute for having a mast of an integrated design, like on the aquitaine variant of fremm, which lacks any sort of main sensor mast, but instead has the single herakles radar atop its deckhouse and an aft low profile esm/comms mast.


As for the clean foredeck -- actually, for my definition of the category, the foredeck is only talking about the enclosed bow anchoring equipment and associated systems below deck, I was not thinking about La Fayette.

As for the other minor criterion such as enclosed RHIB garages, reduced railing, and antenna clutter, they are present to varying incremental degrees, or not at all, depending on the ship, and IMO represent even more minimal improvements to RCS than the first two characteristics. There is really no one or two or three defining characteristic(s) of this category that can be used in a systematic fashion to distinguish 052D/Burke-era from Daring/FREMM/055-era ships.

I explicitly described my category as type 45/fremm/horizon class, to separate their collection of what I perceive to be common RCS reduction measures from 052d/burke/sejong which I perceive as lacking those common RCS reduction measures, for the purposes of the discussion.

Whether other ships with RCS reduction between these two categories exist or not (and they do exist) isn't relevant, and whether other ships fit neatly into one category or not isn't relevant either, because the reason I created these two "categories" is just to illustrate the collection of common RCS reduction measures that I think 055 will have. I described it as much in post #2413.

The way you're approaching this talk about my "categories" makes me think that you believe I'm trying to impose the criterions for the "category" as some sort of systematic way of grouping the RCS reduction measures of all surface combatants in general. But that was never my intention.
I only separated out the two categories because the issue of 055 and Sejong RCS reduction measures was brought up in the first place, and I used the T45/horizon/fremm classes as a categorical surrogate for 055 compared to sejong/burke/052d for the purposes of discussion.

 

[Iron Man]

Right, in that case then we go back to a few posts back where we essentially agreed to disagree about just how big of a RCS reduction difference there is between 055 to Sejong class, where I think the expected difference is notable enough that it is fair to call 055 "stealthier" (not "much more stealthier" but also not "only marginally stealthier" either -- just "stealthier") and you think the differences between the two are minimal, yes?

Yes, minimal enough for me to place them in the same generation of 'ship stealth', with ships like Burke being the first generation and the Zumwalt being the second generation, and every ship in between on an incremental non-distinguishable spectrum of 'stealthier-than-Burke/052D/Sejong'. If you put every last improvement that you mentioned into a ship, then I would agree that there may be a significant difference in RCS to classify it as a '1.5 generation stealth' ship, but again, there is no such ship that currently exists.

Please re-read the phrasing of that characteristic:
"mast of an integrated design with sensors and antennae, and/or lack of an mast with exposed+scattered antennae (*)"

Mast of an integrated design is the only way I could think of, to describe a mast that is either an integrated mast (like i-mast) or having the various antennae "integrated" into it like Type 45 or Horizon. I.e.: the mast itself doesn't have to be an integrated mast but have its antennae integrated into its structure.

I also said and/or lack of a mast with exposed/scattered antennae, as either an addition or a substitute for having a mast of an integrated design, like on the aquitaine variant of fremm, which lacks any sort of main sensor mast, but instead has the single herakles radar atop its deckhouse and an aft low profile esm/comms mast.

By your own description I don't see how any of these ships qualify with a "lack of a mast with exposed+scattered antennae" since they all have hardware exposed on their masts and not flush with it or internalized like the Zumwalt or the Holland. In the case of the Daring, in addition to the Sampson AESA sitting on top, you have 8 RESM antennae, 2 SATCOM antennae, 4 communications yardarms with antennae, Type 1047 navigation and Type 1048 search antenna, and various smaller protrusions for purposes that I cannot identify. And course a bunch of junk on the roof. The Daring also has a secondary mast with stuff all over it as well as whip antennae all over the place. The Horizon's main mast is slightly cleaner but it also has a secondary mast with all kinds of antennae sticking out of it. The Aquitaine also has a secondary mast with all kinds of crap on it.

As for the clean foredeck -- actually, for my definition of the category, the foredeck is only talking about the enclosed bow anchoring equipment and associated systems below deck, I was not thinking about La Fayette.

If the La Fayette and the Zumwalt are the standard for clean foredecks (and they should be), no other ship should be considered truly clean. Every other ship is varying degrees of 'dirtier', even if they have enclosed bow anchoring equipment belowdecks, which may be as equally relevant to crew safety and comfort as it is to any stealth reduction, especially if you are still leaving other non-stealthy features abovedecks.

I explicitly described my category as type 45/fremm/horizon class, to separate their collection of what I perceive to be common RCS reduction measures from 052d/burke/sejong which I perceive as lacking those common RCS reduction measures, for the purposes of the discussion.

Whether other ships with RCS reduction between these two categories exist or not (and they do exist) isn't relevant, and whether other ships fit neatly into one category or not isn't relevant either, because the reason I created these two "categories" is just to illustrate the collection of common RCS reduction measures that I think 055 will have. I described it as much in post #2413.

The way you're approaching this talk about my "categories" makes me think that you believe I'm trying to impose the criterions for the "category" as some sort of systematic way of grouping the RCS reduction measures of all surface combatants in general. But that was never my intention.
I only separated out the two categories because the issue of 055 and Sejong RCS reduction measures was brought up in the first place, and I used the T45/horizon/fremm classes as a categorical surrogate for 055 compared to sejong/burke/052d for the purposes of discussion.

But again, T45, Horizon, and FREMM are not categorizable into some separate category of 'stealthier' because they and the rest of their more recent cohorts each have different stealth features which I have been carefully pointing out. So this surrogate category does not exist.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, minimal enough for me to place them in the same generation of 'ship stealth', with ships like Burke being the first generation and the Zumwalt being the second generation, and every ship in between on an incremental non-distinguishable spectrum of 'stealthier-than-Burke/052D/Sejong'. If you put every last improvement that you mentioned into a ship, then I would agree that there may be a significant difference in RCS to classify it as a '1.5 generation stealth' ship, but again, there is no such ship that currently exists.

Right in that case this is just an area of impasse (not detente -- mind fart).

By your own description I don't see how any of these ships qualify with a "lack of a mast with exposed+scattered antennae" since they all have hardware exposed on their masts and not flush with it or internalized like the Zumwalt or the Holland. In the case of the Daring, in addition to the Sampson AESA sitting on top, you have 8 RESM antennae, 2 SATCOM antennae, 4 communications yardarms with antennae, Type 1047 navigation and Type 1048 search antenna, and various smaller protrusions for purposes that I cannot identify. And course a bunch of junk on the roof. The Daring also has a secondary mast with stuff all over it as well as whip antennae all over the place. The Horizon's main mast is slightly cleaner but it also has a secondary mast with all kinds of antennae sticking out of it. The Aquitaine also has a secondary mast with all kinds of crap on it.

A mast like that of Burke/Sejong/052D constitutes the kind of mast with exposed and scattered antennae that I speak of, relative to Type45/horizon/FREMM.
I acknowledge this is an area of potential subjectivity, which I will address at the end of the post.

If the La Fayette and the Zumwalt are the standard for clean foredecks (and they should be), no other ship should be considered truly clean. Every other ship is varying degrees of 'dirtier', even if they have enclosed bow anchoring equipment belowdecks, which may be as equally relevant to crew safety and comfort as it is to any stealth reduction, especially if you are still leaving other non-stealthy features abovedecks.

I believe the phrasing of this relevant characteristic was "enclosed" foredeck.

You asked for my charactestics for my self defined category, and I gave it to you. In this discussion you can't really challenge what you think my characteristic "should" mean, seeing as I defined the category and its characteristics myself and I get to say what the characteristics "do" mean.

But again, T45, Horizon, and FREMM are not categorizable into some separate category of 'stealthier' because they and the rest of their more recent cohorts each have different stealth features which I have been carefully pointing out. So this surrogate category does not exist.

I have listed the five common characteristics that I believe those three warships all share which I've used to illustrate the RCS reduction measures I believe 055 will have and which I believe the other aforementioned ships (burke/052d/sejong) do not have.

You can challenge the way I can interpret the characteristics I've described, but I was careful in the way I phrased them that allows me to interpret them in a way that is common to those three warships (t45/horizon/fremm) and different to burke/052D/sejong.
From there, you can maybe argue that the chracteristics should be interpreted differently... But seeing as I'm the one who defined this "category" and the characteristics in the first place for the sake of this discussion, I get to define what the characteristics mean, i.e.: how they are to be interpreted, if any ambiguities require clarifying.

I'm saying this not because I want to be a jerk, but because those interpretations of the characteristics I described are central to the entire basis for why I made up that category back in post #2413 in the first place.

 

[Iron Man]

I believe the phrasing of this relevant characteristic was "enclosed" foredeck.

You asked for my charactestics for my self defined category, and I gave it to you. In this discussion you can't really challenge what you think my characteristic "should" mean, seeing as I defined the category and its characteristics myself and I get to say what the characteristics "do" mean.

Ok, fine then. "Enclosed foredeck" for you means just bow anchoring equipment. Although this narrow definition allows you more commonality of characteristic, I fail to see how it gives you significantly more stealth when other large objects are still left abovedecks on various ships.

I have listed the five common characteristics that I believe those three warships all share which I've used to illustrate the RCS reduction measures I believe 055 will have and which I believe the other aforementioned ships (burke/052d/sejong) do not have.

As for the "mast of an integrated design", this is what I'm trying to tell you. There is no integrated design. How are the Daring's, Horizon's, or FREMM's masts "integrated" or even semi-integrated? Their main masts not only have multiple large external protrusions every which way, but even worse they also have secondary masts with multiple large protrusions that generate additional RCS. In this regard the 052C/D's single mast appears almost pristine by comparison.

The other features, again, are not present with any degree of regularity/consistency on modern warships. Actually now that I think about it, you probably should have gone with enclosed RHIB davit as a 'requirement' because this feature is far more common to modern warships seeking to be stealthier than integrated masts which do not exist or enclosed foredecks which aren't really enclosed.