Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


I thought you two would be talking all (my) night, and it happened LOL! I'm going to read it during today
... back in post #2413 in the first place.
just here
... There is no integrated design. How are the Daring's, Horizon's, or FREMM's masts "integrated" or even semi-integrated? ...
I happen to know Thales offers integrated masts:
I-mast100-family-460px.jpg

oh and I hope you'll go on with the discussion (no sarcasm)
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
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.

Enclosed anchoring equipment as well as other equipment commonly found forward of the main gun, essentially.



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.

daring and horizon both have a single structural slanted main mast with minimal clutter of antennae, especially given their size.

fremm doesn't have a main mast in the french aquintaine version, only has a herakles radar (which is quite low profile as it is), and a rear ESM mast which is also only very minimally bequeathed with sensors. Italian version has a similar main mast to horizon

perhaps "mast of an integrated design" is misleading, I agree. "mast with low profile and minimal clutter" might be a better description.



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.

The enclosed RHIB is a characteristic but is included among the others for the "clean amidships"/integrated amidships charactersitic.

As for the other features not being present with consistency on modern warships -- yes, but that's kind of a bit irrelevant. The reason I grouped those three warships together with the characteristics I described is to use them as a collective surrogate for the 055.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I thought you two would be talking all (my) night, and it happened LOL! I'm going to read it during today
just here

I happen to know Thales offers integrated masts:
I-mast100-family-460px.jpg

oh and I hope you'll go on with the discussion (no sarcasm)

Yep, I'm pretty well aware of the i-mast by Thales.


but for the purposes of discussion i'll revise the description of the "mast of an integrated design" to "mast with low profile or minimal clutter".

and i think this discussion will be ending soon, lol, we're both reaching a stage where the last bits of contention are being settled.
 
Yep, I'm pretty well aware of the i-mast by Thales.


but for the purposes of discussion i'll revise the description of the "mast of an integrated design" to "mast with low profile or minimal clutter".

and i think this discussion will be ending soon, lol, we're both reaching a stage where the last bits of contention are being settled.

well, several members have asserted (during Dongfeng talking, my favourite :) China now has the ability to find a CVGB from space, so I would think the US should have the ability to find a SAG from space and, in this context, I don't understand the fuzz about "stealth warships"

I'm not saying "RCS reduction" is a bust, but I think it would be useful if for example some Navy in south-east Asia tried its luck and lobbed two AShMs without mid-course correction, this type of situations, not against a peer

one more thing: warships like Zumwalt (and presumably Type 055) to me are electric power plants afloat, so their detection would have little to do with "RCS of a fishing boat" (that's how Zumwalts are sold to the public though)
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Enclosed anchoring equipment as well as other equipment commonly found forward of the main gun, essentially.
Right, but like I said, ignoring the structures and gear behind the main gun does not do you any favors when it comes to RCS reduction. I see large exposed structures like inflatable liferafts, VLS enclosures, and other assorted unidentifiable gear. Which leads me to suggest again that enclosed foredecks are possibly not primarily for RCS reduction and may have a crew safety/comfort component which outweighs stealth considerations. In other words, you may get some minimal stealth benefit from a (partially enclosed) foredeck but the real reason may be the crew.

daring and horizon both have a single structural slanted main mast with minimal clutter of antennae, especially given their size.

fremm doesn't have a main mast in the french aquintaine version, only has a herakles radar (which is quite low profile as it is), and a rear ESM mast which is also only very minimally bequeathed with sensors. Italian version has a similar main mast to horizon

perhaps "mast of an integrated design" is misleading, I agree. "mast with low profile and minimal clutter" might be a better description.
Well I knew it would eventually come to this, so here it is:

Mast Comparison.jpg

Not really any clutter improvement to my eyes, and whatever clutter improvement there is has been destroyed by the rear masts on all three of them. Note also that there is no mast integration of any kind.

The enclosed RHIB is a characteristic but is included among the others for the "clean amidships"/integrated amidships charactersitic.

As for the other features not being present with consistency on modern warships -- yes, but that's kind of a bit irrelevant. The reason I grouped those three warships together with the characteristics I described is to use them as a collective surrogate for the 055.
Let me be more specific. I don't see consistency between these three ships either. The Horizon has plenty of railing. The Aquitaine has plenty of random junk amidships, both forward and aft of the smokestack. As for reduced clutter above the deckhouse, all three ships have simply relocated the clutter either to the main mast or the secondary mast, or to somewhere on the weather deck. Remember, there is no mast integration, so most or all of the necessary external hardware of the ship are present somewhere on the ship.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I thought you two would be talking all (my) night, and it happened LOL! I'm going to read it during today
just here

I happen to know Thales offers integrated masts:
I-mast100-family-460px.jpg

oh and I hope you'll go on with the discussion (no sarcasm)
AFAIK the only ship that currently uses the IMAST is the Holland class OPV, which I have already mentioned.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Right, but like I said, ignoring the structures and gear behind the main gun does not do you any favors when it comes to RCS reduction. I see large exposed structures like inflatable liferafts, VLS enclosures, and other assorted unidentifiable gear. Which leads me to suggest again that enclosed foredecks are possibly not primarily for RCS reduction and may have a crew safety/comfort component which outweighs stealth considerations. In other words, you may get some minimal stealth benefit from a (partially enclosed) foredeck but the real reason may be the crew.

If a ship is able to also hide inflatable liferafts, with lower profile VLS, and other equipment would also benefit RCS, yes.
But that doesn't mean enclosing the clutter on the foredeck/bow of a ship does not also reduce RCS returns. And I do think covering the anchoring equipment and associated gear in front of the main gun is primarily to reduce RCS.

That said, this is all sort of academic -- the question is not so much about whether any particular characteristic that I described would result in what degree of RCS reduction, because we've already reached an impasse on that topic anyway. I think the five characteristics together in a ship of that category do produce a total reduced RCS compared to the other category of ships I mentioned without those RCS reductions, and you think otherwise.



Well I knew it would eventually come to this, so here it is:

View attachment 34195

Not really any clutter improvement to my eyes, and whatever clutter improvement there is has been destroyed by the rear masts on all three of them. Note also that there is no mast integration of any kind.

I do think given the size of the masts on those ships the amount of clutter is quite modest compared to 052D. That said, I do acknowledge that out of the "other" category (burke/sejong/052d), the 052D's mast is probably the lowest profile among them.


Let me be more specific. I don't see consistency between these three ships either. The Horizon has plenty of railing. The Aquitaine has plenty of random junk amidships, both forward and aft of the smokestack. As for reduced clutter above the deckhouse, all three ships have simply relocated the clutter either to the main mast or the secondary mast, or to somewhere on the weather deck. Remember, there is no mast integration, so most or all of the necessary external hardware of the ship are present somewhere on the ship.

I'd have to disagree with that, I do think there is consistency between those three ships.
Specifically, I think the degree of RCS reduction in all the five characteristics/parameters described are similar between those three ships.
Again, I'd refer back to the phrasing of my characteristics/parameters from before -- it does give me some leeway in interpreting the specific nature of the RCS reduction (such as at amidships, or for main mast, or for railing).

Though I suppose in the end this can also just result in another impasse.
 
AFAIK the only ship that currently uses the IMAST is the Holland class OPV, which I have already mentioned.
oops, as I said, I haven't read the recent discussion here because I slept :)

there's a cool Spanish design featuring "A striking novelty is the integrated mast with antennas and sensors of all detection systems, located on the bridge spanning the breadth of the ship. The integrated mast occupies all the breadth of the ship and its height is equal to or superior to that of the hull and superstructure."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

f110-line3.gif
I said 'design'! LOL

this:
... Which leads me to suggest again that enclosed foredecks are possibly not primarily for RCS reduction and may have a crew safety/comfort component which outweighs stealth considerations. In other words, you may get some minimal stealth benefit from a (partially enclosed) foredeck but the real reason may be the crew.


...
reminded me about what I haven't said above
(in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/type-055-ddg-large-destroyer-thread.t6480/page-245#post-425583) which is I guess any improvement in "RCS reduction" ("increasing negative decibels") comes at exorbitant cost, and could be a matter of sales talk (of manufacturers to hike the cost for a bigger profit hahaha)
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
If a ship is able to also hide inflatable liferafts, with lower profile VLS, and other equipment would also benefit RCS, yes.
But that doesn't mean enclosing the clutter on the foredeck/bow of a ship does not also reduce RCS returns. And I do think covering the anchoring equipment and associated gear in front of the main gun is primarily to reduce RCS.
It does probably reduce RCS returns in some minimal fashion, but those other structures that look like far bigger and lower fruit to pick than enclosing anchoring equipment means to me that RCS improvements are even more "minimal" than I would otherwise give them credit for.

I do think given the size of the masts on those ships the amount of clutter is quite modest compared to 052D. That said, I do acknowledge that out of the "other" category (burke/sejong/052d), the 052D's mast is probably the lowest profile among them.
The mast size on the Daring is huge compared to the others which is why it looks slightly less cluttered. These masts also pseudo-benefit from having a secondary mast to offload equipment and antennae. But like I said, it's all got to be up there somewhere. I don't see that this results in any net benefit in RCS reduction as far as mast is concerned.

I'd have to disagree with that, I do think there is consistency between those three ships.
Specifically, I think the degree of RCS reduction in all the five characteristics/parameters described are similar between those three ships.
Again, I'd refer back to the phrasing of my characteristics/parameters from before -- it does give me some leeway in interpreting the specific nature of the RCS reduction (such as at amidships, or for main mast, or for railing).

Though I suppose in the end this can also just result in another impasse.
Sorry, just don't see it. I could just put up more side-by-side photos and I'm guessing we'd still be claiming different things.
 

Top