055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Thanks...I thought it had to be something like that.

Thanks @Deino


No problem ... by the way and I know we all have our issues but could you please take a look at the last post I made in the conversations and please reply?

To admit ... I don't know ...:(

Deino
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
No problem ... by the way and I know we all have our issues but could you please take a look at the last post I made in the conversations and please reply?

To admit ... I don't know ...:(

Deino
Deino, do you mean this question?

Deino said:
...may I ask why some always want bigger, larger, wider, more and so on !?? Maybe the current displacement is fine?
The same with this stupid discussion on 112 vs 128 VL-cells on the 055. For some it's indeed a matter of look or tragedy...

Do we play quartet game / Happy Family / Four some where indeed more is better?

Deino
That's the last one I saw on this thread, and it was quite some time ago.

The difference between 112 and 128 VLS is not huge, but I believe it was because everyone expected the new Type 055 to at least equal the number of VLS cells as the Ticonderoga AEGIS vessel, especially since it is as big, if not bigger, and 20+ years newer.

In the end, the real issue is how effective the missiles are, what types of missiles can all be handled, and how effective the sensor suite is.

While there is a huge difference between 48 or 64 and 128, there is not nearly as muh so between 112 and 128.

Anyhow...I did not know if that was the question you were referring to or not.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
0.85 x 0.85 x 112 = 80.92 m^2
0.63 x 0.63 x 128 = 50.8 m^2

That represents a 58% larger VL cell surface area on the 055 compared to the King Sejong class. It is less of an increase than a straight up 58% would suggest as some cells would waste much of this space with non-full bore single-celled missiles and venting for hot-launched missiles, but the extra space makes certain types of large missiles and dual-packed missiles possible for the UVLS-equipped ship that is not available to the Mk 41-equipped ship.

A 128-cell 055 was certainly achievable by rotating the rear VLS bank by 90 degrees and adding the extra pair of UVLS modules sideways; this would leave plenty of room for passageways at all deck levels to pass on either side of the VLS bank. Perhaps the PLAN felt the 'need' for 128 cells was not compelling because it plans on taking full advantage of dual- and quad-packing its missiles, namely ASW missiles and MRSAMs.
 

PikeCowboy

Junior Member
I suppose the 55 is a destroyer, as opposed to an independently operating cruiser, it is meant to operate in a flotilla or a task force... the number of cells per ship is more of a ratio than some total sum available...

112 is really the weapons to sensors ratio, perhaps 128 to 1 was considered too small for the sensor side
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I suppose the 55 is a destroyer, as opposed to an independently operating cruiser, it is meant to operate in a flotilla or a task force... the number of cells per ship is more of a ratio than some total sum available...

112 is really the weapons to sensors ratio, perhaps 128 to 1 was considered too small for the sensor side
Cruisers aren't "independently operating" any more than a destroyer is. They don't have anything more to help with that kind of "operation" than except for some extra missile cells, and 16 extra cells somehow signifying the difference between "destroyer" and "cruiser" is not a defensible claim when the comparison is 112 vs 128. Ships all the way from carrier to corvette can operate "independently", and they do all the time. It's a matter of expected threat level, mission, and distance from home base, not how many VL cells the ship is carrying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top