Type 055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread


winton

New Member
Registered Member
I wonder why the PLAN didn't or couldn't add an extra row of VLS at the rear launch area. Seems like an easy thing to do.

Wonder whether the decision was political? To prevent an arms race?

This vessel should have alot of designed in potential for growth. What do you think guys?
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wonder why the PLAN didn't or couldn't add an extra row of VLS at the rear launch area. Seems like an easy thing to do.

Wonder whether the decision was political? To prevent an arms race?

This vessel should have alot of designed in potential for growth. What do you think guys?
Fitted for but not with
 

donnnage99

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Seems like an easy thing to do.
Lol I hope you're being sarcastic. Space and weight distribution/management is one of the biggest challenges of building warships. Why do you think the US navy is having such a hard time sticking meaningful armaments onto the LCS structure.
 
Lol I hope you're being sarcastic. Space and weight distribution/management is one of the biggest challenges of building warships. Why do you think the US navy is having such a hard time sticking meaningful armaments onto the LCS structure.
the USN decided to operate unarmed scrap called LCSs to feed two shipyards, and the USN has been offered "meaningful armaments on the LCS structure" rather long time ago:
Jan 17, 2019
Jan 30, 2016
by now the brochure is gone,
the image hosting site I had used is gone, but found the picture on my external disc hahaha:


why bother?
it's the configuration the Pentagon could've ordered almost a decade ago, and now it looks like it's offered again:



Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!





.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
LCS with lethality and survivability upgrades
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



so? tell me why the Pentagon operates unarmed LCSs instead
I've been following this LCS circus for years, I've read most of texts on it available in Internet, chest-thumping, detractors, official, whatever,
and I just don't know
if you want, google for instance
'lcs derivative for saudi arabia'
to see what the USN LCSs could've been and to realize how the Pentagon crippled its lighter surface forces
 

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
I wonder why the PLAN didn't or couldn't add an extra row of VLS at the rear launch area. Seems like an easy thing to do.

Wonder whether the decision was political? To prevent an arms race?

This vessel should have alot of designed in potential for growth. What do you think guys?
Open pages of this thread with posts around July'2018.
You'll find atleast 10 pages of discussion pertaining to this question.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I wonder why the PLAN didn't or couldn't add an extra row of VLS at the rear launch area. Seems like an easy thing to do.

Wonder whether the decision was political? To prevent an arms race?

This vessel should have alot of designed in potential for growth. What do you think guys?
I've been nursing a thought in my mind that a future IEP iteration of the 055 will be able to do away with the two forward GTs and a bank of 2 UVLS modules will replace them.
 

donnnage99

Just Hatched
Registered Member
the USN decided to operate unarmed scrap called LCSs to feed two shipyards, and the USN has been offered "meaningful armaments on the LCS structure" rather long time ago:
.........
if you want, google for instance
'lcs derivative for saudi arabia'
to see what the USN LCSs could've been and to realize how the Pentagon crippled its lighter surface forces
Key word here is "meaningful." For that, look at the proposals for the next gen frigate competition. Lockmart dropped out completely because they realize their LCS design simply cannot meet requirement. Australs keep having to lengthen their LCS boat in order to accommodate the missile counts
 

Top