My concern was really about the funnel spacing in my initial post. It was only after @ougoah insisted that missiles don't aim at smokestacks that I pointed out that funnel spacing is a proxy for MER spacing. I find it very difficult to discuss the original question when all the follow up arguments were essentially that it's a pointless concern because missiles don't aim at smoke stacks. Sorry, but I would really like to settle the funnel question first.Okay, so first of all, your original argument should never have been about the funnels to begin with, but the prime movers or MERs.
I'm not sure why you were so focused on the funnels in post #419, when the actual point of your argument is about the position of the prime movers. Why bother using the funnels as a proxy.
So you agree that larger separation of prime movers in general means better survivability? How about the smoke stacks? Does it matter or not?As for the positioning of the prime movers themselves, it's not quite so simple as you describe.
The ideal ship to maximize survivability of its prime movers and immediate adjacent gear boxes would ideally have them spaced far away from each other, duplicating redundancy as well.
But that adds complexity, weight, and is limited by the geometry of your ship.
It also limits the kind of gearing that your ship can accommodate.
If true, and the CCGs are the equipment in the in-between MERs compartment as shown in the CCTV illustrations, doesn't that make damage to that compartment potentially catastrophic as all 4 prime movers are tightly coupled there?In the case of 055, it is basically confirmed that it adopts a combined connector gear COGAG system, which basically allows one single gas turbine to run at full efficiency to propel both shafts -- or up to all four to propel both shafts.
View attachment 70199
Yes, of course, there are design trade-offs. But that wasn't my concern/question. I pointed out that for its size, the Type 055 has main engine funnels unusually close to each other. I enumerated and measured 6 other combatants to demonstrate my point...... All this is to say, it isn't quite a simple as "bad design because prime movers all located close together" -- but it was likely a deliberate and informed choice to balance the requirements of survivability and the output, efficiency and reliability of their propulsion configuration, as well as in relation to the overall kind of damage they assess to be likely, and the other tradeoffs in terms of placement of weapons, sensors etc.
If I can rephrase: is the small spacing of funnels a liability or not when hit in that location? If it is, than it's a weak point. There could be other weak points (like the CCG compartment), I am not denying that. It might make more sense to aim at those other weak points. I am not denying that either. But one item at a time, please.