055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
It's just a CGI, so it's not that important -- but it actually does show 128 VLS.

8x8 in transverse at the aft, and 8x8 in longitudinal in the bow.
You are correct.

When looking at it without zooming in, it appeared to be 48 x 2. But when I zoom in on the full resolution image (which I neglected to do earlier) it is clearly 64 x 2.

Thanks!
 
It's just a CGI, so it's not that important -- but it actually does show 128 VLS.

8x8 in transverse at the aft, and 8x8 in longitudinal in the bow.

I'm still sleepy this morning, and as a non-native speaker (English has become my third language, originally was the fourth), I had to consult the dictionary to check, but I still think
  • the rear (at the aft highlighted above) cells are in fact "running lengthwise rather than across" = longitudinal, and
  • the forward (in the bow highlighted above) cells are in fact "lying across" = transverse
right or wrong?

here's like closeup:
tWoXn.jpg

OK I see now, you meant the arrays
LOL! I was wrong, but will leave it here
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm still sleepy this morning, and as a non-native speaker (English has become my third language, originally was the fourth), I had to consult the dictionary to check, but I still think
  • the rear (at the aft highlighted above) cells are in fact "running lengthwise rather than across" = longitudinal, and
  • the forward (in the bow highlighted above) cells are in fact "lying across" = transverse
right or wrong?

here's like closeup:
tWoXn.jpg

OK I see now, you meant the arrays
LOL! I was wrong, but will leave it here

yeah i got them mixed up when i wrote it
 
yeah i got them mixed up when i wrote it
LOL no, I don't think so, you said 8x8
It's just a CGI, so it's not that important -- but it actually does show 128 VLS.

8x8 in transverse at the aft, and 8x8 in longitudinal in the bow.
and when you look at the shape of the whole array(s), and not of just rows with the cells, it's correct what you said in the post I quote right above!

see what I mean?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
LOL no, I don't think so, you said 8x8

and when you look at the shape of the whole array(s), and not of just rows with the cells, it's correct what you said in the post I quote right above!

see what I mean?

8x8 = 8 modules, where each module having 8 cells...

I'm not sure why out of all the things to look at you are interested in this to be honest.
 
just to finish:
8x8 = 8 modules, where each module having 8 cells...
bsF2y.jpg


if you looked at the orientation of the whole arrays (shown in blue in the picture above), your original description (Today at 12:36 AM) of their orientation would be correct, though if you looked at the cells (schematically in red above), the orientation would be what I originally thought, but quickly changed after I had reread your original post (I of course refer to my post now: Today at 8:44 AM)

I'm not sure why out of all the things to look at you are interested in this to be honest.
LOL I think it's my
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I do data evaluation at work so first I have to be absolutely sure I understand the input which people bring to me)

had I realized that earlier today, I wouldn't have bothered you (of course it doesn't matter what an orientation is shown on some fanboish picture, whatever the orientation is called), and I'm sorry now
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top