Jura The idiot
General
my point (which I didn't say) has been with L/B of 9:1 the Type 055 would be a typical Cruiser, as in
186.4/20.8 = 8.9615 of the Slavas
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
186.4/20.8 = 8.9615 of the Slavas
Jura The idiot
General
that's:
I don't think anybody can realistically tell now what's needed for a battlespace of the second half of this century (but Type 055 will the part of that battlespace)
here:
Navy Set to Install Hybrid Electric Drives
in Destroyer Fleet Starting Next Year
?
(sorry if I misunderstood)
a good point!
I don't think anybody can realistically tell now what's needed for a battlespace of the second half of this century (but Type 055 will the part of that battlespace)
here:
did you perhaps refer to
Navy Set to Install Hybrid Electric Drives
in Destroyer Fleet Starting Next Year
?
(sorry if I misunderstood)
I forgot to mention that KDX-3 also has a L:B ratio of 7.7:1.
Yes, though I got this article confused with another one that I had read years ago. The mechanism was something more along these lines:
I don't have the exact article but it was in relation to finding ways to increase GT efficiency by retrofitting waste heat recovery systems on board warships.
Jura The idiot
General
that's:
a cool link, the specs of LM2500 (I recall looking at UGT25000 data, wondering about QC280) and so on and so forth
With respect to the L/B ratios of ships:
Wave drag increases drastically when the wavelength of the bow wave becomes longer than the length of the ship. I remember an illustration in a book on Naval Architecture of more than half a century ago of a destroyer with a bow wave more than twice her own length. Than needed a steam plant of great power. By lengthening the ship you increase the construction weight but reduce the power plant weight and fuel consumption. High speed is generally maintained for a short time so the last is not very important. It is a compromise. We now use GT plant that is much more powerful for a given weight so we get another compromise. But it might be useful to set length against maximum speed rather than L/B against maximum speed.
Wave drag increases drastically when the wavelength of the bow wave becomes longer than the length of the ship. I remember an illustration in a book on Naval Architecture of more than half a century ago of a destroyer with a bow wave more than twice her own length. Than needed a steam plant of great power. By lengthening the ship you increase the construction weight but reduce the power plant weight and fuel consumption. High speed is generally maintained for a short time so the last is not very important. It is a compromise. We now use GT plant that is much more powerful for a given weight so we get another compromise. But it might be useful to set length against maximum speed rather than L/B against maximum speed.
Good point and coz the consumption is much more important beyond 20 knots an ex.
Kuznetsov CV
12000 nmi (10 knots),
8417 nmi (14 knots),
7680 nmi (18 knots),
3850 nmi (29 knots)
so warships use these speed especialy for move fast up to combat areas also evasive manouevers don' t forget also a TF refueling moving at low speed is much more vulnerable, i think speed of 10 - 15 kn cruise speed of Replenishment ships except Fast Combat Support Ship US Supply and soon 901 more fast capable 25 - 26 kn max ! but unique only Sacramento Class a little more big than Supply Class existed before, type much more expensive with a robust propulsion and the more big Replenishment ships.
Last edited:
The other thing to keep in mind is stealth shaping, which reduces the overall L:B ratio of ships with a good degree of hull sloping, but not necessarily the L:B ratio at the waterline. This is a big reason the Ticonderoga's L:B is >10 and the other newer ships are more like 7-8:1.
*groan*
That launched ship in the background is a 052D.two 055D being built in drydock at Dalian, one already launched at JNCX..
close-up photos with better clarity..
- Status