Construction of China's Type 055 destroyers forges ahead

File: 1695561__main.jpg (82KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 752x423px

Measurements from the images indicate that the Type 055 will be about 180 m long and 19 m wide, meaning that it will be significantly larger than the 7,500-tonne Luyang III-class (Type 052D) destroyers (157 m long and 17 m wide). This places the size of the Type 055 between the Republic of Korea Navy's Sejong Daewang (KDX-3) class (166 m/10,500 tonnes) and the Russian Federation Navy's Slava class (186 m/11,700 tonnes).

The images from Changxingdao show the module that will contain the forward vertical launch system (VLS) cells, with a second grid of cells set to be positioned forward of the hangar.

The forward grid appears to be divided into 16 sections, four across and four deep, with overall dimensions of 13 m in length and 10.5 m in width.

Comparison with the dimensions of the two 32-cell VLS grids fitted to the Type 052D suggests that the VLS in the Type 055 will have 64 cells in the forward grid.

Amazing.

It's wonderous to see what a united people can do with the right leadership. China is making great strides lately and it's clear that the Chinese People will be the leaders of peace and unity from now on. The world will be a better place with America halting its imperialism and China taking over as the benevolent caretakers it has always been. Such a reign of peace will be a blessing compared to the constant wars and struggles that the Americans have been pushing. Truly China has started the task of taking its rightful place in the world.

>>33779180
Please never go away, dear false flagger agent provocateur.

>>33779180
I love how this pasta always come right after OP's done starting these treads

>>33779164
Inshallah

>>33779203
The anon is a legit autist who posts this same copypasta in every semi-related china thread

Maybe it's falseflagging by OP? (It's not)

China calls these ships 'the sword-bearing life guards' of the aircraft carrier.

>>33779164

"Destroyers"

Why does everyone keep calling them that? This and the Zumwalt are cruisers!

>>33779164
128 large VLS would make this ship the strongest after the modernized Kirovs.

>>33779334
Impressive

Truly China knows the correct way to build fighting ships. Chinese Research and Development has come a long way from the 90's where China can only buy from Russia and Ukraine. Now Russia and Ukraine buys from China. With the speed of shipbuilding in China, the South China Seas will be a safe place for all Asian countries.

>>33779334

Eh, not really - one can't know the quality of something by what is immediate. A warship is more that a floating metal box with a VLS.

>>33779266

Because they are used just as Destroyers are supposed to be used: destroying threads to the battle group.

>>33779334
Depends how you look at it.

Tico class has 122 vls PLUS 8 harpoons, then the usual gun and ciws's

>>33779404
It actually is.

Look at the Syrian airbase strike. Wouldn't be possible without lotta VLS on them Burke's.

this is sexier

http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-triple-hulled-warship#page-3

>>33779438
Literally an independence class.

>>33779422

No, they are certainly not actually. Warships are extremely complex creatures with dozens - if not hundreds of systems and equipment working together. Otherwise a warship would be nothing but a container ship with a VLS.

Your point is irrelevant as I'm not criticising the size of the VLS - just the judgement that because of this single aspect, you can deem the 'strength' of a warship.

>>33779164
is there a cut like this for other US ships, it's really neat

>>33779222
It most likely is.

>>33779461
Also fanfiction.

Would love to know more about China's new submarine building facility which is also the largest in the world.

>>33779404
In an age of distributed lethality and data linking, even a cargo ship with over a hundred containerized missiles would be stronger than a dedicated warship with fewer cells. Because the container ship can launch a larger volley at the warship than it has defensive missiles to intercept them.

And both ships have hard time detecting one another beyond horizon without off board assets, so onboard sensors play little role.

>>33779926
Who are you counting on for this datalinking if your fleet is made out of container ships with nothing but VLS?

>>33779926
>let me tell you about distributed lethality with a arsenal 'All eggs in one basket' ship instead of being across several platforms

Um, no sweetie. Nice try and good use of terms.

>>33779375
>Now Russia and Ukraine buys from China

Is there any truth to this or is this just part of your "Exalted China" shitposting?

Anyone has specific data about the Chinese military shipyard industry compared to the USA.

>>33780266

Nope you gotta pay for that level clout.

It's always interesting how fast and pragmatic China operates.

They started later than Russia in the stealth fighter business but they got their stealth fighter years before Russia.

India started with their own smaller carrier already in 1999 but it still isn't in service until the mid 20's at this point China will have at least 4 carriers.

>>33780304
*for that level of clout.

>>33780306
Russia is Africa tier right now.

India is India

China is an arrived superpower.

>>33780266
Approaching US capacity of the cold war, and that's using their peace time pace.

>>33779614
http://www.eastpendulum.com/la-chine-demarre-la-construction-du-nouveau-sous-marin-nucleaire-dattaque-type-09v#comment-924

Use Google translate, this frog is amongst the most reliable military watcher in the west. Jane's regularly cites him on Chinese matters.

>>33780914
Add up the tonnage under construction for both the USN and PLAN.

>>33780986
Having carriers under construction skews the perspective.

China is building masses of frigates and destroyers, as well as supply and other special purpose ships in a few years. Of course even all of them together wouldn't amount to the tonnage of a single Ford-class. But their growing navy and their industrial prowess is not to be denied.

>>33779241
Attempting to copy american doctrine is sure to work out for them.

>>33781472
You are avoiding the question because it doesn't fit your narrative.

>>33781472
>Having carriers under construction skews the perspective.
No it doesn't.
It is the direct measure of building capacity.

>>33779180

X2. Go forwards China! You deserve it!

>>33779222
Not him and I enjoy posting it from time to time

>>33781561
It also doesn't support his argument to take into consideration the number of ships under construction along with their tonnage.

>>33779164
Got to give it to the chinks they can create semi decent designs. If this had a bigger main battery I would love it but it is still a nice looking ship.

Can Russia even compete?

>>33779926
You're fucking stupid.

Mathematical models predict a given ship can only fire off so many missiles before dying in an exchange of AShM salvos, so putting more missiles on one ship is generally a waste versus putting that same number on 2 or 3 ships.

>>33781719
They can't for 40 years now.

>>33780306
Despite the memes, Chinese aren't retarded.

Even Maoism wasn't as bad as what India or Africa did to themselves.

>>33781652
Main battery? It's essentially the same as Ticonderoga. That's before they add on ASHM or Torpedo tubes.

>>33781894
>enforced quotas on killing small birds

>>33779926

I don't know why the Chinese navy ships all seem to have shitty amounts of VLS tubes. They could probably benefit from a frigate sized mini-arsenal ship built to commecial specs with nothing but engines and VLS tubes.

File: 1024px-thumbnail.jpg (300KB, 1024x742px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x742px

>>33782719
They have that already. They're spamming them so fast the coast guard is receiving them as well.

File: fucking chinaboos.jpg (1KB, 125x20px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 125x20px

>>33779180
>It's wonderous to see what a united people can do with the right leadership. China is making great strides lately and it's clear that the Chinese People will be the leaders of peace and unity from now on. The world will be a better place with America halting its imperialism and China taking over as the benevolent caretakers it has always been. Such a reign of peace will be a blessing compared to the constant wars and struggles that the Americans have been pushing. Truly China has started the task of taking its rightful place in the world.

I don't know where this copypasta came from, but i like it.

Would having several smaller warships be better than fewer larger combatants? Having multiple ships also cover a larger area and multiple smaller ships would all need to be targeted individually, whereas a single big ship could be sunk by a single torpedo.

Is there any advantage to having larger combatants?

>>33782946
Against goat fuckers with AKs one is preferable, it gets the job done and deploying it is cheaper than a fleet of smaller ones.

Against peer competitors you need quantity because peer implies they have enough quality to be a threat.

The goat fucker wars are slowly coming to an end thus there's increased focus on distributed lethality.

>>33782946

That all depends on your requirements.

By and large, you would rather multiple smaller (by small, I mean DD/FG weight) ships than xboxhueg cruisers.

>>33782988
>distributed lethality
I get that. I don't get why are the Chinese building these 055 instead of building more frigates and destroyers instead?

>>33783024

Because they're yet to learn why other navies don't.

And they impress the retarded who make claims like >>33779334

>>33783024
They're big ships for them. Big ships can get to far away places because they have more supplies and fuel.

>>33783024

Implying they don't with the type 056, 054A and the new LCS like design.

>>33782946
There is an economy of scale with the size of naval ships, going from 7k tonnage to 9k tonnage tends to double the amount of VLS cells.

>>33783056
I like the Chinese frigates and destroyers. I hear good things about them. Its the 055 I'm dubious about.

We naval arms race now?

>>33783068
I thought this might be the case. So why is the 055 so shit in VLS numbers? Because if it was a US ship at that displacement, I'm pretty sure it would have a lot more missiles.

055 isn't the end. Some fucking nuclear battlecruiser with rail guns and EM ordnance launchers is in the plans.

FYI, Ma Weiming is quite a big shoot in the PLAN, he is responsible for EMALS and railgun research.

(Simplified Chinese source:)
http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2017-04/26/content_368149.htm?div=-1


Rear Adm Ma finally defined his universal ship concept, it's clearly not something in the 055 weight class can do. This is a modern incarnation of the dreadnought.

Air defense: first layer 200-600km using missiles launched from universal electromagnetic launcher, second layer 10-200km using railgun, terminal phase <10km using laser gun.
Surface strike: 600-1000km using cruise or ballistic missiles launched from universal electromagnetic launcher, 200-600km using electromagnetic launched rockets or projectile, <200km using railgun.
Anti submarine: electromagnetic launched anti submarine missile, coilgun for torpedo defense.

I mean, a reloadable electromagnetic launcher with a magazine full of long range missiles, including ballistic missiles, will be huge. My guess is that the ship is either based off a large existing platform, such as 071, or a brand new 20,000t to 30,000t class design, and preferably nuclear powered.

>>33783048
For you

>>33783104
The Tico is larger and has a few more VLS.

>>33783105
nuts

>>33783105
Arsenal ships are extremely inefficient.

>>33783105
>Air defense: first layer 200-600km using missiles launched from universal electromagnetic.

Fully retarded. The good admiral should be taken out behind the shead and shot.

It will run into the same limitations of the one armed bandit, and would get overwhelmed.

You can't volley intercepters out of a unitary (or even dual) gun.

>>33783191
I've read similar things from American souces about American ships.

Naval warfare is overdue for the next revolution - what was the last one, VLS missiles? That was how many decades ago?

>>33783104
128 cells at ~10k tonnage is roughly on par with Ticonderoga's.

>>33783105
I've read a similar concept from US publications, especially with EM lauchers etc.

Looks like those old style and launchers feed from internal magazines will make a comeback.

Advantage of EM lauchers would be that the missiles can be made smaller since they already launch with good velocity into the direction they need to go.

>>33783104

Type 052D and 055 VLS size: up to 0.85m diameter
Mk. 57 VLS size: up to 0.71m diameter
Mk. 41 VLS size: up to 0.60m diameter

>>33783246
Swing arms have a low rate of fire compared to VLS.

>>33780306
Well it doesn't hurt that a good number of our admiralty was handing state secrets to their sexpot spies.

>>33783293
Are those numbers published anywhere?

>>33783319
Not swing arms - that's old tech and will never return.

It's about firing missiles out of a rail gun barrel.

>>33783293
Is more or less better? Serious question here.

Less would mean you can have more VLS cells, more would mean you can quad pack more VLS cells, or even 9 pack and use larger missiles.

>>33783345
India's stealth warships have swing arms

>>33783365
>quad pack
Does china even have a quad packed missile.

Is the 055 to be China's AB??

>>33783390
>Does china even have a quad packed missile.

They're going down the USA way one step at a time - of course they want that, or even have it for all we know.

>>33783210
It won't happen due to fire rate.

VLS can fire one missile out of each 16 cell pod every 5 seconds. That's multiple missiles going in the air if need be..

Gun can fire one.

File: Cy6KSoxWQAA5wUw.jpg (80KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 800x640px

>>33783371
>India
I found your problem.

>>33779420
Two guns, actually.

I wish the US would build some new cruisers, I like cruisers.

Hopefully they reclassify the Zumwalts and build ten more or so. They're certainly big enough they should be called cruisers.

>>33783842
I bet you would love some new battleships too.

>>33783210
I think we were hoping that would be the Zumwalt, but we appear to have lost our nerve on that because of the massive price tag.

>>33779241
Why can't they call them escorts, like normal people do?

Every little thing does not need to be wrapped in 8 layers of inscrutable Confucian bullshit.

>>33781894
Africa isn't a single country.

>>33782719
>built to commecial specs with nothing but engines and VLS tubes.

Building any naval vessel to commercial specs is a really bad idea. China will find out why just as soon as they get into a shooting match with a near-peer, or even a competent smaller foe.

The meteoric rise of the Chinese Navy is astounding. Soon there will be absolutely no denying who is really in charge of the Pacific.

>>33782867
So do you have an image that isn't meant for ants?