Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Eisennagel

The Type 055 Collection

141 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

This thread will be my online and open notes collection for the Type 055.  Its mainly for convenient study and analysis, I will put some observations and opinions if I note something, but these will be generally secondary.  

 

First this vlog provides a decent summary on the ship, background, basic specs and capabilities.  

 

 

Even though the vlog was made in mid 2017, he certainly wasn't far off in saying at least six vessels are going to be made, with the recent confirmation of the construction of the sixth vessel in Dalian.  So far, there are three vessels in the Jiangnan shipyard and another three in Dalian.  Its hard to predict what the maximum number will be, but the series is likely to evolve, with at least six vessels representing the first block, and subsequent blocks will have IEP and quite possibly, a railgun.  Its speculation but currently that seems to be the most common speculation.  

 

Videos of the first Type 055's launching last year.  Based on the videos, it does not appear to have 128 VLS but 112.

 

 

Ceremony.

 

 

There has been a lot of discussion whether the ship has 112 or a 128 VLS cells since pics and videos don't seem that clear about it.  This one settles the VLS number argument with an overhead drone captured video footage of the ship.  Towards the end of this video also shows a massive cold press bending machine that is used to make the steel plates for the ship.  The press was specifically made for the ship's requirements, though its likely it may end up pressing plates for other ships including commercial ones in the future.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,352 posts
1,345 battles

When you can understand what they are saying. Kek nice meme~ 

 

I wonder how long it's going to take until this thread get's hijacked by the: "military experts" 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

Prior to its unveiling, there was been a lot of speculation about the ship, fans joining in with their CG models, and which the media, both East and West, loved to show.

 

007EbLX.jpg

 

g4oe720.jpg

 

XtizlK3.jpg

 

The fans based features of their designs based on existing and observed Chinese radars on ships and defense exhibits, most notably on the SMART-L type search radar towards the back of the ship.  

 

Where they completely missed the mark is that the ship has no mechanical radars in sight.  Every radar is electronically steered and flat paneled, and for that it introduced new radars that have not been seen before, to replace old stalwarts seen on the 052C and 052D.  This last picture generally got things right except it didn't account that the ECM mast would be covered, and there will be additional arrays on top of the bridge.

 

xYGgYH9.jpg

 

 

A summary of the ship and its journey from blueprints to reality.

 

https://southfront.org/chinas-type-055-destroyer-from-blueprint-to-reality/

 

A comparison between the Type 052D and the Type 055.  The 052D is already quite clean for a vessel, but compared to the 055, all the bulbs and antenna look rather protrusive.    The 055's image is still in slight error, with the ECM mast not covered, there should not be any mechanical radar on top of the bridge not even for fire control, and the area on top of the bridge is fenced in with additional radar arrays.

 

3Nh6g8I.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

Some fan put major work on this, scaling all the ships, so you can compare the 055 to the various ships of the Russian Navy along with the planned Lider class.  This one uses a fairly accurate model of the 055 based on the launch ceremony videos.

 

FZvOeXw.jpg

 

vU7KbZO.jpg

 

vQg3Ua9.jpg

 

I am trying to find whether he has other postings where he includes other Chinese and Western warships for size comparison.  

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

Fan CG, interposed on real photographs to compare scales with existing ships.    This one has a Type 052C destroyer.  The original photograph likely has a Type 052C or D and is replaced by the CG model.

 

Ap4khJ4.jpg

 

Next to the Liaoning.  I think the original photograph has an 052C or D.

 

N6TJvpG.jpg

 

One of the senior destroyers of the PLAN fleet, either DDG 112 or 113 in the background.

 

TFs7k5D.jpg

 

Next to an AOE.

 

9gmBptH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,709 posts

Hopefully this motivates the USN to get that Tico replacement built.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

My previous post didn't turn out that well.

 

Analysis on the radar suites on the Type 055.

 

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/5374-analysis-sensor-and-electronic-warfare-suites-aboard-china-s-type-055-destroyer.html

 

#4 is likely to be a new flat panel X-band phase array radar of the AESA type.  This is for the anti-ship missiles, for gunnery and for the CIWS, both the Type 1130 and the HQ-10 SAM launcher.   It can also be used to spot for surface targets and sea skimmers.  This replaces the mechanical Type 363 or 364, 344 and 366 radars used on the Type 052D. 

 

#8 is the Type 346B AESA radar which operates on the S-band and does both search, track and fire control engagement for the air to surface missiles.  Previous versions of these radars incorporate a C-band array used for illuminating targets for missiles.  The HQ-9 missiles rely on C-band for target illumination.  It is unknown but suspected if the 055 uses HQ-16 missiles used on the Type 054A, the HQ-16 missiles rely on X-band for target illumination and would have to rely on the X-band radar.  Its also possible that the SAMs used on the Type 055 might be fully active homing, in which case there would be no need for dedicated target lighting arrays or functions in the engagement radar.

 

#7 isn't an L type of radar, the location is too low and lacks 360 degree sweep.  I would agree its ECM, good place to put countermeasures there.  The RAM-like HQ-10 SAMs on the rear would have its coverage blocked to the side by the decoys, and the Type 1130 CIWS to the front is partly obstructed by the superstructure, so the countermeasures are placed in an area that covers a blind spot.

 

I am not sure if #5 are IFF transponders as hypothesized by the article, but if they are, they are pretty big and meant to match the range of the main radars.  The other hypothesis is that they are target illumination systems for missiles, though previous Type 346 designs have incorporated this functionality with the main array.  Putting the illuminating arrays outside of the main array can mean a larger array that can boost range and detection. 

 

The middle brick above the gun, the panel on #6 and the middle #5 might be X-band surface search for navigation.  The Type 1130 CIWS is lacking its radar and EO, but that maybe added on later.  But if they remain not added, then the panel above the bridge and above the gun might be gunnery radar along with #6.  

 

aSKBrqh.jpg

 

hiMpbPI.jpg

 

East Pendulum blog has his analysis of the sensors here.  Its in French so you need to use Google Translate.

 

http://www.eastpendulum.com/quelques-hypotheses-sur-les-senseurs-du-destroyer-type-055

 

The Type 052D's Type 346A radar is said to be 4.3 meters in diameter, which is massive, and the Type 346B radar is even bigger.  There is a possibility that the radars might be using GaN according to some observers, but there is no confirmation for this yet.  But the ship may have double the electrical power generated by a Type 052D, with four turbines instead of two.   The immense size and weight of the radars makes it difficult to put on a higher part of the ship without affecting its stability.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

The original Type 346 radar has this curved surface so they look like this.  Not only were they fitted on the Type 052C destroyers but also on the Liaoning aircraft carrier.  This represents the first generation AESA.

 

pVXqNzr.jpg

 

 

The shipyards have not finished building the last batch of Type 052C (on the left) when they already started building Type 052D. (on the right)  Visually, you can tell the Type 052D by having the main radar flat, and the Type 346A also appears to be larger than the Type 346 on the Type 052C which is already a huge radar on its own.  Thpe 346B on the 055 would be the third generation version of this radar.

 

t4EKkbt.jpg

 

Another thing of note is the change of the main gun, from the 100mm in the Type 052C on the left, to the 130mm on the right which has a more narrow turret.  This newer 130mm gun, which includes guided shells, is inherited from the Type 052D to the Type 055.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

 

Two Type 055s in Dalian, the pyramid shapes of their superstructures being formed, with a not yet commissioned Type 052D destroyer in the foreground, itself might be undergoing final tests.  This picture is said to have been taken this month in March 2018.

 

G1AfYco.jpg

 

 

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts
On 3/23/2018 at 7:45 PM, TornadoADV said:

Hopefully this motivates the USN to get that Tico replacement built.

 

I have been thinking about what constitutes a Tico replacement for a while.  Currently the USN plans AB 3.0 to be the Tico replacement.  Late model Burke, along with derivations like Atago and Sejong classes actually displace more than a Tico.  

 

But if you redefine the role replacement not in terms of displacement but in terms of VLS numbers, then AB 3.0 isn't a replacement.  Previously I am considering redefining warship categories not by displacement but by the scale of armament, especially and in particular, the number of VLS cells.

 

Zumwalt actually displaces more than a Type 055 or Tico (14,000 tons vs. 12000 tons vs 9600 tons).  But the Zumwalt only has 80 cells vs. 112 for the Type 055 and 128 for the Tico.  

 

Cancelled CGX was supposed to be 23,000 ton displacing ships.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,709 posts
33 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

I have been thinking about what constitutes a Tico replacement for a while.  Currently the USN plans AB 3.0 to be the Tico replacement.  Late model Burke, along with derivations like Atago and Sejong classes actually displace more than a Tico.  

 

But if you redefine the role replacement not in terms of displacement but in terms of VLS numbers, then AB 3.0 isn't a replacement.  Previously I am considering redefining warship categories not by displacement but by the scale of armament, especially and in particular, the number of VLS cells.

 

Zumwalt actually displaces more than a Type 055 or Tico (14,000 tons vs. 12000 tons vs 9600 tons).  But the Zumwalt only has 80 cells vs. 112 for the Type 055 and 128 for the Tico.  

 

Cancelled CGX was supposed to be 23,000 ton displacing ships.

 

 

Well, in the past, weapon fit usually went hand in hand with armament and armor for a warship. That only really failed once missiles and de-armoring happened in modern navies, but now you can  judge a ships by it's payload in terms of VLS cells or arm launcher magazines, rate of fire and simultaneous track and launch capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

 

Further status of the construction of three 055s plus other 052Ds in Dalian shipyard.

 

 

What it looks like if the ships are complete.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts
On 3/26/2018 at 11:38 AM, TornadoADV said:

Well, in the past, weapon fit usually went hand in hand with armament and armor for a warship. That only really failed once missiles and de-armoring happened in modern navies, but now you can  judge a ships by it's payload in terms of VLS cells or arm launcher magazines, rate of fire and simultaneous track and launch capability.

 

Come to think of it, the Sejong the Great class, which has an AB like design, has 128 cells, with 16 slanted canisters on top of that for ASMs and a 21 cell RAM in front.  But the ship may have a different hull design from the AB, although the superstructure and the funnels look similar that visually the ship can be mistaken for one until you start to notice the RAM launcher in front,  slanted canisters amidships and the 30mm Goalkeeper with the Gatling gun from the A-10 on the back.  Still, this implies an AB like design can be stretched for 128 cells.  

 

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/sejong-the-great-class-destroyer/

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROKS_Sejong_the_Great_(DDG_991)_broadside_view.jpg

 

Even with this many missiles, the Sejong is considered a "destroyer".

 

The Type 055 has "only" 112 cells but each cell is .85m wide and 9m deep, compared to the Mk 41 at .65m wide and up to 7.7m deep.  This U-VLS or Universal VLS is also fitted on the Type 052D, features both cold and hot launch.  So the cell can either pack one large missile, multipack a few larger missiles or more small missiles if necessary.  The size of the VLS also throws a new factor in classification where one might also consider the total volume of VLS cell space.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,611 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Come to think of it, the Sejong the Great class, which has an AB like design, has 128 cells, with 16 slanted canisters on top of that for ASMs and a 21 cell RAM in front.  But the ship may have a different hull design from the AB, although the superstructure and the funnels look similar that visually the ship can be mistaken for one until you start to notice the RAM launcher in front,  slanted canisters amidships and the 30mm Goalkeeper with the Gatling gun from the A-10 on the back.  Still, this implies an AB like design can be stretched for 128 cells.  

 

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/sejong-the-great-class-destroyer/

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROKS_Sejong_the_Great_(DDG_991)_broadside_view.jpg

 

Even with this many missiles, the Sejong is considered a "destroyer".

 

The Type 055 has "only" 112 cells but each cell is .85m wide and 9m deep, compared to the Mk 41 at .65m wide and up to 7.7m deep.  This U-VLS or Universal VLS is also fitted on the Type 052D, features both cold and hot launch.  So the cell can either pack one large missile, multipack a few larger missiles or more small missiles if necessary.  The size of the VLS also throws a new factor in classification where one might also consider the total volume of VLS cell space.  

Isn’t the sejong class a decent size larger than the ABs? At least FI and FIIA?

 

wikipedia shows the sejong class as about 1400t heavier, nearly 40ft linger and about 4ft more bean, so the AB hull would need to be enlarged a bit to fit any where near that size.

 

but I don’t see why not just use the AB as a template and just scale other ship classes up or down as necessary. FFG? 5,000t version CG? 12-15000t version.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts
26 minutes ago, JohnPJones said:

Isn’t the sejong class a decent size larger than the ABs? At least FI and FIIA?

 

wikipedia shows the sejong class as about 1400t heavier, nearly 40ft linger and about 4ft more bean, so the AB hull would need to be enlarged a bit to fit any where near that size.

 

but I don’t see why not just use the AB as a template and just scale other ship classes up or down as necessary. FFG? 5,000t version CG? 12-15000t version.

 

Would be easier and a lot cheaper to enlarge an existing ship rather than build an entirely new class.  Especially if the ship is designed in terms of modular sections, so in order to extend the ship and add more VLS, you can have an extended section or block for that purpose, while the remaining sections are still the same from previous ships.   You can scale down the modular ship as well.

 

If you are dealing with battle or collision damage, you cut out the damage section, then weld in a new section in its place.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,611 posts
6,734 battles
10 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Would be easier and a lot cheaper to enlarge an existing ship rather than build an entirely new class.  Especially if the ship is designed in terms of modular sections, so in order to extend the ship and add more VLS, you can have an extended section or block for that purpose, while the remaining sections are still the same from previous ships.   You can scale down the modular ship as well.

 

If you are dealing with battle or collision damage, you cut out the damage section, then weld in a new section in its place.  

 

I wasn’t even thinking about it like that lol, that is a pretty great idea though. 

I was just thinking we have a lot of experience with building the hull design so it would cut a lot of costs on R&D and teething issues.

are we really smarter than the people making these choices in the pentagon? ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,709 posts
2 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

I wasn’t even thinking about it like that lol, that is a pretty great idea though. 

I was just thinking we have a lot of experience with building the hull design so it would cut a lot of costs on R&D and teething issues.

are we really smarter than the people making these choices in the pentagon? ????

We don't have to worry about political appointees ruining our military careers to score points for their leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,611 posts
6,734 battles
17 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

We don't have to worry about political appointees ruining our military careers to score points for their leadership.

Lol I guess that’s a good point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

 

Photos over Jiangnan shipyard are much more difficult than Dalian's, as Jiangnan is a river island while Dalian is on the coast and next to the city of the same name.  These are photos of Jiangnan showing the first Type 055 in fitting with a Type 052D also being fitted.  You can also see a bunch of LCACs there.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,724 posts

 

Navy top officer lays out plans for cruiser replacement.  I think the Navy is putting the entire era of CG(X), Zumwalt, LCS era behind it, and the procurement policies that led to these ships and the CG(X) cancellation.  This time, like FFG(X), the Navy is going for proven, existing off the shelf designs for a cruiser replacement.    The problem is, unlike frigates where there are many existing designs to pick from, with cruisers, you have very little.  By cruisers or Tico replacement, I mean a ship with at least 128 VLS.   The closest to this right now is the Korean Sejong The Great class, which looks like a stretched Burke.  

 

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/12/navys-top-officer-lays-out-aggressive-new-cruiser-replacement-strategy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
491
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,709 posts
1 hour ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Navy top officer lays out plans for cruiser replacement.  I think the Navy is putting the entire era of CG(X), Zumwalt, LCS era behind it, and the procurement policies that led to these ships and the CG(X) cancellation.  This time, like FFG(X), the Navy is going for proven, existing off the shelf designs for a cruiser replacement.    The problem is, unlike frigates where there are many existing designs to pick from, with cruisers, you have very little.  By cruisers or Tico replacement, I mean a ship with at least 128 VLS.   The closest to this right now is the Korean Sejong The Great class, which looks like a stretched Burke.  

 

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/12/navys-top-officer-lays-out-aggressive-new-cruiser-replacement-strategy/

Well, the Tico was a stretched Spruance. So I'd say it'd actually be befitting to use a stretched AB hull for the next Cruiser class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,611 posts
6,734 battles

Weren’t we just talking about scaling the AB hull up for use as a cruiser?

might be a good time for first in class to do moderate steps in design change.

 

SEARam or laser up in the front CIWS spot and a mk110 on an extended platform in the aft CIWS spot, and maintain the mk38s for the ‘oh dang that boat is really close’ moments to support the mk110

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×