Type 055 DDG News & Discussions

[Penguin]

It's one thing to make imaginary changes to the superstructure of a ship in your head, it's another thing to make the changes in real life while maintaining the seaworthiness of the ship.

Yes, thank you, I respect your input too.

Look at all the different factors that had to be considered just to add the SPY-6 radar to Flight III: weight, center of gravity, structural changes to the hull, power, cooling, and internal space needed for all the new equipment. The Arleigh Burke design is already being pushed to the limits.

At the end of the day, the ship needs to be able to sail.

Here the X-band radar limitations are addressed directly.

All very well, but please explain why it would need to retain 3 AN/SPG-62s if an ICWI capable multi-panel X-band AESA radar? It isn't necessarily a huge or weighty set up. See not just APAR, but also e.g. CeaMount
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Direc...sServices:ContinuousWaveIlluminators:CEAMOUNT
http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=ProductsServices:PhasedArrayTechnologies:CEAFAR

It is not like e.g. the Australian ANZAC ships has a lot of degrees of freedom with repect to weight, center of gravity, etc. Nonetheless, they went from:

to

 

[j20blackdragon]

It isn't necessarily a huge or weighty set up.

And how would you know the weight of the set up, and how much additional weight the Arleigh Burke superstructure/hull can handle without compromising the seaworthiness of the ship?

It is not like e.g. the Australian ANZAC ships has a lot of degrees of freedom with repect to weight, center of gravity, etc. Nonetheless, they went from:

to

Here you've demonstrated the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
https://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/false-equivalence

Because an Australian ship was able to make certain upgrades, you automatically assume the current Arleigh Burke can make a similar leap. Nevermind the fact that the Arleigh Burke is already packed to the gills with additional equipment as it evolved from Flight I to Flight III.

 

[Penguin]

And how would you know the weight of the set up, and how much additional weight the Arleigh Burke superstructure/hull can handle without compromising the seaworthiness of the ship?

And how would you, indeed?

Anyway, for starters, one can examine the Raytheon concept (post 579). Clearly, the structure proposed atop the bridge isn't exactly small or light. IMHO, APAR or CeaMount or equivalent can fit in a smaller, lighter supporting structure and can be mounted somewhat lower down. Add to that weight reduction by removal of AN/SPG-62s.

Here you've demonstrated the logical fallacy of false equivalence.
https://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/false-equivalence

Because an Australian ship was able to make certain upgrades, you automatically assume the current Arleigh Burke can make a similar leap. Nevermind the fact that the Arleigh Burke is already packed to the gills with additional equipment as it evolved from Flight I to Flight III.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely giving an example of a ship with a VERY limited margin that still managed a rather significant modification.

Besides, I don't think my example is a case of false equivalency. To quote your like

Gang bangers cover there heads with hoodies.
Nuns cover their heads with habits.

Therefore
Nuns are no better than gang bangers.

That is not the kind of comparison I made. Hoodies and habits are different things (whereas the radars discussed are not of a different class) and gangbangers and nuns have nothing in common apart from being human being: the ANZAC frigate and AB destroyer are both warships, with limited margins for growht. Incidentally, the margin on the Perry class was also very small (even on the long ones) and here too we find navies installing Mk41s, Smart- S MK2, AShM atop the hull etc.

The point I would like to stress is that there are (much) more compact (hence lighter) options, that don't necessarily have to be mounted atop the bridge in order to provide effective coverage (i.e. contribute less to centre of gravity rising).

I would also like to point out "As of 2013 the program is expected to deliver 22 radars" and "To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

In other words, this graphic below is not necessarily what all Flight IIIs will look like, and the reason that the first 13 will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar is cost cutting, not topweight and stability issues.

 

[Brainsucker]

And how would you, indeed?

Anyway, for starters, one can examine the Raytheon concept (post 579). Clearly, the structure proposed atop the bridge isn't exactly small or light. IMHO, APAR or CeaMount or equivalent can fit in a smaller, lighter supporting structure and can be mounted somewhat lower down. Add to that weight reduction by removal of AN/SPG-62s.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely giving an example of a ship with a VERY limited margin that still managed a rather significant modification.

Besides, I don't think my example is a case of false equivalency. To quote your like

Gang bangers cover there heads with hoodies.
Nuns cover their heads with habits.

Therefore
Nuns are no better than gang bangers.

That is not the kind of comparison I made. Hoodies and habits are different things (whereas the radars discussed are not of a different class) and gangbangers and nuns have nothing in common apart from being human being: the ANZAC frigate and AB destroyer are both warships, with limited margins for growht. Incidentally, the margin on the Perry class was also very small (even on the long ones) and here too we find navies installing Mk41s, Smart- S MK2, AShM atop the hull etc.

The point I would like to stress is that there are (much) more compact (hence lighter) options, that don't necessarily have to be mounted atop the bridge in order to provide effective coverage (i.e. contribute less to centre of gravity rising).

I would also like to point out "As of 2013 the program is expected to deliver 22 radars" and "To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

In other words, this graphic below is not necessarily what all Flight IIIs will look like, and the reason that the first 13 will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar is cost cutting, not topweight and stability issues.

Now, I'm going to OOT too. So why don't they make the Flight III with the Raytheon concept? They are new ships, and not likely an upgrade plan for the current Flight I and Flight II. So, I'm sure that they can modify the Arleigh Burke design a little so they can fit with the Raytheon concept.

 

[samsara]

Read this thread for new posting about Type 055 DDG, instead the much transgression!

WHY don't you folks open a new thread to discuss all the Arleigh Burke/Raytheon matters instead of filling up this thread with the unrelated info? At least you can create a new thread for comparison purpose if that's all you want. One or two posts are still okay, but prolonged postings on this topic is irrelevant, even indecent in this dedicated thread for Type 055 DDG!

 

[cnleio]

Read this thread for new posting about Type 055 DDG, instead the much transgression!

WHY don't you folks open a new thread to discuss all the Arleigh Burke/Raytheon matters instead of filling up this thread with the unrelated info? At least you can create a new thread for comparison purpose if that's all you want. One or two posts are still okay, but prolonged postings on this topic is irrelevant, even indecent in this dedicated thread for Type 055 DDG!

Never mind, my friend. That's good, when ppl compare China Type 055 with America Arleigh Burke-III ... here nobody has interest to discuss a old DDG with Arleigh Burke. The new-designed Type 055 DDG (new VLS cell, new missile, new S-band/X-band AESA radar) is the most powerful warship China ever built, as far as I know the position of Type 055 in PLAN will as same as Arleigh Burke in U.S Navy, US need the "Arleigh Burke" and PLAN need more Type 055 DDGs to protect our interests on sea. Looking for the gap between both, after type 055 DDGs China can design better, future will be new class DDG.

 

[cnleio]

Four type055 under construction

 

[j20blackdragon]

Add to that weight reduction by removal of AN/SPG-62s.

How much weight is reduced by the removal of the SPG-62s?
How much weight is added by the addition of the mast-structure and radars you continue to propose?
How much additional weight can the Flight III add while maintaining the seaworthiness of the ship?
How does the added weight affect the center of gravity of the ship?

Are you able to answer any of these serious questions, or will you continue to conjure up more fantasies in your head?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm merely giving an example of a ship with a VERY limited margin that still managed a rather significant modification.

What evidence have you provided that proves the Anzac-class had a limited margin for growth prior to the upgrades?

the ANZAC frigate and AB destroyer are both warships, with limited margins for growht.

Can you prove that both ships were facing similar constraints in terms of how much they could grow?

Here are the facts for the Arleigh Burke. Can you prove the Anzac-class was facing similar problems?

The current Arleigh Burke is overweight. Flight I was light (for the hull size) and had plenty of capacity for upgrades. Flight III is no longer the same ship. Trying to compare Flight I to Flight III is comparing apples to oranges. Trying to compare a random foreign ship to Flight III is also comparing apples to oranges.

The Arleigh Burke has one of the highest equipment-densities in the world. Not much room for additional upgrades.

The SPY-6 antenna is top-heavy, throwing off the overall weight distribution of the ship. They had to add additional weight to the hull in order to correct the ship's center of gravity.

Additional upgrades are possible as long as you are able to increase the size of the hull. The US Navy can't afford the hull enlargement.

I would also like to point out "As of 2013 the program is expected to deliver 22 radars" and "To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-6

Yes, this is what they hope to do in the future. But it is not yet set in stone. Have any contracts been signed?

In other words, this graphic below is not necessarily what all Flight IIIs will look like, and the reason that the first 13 will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar is cost cutting, not topweight and stability issues.

I agree with the cost cutting part. The rest is your opinion only.

 

[Penguin]

How much weight is reduced by the removal of the SPG-62s?
How much weight is added by the addition of the mast-structure and radars you continue to propose?
How much additional weight can the Flight III add while maintaining the seaworthiness of the ship?
How does the added weight affect the center of gravity of the ship?

Are you able to answer any of these serious questions, or will you continue to conjure up more fantasies in your head?

Don't be ridiculous. Can you answer those questions in relation to

a)

or

b)

as in comparison to Flight 2A? No, you can't.

What evidence have you provided that proves the Anzac-class had a limited margin for growth prior to the upgrades?

For example, slide 8 of the below.
http://tangentlink.com/wp-content/u...and-Naval-Fleet-Captain-Jon-Finderup-RNZN.pdf

Can you prove that both ships were facing similar constraints in terms of how much they could grow?

Can you prove they weren't?

Here are the facts for the Arleigh Burke.

GAO's facts. GAO stands for General ACCOUNTING office, remember.

Can you prove the Anzac-class was facing similar problems?

Why would I need to?

The current Arleigh Burke is overweight.

Nobody claimed it wasn't

Flight I was light (for the hull size) and had plenty of capacity for upgrades. Flight III is no longer the same ship.

Nobody said they were the same. Anyway, you need to look at the margins of 2As then.

Trying to compare Flight I to Flight III is comparing apples to oranges.

I didn't compare them.

Trying to compare a random foreign ship to Flight III is also comparing apples to oranges.

I didn't compare them, I pointed to HMAS Perth as an example of a ship adopting a very compact X-band set, for illumination. The USN does have a tendency to make things bigger that other navies think it needs to be.

The Arleigh Burke has one of the highest equipment-densities in the world. Not much room for additional upgrades.

Exactly. So, one also needs to take things off. However, as far as stability is concerned, no problem if added top weight is off-set by added weight low down. Which is what was done in HMAS Perth.

The SPY-6 antenna is top-heavy, throwing off the overall weight distribution of the ship. They had to add additional weight to the hull in order to correct the ship's center of gravity.

Just like they did in HMAS Perth (notably the cooling equipment for the new radars in the new mast.) But hey, that was just an invalid, random comparison....

Additional upgrades are possible as long as you are able to increase the size of the hull. The US Navy can't afford the hull enlargement.

I wasn't discussing anything ADDITIONAL.

Yes, this is what they hope to do in the future. But it is not yet set in stone. Have any contracts been signed?

Nothing is ever in stone. 22 radar sets ordered, 13 ships. You think they are not going for the other 9 ships?

I agree with the cost cutting part. The rest is your opinion only.

No, it's fact. (not 'alternative fact' ;-)

How's your blood pressure?

Read this thread for new posting about Type 055 DDG, instead the much transgression!

WHY don't you folks open a new thread to discuss all the Arleigh Burke/Raytheon matters instead of filling up this thread with the unrelated info? At least you can create a new thread for comparison purpose if that's all you want. One or two posts are still okay, but prolonged postings on this topic is irrelevant, even indecent in this dedicated thread for Type 055 DDG!

roger wilco. out.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Don't be ridiculous. Can you answer those questions in relation to

a)

or

b)


as in comparison to Flight 2A? No, you can't.

Why would I need to answer the questions when the burden of proof is on you? You are the one claiming the Arleigh Burke has the ability to easily accept a brand new mast-structure and radar. You prove it.

For example, slide 8 of the below.
http://tangentlink.com/wp-content/u...and-Naval-Fleet-Captain-Jon-Finderup-RNZN.pdf

That link provides zero evidence.

I can easily debunk your claim that the Anzac-class had a limited margin for growth prior to the upgrades. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The Anzac-class was designed with a 'fitted for but not with' philosophy, meaning the ship was designed to be deliberately under-equipped with the intention of accepting upgrades in the future.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C99AF1D0-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

Comparing the Anzac-class to the Flight III is an apples to oranges comparison.

Can you prove they weren't?

I just did. See above.

GAO's facts. GAO stands for General ACCOUNTING office, remember.

The GAO interviews naval engineers and architects before they compile their reports. They don't make up information like you do.

Why would I need to?

Because you said...

"the ANZAC frigate and AB destroyer are both warships, with limited margins for growht."

So, one also needs to take things off. However, as far as stability is concerned, no problem if added top weight is off-set by added weight low down.

And what exactly should be taken off the Arleigh Burke? And what should be added? How can you be so sure that stability would not be a problem? Remember, you're the one designing a warship in your head. I'm just asking questions.

 

[Penguin]

Why would I need to answer the questions when the burden of proof is on you? You are the one claiming the Arleigh Burke has the ability to easily accept a brand new mast-structure and radar. You prove it.

Only for things I claim, not for thing I didn't claim.
Besides, I'm doing this for recreation, don't HAVE to do anything and you cannot make me do anything.

However, as indicated, if Raytheon comes up with a concept involving a large (probably steel) structure atop the bridge with 3 radar arrays, while retaining 3 AN/SPG-62s in their original places (a concept which I assume they wouldn't put forward if it wasn't technically feasible), I don't see why a different modification involving a sleek and light structure (e.g. alu) with a four faced APAR isn't possible e.g behind the second stack.

The above deck weight of Thales APAR is lt. 11 tons.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/tha0029_datasheet_apar_hr.pdf

A single AN/SPG-62 antennea weighs 1.225 tons, so three weigh 3.675 ton that can be deleted
http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ss_aegis.html
Discart the AN/SPS-67 (0.3 ton) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=1275&ct=2.
AND DO NOT replace with AN/SPQ-9B (0.68 ton) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=311&ct=2
Weight thus saved: 3.975 ton

There are three antenna arrays on the Raytheon concept. What do you think: they weigh more or less than 7.025 tons i.e. 2.342 tons each? Consider that the 4 smaller arrays of APAR in a typical square structure are <11 tons (i.e. < 2.75 ton per side, of which 2 tons is array only), that is.

Additional weight could be saved by (wholly or partially) cutting down the structures beneath the front AN/SPG-62 and the rear most AN/SPG-62 (which hold equipment associated with these illuminators). And of course: by not having that large (easily 2 deck levels!) addition (and whatever it contains) atop the bridge in the first place!

APAR could be located directly behind the rear stack (highest point, least additional mast structure).

Consider also that e.g proposed 4.5k ton PF 4921 frigate based on USCG National Security Cutter employs both CeaFar (6 elements) and CeaMount (4 elements) on a mast similar to that of Burke. Something using CeaMOUNT only could be even smaller.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...lls-industries-gain-traction-internationally/

That link provides zero evidence.

Says you.

I can easily debunk your claim that the Anzac-class had a limited margin for growth prior to the upgrades. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The Anzac-class was designed with a 'fitted for but not with' philosophy, meaning the ship was designed to be deliberately under-equipped with the intention of accepting upgrades in the future.

As you pointed out about Arleigh Burke, Flight 1 is not Flight 2 is not Flight 2a etc. So, why then do you assume the ANZAC (MEKO 200ANZ) as originally delivered, is the same as the ANZAC when it got the new mast with CeaFar and CeaMount?

The armament initially consisted of a single 5-inch gun and a point-defence missile system (an eight-cell Lockheed Martin Mark 41 Mod 5 vertical launch system for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles as a point-defence system), supported by a missile-armed helicopter. Sure, it had a lot of margin then!

The ships were delivered "fitted for but not with" a torpedo system, two quad-canister Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers, a second Mark 41 launcher, and a close-in weapons system. All ships were "fitted for but not with" a towed-array sonar, with the RAN and RNZN following separate acquisition programs for these. The frigates were also "fitted for but not with" SATCOM and a Helo datalink.

However, you ignore that since entering service Mark 32 3-tube torpedo launchers taken from other, retiring ships were installed. Phalanx CIWS weapons system, recycled from decommissioning various Leander frigates, were fitted to each new frigate in New Zealand service. In 2003 ESSM began to replace Sea Sparrow (i.e. 32 missiles instead of 8) in RAN. Harpoon was installed across the RAN vessels from 2005 onwards. The original planned location on 02 deck was found to be unsuitable, and the launchers were relocated to 01 deck, in front of the bridge. Around the same time, the RAN began to fit these frigates with two M2HB .50 calibre machine guns in Mini Typhoon mounts, installed on the aft corners of the hangar roof, with two TopLite EO directors. A Petrel Mine and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar system was added. Also installed were a Vampir NG Infrared Search and Track system, and Sharpeye Navigational Radar Systems. All this before Perth became the first to undergo the ASMD project in 2010.

On 18 January 2010, Perth docked at the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson, Western Australia to be modified under the Anti-Ship Missile Defence Project, which included the fitting of CEA Technologies' CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT phased array radars. Both of the frigate's masts were replaced. The new aft mast is taller and sits at 38.7 metres. The new foremast is lower. Additional ballast was added to improve the frigate's stability, and the ship's quarterdeck was enclosed

Comparing the Anzac-class to the Flight III is an apples to oranges comparison.

See previous post

I just did. See above.

Nah, not really. See above.

The GAO interviews naval engineers and architects before they compile their reports. They don't make up information like you do.

LOL. I know better than most here what GAO is and does. Point is, they aren't naval enginees and architects, and their reports aren't automatically final or even necessarily consensus based (often include responses why various other agencies do not have the same view). Besides, this is a forum, not a US government agency. I take it one is free to explore in a forum setting. You claim I make up information, but that is all that you do: claim. As you pointed out, if you claim, on you is the burden of proof.

Because you said...

"the ANZAC frigate and AB destroyer are both warships, with limited margins for growht."

Anyway, less different than NUNS and GANG BANGERS! In reality, however, any and every ship has a limited margin for growth....

And what exactly should be taken off the Arleigh Burke? And what should be added? How can you be so sure that stability would not be a problem? Remember, you're the one designing a warship in your head. I'm just asking questions.

See above. You are getting all upset over ... nothing.

Folks here asked if we could stop bickering about ABIII. I already indicated my willingness to do so. Therefor this is the last post I am putting here on this topic.

I suggest you take a good sized chill-pill.

 

[cnleio]

@Penguin

VLS cells on type052D, also will on type055 DDG

 

[cnleio]

@Penguin about China ESSM

See left side

RIM-162 ESSM

 

[j20blackdragon]

Only for things I claim, not for thing I didn't claim.
Besides, I'm doing this for recreation, don't HAVE to do anything and you cannot make me do anything.

However, as indicated, if Raytheon comes up with a concept involving a large (probably steel) structure atop the bridge with 3 radar arrays, while retaining 3 AN/SPG-62s in their original places (a concept which I assume they wouldn't put forward if it wasn't technically feasible), I don't see why a different modification involving a sleek and light structure (e.g. alu) with a four faced APAR isn't possible e.g behind the second stack.

The above deck weight of Thales APAR is lt. 11 tons.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/tha0029_datasheet_apar_hr.pdf

A single AN/SPG-62 antennea weighs 1.225 tons, so three weigh 3.675 ton that can be deleted
http://www.gd-ots.com/armament_systems/ss_aegis.html
Discart the AN/SPS-67 (0.3 ton) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=1275&ct=2.
AND DO NOT replace with AN/SPQ-9B (0.68 ton) http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=311&ct=2
Weight thus saved: 3.975 ton

There are three antenna arrays on the Raytheon concept. What do you think: they weigh more or less than 7.025 tons i.e. 2.342 tons each? Consider that the 4 smaller arrays of APAR in a typical square structure are <11 tons (i.e. < 2.75 ton per side, of which 2 tons is array only), that is.

Additional weight could be saved by (wholly or partially) cutting down the structures beneath the front AN/SPG-62 and the rear most AN/SPG-62 (which hold equipment associated with these illuminators). And of course: by not having that large (easily 2 deck levels!) addition (and whatever it contains) atop the bridge in the first place!

APAR could be located directly behind the rear stack (highest point, least additional mast structure).

Consider also that e.g proposed 4.5k ton PF 4921 frigate based on USCG National Security Cutter employs both CeaFar (6 elements) and CeaMount (4 elements) on a mast similar to that of Burke. Something using CeaMOUNT only could be even smaller.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/...lls-industries-gain-traction-internationally/

Says you.


As you pointed out about Arleigh Burke, Flight 1 is not Flight 2 is not Flight 2a etc. So, why then do you assume the ANZAC (MEKO 200ANZ) as originally delivered, is the same as the ANZAC when it got the new mast with CeaFar and CeaMount?

The armament initially consisted of a single 5-inch gun and a point-defence missile system (an eight-cell Lockheed Martin Mark 41 Mod 5 vertical launch system for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles as a point-defence system), supported by a missile-armed helicopter. Sure, it had a lot of margin then!

The ships were delivered "fitted for but not with" a torpedo system, two quad-canister Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers, a second Mark 41 launcher, and a close-in weapons system. All ships were "fitted for but not with" a towed-array sonar, with the RAN and RNZN following separate acquisition programs for these. The frigates were also "fitted for but not with" SATCOM and a Helo datalink.

However, you ignore that since entering service Mark 32 3-tube torpedo launchers taken from other, retiring ships were installed. Phalanx CIWS weapons system, recycled from decommissioning various Leander frigates, were fitted to each new frigate in New Zealand service. In 2003 ESSM began to replace Sea Sparrow (i.e. 32 missiles instead of 8) in RAN. Harpoon was installed across the RAN vessels from 2005 onwards. The original planned location on 02 deck was found to be unsuitable, and the launchers were relocated to 01 deck, in front of the bridge. Around the same time, the RAN began to fit these frigates with two M2HB .50 calibre machine guns in Mini Typhoon mounts, installed on the aft corners of the hangar roof, with two TopLite EO directors. A Petrel Mine and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar system was added. Also installed were a Vampir NG Infrared Search and Track system, and Sharpeye Navigational Radar Systems. All this before Perth became the first to undergo the ASMD project in 2010.

On 18 January 2010, Perth docked at the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson, Western Australia to be modified under the Anti-Ship Missile Defence Project, which included the fitting of CEA Technologies' CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT phased array radars. Both of the frigate's masts were replaced. The new aft mast is taller and sits at 38.7 metres. The new foremast is lower. Additional ballast was added to improve the frigate's stability, and the ship's quarterdeck was enclosed


See previous post


Nah, not really. See above.


LOL. I know better than most here what GAO is and does. Point is, they aren't naval enginees and architects, and their reports aren't automatically final or even necessarily consensus based (often include responses why various other agencies do not have the same view). Besides, this is a forum, not a US government agency. I take it one is free to explore in a forum setting. You claim I make up information, but that is all that you do: claim. As you pointed out, if you claim, on you is the burden of proof.


Anyway, less different than NUNS and GANG BANGERS! In reality, however, any and every ship has a limited margin for growth....


See above. You are getting all upset over ... nothing.

Folks here asked if we could stop bickering about ABIII. I already indicated my willingness to do so. Therefor this is the last post I am putting here on this topic.

I suggest you take a good sized chill-pill.

LOL looks like you spent a good amount of time posting more and more of your theories.

I look at the facts.

The initial Flight III ships won't reach IOC until 2023.

SPQ-9B rotating radar (non-AESA) will be used for the first 12 ships.

The 13th Flight III ship, anticipated to be delivered in 2027, is planned to have X-band AESA capability. This is a decade from now.

There are no plans to retrofit the first 12 Flight III ships with the new radar once it becomes available.

The Navy has not yet begun planning for the new X-band radar program and initial budgeting activities are not expected until at least 2018.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678850.pdf

All numbers and statements of fact presented in GAO work are thoroughly checked and referenced.

http://www.gao.gov/about/products/about-gao-reports.html

No offense, but by 2027 large numbers of 055 will already be commissioned and in service with the PLAN. What are we debating about again?

 

[Penguin]

LOL looks like you spent a good amount of time posting more and more of your theories.

I look at the facts.

So, basically, you have no counter arguments left. Thankx. Good day.