shark bait wrote:After anti ship missiles and engine upgrades the next important thing on the upgrade list is possibly those extra VLS.
ASuW missiles and the space reserved for extra silos could be done
A. without cutting another big hole into these beautiful ships
B. by using the LRASM canister version.
This fixing of the power/ propulsion issues has been a long time coming. The All-Electric-Ship mafia in the RN now have egg all over the face, but soon (with the directed energy weapons maturing) they can turn around and say: we were on the right track, just the execution was poor.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:we were on the right track, just the execution was poor.
I think that is a reasonable assessment of the system. Hopefully the clever people they have now know exactly was is wrong and deliver a reliable ship after refit.
I never understood why the Type 45s only had 2x 2.2MW Diesel Generators to back up the WR21s. Does seem like anywhere near enough for an IEP solution...
Pymes75 wrote:Does seem like anywhere near enough for an IEP solution...
Yep, which one to choose (of the quick fixes)
- tune down the radar power (in an AAW ship)?
- or not do that, but put the ship to a stand-still
... OK, a slight exaggeration (but not too far off?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
shark bait wrote:About time, its hardly the worlds most credible AAW platform if it has the reliability of a Fiat.
It would be great if it did. I've just sold a Fiat which I ran for over seven years and it never needed anything other than its routine annual service. Somewhat better than the Mercedes and BMWs I have also run recently.
Pymes75 wrote:Does seem like anywhere near enough for an IEP solution...
Yep, which one to choose (of the quick fixes)
- tune down the radar power (in an AAW ship)?
- or not do that, but put the ship to a stand-still
... OK, a slight exaggeration (but not too far off?)
How about building them with a power excess in the first place? Redundancy only works when there is plenty of juice in your redundant components... Better still, if you want 5-9 availability, you don't build two of everything but three or more....
Saw the T45 engine problem on the BBC news and it seems the engines are not at fault, its the alternators. The T45 is a very power hungry beast, so when all the electrically-powered systems are all being used at the same time as its allegedly causing the alternator to trip out like the one in a domestic home.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
SKB wrote:The engines are not at fault, its the alternators. The T45 is a very power hungry beast, especially when all the electrically-powered systems are all being used at the same time as its causing the alternator to trip out like the one in a domestic home.
Indeed, but DGs come as matched sets of Diesel Engines and Alternators...
The alternator is a very BIIG piece of kit, once they've cut the holes to get to the engine room, I wonder how they will make space for everything extra. Except if they pick up from our T26 alternative designs discussion in October:
- might still be quite a step from test installations to e "real" one
CR4ZYHOR5E wrote: Good discussion. For me, Ron's point about the extent to which the chosen solution meets the design brief/requirement is the compelling one; i.e. scrutiny of the decision to go with CODLOG comes down to whether the GT [alone] meets the targeted power requirements? If yes, then you look like a hero that's removed cost/complexity from the equation. If no, then you look like a chump, for sure.
Whatabout single point of failure (resilience, recoverability... staying in the fight)?
5 or 10 pages back I made the comment about potentially going down 2/3s in weight and by a half in size, by having the single turbine (MT30 leading the pack as for now) backed up by a
""[Reports on the performance of the] 5-megawatt HTS motor under both full power and realistic operating conditions continue to be impressive," [said Rear Admiral Jay Cohen, Chief of Naval Research.] "The successful application of HTS technology to naval ship propulsion would provide the Navy with unique design options for our All-Electric Ship Programs."["]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
I left the Mob just as the T45s were entering service. I heard through friends still serving that the problem seems to stem from how the RN operates the propulsion system. I'm certainly no engineer, but I've been informed that the all electric concept was originally conceived for and works very well on Cruise liners that sail at a steady pace all day. Very efficient. Unfortunely a warship does not operate like a cruise ship - it quickly alternates between a sprint, cruise or a creep depending on the operational requirements. This fluctuating load can then trip the propulsion system and leave the ship adrift. That would certainly spoil your day if you were in a deep swell down in the South Atlantic or just winding up the engines to try and pull away from a RAS or conduct an emergency breakaway!
I'm not sure what similarities there are between the T45 and CVF propulsion systems?? One hopes the lessons are being learnt before they put CVF to sea. I wouldn't fancy trying to recover aircraft, particularly a heavy F35 in the middle of a SRVL!!!
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
how did the propulsion perform in trials before the T45 was built or where they all computer simulations? did they preform any pre acceptence trials running with a realistic power demand or have the power needs increased in a way that wasn't expected?
marktigger wrote:how did the propulsion perform in trials before the T45 was built or where they all computer simulations? did they preform any pre acceptence trials running with a realistic power demand or have the power needs increased in a way that wasn't expected?
In the Channel 4 documentary about Daring's entry into service it clearly shows the loss of the CMS due to a power failure so it occured very early on in her life and long before Harpoon and the Phalanx mounts were added for staters!
Interestingly, Lt Cdr Julian Lowe (sp?) who was the Marine Engineer on her sea trials is now the ME on QE...
it does make yo wonder if proper trials were carried out early in the procurement or did power demand increase during the build outside the specification
marktigger wrote:it does make yo wonder if proper trials were carried out early in the procurement or did power demand increase during the build outside the specification
I suspect TPC1975 is close to the mark with the nature of a warship's fluctuating use of power. Mix your propulsion demands with your hotel and weapons load and you probably have spikes that the alternators (and by extension, diesel engines) simply weren't spec'd for. Probably part of the problem with adopting a new propulsion system that is new to surface combatants (as opposed to lumbering great LPDs like Albion and Oilerslike the Wave Class)...
This also makes me a little concerned in what the T45's have in the way of battery capacity from what little we have seen and heard so far it looks like once the main alternators go down then everything including the computers die. Is there really no reserve power to keep a few basics on the go so the ship doesn't go immediately deaf and blind?
Also if it helps any I have a couple of A-series spare from a mini project and I'm pretty sure a couple of decent alternators sat around, I'm confident I can undercut BAE on them if the RN need them. Let's say £25,000,000 for the pair delivered?
As Scotty said in an old Star Trek movie, the more you overstep the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Somewhat embarrassing for the RN. If the engine on my new motorcycle broke down after a year or so, I'd be back at the Honda garage demanding an in warranty replacement or rectification. I take it BAES has some sort of get out clause?!
I suspect the real T45 propulsion problem is poor low power performance of the WR21 intercoled, recuperated cycle (a Breyton cycle). The intention was that it should operate through a much wider power range than previous GTs and this may have not worked out. So the T45s are like an old Tyne/Olympus setup with only the Olympus working. Therefore the higher power diesel generators willmean the WR21s will run less and only at higher power levels.
fitting another alternator will also mean another set of trials for allot of other stuff other than the performance. How the changed Electro magnetic signature may have unforseen effects.
Also note "under government plans, the navy is to operate just 14 principal surface combat ships". Perhaps an indication that FLF is seen as an "extra" rather than the credible warship that is required.
