Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

[shark bait]

finally read the 'article', and it makes no mention of speed. Self noise is a function of speed, if a t45 is noisey as hell at 30 knots thats fine, if it is at 8 knots its bad, but the 'article, doesn't tell us shit.

RE reactor pumps, the newer american reactors use passive cooling techniques at low load, presumably the PWR3 adopts the same principals.

[ArmChairCivvy]

passive cooling techniques

So no circulation then? Until you step on the gas

[Phil R]

So no circulation then? Until you step on the gas

Not no circulation, just that natural convection in the primary loop provides sufficient cooling (at low loads).

Phil R

[shark bait]

yeah, the sub is immersed and moving through a massive heat sink, so I assume they do some facy stuff to take advantage of that through natural processes.

a heat sink they T45 is suppose to utilise. Boom! still on topic.

[Opinion3]

Could this be the source's way of saying no to the type 31? Which I still need to be convinced is the right route

[marktigger]

Could this be the source's way of saying no to the type 31? Which I still need to be convinced is the right route

Type 31 is a tricky one they need an exportable product to try and kickstart ship building. BaE won't design and build unless it has a customer.
Type 26 costs have probaly escalated and probably were going to escalate. through a mix of over optimism on part of customer and contractor. the continual delays and probably the customer trying to keep up with the changing world situation and technology. But given how long the Type26 has been on the drawing board there was an announcement a few monts ago the design was only 62% complete looking from the outside that looks like huge risk and cost escalation could be the result.

[donald_of_tokyo]

By the way, T45 being noisy (so that can be detected by enemy subs from far away) does not directly mean it cannot do ASW search.

Even if the reported noise is real, if it is not noisy at around 7 kHz, it do not affect the EDO MFS-7000 sonar capability, which works around 7 kHz frequency range. (see https://www.harris.com/solution/model-9 ... nted-sonar). In other words, the sonar is insensitive to any noise existing in other frequency bands, which it is not working on.

For CAPTAS-4, this document (https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... 202087.pdf) is nice. It says,
FREQUENCY OF OPERATION
• Active frequency <2kHz
• Passive frequency <0.1 to 100kHz
With this wide-band coverage of passive mode, any noise existing within this frequency band does degrade the sensitivity of the sonar. So, making T23/T26 quite in wide-frequency band makes sense (although "quiet in wide frequency band" is much much difficult than being "quiet in narrow frequency band", = expensive it must be). T45 or T31 could be built in different specification = "quiet in narrow frequency band".

# I could not find S2050's frequency band, but surely lower than 7 kHz.

Note, however, the news does not say T45 is NOT noisy around ~7 kHz. If it is, T45 CANNOT do ASW by all means.

[marktigger]

and how much effect will a platform have on others if its pumping out noise in ranges of the others passive sensors?

[donald_of_tokyo]

and how much effect will a platform have on others if its pumping out noise in ranges of the others passive sensors?

Depends. If T45 noise is larger than those from CVF, Bay, SSS, Tides and Waves, it will matter. If not, no problem, as Shark Bait-san has suggested.

[90inFIRST]

Not sure where to put this put the graphic has a type 45 in so.............


http://navaltoday.com/2017/02/09/royal- ... -november/

[dmereifield]

2 T45s in Plymouth Sound this evening - Duncan and Diamond. Don't see them down here very often so it was a pleasant surprise to see two of them tonight. Anyone know what they're up to down this way?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Not sure where to put this put the graphic has a type 45 in so.............


http://navaltoday.com/2017/02/09/royal- ... -november/

Preparing for crew swapping on T45s (as done with mine hunters based out there)?
"The complex is designed to accommodate just over 300 people, or nearly 550 for short periods "

[shark bait]

Positive if true, RN need some novel techniques to increase on station time. Perhaps forward basing could do the trick?

[marktigger]

with limited resources a good strategy. However is there a down side in terms of esprit de corps being lost How good is it to say "we belong to crew 107" as opposed to "we belong to HMS Dragon". May sound silly however its little things like that that can give a psychological edge in times of stress.

[shark bait]

Agreed, and these complex machines all tend to have their own unique niggles, something I imagine is more prevalent on the T45 owing to the poor build quality, so it may loose awareness of some issues.

However we have billion pounds assets working less than 20 percent of the time, so something has to change to increase that figure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Perhaps forward basing could do the trick?

- there was a statement in IDEX to that effect

May sound silly however its little things like that that can give a psychological edge in times of stress.

- USN gave up their trials with complex ships (the 4 ABs move to Rota with not just the crew but also their families in tow)
- I guess they have set the borderline to the LCS type/ size ships (not counting boats)

[shark bait]

The US trials are interesting; they found it is very much possible to increase on station time through novel crew systems. The down side was a difficulty maintaining skill or mechanical readiness as the same time.

They found it worked particularly well with ships that we're close to retirement, with those ships no longer part of a continuous maintenance programme.

For newer ships, that are part of a maintenance programme, training became the bottleneck. That is probably why today we are seeing the LCS restructured into forward deployed, and home port trained ships, a solution which neatly fits in the deficiencies of the early ships.

If the RN wanted to replicate the model they would need a way to fulfill the training gap, presumably through synthetics.

[marktigger]

However we have billion pounds assets working less than 20 percent of the time, so something has to change to increase that figure.

A look at terms and conditions of service, making the armed forces appealing as a career prospect and I mean as a long term career. Stability in terms of career eg no more redundancy programs.

[jimthelad]

For some time there has been a heated debate around the TYPE 45 Destroyer, it’s acquisition, production, and performance. In many ways this seems to reflect all that was bad about defence procurement in the last 2 decades and unfortunately haunts the same process to this day. Any attempt to call this process to account on this forum has led to several members being frankly obdurate and abusive. I had originally tried to reference this with some not disclosed material which had been obtained first hand and corroborated by open source but the parties concerned would prefer to remain anonymous. Also I submitted this to the appropriate parties for scrutiny who also asked for certain material and sources to be redacted for operational reasons. I do not currently see any need to contravene their wishes. I have only ever posted what I believe to be genuine and as a rule have been right (the exceptions being the cabinet reshuffle of Sir M Fallon- this confused the HR dept for sure, and the Boeing serial allocation of the UK airframes- non one currently knows to whom those serials are allocated as an aside). This is not meant to be a swipe at BAe in general but reflects the lacklustre management (not design or production) of the time and the general apathy of the government of the time to defence despite fighting more wars than at any other time. This has sadly cost me several friends and is something I will never forgive.

The Type 45 destroyer in general can be described as the world’s best air defence destroyer but handicapped by a number design inadequacies. The lack of CEC (cooperative engagement capability), a smaller than expected magazine, and the lack of land attack and ASuW (until recently) being the most discussed. The highest profile problem has been the integrated electric propulsion and specifically the WR-21 gas turbine unit failing to perform in higher ambient and water temperatures. This is in part to an ambitious selection of an fully integrated electric propulsion by MoD over COGOG, CODLAG, and CODLAG(electric drive); the latter being derived from the T23.
The original design called for the first warship application of IEP (integrated electric propulsion) using Pulse Width Modulation conversion with 2 Wartsilla diesel generators for the prime mover along with 2 x LM2500 engines providing variable frequency high voltage AC. This allowed direct drive and phase rectified AC by stepdown transformer connected via a complex H – Bridge, thereby allowing high voltage parallel output with the required lower voltage low amperage needed for other ships services from a relatively small propulsion plant.
Concern was raised by MoD with respect to the age, lack of growth, and fuel density of the LM-2500 turbines which might make them significantly more expensive to operate and maintain in service over the projected 30 year lifespan of the T45 unit. Specifically concern about increases to the bunkerage of the hull to meet the specification of an 8000 mile unrefuelled range. Also, thermal dissipation of the exhaust gas was discovered to exceed the original thermal signature specified by MoD. The exhaust trunking was likely to require some redesign from the original 2000 final planning document by Bae. Problems were found with loadbank shorting at the T45 propulsion testbed at BAe Glasgow led to significant delays in maturing the final design and delaying the cutting of steel for the lead ship (initially planned for mid/late 2002) to 2003. Alstom/Converteam raised concern over the stability of LM2500 GTA output and the possibility of power fluctuation. This was echoed by a working group from government and industry operating within MoD responsible for auditing the propulsion and power distribution arrangements. By early 2000 the project planning team had realised that gains from using a proven but old engine were not as high as expected and the Northrop Grumman drivetrain based on the WR-21 with recuperator and GTA would offer a higher power density for specific fuel consumption. At the lower operating rating the ship could cruise, manage hotel requirement and power warfare systems with the diesel generator sets being the load out to 85% capacity and the remainder of the requirement and surge to full power propulsion and emergency power being met by the GTA sets. The power switching requirement would be more straightforward than parallel distribution system using LM2500. The initial design approved in late 2001 based on LM2500 GTA called for the GTA and 1 switch set to be collocated immediately adjacent to 1 of the 2 diesel gensets. This was then duplicated further aft in a separate damage control zone to improve stability and survivability. The selection of the WR21 unit by MoD in late 2000 caused some redesign of the engine compartments to accommodate the 2 deck requirement for complex cycle intercooler and engine but the original parallel switching and power distribution remained. This meant that there was a parallel incremental output arrangement for the diesel and gas gensets; not allowing full use of the fuel efficiency of the WR21 and increasing the thermal gradient required. Performance was said to ‘degrade gracefully’ but the new engine when inserted into the test rig showed that there were sudden losses of power as early as late 2002. At that time several members of the design and naval team raised concerns but due to the political environment, proximity of design formalisation, and the potential for penalty clauses for late delivery by MoD these fell on deaf ears. Several small fires in the test rig due to faulty/suboptimum components in the HVAC caused redesign and in some way directed focus away from what had already been identified as a serious flaw.
At the time of final design approval, the propulsion team felt that there was a work round possible. Further pressure on the program to meet budget and timeline and the renegotiation of the hull number to 8 in 2006 and the 6 in 2008 with the production and delivery timescale slipping to right by 1 year forced Bae to proceed with the existing propulsion train. This was done in full knowledge of the thermal loading problem in the recuperator of the GTA and that the turbine would cut out as a safety measure. This meant a full power board reset and loss of power to all systems. The engineering acceptance team from the RN comprising of 2 MEO and 8 ratings along with 6 members of the original design team identified this as a flaw and work was done on the test rig to identify the point of failure, the warning signs of same, and a solution to allow the diesel gensets to operate independently to allow limited power for the warfighting and propulsion systems. This was finalised by 2007 (January) and when the first of class started trials the MEO was aware of these findings. When the systems failed on acceptance trials the MEO and team executed a hot reboot of the system but the software would not allow independent diesel gensets operations, instead drawing full power for cooling and restart of the GTA.
A new solution was proposed: when there was thermal stress on the GTA then the output would be reduced and the diesel gensets would be manually increased to full power to allow for cooling and limited operation even if the GTA cut out. A better solution using the original linear distribution was recommended in 2008 for hulls 3-6 and the retrofitted to hulls 1 and 2 but was rejected by Bae due to contract slippage and penalty. This was done at the highest levels in the company and in full knowledge that the ship had a fundamental flaw especially operating in warmer climates. A further recommendation was that the diesels are uprated to 4 MW each but this was rejected by MoD on cost grounds and being politically unacceptable.
The simple fact is that had the power distribution been altered prior to final design approval in 2002 then the problem would have been rectified and the diesels benign the prime movers would have prevented the sudden losses of power seen in operations. That the knowledge of this at the highest levels of industry did not stimulate redesign is symptomatic of the callous disregard for service lives and the all-important need to protect share value. There is no excuse. Furthermore, that the government of the time was prepared to accept the ships as delivered is indicative of complete incompetence and the need to avoid further negative publicity is frankly criminal.

I fully expect the full BAe backlash on this and in reality this is probably my last post. As a former member of the green machine and now in civvies I can only get what I can from friends and old colleagues. I trust them and they are better informed than me and most other opinionated REMF/AH.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks for the story. I had worked it out, back to 2007 (first mention by NAO), but actually wrote the situation where this excerpt picks up onto TD's pages as a joke (dreamt up):
" a solution to allow the diesel gensets to operate independently to allow limited power for the warfighting and propulsion systems. This was finalised by 2007 (January) and when the first of class started trials the MEO was aware of these findings. When the systems failed on acceptance trials the MEO and team executed a hot reboot of the system but the software would not allow independent diesel gensets operations, instead drawing full power for cooling and restart of the GTA.
A new solution was proposed: when there was thermal stress on the GTA then the output would be reduced and the diesel gensets would be manually increased to full power to allow for cooling and limited operation even if the GTA cut out. A better solution using the original linear distribution was recommended in 2008 for hulls 3-6 and the retrofitted to hulls 1 and 2 but was rejected by Bae due to contract slippage and penalty. This was done at the highest levels in the company and in full knowledge that the ship had a fundamental flaw especially operating in warmer climates. A further recommendation was that the diesels are uprated to 4 MW each but this was rejected by MoD on cost grounds and being politically unacceptable."

[shark bait]

finally had a chance to read the long post above? are you suggesting the problem is with the Recuperator? because that is not the case.

Recuperator's are only effective at low pressure ratios, where the compressor exit temperature is much less, and as such when running at full load the Recuperator is completely bypassed. It's there to improve efficiency at part load.

The real design flaw is with the intercooler, which dumps heat generated by the compressor into the sea. It performs worse than it's suppose to, dumping less heat, limiting the power output of the engine, this is what admiralty refer to as performance "degrading catastrophically".

There was a sperate issue with the power management system being built really shitty, which combined with the other issue caused the black outs reported. I do believe those build defects have been rectified, which is why we have not seen a repeat of the black outs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I do believe those build defects have been rectified, which is why we have not seen a repeat of the black outs.

If so, is this £350m allocation to remedy things (incl. more diesel power, which I believe is to secure "hotel services" like the radar - on an AAW destroyer - under all circumstances) a made up story; or already spent "under the disguise of the night, so to say?
- - and the need to cut holes into the hulls/ decks (as part of the above)?

[jimthelad]

Apologies SB, by using the term recuperator I should have not been lazy and used the term intercooler/recuperator!! The money I believe (thirdhand info), has been set aside to integrate the diesels (new and old) into a failsafe parallel circuit that switches automatically when the thermal loading becomes near maximum on the GTA to keep the warfare and some hotel services online. There is an over-capacity divert for the surplus into the existing power distribution system for GTA cooling and propulsion. It's a bit messy but it will stop the cutouts experienced. Will try and find out a bit more. AFAIK the holes in the hulls are still needed to fit the diesels in.

[shark bait]

@ACC, no that is still necessary, the gas turbine performance is not as good as it should be, so there is still a need for more power.

There was another issue with the power management system. It should be able to cut load to keep the other generators stable if one cuts out because they don't work properly. It didn't handle the drop in generated power well, which caused the whole system to fall on its arse. I believe that has been fixed, and the system should now handle load changes properly, so no more blackouts.

That doesnt fix the poor performance of the turbine tough, so extra capacity is still required.

@Jim, what is an "over-capacity divert"

[jimthelad]

Surplus power in the LVAC system being transferred to HVAC distribution via the step up side of the H bridge.