Type 26

Surely an electric train wo uld be less prone to damage than a drive train?

If the cable is snapped, fair one but you coul dhave a spare link, you can't have a spare prop shaft.

Any other damage (ie to the turbines or to the props) is going to be the same outcome either way surely?

Water plus 4000 volts equal very very bad things....
 
Which is one of the reasons that breakers which automatically trip are used.

End state is ship is dead in the water till. This exact question came up when i was being shown around HMS Dragon by a design engineer that was starting work on the Type 26 after working on the T45. See my post a few posts back.

At sunnoficarus, i just hope they stay away from the very gay style of housing for the US 5inch gun.
 
End state is ship is dead in the water till....

In which case, I fail to see the point that you are making. Furthermore, if a breaker trips, you can quickly re-make it.

Oh, and previously you said that the Diesels were incapable of driving the propulsion motors. Wiki tells me that they produce 2MW each. My sources tell me that only 3MW is needed to propel. Would you care to point out what I have overlooked.
 
Alright guys enough is enough
This an ARMY site
pointy shinny sail boat site www.rum.bum.&.baccy.com
Besides which to match your type 2468 i'v got one surface to ship missile cost £27.50 ex-labia [libya] now that Frizzy bonce is deeded
now **** off and go play with your boats
 
In which case, I fail to see the point that you are making. Furthermore, if a breaker trips, you can quickly re-make it.

Oh, and previously you said that the Diesels were incapable of driving the propulsion motors. Wiki tells me that they produce 2MW each. My sources tell me that only 3MW is needed to propel. Would you care to point out what I have overlooked.

should have read still not till. Sorry on my part.

The point im making is that if water is able to reach a part of the system due to battle damage and damage control efforts then it could be disastrous, you cant reset the breakers as the short is still happening. There are lots of things in place to stop it happening and incase it does but its new and unproven. Plus the system is a little bit more complicated involving computerised control systems to control the high current and break it down to lower voltages.

The wattage produced by the diesels are very small compared to the 20MW each produced by the WR21's. 4 versus 40, plus all the system/hotel loads means your not very fast. Fine for in harbour moving berth i guess but not at sea ala 23 which has diesels providing twice the wattage at about 1/2 the tonnage.
 
The point im making is that if water is able to reach a part of the system due to battle damage and damage control efforts then it could be disastrous, you cant reset the breakers as the short is still happening. There are lots of things in place to stop it happening and incase it does but its new and unproven. Plus the system is a little bit more complicated involving computerised control systems to control the high current and break it down to lower voltages.
Surely that would be the case with a ship driven directly by gas turbines, they too must surely have complicated control systems which could be affected by water. And, if you flooding is a realistic prospect, what is wrong with waterproofing the whole lot?


instinct said:
The wattage produced by the diesels are very small compared to the 20MW each produced by the WR21's. 4 versus 40, plus all the system/hotel loads means your not very fast. Fine for in harbour moving berth i guess but not at sea ala 23 which has diesels providing twice the wattage at about 1/2 the tonnage.
"Not very fast" is a bit different to "The diesels cant generate the power to drive a high voltage IEC drive." I can see though that there doesn't seem to be enough to provide any meaningful level of propulsion.
 
Surely that would be the case with a ship driven directly by gas turbines, they too must surely have complicated control systems which could be affected by water. And, if you flooding is a realistic prospect, what is wrong with waterproofing the whole lot?

I can do DC in a flooded/flooding engine room with a conventional plant, if the blue wiggly stuff is leaking, no way jose am I getting up to my neck in waters best friend. So, DC with IEP is basically inert the entire compartment. Waterproofing things is indeed done, but if somethings made a big hole in the side, it's a pretty safe bet it's rather buggered up things internally too.



"Not very fast" is a bit different to "The diesels cant generate the power to drive a high voltage IEC drive." I can see though that there doesn't seem to be enough to provide any meaningful level of propulsion.

I've seen an old film of a ship being towed using whalers and 20 strong backs per, but it was very definately not an option other than in a very calm sea with no one throwing insults at you. Allowing for the power you would need to power the other combat systems on the ship, and don't forget, you have huge air conditioning and lighting demands on a modern ship as you no longer have portholes etc, you would be looking at at best a tiny amount of power being cross fed from the diesel gensets to the main motors, and if you've lost the main motors from flooding, all rather academic what you could theoretically do. Effectively, if T45 loses the gas turbines, it's dead in the water for all intents and purposes.
 
At sunnoficarus, i just hope they stay away from the very gay style of housing for the US 5inch gun.

All the artists impressions seem to show the latest Krytonesque Mk45 Mod 4 gun, a cracking bit of kit throwing a far bigger shell, has a good capability against aircraft too, something our current peashooter hasn't.

800px-US_Navy_070111-N-4515N-509_Guided_missile_destroyer_USS_Forest_Sherman_%28DDG_98%29_test_fires_its_five-inch_gun_on_the_bow_of_the_ship_during_training.jpg
 
Surely that would be the case with a ship driven directly by gas turbines, they too must surely have complicated control systems which could be affected by water. And, if you flooding is a realistic prospect, what is wrong with waterproofing the whole lot?
Yes but its a case of something like a splinter puncturing the waterproofing, they just dont know how these things may react. Its all at the cutting edge of warship technology.

All the artists impressions seem to show the latest Krytonesque Mk45 Mod 4 gun, a cracking bit of kit throwing a far bigger shell, has a good capability against aircraft too, something our current peashooter hasn't.

800px-US_Navy_070111-N-4515N-509_Guided_missile_destroyer_USS_Forest_Sherman_%28DDG_98%29_test_fires_its_five-inch_gun_on_the_bow_of_the_ship_during_training.jpg

I know its a good bit of kit, it just looks real realy gay to me, i honestly dont know why, maybe i have a thing for muzzle breaks.
 
I can do DC in a flooded/flooding engine room with a conventional plant, if the blue wiggly stuff is leaking, no way jose am I getting up to my neck in waters best friend. So, DC with IEP is basically inert the entire compartment. Waterproofing things is indeed done, but if somethings made a big hole in the side, it's a pretty safe bet it's rather buggered up things internally too.
There are two motors. I am guessing, but are they not in two separate compartments? In which case, you have some redundancy.
 
So why all the angst about the possible fragility of this 'unproven technology' in a battle damage scenario?

Oh I dunno, the knowledge that when things hit ships, the electrical systems tend to have a bad habit of dropping offline even when the regular donks keep on running, or seeing a boat limp back into Ft Blockhouse with a wrecked main switchboard compartment and a very dead PO after someone slipped with screwdriver while trying to fix a fault?

While mechanical systems will by and large keep limping on when their situation is not optimal, electrical systems tend to have a working or dead state with no in betweens. Daring has already suffered a number of breakdowns in her propulsion system, one requiring emergency repairs in Canada after she lost power in the Atlantic..
 
Oh I dunno, the knowledge that when things hit ships, the electrical systems tend to have a bad habit of dropping offline even when the regular donks keep on running...
They've been using electric at sea for more than a few years now, isn't it about time they got a handle on responsibility and integrity?

sunnoficarus said:
... or seeing a boat limp back into Ft Blockhouse with a wrecked main switchboard compartment and a very dead PO after someone slipped with screwdriver while trying to fix a fault?
When was this? It sounds like an urban myth, to be honest.


sunnoficarus said:
While mechanical systems will by and large keep limping on when their situation is not optimal, electrical systems tend to have a working or dead state with no in betweens. Daring has already suffered a number of breakdowns in her propulsion system, one requiring emergency repairs in Canada after she lost power in the Atlantic..
Was the Daring problem caused by a single failure? I would put money on there being a human element involved.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
All the artists impressions seem to show the latest Krytonesque Mk45 Mod 4 gun, a cracking bit of kit throwing a far bigger shell, has a good capability against aircraft too, something our current peashooter hasn't.

4.5" had a respectable AA capability - Avenger had a credible claim of downing an A-4C Skyhawk in 1982 using hers - until it was deleted in 2000 or thereabouts.

It was the usual problem of poor understanding, though: "a MR gun doesn't have a huge chance of shooting down a fast jet, let alone a missile, so therefore it must be useless so let's take the capability away." The more correct reasoning is "MR gunfire appears to have had a significant deterrence and distraction effect on fast jets, and is a very effective option against the irregular air threat, so can we keep air mode?"
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
155 Mk8, T'was making good progress until Mr Fox culled it apparently.

Stalled for a couple of years and finally put out of its misery. No particular problem putting a 39-calibre 155mm tube in a Mk 8 mount (though no chance of doing so with a 52-calibre, hence no range advantage) but that's where the problems start, not stop.

Ammunition handling was one of those "...and we'll sort that out at prototype stage" issues that turned out not to be easily sorted, ammunition capacity plummeted, rate of fire halved, and there's the usual issue that "quick, cheap, easy" adoption of land-based munitions runs into RADHAZ problems on ship that are not quick, cheap or easy to resolve.

The most cost-effective answer remains a MOTS buy of a 5"/62 weapon: this was obvious as long ago as the design stage for Daring, though at that point things were so tight that she was barely able to get a MR gun at all, and reusing surplus Mk 8s was the only way to get _anything_ on the hull.
 
4.5" had a respectable AA capability - Avenger had a credible claim of downing an A-4C Skyhawk in 1982 using hers - until it was deleted in 2000 or thereabouts.

It was the usual problem of poor understanding, though: "a MR gun doesn't have a huge chance of shooting down a fast jet, let alone a missile, so therefore it must be useless so let's take the capability away." The more correct reasoning is "MR gunfire appears to have had a significant deterrence and distraction effect on fast jets, and is a very effective option against the irregular air threat, so can we keep air mode?"

Agreed, and the Yanks have always, (from bitter experience with very stern chaps turning their Zero's into the worlds first smart anti ship missiles), kept a very robust AAW capability for their main armaments. The 5" shell does however have a significantly better airburst effect by virtue of it's size.
 
The most cost-effective answer remains a MOTS buy of a 5"/62 weapon: this was obvious as long ago as the design stage for Daring, though at that point things were so tight that she was barely able to get a MR gun at all, and reusing surplus Mk 8s was the only way to get _anything_ on the hull.


True, t'was always thus. IIRC, we did spec a US 5" for the first of the assorted Euro-neddy collaborative Frigates back in the early 80's, looks like we'll now finally get it - 75 years after the first Staff Target for it's adoption was issued. Who says British procurement is slow.;P

Hopefully we'll se a retrofit at some point to T45.
 

Latest Threads

Top