Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Type 26

Are you studiously ingnoring me again?

Not particularly…

You've obviously made your mind up the wigglies and water shouldn't a problem, but as the incident on HMCS Chicoutimi showed, they don't mix and play well together, and when they do, the outcome is rather catastrophic. The short and fire that disabled HMCS Chicoutimi was caused by poor sealing of a through bulkhead gland letting water into the main power cables, the same sort of thing that could occur from shrapnel damage to the main cables on a T45.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
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.

Not necessarily the US 5" gun

Italy 127 mm/64 (5") LW
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
A 5" gun to beef up NGS has been under discussion for years now but seemed to miss the T45 boat. Incidentally part of the problem is that traditional naval 4.5" ammunition is not optimised for NGS, as NGS was, in the deep-water world of the Cold War, a junior role to surface gunnery (which hasn't been used to sink an enemy warship since 1956, but we all dream of another Jutland) and the myth that before computerised solutions came along, a 4.5" armed ship like a Leander could shoot down aircraft. That ignored the Gun Direction Time Cycle which was, in such ships, too long to engage before weapon release (and another problem that comes in visual indication if the detecting sight, in reality just a mount for a pair of binoculars, is not stabilised, which causes azimuth errors). Lecture on Stabilisation available for a fee.
 
and another problem that comes in visual indication if the detecting sight, in reality just a mount for a pair of binoculars, is not stabilised, which causes azimuth errors


How very dare you deride our technically cutting edge direction systems! What next? Casting aspersions at the mighty STAAG?
 
Not particularly…

The particular point I thought you were ignoring was the Main Switchboard incident you referred to.

I did hear about the Chicoutimi fire and it's causes, but hoped that lessons had been learned and improvements had been made, and that the standards today would be better, especially in machinery spaces.
 
The particular point I thought you were ignoring was the Main Switchboard incident you referred to.

Well, you've already decided it was an urban myth so rather pointless discussing it, isn't it?

I did hear about the Chicoutimi fire and it's causes, but hoped that lessons had been learned and improvements had been made, and that the standards today would be better, especially in machinery spaces.

Sigh, as both our esteemed Badgers and myself have noted, you can waterproof the cables etc till your blue in the face, but ships can expect to be hit by things that go BANG! and tend to throw shrapnel about, and unless you've covered all the main cabling, distribution system and gen sets in armour, we haven't, it's going to get holes in it that will very probably let the water that rather unsportingly tends to follow such events in to play with the wigglies. Just because electric drive works fab for cruise ships, doesn't follow it's the best idea for things that get shot at as part of the day job.
 
Sigh, as both our esteemed Badgers and myself have noted, you can waterproof the cables etc till your blue in the face, but ships can expect to be hit by things that go BANG! and tend to throw shrapnel about, and unless you've covered all the main cabling, distribution system and gen sets in armour, we haven't, it's going to get holes in it that will very probably let the water that rather unsportingly tends to follow such events in to play with the wigglies. Just because electric drive works fab for cruise ships, doesn't follow it's the best idea for things that get shot at as part of the day job.

Do we currently cover our motors, shafts and controls systems in such armour?

Much is being made of the 4000 volt drive cable on a T45... (is this sent down one 'core' or several btw?) but what about the 1.5v +/- carried on a control cable on a conventionally (fwoabw) propelled boat? Might not be as spectacular when it gets cut, but would it not similarly cause agro?

Likewise is this T45 cable a cable at all? t could well be a rod or bar.
 
Well, you've already decided it was an urban myth so rather pointless discussing it, isn't it?

I didn't decide that. What I did do was ask some very old submariners if they could remember the incident, and I was assured that such an incident had not occurred in the last 39 years. I have also, some time ago, read a publication which details all the serious incidents involving submarines over some considerable period, and cannnot recall seeing the incident you mention. If you maintain that such an incident happened, I would go out of my way to re-read that publication, and either state categorically that it did not happen, or admit that I (and those that I asked) was wrong.

sunnoficarus said:
Sigh, as both our esteemed Badgers and myself have noted, you can waterproof the cables etc till your blue in the face, but ships can expect to be hit by things that go BANG! and tend to throw shrapnel about, and unless you've covered all the main cabling, distribution system and gen sets in armour, we haven't, it's going to get holes in it that will very probably let the water that rather unsportingly tends to follow such events in to play with the wigglies. Just because electric drive works fab for cruise ships, doesn't follow it's the best idea for things that get shot at as part of the day job.

Equally, mechanical systems are liable to be damaged by the very same thingks that go BANG. With wigglies, you would have two supplies fed separately. As previously discussed, the 45s have two motors in separate compartments. So a complete loss of propulsion would require both electrical supplies in or to both compartments to suffer damage. The turbines would be just as vulnerable mechanically attached to the shaft as they would as electrical generating sets, and would also be, due to their location, be more susceptible to a flood-related outage. Additionally, there must be a fair amount of electrics associated with a mechanically-driven system, and these would be just as susceptible to damage as the supplies to the main motors of an electric drive system. Your argument seems to rely on a mechanical system being impervious to damage, which we all know they aren't.
 
To be fair to SoI, not quite - he's saying that the compartment just needs to leak sufficiently to submerge wiggly things, not that those things have to be damaged.

Yes he is.

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....

Also, he seems perfectly happy to go into a flooding machinery space which probably contains an electric generator in addition to the engine, without calling for the entire ships electrical system to be de-energised.
 

Mattb

LE
Surely the disadvantages of a cable versus a mechanical linkage is that it's rather easier to make additional back ups? A cable from one end of a ship would probably only weigh a few hundred kilos and could be routed around easiliy, whereas a driveshaft would (I imagine) weigh a fair few tonnes and get in the way somewhat.
 
Surely the disadvantages of a cable versus a mechanical linkage is that it's rather easier to make additional back ups? A cable from one end of a ship would probably only weigh a few hundred kilos and could be routed around easiliy, whereas a driveshaft would (I imagine) weigh a fair few tonnes and get in the way somewhat.

If a T45 has a problem with the power generation... could another T45 provide a slave lead?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
STAAG wasn't a detecting system - clay feet, Sonny.

Oh and the maximum effective range IF the target were indicated in time would probably be insufficient to secure a kill before weapon release.

It, and other immediate post-war systems, were designed to re-fight the Pacific War better.

The answer, when it eventually came, was Seawolf, which automated the whole process (and might have saved Coventry if the Goalkeeper hadn't been wooded and forced to shut down the engagement).
 
STAAG wasn't a detecting system - clay feet, Sonny.

Oh and the maximum effective range IF the target were indicated in time would probably be insufficient to secure a kill before weapon release.

It, and other immediate post-war systems, were designed to re-fight the Pacific War better..

The only battles STAAG fought were with despairing OEM's .;P
 
"......adaptable to meet the future demands...."

So thats fitted for but not with then.

Not cynical at all ;)

Seems it is following other ship designs at the moment and having Flexible Mission Space aka big open space to rig up in any configuration for the specific need.

These needs can be met by a couple of radio sand a 6ft table GS black nastied to the floor up to a purpose build container being inserted with all kinds of gubbins in built.

Will be interesting to see Sea Ceptor. And this could be the first RN ship with designated UAV support...

What is the drive train? T45 style or old school?
 
BTW...

we have T23 and T42s... (obviously we now have T45s) and are planning T26s...

what happened to T24, 25, 43 and 44? Is it just a quirk of the naming convention or do they exist on paper?
 

Latest Threads

Top