CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Where did I mention what the President said? I said general public and stupid media.
The President is talking about a new, large, heavy firepower vessel. That's what Battleships were.
New Battleships
- Thread starter Ronsant
- Start date
The President is talking about a new, large, heavy firepower vessel. That's what Battleships were.
Will this new battleship be powered by "clean" coal?
Basically, jet fuel... or diesel. It's supposed to have turbine engines driving electric generators.
Basically, it’s jet fuel.
F-44 fuel is the NATO designation for JP-5 - a high flash point kerosene used aboard carriers, initially, but adopted in the 1990s by the USAF for safety reasons.
The GE LM-2500 turbines are the core of an airliner engine, the CF-6, used to drive a gearbox on current Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class ships. The gas turbines give great power/weight, and allow those ships to be fast. No different with this larger, newer class.
So, they run ‘em on jet fuel. This ship is specifying the same equipment, LM-2500 gas turbines and diesel (or turbine) generators.
Here’s a bit more on the current power plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500
F-44 fuel is the NATO designation for JP-5 - a high flash point kerosene used aboard carriers, initially, but adopted in the 1990s by the USAF for safety reasons.
The GE LM-2500 turbines are the core of an airliner engine, the CF-6, used to drive a gearbox on current Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke class ships. The gas turbines give great power/weight, and allow those ships to be fast. No different with this larger, newer class.
So, they run ‘em on jet fuel. This ship is specifying the same equipment, LM-2500 gas turbines and diesel (or turbine) generators.
Here’s a bit more on the current power plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM2500
4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Yep, 2500’s are basically tri fuel - and parts are worldwide …
There was mention of this ship being cold water rated - so expect a waste heat recovery system on the exhaust side …
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
The Navy and CG have been using biofuel in shipboard turbines as much as available for over a decade.
Isn’t it F-76, which is close to diesel No 2? Gas turbines are quite tolerant of different fuels, but obviously performance and energy density are important for jet aircraft engines. It’s possible to mod an aircraft engine to run on CNG, but that’s just way too little energy density to be practical. That’s not a problem with stationary power generation where natural gas can be piped in.
Current Navy gas turbine powered ships generally use F-76 but can use JP-5/F-44 if needed.
Diesel #2 looks to be somewhat similar but F-76 can have a higher sulfur content than diesel #2, which appears to be ULSD and geared towards diesel automotives. F-76 requires a flashpoint of 140 deg F or higher, where D#2 might be around 125 deg F. F-76 has a different required additive package, since it could be stored longer and also is normally used in what are called 'seawater compensated storage tanks' located on the bottom of the type of ships mentioned. When these tanks are full of F-76, they will have very little seawater inside them and as fuel is pumped out the top of the tank, purified, and sent to strictly fuel-only tanks (to then be used in the fuel systems feeding the engines), seawater is pumped into the bottom of the tank to compensate for the used fuel (improves ship stability as fuel is used).
I don't know if D#2 can be used if F-76 is not available, even if it meets the minimum flashpoint requirement.
The LM2500 engines used onboard these ships only have the liquid fuel nozzles (from what I have seen). The LM2500 engine is also used heavily in power generation stations where it could be adapted to use liquid fuel or gas fuel (different nozzles), depending on what is the best fit for its application and fuel supply. It is a very versatile engine with different applications ranging from marine propulsion or power generation to stationary/land based power generation.
I know the Navy experimented with this a while back but I am not too sure how much they actually use now.
In what capacity are you referring to for a 'waste heat recovery system'? I know they use waste heat recovery systems on stationary/ land-based gas turbine power plants to improve the gas turbine's efficiency, but I don't recall hearing it being used for that same purpose on marine gas turbine powered Navy vessels. The old CGs and DDs (Spruance class destroyers) had exhaust waste heat recovery systems that used the exhaust from the electrical generator's gas turbine to boil water into steam, which was then distributed throughout the ship for heating and other uses. The current remaining CGs have all had these waste heat recovery boilers, machinery, piping, and heaters removed and replaced with all electric heating. I don't think any of the newer DDG 51 class have waste heat recovery systems.
Last edited:
https://www.gevernova.com/gas-power/applications/flexible-fuel-offerings
I don’t know exactly how it’s going to work now that General Electric has been sliced and diced. Marine turbines are part of GE Aerospace, but marine diesels are part of GE Transportation, even though the parent company (Wabtec) is mostly about rail equipment. It used to be vertically integrated. I think there was even an attempt at a turbine powered locomotive in the 1950s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_GTELs
Uhm yes!
I knew they could use several fuels, and I appreciate the correction. F44 is pretty expensive compared with F76, so it makes sense that they would run it on the cheaper stuff.
Without commas, one of each makes 4, indeed would.
I heard the US Army uses JP-8 for pretty much everything overseas. But it’s more expensive and not ideal for diesel engines, but simplifies logistics.
The DDG I was on didn’t use GE turbines. It was powered by Rolls Royce MT30s.
I think some here may have never been aboard a modern Navy ship. The ships are compartmentalized heavily. GQ drills suck as a result, but the task serves the purpose of ship preservation. See: USS Cole.
I’m having a hard time understanding just what it is these new Battleships are intended to accomplish. A few cruisers, frigates and destroyers covers the bases extremely well for all facets except dogfights. A DDG can reach out and touch some foreheads…
5” gun, CIWS, Mk38s, SM variants, harpoons, .50s, and those of us well trained VBSS guys makes for a pretty tough ship.
I’m having a hard time understanding just what it is these new Battleships are intended to accomplish. A few cruisers, frigates and destroyers covers the bases extremely well for all facets except dogfights. A DDG can reach out and touch some foreheads…
5” gun, CIWS, Mk38s, SM variants, harpoons, .50s, and those of us well trained VBSS guys makes for a pretty tough ship.
I guess the claim is that size is needed for electricity production, but I’m skeptical.
They need battleships for electricity production? Or they need them for the electricity for the railgun prototype they’ve been developing for many years?
CleanSump
Site Donor 2026
Bigger is to increase the volume of weapon stores in the magazines. Room for a larger variety of weapons installed. High electrical demand in a non-nuclear boat. I can't imagine they'd want bigger 8" or 16" guns for shore bombardment, that's kind of irrelevant today. But more missiles, yes.
Looks big and impressive when in a foreign port just like a carrier does today or battleships did before WWII.
President can say "We have a battleship!" just like "my amp goes to 11".
Looks big and impressive when in a foreign port just like a carrier does today or battleships did before WWII.
President can say "We have a battleship!" just like "my amp goes to 11".
