Newest Navy Cruiser

[greenjp]

I work the the Navy and have a fair bit of experience with the engineering plant on the other electric drive ship in the fleet, the T-AKE.

FYI electric drive is nothing new, some old warships (pre-WW1) had it with big DC motors. Likewise there are examples in the commercial industry over the years. I believe DDG-1000 is breaking new ground in terms of the power being delivered but the basic concept isn't new.

Electric drive gives you a system-wide advantage in terms of operational flexibility and arrangements. It's particularly useful on a ship that will operate over a large range of speeds and with greatly varying electrical loads from other ship systems. You don't necessarily get an efficiency improvment at any particular speed but it allows for more efficient operation over a wider range of missions.

Our warships use gas turbines for main propulsion and power generation mainly for their compact size and to reduce the number of different fuels required. They are incredibly inefficient at partial load. Our few gas turbine powered support type ships all have diesels for electricity generation.

jeff

 

[andyd]

Yah GM had a diesel electric power plant that was used in locomotives, tugs and with muliple units. ships.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Quote:
And then there's the cost, roughly $3.8 billion apiece, according to the Navy's latest proposed budget.

Including research and development, the cost grows to $7 billion apiece, said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.


Will China lend us enough money for these toys?

 

[HM12460]

Very fascinating. I hope the Navy thoroughly trains the crews to operate and maintain this warship, to fight the ship to it's full potential. I am a Navy veteran and served onboard Spruance class destroyer's, and then Aegis cruisers. My favorite 2 were the USS Briscoe DD-977 and USS San Jacinto CG-56. I remember doing operations with the USS Arleigh Burke when it was newly commissioned and thought it was a very "futuristic" ship. I don't think the training on the Aegis weapons system was up to snuff at the time.

 

[morris]

electric drive for a ship. the cats that do engineering, i take my hat off to them. that old and new tech stuff is fascinating. over the years i have built lots of cool stuff, i couldnt design it but i really liked building it.

 

[cbear]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
You bring up good points, but I also believe that considering that you are talking about a warship you need to take into consideration about battle damage. If you are already relying on computers to make up for manpower you will almost certainly be in trouble if you take hits, have a fire or even hit a reef.


100% correct. If all your crew is doing essential operations, who is manning the fire or DC party? This isn't a commerical vessel, it's a ship for the purpose of going in to harms way.

Just my opinion from another Spru-can sailor. (DD-968)

 

[demarpaint]

I enjoy reading about these ships, I only wish the Defense and Military budget cuts weren't so deep. My son celebrated 6 years in the Navy this week, and hopes to make a career out of it.

 

[HM12460]

cbear, DD-968 is the, or was, the USS Arthur W. Radford iirc. What years were you onboard her?

 

[yonyon]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Quote:
And then there's the cost, roughly $3.8 billion apiece, according to the Navy's latest proposed budget.

Including research and development, the cost grows to $7 billion apiece, said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.


Will China lend us enough money for these toys?


Why wouldn't they? Look at how much this country puts into trying to quiet down the Middle East. China probably sees us as being on the edge of going that way, but so long as they keep lending us money that we won't pay back they've got the situation handled. It's a bargain for them. Imagine how much it would cost China to stop a civil war and establish a democratic government in the US if it came to that. Besides that, they like us, so you know, why not?

 

[cbear]

Originally Posted By: HM12460
cbear, DD-968 is the, or was, the USS Arthur W. Radford iirc. What years were you onboard her?


Yep, that was the Radford. I was on from 95-97. She was decommissioned in 2003 and sunk as an artifical reef last year. I'm fairly certain all of the Spruance class is decommisoned.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Sorry, earlyre, but nuclear powered Navy ships and subs all use steam turbines for primary propulsion.

They do generat megawatts of electricity for everything else!

The electric drive is much simpler and perhaps more reliable.


It's interesting, though, that the electricity on those ships is also generated by steam turbine, where the Zumwalt class plans to use the gas turbines to create the electricity. You eliminate the mechanical complexity and connection of the reduction gearbox, but gain the complexity of the generator that drives the motor. There are mechanical losses in the gear box, and efficiency losses going through the generator/motor connection as well. I don't think we gain simplicity or efficiency, I think we gain flexibility and maintainability, but I am not certain on those two points...


The Navy has done a lot of studies on integrated power systems, such as in the 1000. There is indeed an efficiency benefit mainly due to the ability to play with SFCs for the GTGs (there are no propulsion engines, just varying size GTGs) according to the ship service, combat and propulsion electric loads.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: cbear
Originally Posted By: HM12460
cbear, DD-968 is the, or was, the USS Arthur W. Radford iirc. What years were you onboard her?


Yep, that was the Radford. I was on from 95-97. She was decommissioned in 2003 and sunk as an artifical reef last year. I'm fairly certain all of the Spruance class is decommisoned.


Correct, the Ex-Paul Foster still sees Navy duty for testing at Port Hueneme.

 

[HM12460]

I THINK the David Ray is still afloat also, but not sure.

 

[65cuda]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Sorry, earlyre, but nuclear powered Navy ships and subs all use steam turbines for primary propulsion.

They do generat megawatts of electricity for everything else!

The electric drive is much simpler and perhaps more reliable.


It's interesting, though, that the electricity on those ships is also generated by steam turbine, where the Zumwalt class plans to use the gas turbines to create the electricity. You eliminate the mechanical complexity and connection of the reduction gearbox, but gain the complexity of the generator that drives the motor. There are mechanical losses in the gear box, and efficiency losses going through the generator/motor connection as well. I don't think we gain simplicity or efficiency, I think we gain flexibility and maintainability, but I am not certain on those two points...


The Navy has done a lot of studies on integrated power systems, such as in the 1000. There is indeed an efficiency benefit mainly due to the ability to play with SFCs for the GTGs (there are no propulsion engines, just varying size GTGs) according to the ship service, combat and propulsion electric loads.

I hate to say it but the military and contractors have a habit to me of deciding they want something and then letting the numbers fit the conclusion. I have little faith in polls or studies myself.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: HM12460
I THINK the David Ray is still afloat also, but not sure.


There likely are many still afloat... Even some older types.

In Philly at the ex-Navy Yard, there are a lot of mothballed ships. It is an open site.

I have a thread in the photo section with a ton of pictures, here are a couple old ones (cruisers and destroyers):

 

[Astro14]

65Cuda - I know it looks that way, but I spent a couple of years working on requirements...the JCIDS process works through mission analysis (what do you want to accomplish in a given scenario/operational contingency plan), deriving the required operational capabilities (what do you need to be able to do to accomplish that mission) and then defining the solution set across DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities)...

Not all requirements have a materiel (equipment, shiny new toy) answer. Often, changes in thinking, innovations in employment, better methods are the solution, and we implement those...in my project, that was a lot of the succees: establishment of new doctrine, new organizational structures and new training, with about 15% of the total $$ we spent going for equipment...and not new equipment, but existing systems that we installed where needed...the training was the really expensive part. People will always have a large cost...they are our biggest investment, and as the battlespace and technology continue to become more complex, we will have to invest more, and expect more, from the warfighters themselves....we will have to continue to increase the education and training of our people...

Of course politics ends up coloring the decisions, but there is a genuine effort to buy the things that we need in order to do the job...not the newest, coolest toy...

 

[65cuda]

I hope Astro that it is that way, but I've also seen where the gov has gotten started on new projects and have spent years and millions for the latest and greatest only to end up with less than ideal or even moderate results. Sorry but I still believe that the military is still into the latest and greatest. I also still believe in the idea of KISS since to me it has been shown that simple is a lot of times as reliable and easier to use and to me more importantly a lot cheaper and faster to build. Latest and greatest doesn't do a lot of good when it takes to long to build and are too expensive.

 

[kb01]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
I hope Astro that it is that way, but I've also seen where the gov has gotten started on new projects and have spent years and millions for the latest and greatest only to end up with less than ideal or even moderate results.


It sounds like you're describing my MOS in the Army.

I was mechanized infantry, serving as a crewman on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (M2A2).

 

[greenjp]

Just wanted to second what Astro said - the military really does try to take the right approach to problem identification, alternatives analysis, life cycle considerations, etc. As he said politics naturally influence things as well but the reality is that we haven't ended up with a bunch of shiny toys or latest and greatest.

DDG1000 is a great example actually, it is the latest and greatest but we're only building 3 of them. We have realized that it's too costly and serves a somewhat limited mission, so we're going back and building a new generation of the old DDG51 (Arleigh Burke) class instead. Same thing with the Seawolf sub - it was the latest and greatest but too expensive, so we built 3 and instead are making many more of the less expensive and capable Virginia Class. I could go on and on with examples of the performance and/or numerical compromises (F-22, LPD-17, JHSV, T-AKE, LCS, etc) made in the name of cost, risk avoidance, etc.

As for KISS, well sometimes problems are so complex that a complex solution is required. You always want to minimize complexity but for certain problems the minimum complexity required is very high.

jeff