John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Less fuel and 120 times longer on station…..misprint or really big batteries and/or nuclear?
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Has to be either a misprint, or someone not understanding what the requirement is supposed to be. IMO even a nuclear-powered vessel would not be able to have a x120 increase in the time on station, unless the time on station was originally only measured in minutes or maybe hours. The issue would being that there is both a limit to the victuals a vessel could realistically stock and store for the crew, as well as the limits of crew endurance.
A x120 increase in time on station would take a vessel which normally would only be on station for a single day (I am not claiming this for any USN vessel, just using to illustrate a point) and change the vessel to have an on station time of 120 days, or put another way, four months. Now if the current vessels were planned for an actual on station time of ~21 days which IMO sounds more realistic than a major USN warship only being on station for a day, that same x120 increase in on station time becomes unrealistic, being ~2,500 days on station, which is a little short of seven years...
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
You guys just really suck at math
1 day on station = 100% time on station
increase of 120% of time on station = 2.2 days on station
Its an increase of 120% not a multiplying by 120
1 day on station = 100% time on station
increase of 120% of time on station = 2.2 days on station
Its an increase of 120% not a multiplying by 120
Last edited:
Agree it is an increase of 120% ..... I think the issues is the AB propulsion packages is built around for GT's and these are not the most efficient beasts. Perhaps they are looking at a hybrid system with electric drive and DG's in addition to the GT for power production. They may also go for combined cycle GT's that recover the heat for steam turbine gensets in addition to direct drive.
Combined cycle GT's are being considered for cruise ships as the produce less carbon for the power generated and are more efficient in that role (not all) where large electrical loads need to be supported. In the cases of ships like DDG's the shaft of the turbine can still turn the prop (for sprint) but can also provide heat for a steam turbine generator. I am not saying this is what they are doing but these technologies exist and may be used to improve range.
A semi useful comparison is the range of the T26 (which is a CODLOG configuration) and the AB, there is close to 3000nm difference (depending on what reference you use) between the AB and the T26 to the latter's advantage. This may be because of the difference in the propulsion system. This does appear to come with a lower top speed.
Last edited:
WRT the VLS, this article from 2014 gives an overview of USN VLS and it could be that the Mk-57 VLS is used in conjunction with the MK-41 VLS. It is a peripheral modular four cell system, that uses an innovative gas system and doesn't have the water deluge system of the Mk-41. It is also larger and able to take larger missiles that won't fit in the Mk-41. At present it is used on the DDG-1000 class.
While I accept what USNI says is what they believe it will actually turn out to be, and they may be right. But it’s not what is shown on the PP - just the 32 on the forecastle; between the funnels is where the “destroyer payload module” is intended to go. Presuming that is analogous to the VPM then yes, it provides more large dia cells; but the current load out of that is for land attack not AAW. Somebody with more knowledge than me might be able to say if you can (or will be able to) quad pack, or similar, an AAW missile in those cells. They do have 42 RAM, which no bad thing. It’s only a concept drawing of course; we may know more about actual load out in a year or so. Meanwhile the Monday morning quarterbacks, of whom I must count myself one these days, will be telling them what it ought to be in that time.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The link a few posts back mentions IPS so this future ship is likely going to have something similar to what the Zumwalt class has.
It would be interesting if you could quad pack say the SM-2/6. That would mean 16 per VPM if you so desired it and say 16 modules per side with six of those having quad packed SM-2/6 is certainly a lot of SM-2/6 (96) per ship. It would still leave you with 40 cells for other missiles and you theoretically still have the 32 Mk-41 VLS on the foc'sle. Load 16 of the Mk-41 with ESSM Blk 2, there's another 96 SAM. I suppose dreams are free.
Flexson
Active Member
Agree it should read "50 percent farther with 120 percent longer time on station"
It also says a "25 percent reduction in fuel usage", not less fuel carried. Although there could be less fuel carried.... could equally be more fuel carried.
And I don't know what PP you guys are looking at but if I zoom in I can see 8x 8 Cell Mk41 forward of the Bridge for 64 Cells (4 of these 8 Cell Mk41 launchers able to be changed out with 12 Large Missile Launcher Cells) and what looks to be 4x 8 Cell Mk41 amidships for 32 Cells (although unlike the forward missile farm you can't see the entire layout of the amidships farm due to forward superstructure). The Destroyer Payload Option I assume would be in addition to the 32 Cells already amidships to provide the "Increased Missile Capacity" over the 96 cells of the Arleigh Burke and the 96 cells already in the concept drawing.
And that's just it.... this is the first release of the concept drawing. Like every other concept drawing we have seen over the last decade+ ; it will change.
It also says a "25 percent reduction in fuel usage", not less fuel carried. Although there could be less fuel carried.... could equally be more fuel carried.
And I don't know what PP you guys are looking at but if I zoom in I can see 8x 8 Cell Mk41 forward of the Bridge for 64 Cells (4 of these 8 Cell Mk41 launchers able to be changed out with 12 Large Missile Launcher Cells) and what looks to be 4x 8 Cell Mk41 amidships for 32 Cells (although unlike the forward missile farm you can't see the entire layout of the amidships farm due to forward superstructure). The Destroyer Payload Option I assume would be in addition to the 32 Cells already amidships to provide the "Increased Missile Capacity" over the 96 cells of the Arleigh Burke and the 96 cells already in the concept drawing.
And that's just it.... this is the first release of the concept drawing. Like every other concept drawing we have seen over the last decade+ ; it will change.
Terran
Well-Known Member
F35C lost in carrier accident. Pilot ejected 7 sailors injured, possibly wire break.
www.thedrive.com
F-35C Accident Aboard Carrier In South China Sea Forces Pilot To Eject, Injures Seven Sailors (Updated)
The fate of the F-35C, which was involved in a "landing mishap" while operating from the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, is unclear.
www.thedrive.com
John Newman
The Bunker Group
All speculation of course, but three things that come to my mind are, arrestor wire break, hook failure or a cold shot from the catapult.F35C lost in carrier accident. Pilot ejected 7 sailors injured, possibly wire break.
F-35C Accident Aboard Carrier In South China Sea Forces Pilot To Eject, Injures Seven Sailors (Updated)
The fate of the F-35C, which was involved in a "landing mishap" while operating from the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, is unclear.
Firstly, I’d discount the cold shot, wouldn’t expect deck crew to be injured if that happened.
Secondly, if the hook broke you’d expect the pilot to apply power and continue on as if it was a bolter, eg, a missed wire.
Lastly, a broken arrestor wire sounds more likely.
Again, just speculation of course.
Just to add my two cents worth, AFAIK even if the wire broke the pilot should've have been able to push the throttle through the fire wall and go around. As you say all speculation of course. The flight deck of a CV / CVN is a very dangerous place to work and carrier aviation is the most dangerous of all flying.
protoplasm
Active Member
If the wire breaks after already partially slowing the aircraft it may well be too slow to fly by the time it reaches the front of the angled deck, regardless of afterburner. Only option then is eject
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Fair enough. I stand corrected. It's a nasty situation on the deck, very nasty. Poor buggers.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
The video leaves a lot of questions, but I would say it doesn't look like snapped wire or hook, just a bit to much smoke. And the images of the plane in the water pretty much shows it didn't break up on the deck
Sounds like he came in low and lost his undercarriage to the round own. Debris from that would account for deck crew injuries, and a belly slide for some of the smoke (Wild ass guess warning)
oldsig
the concerned
Active Member
Just asking on the Zumwalts theoretically could the gun mounts accommodate one 16" barrel from the old battleships.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would think sticking with the current guns and using inexpensive dumb rounds might be a better option than a single 16 inch gun. Modification cost for hypersonic missiles would probably be less expensive and certainly more effective. This is being planned for now.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
No, no, no.
LOL
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be fiscally feasible for either option.
For the 16-inch guns I would assume it would require a such an extensive rebuild that it would be ludicrous. Plus you would need to produce ammo for three(?) guns since the US Army began de-mil-ing their stock of 15K rounds half a decade ago.
As too current guns and dumb rounds they seem to have already determined the cost is just to much. I mean when they killed developing rounds base on the Excalibur rounds the writing was on the wall. Making brand new specialized ammo for 6 guns just ain't gonna happen.
A reasonable cost "gunning" option might be placing a MK 110 57mm mount at the forward mount with just the turret ready rounds and no ammo feeding system for reloading. While mounting a collection box launchers (Like the Mk-143 ABL) for TLAMs & NSMs now, and replace with either box launchers for hypersonic missiles later or major overhaul for instilling VLS tubes for HSMs
A whole lot of folks should be having their retirement pay withheld around this fiasco /s/