Are the USN Littoral Combat Ship (LCSs) propulsion systems ordered from RR the same as, or a modified versions of, those installed in the T45?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
We don't have any 127mm/5" guns. Land-based guns are 105mm & 155mm, naval 4.5"/114mm.
Unluckily that electric motor has broken already sometimes:
Unarmed Royal Navy T45 destroyer breaks down mid-Atlantic • The Register
But i belive the electric is an improvement for certain things, like consume, space, other electrical benefits, maybe noise.
But as you say, one thing is the hull, the piping, the integrated system of platform, the weigh distribution, and easy to grow or scaled down, include Nbc stations and pressurized citadels, hull cooling systems, distrib. re survaibility, damage control, etc, and other the propulsion system. In the same hull, with planned space for a common twin shaft propulsion, probably there is no space problem in putting and electrical motor and frequency converters.
And this is the case of the T26, it can carry either hybrid motors or similar electric motor to the T45. So if Ran goes for electric motor from the T26 is an option, and even probably compatible with Awd hull, as the shafts require more space of axis etc.
From Bae T26 is 5000 t. while T45 is 7500 t. Need to change all dimesions, width, lenght, draft which in T45 is 7.4.
Design stage for T45 took like 2 years.
It would be a bit rare that Ran goes for T26 instead of common Awd hull for Anzac II, are they going to complicate the life for a size desing like F100 scope, having learnt the F100?
Definitely we dont know the chats from january 2010 between Uk and Australia governments. In any case if Bae/Uk would have decided to buy Awd platform design for T26 they might not want to make it public for commercial reasons. Of course i am not ensuring anything, just asking generally.
The ANZAC replacements will be larger than the F-100, the type 26 is not an option, it is too small and too limited. Remember the ANZAC replacement is intended to be a cruise missile armed land attack strike platform as well as a capable ASW platform, it will be much much more than the simple patrol frigate that the original ANZACs were intended to be.
Sorry this is overly simplistic and indicates a lack of understanding. Warships are 'driven' by power needs and and intergrated powers system, that includes propulsion, allows more effective management of this resource. It also allow the use of combined cycle generation with gas turbines that provides additional effeciencies in addition to simplification of the drive train with the removal of free power tubines and assocaited gear boxes.
Nonsense ............ you cannot simply 'scale everything down or up'. Piping, auxillary services, cabling etc etc are driven by the systems they support and this means they are genrally not scalable. With your logic we could end up with less space to contain they same systems. Similalry weight and weight distribution as a factor of sumberged volume, block coefficient and waterplane area will impact upon performance and stability. Again this is not simply a scalable option and naval archtecture and system design is not as simple as you suggest. You clearly have no experiance in this area and I would strongly suggest you stop making statements that you indicate are 'fact' when they are simply your assumptions..
Have not heard of that one before, all indications I have seen lead you to believe it will be smaller ? Do you have a reference for that ?
Cheers
Maybe you misunderstood me, i said that if you have a design for shatfs, that probably you will be able to modify de design, the drawings, to fit something less big and heavy like electric motor and converters, instead of all the mech transm. Shafts or axis are supposed to be quite heavy.
And that is what the T26 design is making, either electric motor or hybrid motor, this i suppose is meaning transm for Codlag or Codog etc.. (?). But T26 is supposed to be for like 2020, in case for Royal Navy.
I am not talking of changing things in ships already done and in the sea, like putting bigger engines, but talking of the scalable possibilities of some drawings, like the Awd or T26, which also i´ve seen mentions to 6800 t. in Wiki I think, while in Bae´s page they say 5000t.
They seem to be very different ships. I think they may share some technologies but be completely different designs. Some of the T26 role will be performed instead I think by the OCV. with the RAN.
T45 Hull is interesting. I don't know how cheap they can make it or how suitable it would be. The F-100 is quiet a large hull, but is it something we want to be building on in 2020?
All you have done is convince me you have no idea what you are talking about as "scalable" is still in the mis and there appears to be a lack of understanding of propulsions system. To add value to this discussion can you pleae do a bit of research before making "statements".:jump
I should have been more careful in my choice of words, perhaps something along the lines of "some in service and industry anticipate that the SEA5000 frigates will be larger again than the AWDs in order to incorporate the desired ASW and land attack capabilities", would have been better.
These ships are effectively replacing the FFGs and ANZACs with the new OCVs covering the roles originally intended for the ANZACs as well as replacing the ACPBs, MCMVs and hydrographic / oceanographic ships. The other factor is the volume / (potential future) capability lost when the F-100 was selected over the Evolved design, i.e. space and weight for land attack cruise missiles etc.
There will be facilities for naval helicopters (2) and UCAVs and likely also for unmanned water craft of various types. A larger VLS is a given, as is a medium calibre gun and as Abe has suggested later ships of the class may very well be built as enhanced AWD versions incorporating AEGIS or its replacement.
These will be big ships.
Warning: The following post is an extreme case of nitpicking, read at your own risk.
Actually... the 4.5" gun is a 113mm calibre. Because it isn't actually a 4.5" gun that is just a name given to it so it's easy to say. Its a 4.45" gun. Which in metric is 113mm...
When I was a kid I postulated either retrofitting the CFA DDGs with Mk6 4.5" or alternatively the River class DEs with Mk 42 5" for the sake or standardisation. I also thought the OHP FFGs would be pretty cool with a Mk6 or Mk45 in place of the Mk13 GMLS and replacing the 76mm with a VLS and fitting a pair of quad Harpoon launchers between the forward superstructure and gun.
I even carved up an Airfix 1/600 Devonshire kit in an attempt to create an RAN County DLG with Tartar, Mk42, Seacat, Ikara and two Wessex!
Ah the joys of ignorance of what can and can not be done let alone what is affordable or even required.
Ok with you now
lets hope they do include room for future growth, something the AWD is lackingThe Anzac II's will certainly be an interesting project to follow, lets hope they get it right ? But too far out to see any real contenders at this stage ?
So which is better the 4.5” or 5”? The 4.5” QF Mk V (as found in the Mk 6 twin mount) and the 5”/54 Mk 18 (as found in the Mk 42 mount) are similar class weapons though the 5” has a 10 year design advantage. They both have around the same sectional density (2,500 kg/sqm which is key to accuracy and range) but the 5” has a slight muzzle velocity advantage (only 8%). Obviously the 5” shell is bigger (26%) giving a ¼ more bang and range. The 5” has lower chamber and muzzle loads so has much longer life (3,000 rounds to 650 rounds per barrel). While a better gun the Mk 42 mount is a lot heavier (~20%) than the Mk 6 twin mount and less mechanically reliable. They both shoot rounds at roughly the same rate of fire despite the Mk 6 having two barrels.
So the RAN made the right choice. So maybe it was the River class DEs that needed a new gun mount? And don’t forget the Daring class destroyers… HMA Ships Vampire and Vendetta had a big refit in 70-72/71-73 which could have included new three new Mk 42s.
So true but if a fourth was to be ordered I think some would choke at the thought of calling it WATERHEN. Other alphabetical options for the RAN are N and Q also to be thorough S and T as well.
What chance the Collins repalcements will reuse the O boat names?
The RAN never had a policy of alphabetic numbering the RN did for most of its destroyer and submarine flotillas. They passed on some of these ships to the RAN and they came with said names (V/W, S/T, O, Q and Ns). The V boats are special because of the Scrap Iron Flotilla of WWII and the Cold War Daring class.
Other than that it would look pretty stupid if we named our ships “Quiberon” or “Nizam” rather than “Anzac” or “Ballarat”… This is the Australian navy afterall. The V boats will come around soon but the rest of the Alphabets are best for things like crew names for patrol boats.
When did the Mk45 become available, 1970/71? That would have been an interesting modernisation option for the Darings, Rivers and Perths, saving top weight and perhaps permitting the installation of NSSM and or Harpoon / Exocet canisters.
Imagine Torrens and Swan being completed with Mk45, NSSMS, Harpoon and Ikara.
If not for alphabetical reasons, for historical ones. The name Vampire and Vendetta sound a damn sight more inspiring than "Ballarat"
- Status