The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Jeez, that's a bit of a mean deal - Tasmania for a carrier? What have the poms done to upset you?Bugger, and here I was hoping (pipe dream) that Australia could have picked one of them up on the cheap
Maybe a trade could be done, We get a carrier and they get Tasmania?
It'll probably go on long after they're in service. I used to knock heads with a bloke on Warships who stuck rigidly to the line that since we'd only ordered four Dave-B, that's all we were getting. He's probably come up with some new line of quasi-religious faith style of argument by now. Argument by assertion - I shall say that a thing shall happen, then proceed with the rest of the argument as if it has happened and therefore the recipient of this tirade is clearly an idiot for not accepting the reality of the situation.
Albion & Bulwark were laid down in very late 1990's / yr 2000, with the 1st one being ready for sea in late 2003 / early 2004. Bulwark has already had 'an update'. Cavernous beasts, easily upgrade-able / easy to fix...
As stated in the comments quoted I would agree that they should be with us till the 2030's
They gave us Abbott! not to mention the "geniuses" cant even take an insult seriously.. We sent the Fosters beer as an up yours, not so they could enjoy that bloody crapJeez, that's a bit of a mean deal - Tasmania for a carrier? What have the poms done to upset you?
That I can understand. :drunk1They gave us Abbott! not to mention the "geniuses" cant even take an insult seriously.. We sent the Fosters beer as an up yours, not so they could enjoy that bloody crap
Not directly an RN thing, but it may have implications - in that a development deal for Aster 30 to do ABM is signed.
France Launches Aster Upgrade
France Launches Aster Upgrade
Aster 30 already has a limited ABM ability - Aster Block 1 (stupid name). Aster Block 1 NT is an upgraded ABM ability, against longer-range missiles & with some other enhancements. The proposed level beyond that is Aster Block 2, which is pretty much a new missile above the booster.
It'd require upgrades to the combat system & radars (software only for Block 1, I'm not sure about B1 NT) for Type 45 to be able to use it, & AFAIK the French & Italians have only committed to upgrades for the land based system.
It'd require upgrades to the combat system & radars (software only for Block 1, I'm not sure about B1 NT) for Type 45 to be able to use it, & AFAIK the French & Italians have only committed to upgrades for the land based system.
spsun100001
New Member
Type 45 - can anyone give us a tow?
According to the Daily Telegraph we're going to have to spend "tens of millions" to deal with the ongoing problems with their power plant.
Not so long ago we were discussing the gearbox problems on the Astute class and the severe impact these had on speed. Allegedly this issue has been resolved but no doubt that too came at a cost and we also had to bring over US help to get them built.
Do these problems suggest that we just don't build enough warships and submarines these days to maintain a sufficiently capable design capability?
Royal Navy's £1bn new warships need major engine refit after power failures - Telegraph
According to the Daily Telegraph we're going to have to spend "tens of millions" to deal with the ongoing problems with their power plant.
Not so long ago we were discussing the gearbox problems on the Astute class and the severe impact these had on speed. Allegedly this issue has been resolved but no doubt that too came at a cost and we also had to bring over US help to get them built.
Do these problems suggest that we just don't build enough warships and submarines these days to maintain a sufficiently capable design capability?
Royal Navy's £1bn new warships need major engine refit after power failures - Telegraph
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If not building enough ships is the root cause of the U.K.'s naval building program then Canada and the RCN have an even worse problem.
I covered this on the RAN thread, the issue is apparently not the propulsion system but under power diesel generators, i.e only two Wartsilas of only 1Mw each, verses the Type 23 with four DGs of 1.5Mw each. When trawling along on station the ships would be running on DGs only to save fuel, when the required power exceeds what the DGs can provide the whole thing (or specific systems) trip out as there is insufficient power.If not building enough ships is the root cause of the U.K.'s naval building program then Canada and the RCN have an even worse problem.
From what I have found these break downs have occurred off Africa and in the Gulf, i.e. hotel power maxed out providing aircon on top of everything else. The fix will likely be retro fitting a third generator. Making this more another example of penny pinching rather than a design fault.
walter
Active Member
Didn't knew they(Brits)use only 2 wartsillas of 1MW each seems to little(for the most advanced destroyer of the world ,just joking),but even our "tiny" DZP use 4 of 1.7 mw each,so must be a money thing(cutting cost)or am i wrong here?4 × Wärtsilä-Deutz D620 V12 diesel-generators, 1,680 kW (2,250 hp) each
Last edited:
whitefleet
New Member
It seems questionable to install such lackluster electrical capacity in a brand new ship. Many nations, such as the US, build their ships with lots of excess generational capacity to facilitate future upgrades. I guess the Royal Navy wasn't so keen on that, which is interesting. Given past experiences, such as the Falklands War, I would expect the RN to know the value of reactionary upgrades.
The Darings are all electric with the main propulsion GTs actually being generators and the propellers having short shafts driven by electric motors. What that means is when the GTs are running the ships have a great surplus of power, the issue would be when operating at low speed when the GTs would not be required
According to everything I've read T45 actually has two Wärtsilä 12V200 diesels of 2Mw each (that matches the published output of that model - I've seen it rated up to 2.3), but even that doesn't seem much for what they have to do.
Apart from that, your explanation seems entirely logical.
Yes my mistake, two of 2Mw not two of 2Mw each, or 2/3 of the DG speced for the Type 23, not 1/3. Nowhere near enough for a larger more complex ship, unless it was intended to always have at least on GT on load.
Just out of idle interest, is it cheaper to run all GT say smaller turbines for low load and larger kicking in when required? Surely there is less weight and less maintenance and less space required for GTs cf DGs. What is the rationale for having diesel? Sorry if I've missed something obvious.