The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Surely the intercooler & recuperator aren't part of the turbine. Part of the engine - the powerpack, power module, whatever - but not the turbine.

The T45s require two GTs for redundancy so the T26 setup (1 GT) would not be sufficient.

I've been reading some of the stuff said about the WR-21 & its advantages when it was being developed. The twin WR-21 IFEP configuration was being proposed as a more efficient alternative to a 2 x GT + 2 x diesel twin shaft configuration, as one WR-21 could drive both shafts through the electric motors in fuel-efficient cruise, i.e. two GTs were proposed for redundancy with no diesels for propulsion. A single MT30 plus diesels could achieve the same thing.

 

[swerve]

IEP in the Type 45 been problematic so it will be interesting to see how the QE's IEP works out using MT30s. ....

The MT30, & the IEP in the QEs, do not have the components which have been problematic in the Type 45. They are specific to the WR-21.

MT30s have been selected by four navies for six classes of warship so far, & I think 17 are operating in nine ships of four classes.

 

[swerve]

...
Type 45 replacements may be hard on the heels of an end of build Type 26 however - they have so much orphan kit it's unreal (..., the Sylver silos will be unique to 45 ...

Unique to Type 45 & eight other classes in seven other navies - so far.

 

[StobieWan]

Unique to Type 45 & eight other classes in seven other navies - so far.

Oh c'mon mate, you can read sentences in context, I've seen you do it before - I'll space it out for you tho - Sylver will likely be unique to Type 45 in RN service.

The type 26 will be running (it seems) Mk41 - as may be Type 31 if it gets anything in RN service beyond the Sea Ceptor.


Where would that leave the Type 45's? Yeah, unique radar, unique Gt's, sole user of the silos in RN service, and sole user of the 4.5 incher..

Point I'm still trying to make against all efforts to rewrite every post I make, Type 45 starts to look expensive to maintain in terms of the fit of prime mover, sensor and weapons fit.

Lovely ships, I get it, great AAW, partly compromised by a lack of CEC (which I still don't understand)

They're starting to look like they're going to be expensive and difficult to run in their latter years is my point.

 

[StobieWan]

It's not the GT that's the problem, it is the intercooler/heat exchanger that's the problem.

It is the GT that's the issue in my opinion - and I've explained why - it's unique and no-one else bought them - so any fixes, enhancements, changes, any "wow, didn't see that coming" issues will be settled on six warships - if we'd bought LM2500's then we'd be spreading all the supply chain issues across dozens of ships across the US and the rest of the world. I don't care (in essence) how well they may or may not work - they're pretty much only operated by one navy and in that navy, only by six ships. Do you think that's going to be a) cheap b) expensive c) neither.

I'm going with b)

 

[John Fedup]

The MT30, & the IEP in the QEs, do not have the components which have been problematic in the Type 45. They are specific to the WR-21.

MT30s have been selected by four navies for six classes of warship so far, & I think 17 are operating in nine ships of four classes.

The MT30 is ok but to my knowledge only the QE and Zumwalt use them in a IEP configuration and you have to agree its early days for both classes. There were some initial problems with the electrical distribution on Zumwalt which were minor and things seem to be ok. The QE hopefully will prove out as well.

 

[John Fedup]

Surely the intercooler & recuperator aren't part of the turbine. Part of the engine - the powerpack, power module, whatever - but not the turbine.

True, I should have said part of the propulsion system.

I've been reading some of the stuff said about the WR-21 & its advantages when it was being developed. The twin WR-21 IFEP configuration was being proposed as a more efficient alternative to a 2 x GT + 2 x diesel twin shaft configuration, as one WR-21 could drive both shafts through the electric motors in fuel-efficient cruise, i.e. two GTs were proposed for redundancy with no diesels for propulsion. A single MT30 plus diesels could achieve the same thing.

Yes, for efficiency, one GT was to power both shafts but this didn't work out under hot conditions. IIRC, for economy mode, the current plan is to have one GT and one diesel provide power. Also, a third diesel is to be added. I believe the Type 45 has about 40 MW from the GTs and currently 4 MW from the Warstilas. The Type 26 will have 36 MW from the MT30 and the 4 MTUs will provide 12 MW so total power outputs are similar.

 

[spoz]

Lovely ships, I get it, great AAW, partly compromised by a lack of CEC (which I still don't understand)

.

CEC is brand new, after all - the first non US fit is in Hobart and Brisbane, and they've only just started trials with it. T45 might well be fitted idc.

 

[matt00773]

It is the GT that's the issue in my opinion - and I've explained why - it's unique and no-one else bought them - so any fixes, enhancements, changes, any "wow, didn't see that coming" issues will be settled on six warships - if we'd bought LM2500's then we'd be spreading all the supply chain issues across dozens of ships across the US and the rest of the world. I don't care (in essence) how well they may or may not work - they're pretty much only operated by one navy and in that navy, only by six ships. Do you think that's going to be a) cheap b) expensive c) neither.

I'm going with b)

Selecting LM2500s would have been an easy option and would not have provided the opportunity to develop future technology. The whole point of military is to be one step ahead of everyone else and you don't achieve that with selecting off the shelf products which everyone has. It is worth sticking with the WR-21 design and seeing the technology through to its maturity. The benefits will come much later...

The annual operational costs of the Type 23s and Type 45s were recently revealed at £11m and £13.5m respectively - there's not that much difference really.

Average Type 23 Frigate and Type 45 running costs revealed

 

[matt00773]

CEC is brand new, after all - the first non US fit is in Hobart and Brisbane, and they've only just started trials with it. T45 might well be fitted idc.

The UK had a CEC programme which was scrapped in 2012 due to funding priorities.

 

[ASSAIL]

Selecting LM2500s would have been an easy option and would not have provided the opportunity to develop future technology. The whole point of military is to be one step ahead of everyone else and you don't achieve that with selecting off the shelf products which everyone has. It is worth sticking with the WR-21 design and seeing the technology through to its maturity. The benefits will come much later...

The annual operational costs of the Type 23s and Type 45s were recently revealed at £11m and £13.5m respectively - there's not that much difference really.

Average Type 23 Frigate and Type 45 running costs revealed

That report needs context.
What is being compared? One running ship v six, five overseas deployment v one? Etc etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Selecting LM2500s would have been an easy option and would not have provided the opportunity to develop future technology. The whole point of military is to be one step ahead of everyone else and you don't achieve that with selecting off the shelf products which everyone else has.

The LM2500 has been evolving since its introduction so it isn't exactly a dead end and more importantly it is a better power plant than potential adversaries have at present. The recuperator/WR21 package was a worthy idea to get better economy but its reliability is a disappointment. It remains to be seen if the planned enhancements will provide the reliability that the RN needs.

It is worth sticking with the WR-21 design and seeing the technology through to its maturity. The benefits will come much later...

Due to cost considerations, there is really no option but to stick with the WR-21s. IMO, benefits might never arrive, especially as when running one WR-21 it will be necessary to have one diesel on line as well. This setup wasn't the plan for economy cruise. Furthermore, I would be shocked to see a WR-21 in any future RN warship.

 

[AegisFC]

As a contractor on T45, I know that during every sea trial, the RN had a 'US Serviceman' (Naval / ME) on board, to observe (this included the period after handover of the ship from the shipbuilder to the RN, up until the vessel entered service).

I don't believe the USN 'ran away' from the idea, they just did what they always do, sat & waited till the tech was sufficiently developed enough to do what they wanted. The GE LM2500 is in both the Arleigh Burkes & LCS and can't give the power output that the WR-21's matched with DG's could.
The USN has seen 1st hand the benefits of what a RR aero engine, converted for use at sea can do & in the 10 years between the decisions over the WR-21 & the 'birth' of the MT-30's, the technology has 'improved', due to the amount of work done on commercial cruise liners.

Is it any wonder that the Zumwalt class & the QE class are both using MT-30's ?

Finally, while T45 is a large hull, the MT-30's are larger than the WR-21's, fitting them would require a full redesign below the waterline, right thru the centre of the ship.Adding sections to lengthen a ship is one thing, cutting it into pieces & adding something at the expense of everything else doesn't make much financial sense. Back in the day, it 'sorta' made sense that they went with them, but hindsight is always a wonderful thing...

IEP has been planned for the DDG-1000's since the beginning (over a decade now), those observers were pre-comming crews sent over to get some practical experience since no other USN asset had anything similar.

 

[AegisFC]

Selecting LM2500s would have been an easy option and would not have provided the opportunity to develop future technology. The whole point of military is to be one step ahead of everyone else and you don't achieve that with selecting off the shelf products which everyone has. It is worth sticking with the WR-21 design and seeing the technology through to its maturity. The benefits will come much later...

No, that is not the point of a military.
That kind of thinking has lead to some hilariously bad decisions when perfectly good off the shelf solutions were available at a much lower cost (which were then bought when those said projects failed after blowing out the budget). Nimrod MR-4 and AEW come to mind, I still giggle whenever I think about re-winging non-standardized UK hand built 40+ year old aircraft.

 

[John Fedup]

The other reason, I assume, with regard to the WR-21 decision, was to support UK industry i.e. RR.

 

[matt00773]

No, that is not the point of a military.
That kind of thinking has lead to some hilariously bad decisions when perfectly good off the shelf solutions were available at a much lower cost (which were then bought when those said projects failed after blowing out the budget). Nimrod MR-4 and AEW come to mind, I still giggle whenever I think about re-winging non-standardized UK hand built 40+ year old aircraft.

I don't think you realise, but the analogy you provided (Nimrod MR4) is exactly what I was referring to in 'easy' decisions. If the UK had designed something new and advanced rather than using some legacy product (40 years old in this case) lying around, we would be in a very different place with respect to maritime patrol. capability. I agree though that there are a lot of appropriate COTS products that are beneficial in many cases, but you should always be pushing the boundaries of development to improve the gap between yourself and your adversaries.

 

[matt00773]

The LM2500 has been evolving since its introduction so it isn't exactly a dead end and more importantly it is a better power plant than potential adversaries have at present. The recuperator/WR21 package was a worthy idea to get better economy but its reliability is a disappointment. It remains to be seen if the planned enhancements will provide the reliability that the RN needs.




Due to cost considerations, there is really no option but to stick with the WR-21s. IMO, benefits might never arrive, especially as when running one WR-21 it will be necessary to have one diesel on line as well. This setup wasn't the plan for economy cruise. Furthermore, I would be shocked to see a WR-21 in any future RN warship.

I'm sure you're mistaken on your suggestion of running one WR-21 along with one diesel - this is not the solution that has been described. After the diesels have been upgraded and the intercooler/recuperator have been replaced, it will be possible for either the WR-21s or the diesels to supply power to the T45s - all through IEP of course. The current situation is that WR-21s supply most of the power and the diesels are only for short term back up and when running in and out of port. The proposed solution would provide double redundancy.

I too would be shocked to see WR-21 on a future warship. I would expect a new generation of the WR-21 technology to be developed over time.

 

[swerve]

Oh c'mon mate, you can read sentences in context, I've seen you do it before - I'll space it out for you tho - Sylver will likely be unique to Type 45 in RN service.....

Yeah, but given the size & location of the user base & where it's made that's not exactly a big deal. It won't be an orphan. The UK won't have to maintain the supply chain on its own. It's not like the T45's engines, or the gun once the T23s are gone. It didn't really belong in the same list as them. That's my point.

 

[swerve]

... I still giggle whenever I think about re-winging non-standardized UK hand built 40+ year old aircraft.

Only 30 years old when the decision was taken. But yes, a bad decision taken for the wrong reasons, & heads should have rolled. The guilty had all retired, but maybe their pensions could have been clawed back. Dammit, it'd have been easier to build completely new ones! And I've been informed that by the time they'd mapped out the airframe parts that weren't being replaced, so they could fit the new bits to them, all the data needed for new builds had been collected & fed into the CAD/CAM software.

It would have been an orphan airframe even if all new, though.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm sure you're mistaken on your suggestion of running one WR-21 along with one diesel - this is not the solution that has been described.

It is not the solution, it is how the the ship is operated in economy mode at present as per the parliamentary committee report on the Type 45 propulsion issue.

After the diesels have been upgraded and the intercooler/recuperator have been replaced, it will be possible for either the WR-21s or the diesels to supply power to the T45s - all through IEP of course.

This is the hope after the upgrade. BTW, the current two Warstila dieselse are 2 MW each. The ship will be upgraded to have three diesels. Will they all be 2 MW or will they be more powerful?