This would only be possible through changes that have (apparently) already been made but yet to be disclosed.
Mounting an additional MT-30 low down in the hull not only gives the power to drive the heavier vessel but would also assist in offsetting stability issues caused by having all the CEAFAR 2 electronics mounted high up in the mast. Range may be an issue due to carrying all that extra weight around.
Top speed isn't just a linear function of displacement, hull form is critical. There have been cases of making a ship longer and it becoming faster despite displacing more. There are several here that would be able to explain this in more detail.
en.wikipedia.org
This is again Australian centric thinking.
The BAE Global Combat Ship reference design is rather “stubby” with a beam of almost 21 metres, but a length of only 150.Top speed isn't just a linear function of displacement, hull form is critical. There have been cases of making a ship longer and it becoming faster despite displacing more. There are several here that would be able to explain this in more detail.
Hull speed - Wikipedia
But for example, the QE class is 65,000t and has 2xMT30 GT. They are able to shift 65,000t of quite beamy and large draught carrier at a tested 32 kts.
The MT30 is quite a powerful unit. Between 25-40MW. I imagine its probably a question of just using a bit more power, the question is how far does that take it out of its efficiency curve. Its a question, but I don't think it is worth panic about it at this stage. If the designer believes they can feed the mt30 enough air and there is plenty of margin, then it may not be a significant problem at all
Yes, given each has a finite output it would certainly effect how many MTUs are required to be running to reach cruise - resulting in either more fuel burn and reduced range, or, a substantially lower cruise speed.
Did you even watch the Video @Hoffy supplied? Its from 26/1/2022 and Capt Skinner talks about the AUKUS announcement in some detail.
Hoffy
The Lizzies have a significant hotel load, think about mechanical services, potable water, lighting, etc for 1,600. The GT provide about 70 of her 110MW of mechanical capacity, and she only has 4x20MW motors for propulsion. So even flat out she can only put 80MW of power to the water.
The efficient cruise speed might be more of an issue, at which point they would need to look at the installed diesel capacity. Again, if the designer isn't particularly worried, it looks solvable. The MTU engines come in a range of sizes, if you require more sets, then move down a size an start again (say 6 engines). The 4 x MTU 20V 4000 M53B a say 3MW each would mean 12 MW total, this is more than the Hobart class, which is about 11MW diesel and about 35MW from the two LM2500. Operating a single GT significantly reduces operational costs (think about a 747 verse say a A330), diesels typically are cheaper again to operate particularly at slower speeds. GT tend to be optimized for a specific output (and operating conditions), although much improved in recent years.
www.rina.org.uk
L to R : HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Supply & USS Frank Cable
Greetings DT forum,
No idea. And given the high level classification of the SSN project you won't get a definitive answer from anyone who's involved with it. Given she's based in Guam it's not unusual for her to conduct routine showing the flag port visits in the region.
