World Affairs Board - View Single Post

maximusslade · 04-24-2008, 00:35 AM

Steamin,

Many thanks for your engineering input. I have thought about A4W's but not having served aboard a carrier I am not certain as to how much space the use or how the engineering would be properly laid out. My experience is with a single reactor and two seperate, equal pressure turbines turning a single shaft. And yes, locked train.

I have asked myself as to using a reactor on a BB or BC. Even as efficient as GT engines are, I am still not fond of an oil based plant. I am certain that reactor plant controls i.e. CDMs can be engineered to withstand the shock of big guns firing or being hit by missles. I am certain that is something that should have been designed into the A4W.

Water plant?? One that works obviously. I can recall having a distilling unit that NEVER made water in all my time onboard, the evaporator worked like a champ though. I have never had any exposure to a RO plant, but I assume they are popular. So again, either evaporator or RO, whichever one works.

I must respectfully say "NO" to the idea of putting LCACs in the aft end of the BB. I feel it would only complicate the design of the ship and manpower requirements, and most importantly, where would I store marines and their tanks?? LOL

As to your boilers. I will most readily admit that I know almost nothing as to the modern operation of boilers. What you say makes very good sense as far as my thermodynamics goes, but again, as I said above, I am more familiar with nuclear plants, also I think that nuclear power would be more cost effective and the ship wouldnt have to depend on OPEC or Venezuela. But I wont discount a conventional plant completely, just for now I'll stick with the nuke plant.

I think deisels would be better too, especially using FM engines. They've been in use for what, 70 years?? When I toured USS Clamagore, I found that the engine onboard my Seawolf class submarine were almost identical to the FM1938 8 1/2ND I found on the Clamagore.

04-24-2008, 00:35 AM	#37 (permalink)
maximusslade Patron Join Date: 04-16-08 Posts: 195	Steamin, Many thanks for your engineering input. I have thought about A4W's but not having served aboard a carrier I am not certain as to how much space the use or how the engineering would be properly laid out. My experience is with a single reactor and two seperate, equal pressure turbines turning a single shaft. And yes, locked train. I have asked myself as to using a reactor on a BB or BC. Even as efficient as GT engines are, I am still not fond of an oil based plant. I am certain that reactor plant controls i.e. CDMs can be engineered to withstand the shock of big guns firing or being hit by missles. I am certain that is something that should have been designed into the A4W. Water plant?? One that works obviously. I can recall having a distilling unit that NEVER made water in all my time onboard, the evaporator worked like a champ though. I have never had any exposure to a RO plant, but I assume they are popular. So again, either evaporator or RO, whichever one works. I must respectfully say "NO" to the idea of putting LCACs in the aft end of the BB. I feel it would only complicate the design of the ship and manpower requirements, and most importantly, where would I store marines and their tanks?? LOL As to your boilers. I will most readily admit that I know almost nothing as to the modern operation of boilers. What you say makes very good sense as far as my thermodynamics goes, but again, as I said above, I am more familiar with nuclear plants, also I think that nuclear power would be more cost effective and the ship wouldnt have to depend on OPEC or Venezuela. But I wont discount a conventional plant completely, just for now I'll stick with the nuke plant. I think deisels would be better too, especially using FM engines. They've been in use for what, 70 years?? When I toured USS Clamagore, I found that the engine onboard my Seawolf class submarine were almost identical to the FM1938 8 1/2ND I found on the Clamagore. __________________ Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...