AFAIK the UK has several classes with an IPS --T45 class DD, ALBION class LPD and WAVE class oiler. There are LPDs with an IPS in Netherlands and Australia, too. The T-AKE logistics ships use a commercial IPS (many cruise ships use this technology). The difference between an IPS and the 1930s electric drive supposedly is "the integration of electric propulsion and the electric auxiliaries all into one system.”
Thanks Admiral! Now it makes sense!
Combine everything into one system, including auxiliary! That way if one goes down they all go down!
We are so much smarter these days!
We got it wrong all this time! Turns out the term "artificial intelligence" was really meant to refer to the decision makers not the equipment!
Well, the literature tends to emphasize that everything is modular, with no single point of failure. Anything that can generate electricity can power any part of the ship. For instance, an auxiliary diesel generator can propel the ship, something impossible in a typical current warship.
The Slater is exactly the ship I had in mind when I asked the question, but wasn't sure if the Cannon class DEs used separate systems to provide electric power to the various ship's systems unrelated to propulsion.Originally Posted by NavyDoc
That depends!
Our little DE, being diesel/electric in 43 meant the engines provided the electricity that drove all ships functions as well as propulsion!
.
.
.
She does have an 8 Cyl Diesel for ships main generator and another 8 cyl for the emergency generator.(both rebuilt and running) The four main propulsion engines are GM 16 cyl 278As
But of course you know that US Navy engineers could create miracles when called upon. I can see them running power from whatever engine/generator the enemy fire didn't get to her propulsion motors! I think today's crews would have a hard time using ingenuity to keep a ship going as they did during the war!
Two new videos have been posted to the Bath Iron Works front page. One is a speech discussing start of fabrication of DDG-1002. No real need to watch this unless you really want to, but it does make it clear that this ship will not be canceled. They other is quite interesting. It shows a large component of DD-1000 being moved to an outside construction facility on a giant trailer.
There are a number of articles on DDG-1000 in the current issue of Surface Warfare Magazine. These cover construction, life aboard and an overview of her systems and weapons.
A Chinese Admiral claims to be able to destroy the world's most advance warship with a bunch of old fishing boats...Washington Times article.
I like that the author of the article mentions that this particular admiral is called "Admiral Gaffe".
Hi guys, missed this place) I saw this on the Type-45 and had to chime in.
The following is only my opinion on this ship from what I have read over the last few years, some of the details may be incorrect but you will get the sentiment I hope, please forgive me for any errors, I have been out of the loop for ages
T-45 V a USN Burke, right now the T-45s AAW capabilities are more modern, more effective in littoral environments I am hearing because of Sampson and Sea Viper. A T-45 PAAMS equipped ship is more difficult to saturate than even the latest AEGIS system because Sampson can see further and therefore identify targets before SPY/AEGIS and can engage more targets. CEC increases capability massively for the Burkes so a lot of that is addressed. SAMPSON "should" be better because it is a newer system and mounted higher up (radar) on the ship. Increased horizon.
The USN has been working on a similar system to SAMPSON for quite a while , SPY-3?? so is in no way behind except in actually fielding a system.
In nearly every other way the Burkes are better ships, ie more rounded because the Burkes carry Tomahawk land attack missiles and Harpoons. The T-45 has no anti ship missiles or TLAMS. the only way for the T-45 to attack another ship is with it`s 4/5 inch gun and as far as I know Aster has no surface attack mode. (ye olde Sea Dart does
My biggest worry is a lack of funding for RN CEC which I think is a mistake.
The T-45s sonar is a cheaper version than the excellent sonar they were supposed to have, the type now fitted to half of the T-23 fleet.
48 missile cells I think is adequate, there has not been a war since WWII where 100 VLS cells have been a requirement. In the Falklands war the T-42s only carried around the 20 mark in terms of Sea Dart rounds plus a T-42 is the only ship in history to shoot down an ASM in combat, admittedly a HUGE and slow ASM
Everything I have read to date states the Royal Navy actually wanted the US MK 41 STRIKE length VLS on the T-45s because of the capability you get with it, but got Sylver instead for political reasons, ie not being overly reliant on the US for kit.
I "think" the RNs new short range missile CAMM will quad pack in Sylver but I am not at all sure if CAMM will be used on the T-45s as they have Aster -15. CAMM is planned to quad fit in the Seawolf VLS on T-23s and later on the new frigates, the T-26 GCS.
The T-45 is built FOR, but WITHOUT the weapons systems that would make it a more effective ship than a Burke, for that reason, I would prefer to go to war in a Burke. As a Brit I have no worries about saying this.
The T-45 has fantastic potential but because of its lack of certain kit, I would be worried about operating this ship on its own where I would have no worries for a Burke class destroyer.
The SAMPSON/ PAAMS/ASTER missile combination gives this ship world leading AAW capability, I think it`s the best out there in that regard and edges AEGIS/SM/SPY in the AAW role, not saying the Burkes are not a class act in this regard too.
In what ways is the T-45 innovative?? The propulsion system is innovative, ASTER/ PAAMS is innovative. These two additions the most advanced in the world to date on a destroyer. Apart from that I don`t see anything else on the ships that can be claimed to be "world beating" but I stand to be corrected.
Its gas turbines the WR-21s, RR has said it wont be making anymore and will concentrate on the MT-30s from here on in its gonna be Trent engine based turbines and I don't like the fact that the diesels were made by a company that is now defunct but I am sure the navy has servicing/replacements covered in some way or at least hope they do.
I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
I dimly recall that the RN favoured PGRs for its SSN powerplants but we eventually went with USN PWRs after US pressure.
I don`t know enough about UK nuclear sub building history to agree that MOST British submarine tech is US derived apart from the powerrplant. Certainly today all of our Sub reactors are PWR1s and 2s built by Rolls Royce. Either way I think both nations have in the past borrowed heavily from each others designs, angled deck carriers and landing systems, radar and sonar to SLBMS to name but a few.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
[B]Hi guys, missed this place
T-45 V a USN Burke, right now the T-45s AAW capabilities are more modern, more effective in littoral environments I am hearing because of Sampson and Sea Viper. A T-45 PAAMS equipped ship is more difficult to saturate than even the latest AEGIS system because Sampson can see further and therefore identify targets before SPY/AEGIS and can engage more targets. CEC increases capability massively for the Burkes so a lot of that is addressed. SAMPSON "should" be better because it is a newer system and mounted higher up (radar) on the ship. Increased horizon.
I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down
well, being a former Fire Controlman onboard a couple new Aegis equipped DDG's.. the "range" issue with them isn't due to the radar, but treatys.. the actual SPY radar sees one HELL of a long way, but if the target is beyond a certain range, the computer is programmed to ignore it (same with altitude) now if it has TBDM capability that portion is basically "unlocked" and the full range of the radar is enabled, now if the radar is tracking a target inside that range, and it flys outside the range, it is still tracked and able to been seen on the scope.
Hi guys, missed this place
I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down
Unconfirmed,unsubstantiated baseless rumors..BAE propaganda pure .. I also read similar comments made by an officer about Astute class subs capability during a training with one of the Virginia class subs ..RN officer said' The Americans were blown away by what they have seen. He was referring to the Astute class Sonar, one of the eight wonders of the world ( supposedly capable of hearing ships from 3000 miles away !!!!!!! The sonar officer of the USS New Mexico said ' we had the Astute in our crosshair all the time !! enough said , he must have been laughing his head off when reading Astute class technical deficiencies revealed by British newspapers recently.
According to Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, US Navy, the guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) "is now the most advanced warship on the planet".
Below is the related excerpt from a recent article available at this link.
Navy already modernizes its ships, of course, but current vessels weren't designed from the start to make that easy. Sometimes the Navy decides upgrades are simply cost-prohibitive, as with the three Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers -- aging and overloaded ships with minimal margin for growth -- that it wanted to retire (Congress refused). Sometimes it bites the budgetary bullet, as with the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class, which first entered the fleet in 1991 and which it plans to keep modernized and in service until 2072 -- not an easy task. Thanks to one such recent upgrade, the third-oldest Arleigh Burke, DDG-53 John Paul Jones, is now the most advanced warship on the planet, boasted Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. But to install new systems, Rowden told the Surface Navy Association bluntly, "we had to gut that ship." And gutting a ship ain't cheap or fast. Every time a DDG-51 goes in for such a comprehensive overhaul, Rowden went on, "I lose that ship for two years."
.
.
.
A proud ship with a great name....According to Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, US Navy, the guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) "is now the most advanced warship on the planet".
Below is the related excerpt from a recent article available at this link.now the most advance warship on the seven seas
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
11Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: