Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 195
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Worlds Most Advance War Ship

  1. #166
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 08
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,079
    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.”

  2. #167
    Patron NavyDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    247
    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!

  3. #168
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 08
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,079
    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.

  4. #169
    JRT
    JRT is offline
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyDoc View Post
    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!
    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.
    .
    .
    .

  5. #170
    Patron NavyDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    247
    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!

  6. #171
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 08
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,079
    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.

  7. #172
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 08
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,079
    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.

  8. #173
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 08
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,079
    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.

  9. #174
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Oct 11
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    64
    I like that the author of the article mentions that this particular admiral is called "Admiral Gaffe".

  10. #175
    Contributor Tin Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jun 07
    Location
    In the `shires.
    Posts
    656
    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)) (Chinese Silkworm).

    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.

  11. #176
    Contributor Tin Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jun 07
    Location
    In the `shires.
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by merlin2 View Post
    I rephrase: Most of British nuclear Submarine tech is derived from US technology.. I hope you agree with that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

    Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear submarines, much time would be saved by accepting the American technological lead and taking advantage of US nuclear technology. Although Rickover wished to supply the third generation S3W reactor of the Skate class, Mountbatten exerted his influence and the entire machinery system for an American Skipjack-class submarine, with its fifth generation S5W reactor, was obtained.[1] This was known as the "American Sector" (see 1958US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement).
    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.

  12. #177
    Military Professional dundonrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Mar 07
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Man View Post
    [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.

  13. #178

    Join Date
    14 Oct 10
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tin Man View Post
    Hi guys, missed this place) I saw this on the Type-45 and had to chime in.


    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.

  14. #179
    JRT
    JRT is offline
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    348
    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."
    .
    .
    .

  15. #180
    Senior Contributor blidgepump's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 09
    Posts
    1,257

    Proud ship...

    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post
    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.
    A proud ship with a great name.... now the most advance warship on the seven seas

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 04 Jun 11,, 19:09
  2. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 21 Jun 08,, 04:33
  3. Bush, Blair for 'War Crimes'
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04 Mar 07,, 20:46
  4. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 15:28

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •