Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


GOV/MIL Bath-built (Zumwalt-class stealth) destroyer sidelined by ruined $20 million engine
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,643

    Bath-built (Zumwalt-class stealth) destroyer sidelined by ruined $20 million engine

    https://www.timesrecord.com/articles...illion-engine/ (fair use)
    July 13, 2018

    BY J. CRAIG ANDERSON
    Portland Press Herald

    Bath Iron Works’ second Zumwalt-class stealth destroyer, the $7.5 billion USS Michael Monsoor, needs a $20 million engine replaced because inspectors found damage after the ship’s naval acceptance trials.

    The Monsoor must have a main turbine engine replaced before the ship can sail to San Diego for its combat system activation, according to a U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman. The engine was made by Rolls-Royce and installed at BIW in Bath, where the ship is currently docked.

    “In February 2018, a postcleaning inspection of one of the DDG 1001’s two main turbine generators revealed damage to the rotor blades of the generator’s MT30 engine,” Navy spokeswoman Colleen O’Rourke said in a statement. “After the damage was identified, and out of an abundance of caution, the Navy decided to remove the engine in its entirety to ensure a successful and safe transit of the ship to her San Diego homeport.”

    The Navy is preparing to remove and replace the engine with a spare, she said. Upon removal, the engine will be inspected to determine the root cause of the damage, and then it will be refurbished.

    The Navy is working closely with Bath Iron Works and Rolls-Royce to get the damaged engine replaced before the ship leaves Bath this fall and sails to San Diego to begin having its weapons systems installed next year, according to the U.S. Naval Institute news service USNI News.

    The Navy will pay for the engine replacement but could seek to recoup those costs from Rolls-Royce if it is determined that the engine was defective, the news service reported. The engine model installed on the Zumwalt-class ships is not new and has been used previously on the Navy’s Freedom-class littoral combat ships.

    Both the Monsoor and its predecessor, the USS Zumwalt, have sustained a variety of mechanical problems.

    Crew members on the Zumwalt found a seawater leak in a lubrication system for one of the ship’s propeller shafts in September 2016, less than a month after the stealth destroyer left Bath.
    In November 2016, the ship suffered another mechanical breakdown, requiring that it be towed to a port in the Panama Canal. It was transiting the canal when it lost propulsion in one of its two drive shafts, and crew members noticed water coming into bearings connecting the shaft with its electric motor.

    The Monsoor had to cut short its first sea trials because of an electrical system failure the day after it left BIW in December. The failure during the ship’s builder trials prevented workers from testing propulsion and electrical systems at full power. The ship returned to the shipyard under its own power, and it returned to sea after the problem was resolved.

    Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of Arlington, Virginia-based think tank the Lexington Institute and CEO of Source Associates, a for-profit consulting firm, said it’s not unusual for naval acceptance trials to reveal a significant problem with a new ship.

    “When the Navy sends ships to sea for trials, it drives them pretty hard to determine that they are capable of everything they were designed for,” he said. “I’m still surprised (about the engine damage), but it is, after all, the whole point of the exercise to test all of the ship’s capabilities.”

    FORTE EST VINUM, FORTIOR EST REX, FORTIORES SUNT MULIERES:

    SUPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Happy on the mountain
    Posts
    58,975
    How many women were in charge (and not speaking to each other?)
    The wonder of our time isn’t how angry we are at politics and politicians; it’s how little we’ve done about it. - Fran Porretto
    -http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2016/10/a-wholly-rational-hatred.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    White Mountains area, AZ
    Posts
    4,690
    Maybe they should ditch the name Zumwalt for the destroyer class. Everything he touched turned to sh*t...
    Ring the bells that still can ring
    Forget your perfect offering
    There is a crack, a crack in everything
    That's how the light gets in.

    ("Anthem" by Leonard Cohen)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Asylum 23
    Posts
    8,192
    You don't build your war machines in foreign lands.
    You don't give your technology to anyone outside your select approved circle.
    And you damn sure don't let enemies hack or otherwise steal your technology.

  5. #5
    I like how they avoid mentioning General Dynamics .....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,643
    Total lack of design integrity and adequate design margin.
    Just read an article that mentioned turbine blade shear potential for F-35 engine.
    https://www.dwarsliggers.eu/index.ph...ks-in-the-f-35
    Wonderful that the expert quoted just ho-hummed the failure as a fact of life. Thinking their will be a stealth tug boat in the works soon.

    FORTE EST VINUM, FORTIOR EST REX, FORTIORES SUNT MULIERES:

    SUPER OMNIA VINCIT VERITAS.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    11,503
    If we are to rebuild our industrial capacity, we should be building that at home.
    "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

  8. #8
    Build the motor here or the ship? Bath is in Maine...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Quote Originally Posted by marsh View Post
    If we are to rebuild our industrial capacity, we should be building that at home.
    I agree, but the US is no longer the US we once knew.
    The US doesn't make a marine gas turbine powerful enough. Or at least they didn't at the time of design and building.
    The MT30 is a marine version of the turbine engines that power a Boeing 777.

    It's sad but this is just another case of our slow demise as the tech and engineering leader in the world. You can no longer assume that the US is the leader in anything anymore except possibly fake news

    Here is an article about the engine. It is truly a marvel, providing it's manufactured correctly. It also requires an absolute minimum of maintenance.The article is fairly old but design, construction and testing of a new class ship takes years, often over a decade.


    The damaged engine will be removed and a spare put in place.
    Gas turbine engines are modular and are easy to replace compared to steam turbines and boilers of the old steam Navy. You could put an old Navy steam ship out of commission for a year or more by a damaged power turbine or reduction gear.
    The damaged turbine on the bad engine will be inspected and repaired or replaced.
    It could be either a design defect or FOD damage. I'm betting on design defect in the metallurgy.
    In the picture below the damned thing doesn't look that impressive, does it?






    https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues...t-of-the-seas/

    Rolls-Royce’s “beast of the seas”

    By The Engineer 3rd October 2011 12:00 am

    The MT30 marine turbine uses aero engine technology to provide increased power for the world’s navies.

    The ’beast of the seas’, as Rolls-Royce describes it, greeted the world from the company’s stand at the recent London defence exhibition DSEi. The MT30 marine turbine — the most powerful marine turbine in the world — is, like many celebrities, smaller in real life. Even its product director describes it as ’dumpy’.
    But the unprepossessing steel cylinder is at the heart of some of the most glamorous vessels in the world’s navies. It’s the powerhouse of the UK’s Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class aircraft carriers, which will each house two of the turbines to generate electricity for propulsion and on-board systems. And across the Atlantic it provides the power for the US’s latest destroyers, the DDG1000 class, and its littoral combat ships (LCSs). Each LCS will, like the QE carriers, carry two turbines but these each power two Rolls-Royce waterjets, propelling the 3,500-ton vessels at speeds in excess of 40 knots.
    Time efficient: the MT30 turbine only requires two hours of maintenance a week’It’s dumpy because it’s a twin-spool design, with IP [intermediate-pressure] and HP [high-pressure] compressors running off separate shafts,’ explained product director Alan Millichamp. ’It’s shorter than our competitor’s engine, which only has one compression system and a much longer shaft with more compression stages.’
    The short length of the MT30 is an advantage, Millichamp explained. When a gas turbine engine shuts down, the heat generated inside soaks into the shafts. Long shafts tend to bow as they expand, which means that the engine can’t be restarted until it has cooled down, to prevent it running off balance. ’We don’t have that problem, so we can start whenever we want.’
    Like most marine turbines, the MT30 is based on an aero engine — in this case Rolls-Royces’s Trent 800, which powers the Boeing 777. ’Marine volumes are much smaller than aero engine volumes, so it isn’t economic to develop a turbine just for that sector,’ Millichamp said. ’Being part of a larger aero family brings all the reliability that’s so important for, and built into, the aero engine market to the sector. We’re about 80 per cent common with the Trent 800, and in fact the core modules of the engine are built on the same production line as the Trent.’
    “It’ll go from cold to full power in five minutes, which is half the time of a conventional engine”
    ALAN MILLICHAMP, ROLLS-ROYCE
    The main difference between the marine and aero models is the fan at the front of the aero engine, which is missing in the MT30. ’Normally, the drive from the fan comes from the LP [low-pressure] turbine at the back, with a shaft running through the engine that drives the fan,’ Millichamp said. ’We take off the fan, remove the shaft and reverse it out of the back of the engine. That provides the power to drive an alternator synchronously, to generate electricity, or run it through a gearbox to drive a propellor or waterjet.’
    Full speed ahead: the US’s littoral combat ships each carry two of the turbinesRunning an alternator, the MT30 will generate 40MW and it’ll do it fast. ’This engine is often used as a booster, so when you want power you want it quickly. This is a quick-start engine — it’ll go from cold to full power in five minutes, which is half the time of a conventional engine.’
    Basing the engine on an aero model also meant it was quick to develop, Millichamp added. ’An aero engine will have 11 or 12 engines in the development programme; we had two,’ he said. ’Basically, we instrumented as many of the components as we could to prove that they were operating in the same environment as an aero engine. Once we’d done that, all the certification data moves straight across to the marine environment. We then took the instrumentation off and put one of the engines into ABS certification where you do a 1,500-hour endurance test and achieved certification in six months, which is the fastest it’s ever been done.
    There was some adaptation from other engines — the gearbox comes from a Trent 500 and the IP turbine blade is from a Trent 700, as this has better corrosion properties than the Trent 800s. The main re-engineering involved the shaft and its bearing arrangement at the rear of the engine; the rest is basically Trent 700.
    Its product director describes it as ’dumpy’, but the unprepossessing steel cylinder is at the heart of the most glamorous vessels in the world’s navies
    The part numbers aren’t the same, because we burn a much higher sulphur fuel in the marine environment and the components have to be protected from the very harsh environment that creates; other components have to be protected to cope with salt,’ Millichamp said. ’We take the parts off the line, apply the necessary protective coatings then put them back for assembly. But other than that, they are the same components.’
    Stealing the show: the turbine at London’s recent DSEi eventMillichamp is confident that the MT30 will hold its position as the world’s largest marine turbine for some time. ’It’s the largest core of a civil aircraft engine that’s available at the moment and there won’t be a bigger one unless something radical changes in engine design.’ It’s also fuel efficient, although this comes from its power density. The conventional way of increasing the efficiency of an aero engine, making the fan bigger to increase the bypass ratio, isn’t available in the engine with no fan. ’But it’s very good for maintenance, especially because it’s a new engine. It’s modular, which reduces the need for spares holding; you can take it out of the ship, swap over whichever module is faulty, and drop it straight back in.’
    The high energy output is very attractive for naval architects, he added. ’Ships are looking at a bigger load for radar systems and other on-board systems, and in the future for propulsion; the MT30 will generate all it needs. For the carriers, the decision to go for catapults rather than STOVL aircraft also suits this turbine; the two units on board will be able to generate enough to power electrical catapults.’
    the data
    brute strength


    The MT30 is the most powerful marine turbine in the world
    Length: 4.4m
    Weight (engine): 6,346kg
    Weight (including enclosure and ancillary systems): 27,780kg
    IP compressor: eight-stage variable geometry
    HP compressor: six-stage
    Output shaft speed: 3,600rev/min (alternator), 3,300rev/min (mechanical drive)
    Power output: 40MW
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    11,958
    Deliberate? Or incompetent?
    The real art of conversation is not only to say the right thing at the right time, but also to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.

    Worrying does not take away tomorrow's troubles, it takes away today's peace .

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Deliberate? Or incompetent?
    Either could be damage done by some kind of foreign object (FOD) in the wrong place,
    'but a badly manufactured turbine blade with defects is just or more likely.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Build the motor here or the ship? Bath is in Maine...
    Yep but parts come from everywhere. The US is not the manufacturing powerhouse we once were.
    Add to that the even with the parts from the US, Congress creatures make damn sure to mandate each of their districts get a crack at supplying some parts whether they are any good or not, or reliable or not, or economical or not.
    Thus any new ship or plane ends up costing many times what it really should.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    26,065
    40MW = 53,640HP?

    by way of a simple converter.
    Proud Infidel...............and Cracker

    Member: Nowski Brigade

    Deplorable


  14. #14
    It is kind of creepy to think that these modern ships will be relied upon in the event of big war. They will all be broken and out of commission within days.
    But not likely to die free

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Millwright View Post
    40MW = 53,640HP?

    by way of a simple converter.
    These ships have 2 so their total HP is a little over 100,000 HP.
    They are total electric drive which has yet to prove itself reliable and redundant in combat.
    The huge electric power is to enable them to power things like rail guns or directed energy weapons, neither of which is ready for duty.
    You have to remember that this ship was originally designed for shore bombardment. It's special gun was to have a range of close to a hundred miles. It never worked out and the ship is a big expensive boondoggle and is not well suited for any other role.
    Sad waste of money. The Zumwalt class and the Littoral Combat ships were failures.
    Hell China's newest type 55 destroyers already have more VLS capabilities than our aging Arleigh Burkes and I believe they also have the electrical power to go with railguns and directed energy weapons if they materialize, which Areigh Burkes do not.
    Anyway the Zumwalt and the LCSs cost us big time and not providing any measurable return except problems.

    The Navy would have been far better off taking an old large steel hull in a moth balled ship and ripping the steam power guts out and installing these new gas turbine electric drive hige electric power plants into it and then using it to work the bugs out and even install some of the new rail gun and laser prototypes and even get the extended range conventional gun and design cheaper ammo for it.
    Kind of a one off test platform for trial and error.



    here are the specs
    ype: Guided missile destroyer
    Displacement: 15,742 long tons (15,995 t)[4]
    Length: 610 ft (190 m)[4]
    Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)
    Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
    Propulsion:

    2 × Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines (35.4 MW (47,500 hp) each)[5] driving Curtiss-Wright electric generators
    2 × Rolls-Royce RR4500 turbine generators (3.8 MW (5,100 hp) each)[5]
    2 × propellers driven by electric motors
    Total: 78 MW (105,000 shp)[5]

    Speed: 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)[4]
    Troops: U.S. Marines
    Complement: 147 +28 in air detachment[4]
    Sensors and
    processing systems: AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) (X band active electronically scanned array)[7]

    Armament:

    20 × MK 57 VLS modules, with a total of 80 launch cells[8]
    RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), 4 per cell
    Tactical Tomahawk, 1 per cell
    Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Missile (ASROC), 1 per cell
    2 × 155 mm (6 in)/62 caliber Advanced Gun System; 920 round magazine. Unusable, no ammunition[9]
    2 × 30 mm (1.2 in) Mk 46 Mod 2 Gun Weapon System[10]

    Aircraft carried:

    1 × SH-60 LAMPS or MH-60R helicopter
    3 × MQ-8 Fire Scout VT-UAVs[4]

    Aviation facilities: Flight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Floriduh
    Posts
    1,274
    Meanwhile...................

    CNN
    China's new destroyers: 'Power, prestige and majesty'Two people were allegedly attacked by sharks in Fernandina Beach, Florida, on July 13.
    Report
    By Brad Lendon, CNN
    8 hrs ago


    China's navy is getting bigger and better and doing it at a speed unmatched by any nation around the globe.

    Earlier this month, the People's Liberation Army Navy launched two 13,000-ton Type 055 guided-missile destroyers -- Asia's largest, most sophisticated and most lethal combat ships.

    "This ship in particular has a sophisticated design, stealth features, radars, and a large missile inventory. It is larger and more powerful than most US, Japanese, and South Korean destroyers," said Rand Corp. senior analyst Timothy Heath.

    The double launching shows Beijing's unmatched military shipbuilding ability and its desire to project naval power far from Chinese shores, said Heath and other military analysts.

    According to a report by China Daily, posted on the PLA's English-language website, the Type 055 will have double the firepower of China's Type 052D destroyers, which it said are currently "the largest and most powerful surface combatant commissioned in the PLA Navy."

    China says each new destroyer will have 112 vertical launch tubes, from which it can fire long-range attack missiles, the equivalent of the US Navy's Tomahawk missile used as recently as Washington's strikes in Syria this year.

    The missile launchers can also carry weaponry to target incoming aircraft, enemy ships and missiles. Anti-submarine warfare operations are the responsibility of two helicopters aboard each Type 055.

    The new destroyers also boast a stealth design and high-end electronic battle management system to integrate Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups, the China Daily report said.

    "This ship ... is designed for escorting Chinese aircraft carriers to more distant regions such as the Middle East," said Heath.

    That would give China a so-called "blue water" navy, one that can operate far from homeland coasts, something that right now only the US Navy can do in overwhelming numbers across the world's oceans.

    "The PLA Navy is progressively building a particularly well-defined 'blue water' fleet that will be in place at a certain date," said Peter Layton, a former Australian military officer and now fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

    'The majesty of the Chinese state'

    But through the Type 055's sheer size, it can send a message in waters closer to the Chinese mainland too.

    "The Type 55As are big, very big," said Layton."The ships are a demonstration of the power, prestige and indeed majesty of the Chinese state and its ruling party," he added.

    China's new ships displace about 3,000 more tons than US or South Korea warships that have been the ones to look up to in Asian waters.

    In the South China Sea, the Type 055As will have a considerable size advantage over the US Navy's 10,000-ton Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 9,000-ton US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

    "The Type 55As handled aggressively they might be able to crowd US Navy ships out simply by their size," Layton said.

    In the optics test outside China, big is almost always better, he added.

    "It could be that China places more weight on naval diplomacy and thinks port visits from a very large warship will simply overawe the locals," Layton said.

    Back in China, the July 3 double launch made big statements about what the US and its Asian allies, and indeed the world, can expect from Beijing in the future.

    The two Type 055s join two others put into the water in June, 2017, and April this year. Those ships came off a production line in Shanghai. The most recent two came off lines in Dalian, in Liaoning province, according to the China Daily.

    It "showcases the enormous capacity of Chinese shipbuilders," Heath said. "Most countries, including the United States, usually launch one ship at a time due to limited shipyard manufacturing capacity."

    Maintaining two simultaneous production lines for one model of ship, especially in the same shipyard, is pricey, showing Beijing ranks delivery schedule as more important that cost, Heath said.

    "China will pay whatever it takes to get them finished to a specified deadline," he added.
    Matching the US Navy


    Beijing will pay whatever it takes to stand toe-to-toe with the US Navy, said Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center.

    He said he expects China to build around 20 of the high-end Type 055s and augment them with smaller Type 054 frigates and aircraft carriers in service or under construction to field four carrier battle groups by 2030.

    Other shipbuilding is under way for amphibious assault ships -- essentially baby aircraft carriers -- and helicopter platform docks that can move and deploy Marine ground battalions, said Schuster, now a Hawaii Pacific University professor.

    And China has been leaking through state media that it's working on things like an electromagnetic pulse cannon, hypersonic aircraft and the most modern of launching systems for its aircraft carriers, he said.

    "China is indeed sending the signal that it is both expanding the PLA Navy and equipping it with modern naval combatants equal to that of the US Navy," Schuster said.

    The China Daily report said the two Type 55As launched on July 3 would soon begin sea trials, where crew and engineers will make sure everything works as planned.

    Those trials have yet to be completed for the two previously launched Type 055s and no estimation was given on when they might actually be ready to be commissioned and join a carrier battle group.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Asylum 23
    Posts
    8,192
    Quote Originally Posted by BornFree View Post
    It is kind of creepy to think that these modern ships will be relied upon in the event of big war. They will all be broken and out of commission within days.
    Yes, and fragile. An old diesel engine can be patched and run again in combat, but one of these hit in the slightest needs a team of techs in a factory environment to make it turn again.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Floriduh
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by LightEcho View Post
    Yes, and fragile. An old diesel engine can be patched and run again in combat, but one of these hit in the slightest needs a team of techs in a factory environment to make it turn again.
    They'll be sunk long before they're able to be repaired.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Quote Originally Posted by BornFree View Post
    It is kind of creepy to think that these modern ships will be relied upon in the event of big war. They will all be broken and out of commission within days.
    Quote Originally Posted by LightEcho View Post
    Yes, and fragile. An old diesel engine can be patched and run again in combat, but one of these hit in the slightest needs a team of techs in a factory environment to make it turn again.
    It actually takes far less time to change out a gas turbine engine than any other type of marine propulsion including diesel engines.
    That is why every Navy in the world is using them.
    They are essentially jet aircraft engines with the addition of a final power turbine.
    They combine more power in less weight than any other type engine including diesel and steam.
    Getting underway takes as long as starting up the engines on a jet plane, instead of hours for a steam plant or even a nuclear reactor.

    LE, a diesel engine might be ok if you only need to put around at 10 or 15 knots for days on end, but just wont do if you need 35 or more knots RTF now.
    I've driven a gas turbine FFG. During repeated deployments I can never recall a problem with the gas turbines. Problems with diesel generators? Sure. We were always rebuilding one or the other of them. Problems with lube oil pumps and various bearings? Yep, always something needing fixing. Gas turbines? Nope, fire those babies up and it sounds like a 747 getting ready to roll in 5 minutes.
    Overall, marine gas turbines have far less problems than most other types of propulsion systems.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    23,639
    Billet, I agree, the old tendency to laugh at China and Chinese products would not be wise.
    China is building ships, submarines and other weapon systems like Henry Ford built cars. Their sub assembly line looks like a car assembly line.

    Do they sometimes copy other countries weapon systems? Hell yes! They'd be stupid not to. Most countries make it ridiculously easy for them to get the results of billions of dollars of research and testing for practically nothing and take it and improve on it.
    The fault lies with our own selves and our own security.

    Blaming China for taking all the tech they can, is like blaming Russia hackers for sending an email to the Democrats asking for their passwords and then the Democrats happily giving the passwords away and then trying to somehow blame Trump for it.
    Security and the penalties for violating it are a joke in this country, unless you are a little guy and not someone important.
    "I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." -DH Lawrence

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Asylum 23
    Posts
    8,192
    Quote Originally Posted by TerryK View Post
    It actually takes far less time to change out a gas turbine engine than any other type of marine propulsion including diesel engines.
    That is why every Navy in the world is using them.
    They are essentially jet aircraft engines with the addition of a final power turbine.
    They combine more power in less weight than any other type engine including diesel and steam.
    Getting underway takes as long as starting up the engines on a jet plane, instead of hours for a steam plant or even a nuclear reactor.

    LE, a diesel engine might be ok if you only need to put around at 10 or 15 knots for days on end, but just wont do if you need 35 or more knots RTF now.
    I've driven a gas turbine FFG. During repeated deployments I can never recall a problem with the gas turbines. Problems with diesel generators? Sure. We were always rebuilding one or the other of them. Problems with lube oil pumps and various bearings? Yep, always something needing fixing. Gas turbines? Nope, fire those babies up and it sounds like a 747 getting ready to roll in 5 minutes.
    Overall, marine gas turbines have far less problems than most other types of propulsion systems.
    Thanks for your first-hand experience report. That is very helpful!

    Do you happen to know where those turbines were made - what company?

    update.... looking through this article on Wiki...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

    I recall the gas turbine first going int the M1 tank... was a fuel guzzler... but needed for power and lighter weight. If they can hold up in a tank on the ground, the standard use at sea should be easy. My concern gets into the occasional piece of hot steel flying into the area during combat. The tanks have armor protection. Ships maybe not as much. Naval craft are not in my knowledge range.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.