AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

What he says is "... What looks particularly interesting to us and the navy is putting this technology on the DDG-51. We believe if we get some funding going we can get an XC demo in about four years and about three years after that we could be at a production level putting these on platforms."

So whether he means putting a demo on the DDG-51 USS arleigh burke or whether he means putting production guns on the DDG-51 class is up to your interpretation I think. I interpret "on platforms" as "ships" not "DDG-51 class".

I am just saying that based off what I have read about the power needs for such a weapon and the existing power challenges facing the flight iii burke in simply re equipping it with a new radar, that getting enough juice from a burke to power a rail gun would seem like an issue making a burke an unlikely candidate for mounting production guns.

Bltizo said:

What he says is "... What looks particularly interesting to us and the navy is putting this technology on the DDG-51. We believe if we get some funding going we can get an XC demo in about four years and about three years after that we could be at a production level putting these on platforms."

So whether he means putting a demo on the DDG-51 USS arleigh burke or whether he means putting production guns on the DDG-51 class is up to your interpretation I think. I interpret "on platforms" as "ships" not "DDG-51 class".

I am just saying that based off what I have read about the power needs for such a weapon and the existing power challenges facing the flight iii burke in simply re equipping it with a new radar, that getting enough juice from a burke to power a rail gun would seem like an issue making a burke an unlikely candidate for mounting production guns.

Click to expand...

That is the very reason why I made mention of HTS motors, when you reverse the flow it becomes a very powerful electric generator. Think about it hooking up a HTS motor to a LM2500 Gas Turbine engine to generate electricity within the ship. For the same sized generator you get roughly three folds in power output.
Would that be enough for you?

SamuraiBlue said:

That is the very reason why I made mention of HTS motors, when you reverse the flow it becomes a very powerful electric generator. Think about it hooking up a HTS motor to a LM2500 Gas Turbine engine to generate electricity within the ship. For the same sized generator you get roughly three folds in power output.
Would that be enough for you?

Click to expand...

Once it arrives and they decide to integrate it in burkes, yes, then railguns become far more likely. Until then, no.

My entire position was based on the notion that burkes both today and in the foreseeable future would likely lack the power generation capacity for a railgun. If new technology arises in the future me they are either built or refit with it, then great, let's talk.

Bltizo said:

Once it arrives and they decide to integrate it in burkes, yes, then railguns become far more likely. Until then, no.

My entire position was based on the notion that burkes both today and in the foreseeable future would likely lack the power generation capacity for a railgun. If new technology arises in the future me they are either built or refit with it, then great, let's talk.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of if or when since the technology is already viable and ready right now. It's another matter entirely if they will make an announcement of it though.

By the way have you notice all the power hungry equipment the Navy had recently disclosed?
Railguns, Direct energy weapons, AESA type radars, EMALS,etc. how do you think ships that were already near it's design limit in power outage is going to meet those new power hungry demands?

SamuraiBlue said:

It's not a matter of if or when since the technology is already viable and ready right now. It's another matter entirely if they will make an announcement of it though.

By the way have you notice all the power hungry equipment the Navy had recently disclosed?
Railguns, Direct energy weapons, AESA type radars, EMALS,etc. how do you think ships that were already near it's design limit in power outage is going to meet those new power hungry demands?

Click to expand...

slide #9 shows "6,700 hp Scale-able HTSMotor"
#17 is cool Future Naval Power

(presented May 23rd, 2013)

SamuraiBlue said:

It's not a matter of if or when since the technology is already viable and ready right now. It's another matter entirely if they will make an announcement of it though.

By the way have you notice all the power hungry equipment the Navy had recently disclosed?
Railguns, Direct energy weapons, AESA type radars, EMALS,etc. how do you think ships that were already near it's design limit in power outage is going to meet those new power hungry demands?

Click to expand...

It is entirely a matter about whether the technology is available or not because that has massive bearings on existing key programmes. If power generation wasn't an issue then they could fit flight iii burke with a larger AMDR array the navy wanted instead of settling for a 14 footer.

How are they going to meet those power demands?
Well either they are completely new hulls with the capacity to generate that power like zumwalt or ford
Or they redesigning existing hulls to squeeze as much bang for space as they can like flight iii burke — and even then they are not getting a full optimal product, and it is well known how much difficulty the USN has had to get more power onto the burke's hull without compromising other critical capabilities.

And that is my point entirely, that these new railguns, DEW, EMALS, and APARs, are for new build future ships for which motors like the one you suggested can be integrated in, instead of existing ships that are already built and would have great difficulty refitting such motors into the existing ship.
So I will repeat, I see nothing reliable that says rail guns will be refit on existing burkes without substantial modification hat would compromise other capabilities with their power generation at what it is now. Any technologies ready or in the pipeline will definitely be able to power such weapons, but burkes cannot field the weapons without fielding those motors themselves.
The issue is with the power generation of existing and upcoming burkes, not with the plausibility of railguns or DEWs or motors. If you can point me to an article that plans to fit burkes with these motors then I will gladly change my position.

Bltizo said:

instead of existing ships that are already built and would have great difficulty refitting such motors into the existing ship.

Click to expand...

Here is where you are wrong the technology can easily be refitted since it's basically a stronger power generator that can be made compact for same outage or fit into present dimension for larger power outage. It would not be optimized for better performance but the enhancements can exceed the limitation we see in present configurations.

As for the larger AMDR array that has more to do with the package of the ship, (ai. no more physical space) and less with power since the GaN chips are more capable then the present silicon chips which can be seen by comparing Takanami type and Akizuki type which are basically the same but with Akizuki type having a four to five fold increase in tracking abilities.

SamuraiBlue said:

Here is where you are wrong the technology can easily be refitted since it's basically a stronger power generator that can be made compact for same outage or fit into present dimension for larger power outage. It would not be optimized for better performance but the enhancements can exceed the limitation we see in present configurations.

Click to expand...

Is it common for ships, especially naval surfaces combatants, to be refit with newer power generators through their service life? (More importantly, can burkes be easily refit with power generators sufficient for a naval railgun?)

If yes, then great. The next question is whether the USN have plans to refit their burkes with motors similar to the ones you mentioned?

As for the larger AMDR array that has more to do with the package of the ship, (ai. no more physical space) and less with power since the GaN chips are more capable then the present silicon chips which can be seen by comparing Takanami type and Akizuki type which are basically the same but with Akizuki type having a four to five fold increase in tracking abilities.

Click to expand...

From what I've read the lack of physical space directly limited the power generation capacity (among other factors), and the small size of the ship was one of the impediments I mentioned for fitting burkes with rail guns, because if the USN are finding it difficult to squeeze the space for additional power and other facilities for AMDR on a redesigned flight iii burke, then it will be far more difficult to fit a rail gun onto existing burkes with all the additional power and facilities needed to make it run?

Bltizo said:

Is it common for ships, especially naval surfaces combatants, to be refit with newer power generators through their service life? (More importantly, can burkes be easily refit with power generators sufficient for a naval railgun?)

If yes, then great. The next question is whether the USN have plans to refit their burkes with motors similar to the ones you mentioned?

Click to expand...

Usually ships will get their secondary power generators replaced during a major refit. This is done for a variety of reasons, some of which revolve around obsolesce. The Perry class frigates had their original Detroit Diesel generators (which were a 1960's era engine) replaced by modern Caterpillar units. I believe for the Burkes, in anticipation of the AMDR, they are switching to a trio of 4MW generators instead of 3 3MW generators.

Generally, the prime movers are never replaced with a different unit unless there are very specific reasons to do so (e.g. counteracting increase in displacement, unsatisfactory performance of the original units, obsolesce, experimentation, etc).

Bltizo said:

From what I've read the lack of physical space directly limited the power generation capacity (among other factors), and the small size of the ship was one of the impediments I mentioned for fitting burkes with rail guns, because if the USN are finding it difficult to squeeze the space for additional power and other facilities for AMDR on a redesigned flight iii burke, then it will be far more difficult to fit a rail gun onto existing burkes with all the additional power and facilities needed to make it run?

Click to expand...

Another point I notice while re-reading your post is that you have not placed consideration of the space freed from not requiring a specialized munition room compartmentalized to store the high power 10" rounds if you switched it with rail gun since they are basically a rod of iron and can be kept in the galley if the navy wants to without any fear of them miss firing and going off.