TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
You know when I saw that photo, I was reminded of the Oil tank form a House I used to live in. It was converted form pre-World war 2 era Hot Water tank.
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
You know when I saw that photo, I was reminded of the Oil tank form a House I used to live in. It was converted form pre-World war 2 era Hot Water tank.
MV-22 Osprey strutting its stuff onboard more and more allied nation's LHDs and LHAs.
Earlier, the Japanese did the same type of testing for their Hyuga Class (DDH) and Osumi Class (LHD) vessels. Also, on the HMS Illustrious.
More pics on the Juan Carlos:
You have to know the Australians are watching this with interest and taking notes.
Naval Today said:
Earlier, the Japanese did the same type of testing for their Hyuga Class (DDH) and Osumi Class (LHD) vessels. Also, on the HMS Illustrious.
More pics on the Juan Carlos:
You have to know the Australians are watching this with interest and taking notes.
Pointblank
Senior Member
The Navy has done a lot of experimentation and testing in particular with the Thermion coating, which is a aluminum-ceramic coating process. The coating is 54% aluminum and 46% ceramic powder. This makes the substance extremely light, only 0.5 lb/ft², which exceeds Navy's specifications for type I non-skid. Application process by using a 3/16” diameter twin wire arc-spray. The ceramic wire is fed through a spray gun that creates an electrical arc between two electrically charged wires to melt the coating material. Compressed air is used as an atomizer and propels the material through the spray gun at a uniform speed. The components of the twin-wire system consist of an air compressor, D.C. power supply, wire guides, and a spray gun. This method is considered the best way to coat surfaces with aluminum materials because it provides extremely high adhesive and cohesive strengths, while being economical. The coating rate can reach up to 300 ft²/hr per application machine.
According to Thermion's commercial documentation, projected life expectancy of the material is 50 years(!). That would literally be for the life of a typical Navy vessel. However, due to the high operational tempo of naval surface vessels and their extreme operating environment, the life expectancy will likely be significantly reduced, but even an 80% reduction would exceed the current life expectancy of the current non-skid deck coatings.
However, Thermion’s process has only been used commercially during the past decade. As a result, testing data on the useful life of the product are not available to support the contractor’s claim. The contractor recommends a lifespan of 10 years based on the lack of testing data in a harsh naval environment. Compare that to traditional anti-skid coating, which has a maximum life of about 12 months at best.
Such aluminum-ceramic coatings would also have a number of side benefits as well; the Thermion coating is much lighter, only 0.5 lb/ft² compared the spec'ed Type 1 coating which weights 0.99 lbs/ft². This provides the potential advantage of reducing topside weight and its effects on a ship’s calculated stability. Furthermore, the Thermion coating has a higher coefficient of friction; 1.1 for Thermion compared to Type 1's 0.95 on a dry surface.
Another thing is that Thermion is very economical to apply; the total cost is $13.50 per square foot, which includes labour, equipment, and preparation. Traditional anti-skid is around $11.00 per square foot. Considering that Thermion has a much longer life expectancy, the long term cost savings is readily apparent.
As an example, if you consider that an Burke-class destroyer requires 23,000 square feet of surface area to be coated with non-skid. The nominal cost per application with traditional anti-skid is $253,000 per application, and that would last anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
Thermion's per application costs is around $310,500 and that is expected to last 10 years. Over a 10 year time span, the standard anti-skid would cost $1,265,000, compared to Thermion's $310,500, which equals to a almost 77% decrease in costs for anti-skid coating on board a Burke for 10 years. Considering that a Nimitz class carrier has about 8.5x the area that requires anti-skid coating, the savings could be in the tens of millions of dollars per year for a carrier. Across the entire fleet, over a period of 10 years, the savings will reach closer to $200 million dollars. And if Thermion last anywhere near the claimed 50 years, the cost savings could end up in the billions across the fleet.
This is good material Pointblank regarding these coatings. But I have a question about your post
Do you happen to be one of the following individuals?
Kurt P. Boenisch,
Hector A. Cervantes,
Andrew J. Clark IV,
Jesse G. Espe, or
Erik B. Lohrke
The reason I ask is because those people jointly wrote a Professional MBA Paper at the US Navy Postgraduate School in 2003 entitled,
"A cost effectiveness analysis of using alternate materials for non-skid in shipboard applications."
The paper can be located
I find direct quotes in your comment that are taken from that paper without any citation. If you are one of the authors, that is not a problem,. But if you are not, we need you to cite and link to those sources where you take material like this. To not do so, and post it as your own, is a form of Plagerism, whichis not allowed on SD.
For example, you indicated the following in your post:
Pointblank said:
When speaking of that same coating in the Graduate Paper, the authors said,
Postgrad Paper said:
Clearly, this quote comes directly from their paper.
We need to be more careful on SD when speaking in very direct technical terms. To have read a technical/scholarly paper and then paraphrase it would be one thing...IMHJO, even that should note and link to the source. But to have direct quotes from such a scholarly article without citation is another.
Clearly, not all of your post is that way...and there may be other parts from other sources. I know this one because I had read it before and the terminology you were using sounded just like the paper...so I checked.
Please...if you use a specific source for such things, simply cite it. If you are the author, or if the words are your own thoughts based on things you have read in the past and come up with your own conclusions...that is different.
Thanks.
(Watch the video at that link)
Yes, the one regret I do have is that I would have liked to have seen the Royal Navy fly the C model and dispense with those "nasty" ramps. The B is a somewhat eclectic bird, and while KOOL, I would much rather have a squadron of C's at my disposal, and most certainly the C will be much less maintenance intensive. The B will fit into the "Harrier" mold quite nicely, but will take a little "doing" to keep it up and running in the near term and towards the end of its life as well, when it begins to "age".
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Yes it's very true and as per the plans the first carrier was to be STOBAR and the second one CATOBAR
However we all know the U-turn on the second one to STOBAR also
Then comes the aircraft switch first we have F35B then we switched to F35C and then back to F35B while spending a few hundred million making up our minds
CATOBAR does not just give F35C it gives ability to operate fixed wing AWACS meaning more awareness and also in future UCAV capability both are gone by dreams I mean a 70,000 ton ships with a ski jump really?? It's a handicap
However the switch for the second carrier from CATOBAR to STOBAR means quicker delivery, cheaper cost and operational of two carriers on "surge" if required
Simply put it all comes down to money UK simply could not afford the cats and traps on the second carrier the price was going through the roof and simply became unaffordable
Then comes the capability and sorties rates
A single QE will do 110 sorties a day (24 hours) a Nimitz Class has done 160 even surged 180 the new Gerald Ford can clock 260 on a surge so basically a single Gerald Ford can do the work of two QE carriers
Less sorties, less range, less of the "deep strike" , less bombs on targets and less situational awareness and less ability to sustain a sortie rate over a prolonged period of time there is many many aspects of CATOBAR that simply STOBAR do not provide
We all like to see 12 x Type 45 DDG with Tomahawks but we didn't we all like to see CATOBAR we didn't that's just the way it is so we have to live with it it's still good to be second best and second best is still good enough!
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Asif:
I think you meant STOVLand not STOBAR; at no point was the STOBAR option ever considered for the QEC, and a good thing too: STOBAR is the worst of all carrier configurations. All the weight penalties of launching non vectored thrust jets from a ski jump and all the danger of arrested recoveries plus the high deck space demands of the angled deck itself (less deck parking spots available.
I think you meant STOVLand not STOBAR; at no point was the STOBAR option ever considered for the QEC, and a good thing too: STOBAR is the worst of all carrier configurations. All the weight penalties of launching non vectored thrust jets from a ski jump and all the danger of arrested recoveries plus the high deck space demands of the angled deck itself (less deck parking spots available.
- Status