Chinese Marine Propulsion
- Thread starter jobjed
- Start date
Compared to early 2019 when this thread was first started, the landscape of Chinese marine gas turbine remained the same in terms of models in serial production, but structurally it's much different. AECC is now independent from AVIC, CSIC is now merged with CSSC and their marine propulsion and power division is called CSIC Power.
AECC seems to have given up on the marine propulsion market. All their gas turbine models are listed as for power generation use on their website. I have always suspected their QC designation stands for Qing(Light) Chuan(Ship) and QD stands for Qing(Light) Dian(Electricity). All their aeroderivative turbines are now listed as QD. I guess with the merger of CSIC and CSSC, it is now unlikely for an outsider like AECC to break into the marine propulsion business.
According to CSIC Power's 2021 Annual Report, released early this year, they are developing three new marine gas turbines. One is 15MW (GT15 mentioned in the first post of this thread), one is 40MW (GT25000IC). The third is somewhere in the middle. I guess 21MW because 1) that's the power rating of the gas turbine mentioned in Type 076's RFP documents and 2) it's in the middle between 15MW and 25MW. All three models have engineering sample (样机) built and under testing.
AECC seems to have given up on the marine propulsion market. All their gas turbine models are listed as for power generation use on their website. I have always suspected their QC designation stands for Qing(Light) Chuan(Ship) and QD stands for Qing(Light) Dian(Electricity). All their aeroderivative turbines are now listed as QD. I guess with the merger of CSIC and CSSC, it is now unlikely for an outsider like AECC to break into the marine propulsion business.
According to CSIC Power's 2021 Annual Report, released early this year, they are developing three new marine gas turbines. One is 15MW (GT15 mentioned in the first post of this thread), one is 40MW (GT25000IC). The third is somewhere in the middle. I guess 21MW because 1) that's the power rating of the gas turbine mentioned in Type 076's RFP documents and 2) it's in the middle between 15MW and 25MW. All three models have engineering sample (样机) built and under testing.
Would the separation between Aero and Marine gas turbine manufacturers be more effective and efficient than if both are under the same manufacturer like what US and UK do?
personally, I think AECC could create a joint venture for Marine gas turbines with CSIC power, with AECC giving the base core and turbine, and CSIC helping with marine optimization.
Seems AECC hasn't completely given up future hopes for aeroderivative marine gas turbines. Here's an article from the latest issue of Aerospace Power magazine on aeroderivative turbines written by two senior AECC engineers:
The article doesn't say anything about AECC's earlier WS-10 derived gas turbines (consistent with my speculation that AECC is no longer marketing its WS-10 derivatives to the marine propulsion market), but in the last section CJ1000 and CJ2000 are bought up as Chinese jet engines under development with fuel efficiency comparable to LEAP-1C and GEnx. The authors suggest that once CJ1000 and/or CJ2000 reach maturity, those two engines should be used as basis to develop a series of aeroderivative marine gas turbines with world-class performance.
As for the AECC vs CSIC Power gas turbine division (GH Turbine) merger debate. I think at this stage their product lines are still separate enough. In particular, GH Turbine provide gas compression solution based on their gas turbines, AECC doesn't.
Power rating and efficiency of AECC/CSIC Power light turbines:
UGT6000 6,300kW 31.5% efficiency
QD70 (derived from WS-10) 7,350kW 31.3% efficiency
QD128 (derived from Kunlun turbojet) 11.5MW 27% efficiency
UGT15000 16MW 35% efficiency
QD185 (derived from WS-10) 18MW 38% efficiency
UGT25000 25MW 36% efficiency
GT25000/CGT25-D (developed from UGT25000/DA80) 26.7MW 36.5% efficiency
Data are from AECC and GH Turbine's official websites. Note GT25000/CGT25-D is only listed for industrial use on GH Turbine's website. All three UGT turbines are listed for both marine propulsion and industrial use. So perhaps CGT-25 lacks full anti-corrosive measures, or is it an IP issue? Also CGT25 is noted as having 100% indigenous production. No mentioning of 100% indigenous production for UGT25000.
According to the Aerospace Power article I linked, modern Western marine gas turbines have >40% efficiencies. So perhaps a 10%+ decrease in fuel consumption is a good reason to develop new marine turbines from CJ1000/CJ2000? Fuel efficiency is less crucial for naval applications than for aviation. But if one considers industrial uses...
The article doesn't say anything about AECC's earlier WS-10 derived gas turbines (consistent with my speculation that AECC is no longer marketing its WS-10 derivatives to the marine propulsion market), but in the last section CJ1000 and CJ2000 are bought up as Chinese jet engines under development with fuel efficiency comparable to LEAP-1C and GEnx. The authors suggest that once CJ1000 and/or CJ2000 reach maturity, those two engines should be used as basis to develop a series of aeroderivative marine gas turbines with world-class performance.
As for the AECC vs CSIC Power gas turbine division (GH Turbine) merger debate. I think at this stage their product lines are still separate enough. In particular, GH Turbine provide gas compression solution based on their gas turbines, AECC doesn't.
Power rating and efficiency of AECC/CSIC Power light turbines:
UGT6000 6,300kW 31.5% efficiency
QD70 (derived from WS-10) 7,350kW 31.3% efficiency
QD128 (derived from Kunlun turbojet) 11.5MW 27% efficiency
UGT15000 16MW 35% efficiency
QD185 (derived from WS-10) 18MW 38% efficiency
UGT25000 25MW 36% efficiency
GT25000/CGT25-D (developed from UGT25000/DA80) 26.7MW 36.5% efficiency
Data are from AECC and GH Turbine's official websites. Note GT25000/CGT25-D is only listed for industrial use on GH Turbine's website. All three UGT turbines are listed for both marine propulsion and industrial use. So perhaps CGT-25 lacks full anti-corrosive measures, or is it an IP issue? Also CGT25 is noted as having 100% indigenous production. No mentioning of 100% indigenous production for UGT25000.
According to the Aerospace Power article I linked, modern Western marine gas turbines have >40% efficiencies. So perhaps a 10%+ decrease in fuel consumption is a good reason to develop new marine turbines from CJ1000/CJ2000? Fuel efficiency is less crucial for naval applications than for aviation. But if one considers industrial uses...
Last edited:
It turned out the claims on the first two pages of this thread that QC280/QD280 either didn't exist or was abandoned were incorrect. An AGT-25 demonstrator plant was declared successful last month (2022.8) after 10,000 hours of stable operation.
According to AECC Gas Turbine's website, AGT-25 has a rated electricity output of 25MW (well it's actually listed as 25kW but that's just absurd. all other sources point to 25MW) and combined (thermal + generator) efficiency of 35.5%. It's just QC280/QD280/CGT25/UGT25000/GT25000/DA80 by (yet) another name.
AECC Gas Turbine is also marketing AGT-25 as a compression turbine. So my claim that AECC and CSIC Power are not yet competing in the pipeline market is wrong. However, CGT25 had already been installed at many pipeline compression stations in both China and Russia, so CSIC Power/GH Turbine has a huge head start in this market. This is going to be a big market. Russia's now even more cut off from Western industrial turbines.
There's also a AGT-15. It's a 15MW aeroderivative gas turbine. Probably related to the 18MW QD185. According to one report, AGT-15 is marketed for marine propulsion applications.
So my speculation that AECC decided to focus only on industrial/power generation market is wrong. AGT-15 is a direct competitor to CSIC Power's 15MW CGT15 (still underdevelopment) on the marine propulsion turbine market. However, AGT-25 is not listed for marine propulsion application. Perhaps that's the end solution to the AVIC - CSIC dispute. AVIC/AECC can still use the UGT25000/CGT25 design, just not market it for propulsion.
One last thing, on AECC Gas Turbine's website, the exhaust temp for AGT-7/QC70 is listed as 551.8℃, on GH Turbine's website UGT6000's exhaust temp is listed as 425℃. QC70's exhaust is more than 125 degrees hotter than UGT6000's. No wonder it damages Type 071's well-deck!
According to AECC Gas Turbine's website, AGT-25 has a rated electricity output of 25MW (well it's actually listed as 25kW but that's just absurd. all other sources point to 25MW) and combined (thermal + generator) efficiency of 35.5%. It's just QC280/QD280/CGT25/UGT25000/GT25000/DA80 by (yet) another name.
AECC Gas Turbine is also marketing AGT-25 as a compression turbine. So my claim that AECC and CSIC Power are not yet competing in the pipeline market is wrong. However, CGT25 had already been installed at many pipeline compression stations in both China and Russia, so CSIC Power/GH Turbine has a huge head start in this market. This is going to be a big market. Russia's now even more cut off from Western industrial turbines.
There's also a AGT-15. It's a 15MW aeroderivative gas turbine. Probably related to the 18MW QD185. According to one report, AGT-15 is marketed for marine propulsion applications.
So my speculation that AECC decided to focus only on industrial/power generation market is wrong. AGT-15 is a direct competitor to CSIC Power's 15MW CGT15 (still underdevelopment) on the marine propulsion turbine market. However, AGT-25 is not listed for marine propulsion application. Perhaps that's the end solution to the AVIC - CSIC dispute. AVIC/AECC can still use the UGT25000/CGT25 design, just not market it for propulsion.
One last thing, on AECC Gas Turbine's website, the exhaust temp for AGT-7/QC70 is listed as 551.8℃, on GH Turbine's website UGT6000's exhaust temp is listed as 425℃. QC70's exhaust is more than 125 degrees hotter than UGT6000's. No wonder it damages Type 071's well-deck!
Last edited:
Hechai manufactures both original Deutz-MWM TBD620 and their own CHD620 engines. My guess is the ToT agreement gives Hechai IP rights over any improved variants they develop from TBD620 if certain performance parameters are met. Very common practice.
Since the engine offered to Thailand is referred to as "CHD620" not "TBD620" that means it's one of Hechai's improved variants. At least it should have high pressure common rail injection. Maybe sequential turbo-charging as well, not sure. Hechai's webpage on CHD620/622 is completely blank, so no specs sheet. Technologically it's certainly more advanced than MTU396, which is an ancient design by now (MTU is promoting MTU 4000 for new submarines).
We know from official press release that the newest variant of the series, the 4MW class CHD622V20BCR, will be used on next generation Chinese unmanned underwater vehicles. But we have no information on whether any engine of the series has been used on manned submarines. But I see the move toward CHD620/622 series as inevitable. MTU396 is really getting dated now and there's no chance China will get the licenses for U83, the submarine variant in MTU 4000 series.
Last edited:
Understood your point, thanks.
However, across the Social Network, many Thais are worried and expressing concern that the decision to use the CHD620 in their S26T submarine would have been some sort of a guinea-pig scenario where even the PLA Navy still haven't use this engine in one of their own submarine. How can we be sure that the CHD620 is safe for submarine operation in comparison to the proven MTU396.
Please don't be mistaken that I mean Chinese-Made Diesel Engine is not good in quality, just want to know how the engine would be certified and compliance with Royal Thai Navy requirement of "Better or Equivalent" to the MTU396.
I don't think anyone from China's side can answer your question or concern. The Chinese builder does not own MTU production, there is nothing they can do if Germany blocked it. CHD620 is the only alternative that China can provide if Thai Navy still want to the sub.
This is the question to Thai Navy really.