by78
General
I learned something new today. It's a bit surprising that the removal process is so labor intensive.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
I learned something new today. It's a bit surprising that the removal process is so labor intensive.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Now I understand why they call them "deck apes."
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Everything in or on a carrier is labor intensive LOL. If it ain't broke yet it will.
Yes it is. Non-skid is an epoxy. When correctly applied it is very "labor intensive" to remove.
When US CVN/LHD/LHA are in a shipyard the non-skid is removed and replaced by civilians..these days..
Pointblank
Senior Member
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
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.
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.
Re: Aircraft Carriers II
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:
When speaking of that same coating in the Graduate Paper, the authors 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.
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.
True. The tries are replaced after x number of launches and arrested landings. The entire wheel assembly last quite a while.
The USN can perform these maintenance task at sea.
- Status