Speculation and facts on future Chinese vessels

Mysterre said:

I don't see how any of what you posted indicates lack of flexibility. Fuel economy is not even an argument. By nature GT is less fuel efficient, but I have already mentioned that. On the other hand, you have a limited space and a certain tonnage and speed requirement. If two diesels and two GT's cannot satisfy this requirement in the space available, you build a ship using COGAG, despite the cost in fuel efficiency.

Click to expand...

You really need to lay off the caffeine! The article in my post which the link points to indicates the lack of flexibility of the current 4 GT configuration used in the Arleigh Burkes and why a move towards Hybrid Electric Drive (an IEP) is desirable to overcome them.

Mysterre said:

Navies all over the world use COGAG in their destroyers. So where's the fire?

Click to expand...

No they don't Royal Navy has never used a COGAG arrangement in any of the 29 Gas turbined powered destroyers built since the war. In fact the only COGAG ships in the RN were the 4 Type 22 batch III frigates and 3 Invincible class CVS. There is no fire just if you starting from scratch you might go with something that's current and not ape what folks did 20 years ago!

Perhaps, the Royal Navy knows nothing about ships and Rolls Royce nothing about marine gas turbines.

Mysterre said:

The day you can point out a destroyer to me that is the size of the Queen Mary 2 is the day its Warsila diesels will have any relevance in a discussion about destroyers. Until then it is meaningless to compare the diesels used in a 149,000 ton ship to the ones used on a 7,000 ton ship. The 052C uses diesels that put out 5MW. Its GT's put out 28MW. So as I said, the diesels are in fact wimpy compared to the GT's.

Click to expand...

Iver Huitfeldt class AAW frigate 6,645 tonnes full load, Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each (BTW they make more powerful ones!), top speed 28 knots I don't think it's engine rooms are any bigger or smaller than any other ship of a similar size and it's not about what power you can generate it's about how you can move a ship through water at speed, reliably under fire.

Mysterre said:

Again, the argument has been about whether Chinese shipbuilding industry is capable of building ships with engines using CODAG arrangements, not whether you personally think CODAG is "complicated". Can you provide evidence either way?

Click to expand...

No that's not the argument, the argument was "is propulsion the thing that's limiting the size of Chinese vessels?". I am simply stating what I believe all the views I express in this forum are personal and my own if you're claiming to speak on behalf of someone else maybe you should declare that interest other wise it's just YOU don't agree with my viewpoint and there's no need to be so uncivil about it.

hkbc said:

You really need to lay off the caffeine! The article in my post which the link points to indicates the lack of flexibility of the current 4 GT configuration used in the Arleigh Burkes and why a move towards Hybrid Electric Drive (an IEP) is desirable to overcome them.

Click to expand...

Again, that article does not state that GT's are inflexible, only that HE drives are more flexible than GT's. GT's having a "lack of flexibility" is therefore your own read into this article, not what the article itself is actually saying.

hkbc said:

No they don't Royal Navy has never used a COGAG arrangement in any of the 29 Gas turbined powered destroyers built since the war. In fact the only COGAG ships in the RN were the 4 Type 22 batch III frigates and 3 Invincible class CVS. There is no fire just if you starting from scratch you might go with something that's current and not ape what folks did 20 years ago!

Perhaps, the Royal Navy knows nothing about ships and Rolls Royce nothing about marine gas turbines.

Click to expand...

It's funny how I say "navies all over the world", and you respond with "no they don't Royal Navy has never used a COGAG arrangement". Isn't that a bit disingenuous there? Besides the USN, the Korean, Japanese and Russian navies use COGAG on their destroyers, and you should not fail to notice that these tend to be the larger destroyers of the world.

With that in mind, it's really not that hard to figure out why the RN hasn't used COGAG on their 'post-war' ships: they haven't needed to. Look at the displacement of their destroyers: the County (6,200 tons), Type 82 (6,400 tons), Type 42 (5,200 tons) and Type 45 (7,500 tons) classes. For the same displacement reasons, the PLAN has not had to use COGAG arrangements in any of their ships so far, though like I said before, if the PLAN decides larger displacement destroyers/cruisers are needed, COGAG will be the most likely contender.

hkbc said:

Iver Huitfeldt class AAW frigate 6,645 tonnes full load, Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each (BTW they make more powerful ones!), top speed 28 knots I don't think it's engine rooms are any bigger or smaller than any other ship of a similar size and it's not about what power you can generate it's about how you can move a ship through water at speed, reliably under fire.

Click to expand...

You were so insistent on including only destroyers a few paragraphs up, but now frigates are under discussion too? Well if we are now broadening our horizons let's do talk about the Type 22's and the Invincible CVL's and the Neustrashimy frigates all using COGAG, shall we? It's not just about top speed, but also about how fast you can get there. I'm sure the Iver Huitfeldt with those kinds of specs will accelerate like a freight ship on a lazy afternoon. Then again it's an AAW frigate after all, so burst capabilities don't necessarily have to be part of its repertoire.

hkbc said:

No that's not the argument, the argument was "is propulsion the thing that's limiting the size of Chinese vessels?". I am simply stating what I believe all the views I express in this forum are personal and my own if you're claiming to speak on behalf of someone else maybe you should declare that interest other wise it's just YOU don't agree with my viewpoint and there's no need to be so uncivil about it.

Click to expand...

You are mixing up your arguments here. The reference to CODAG was specifically regarding whether China's shipbuilding industry can or cannot design and build this type of transmission, not the more general issue of whether propulsion is limiting the size of future Chinese vessels. And if you think I'm being uncivil to you, you need to grow some thicker skin.

Mysterre said:

Again, that article does not state that GT's are inflexible, only that HE drives are more flexible than GT's. GT's having a "lack of flexibility" is therefore your own read into this article, not what the article itself is actually saying.



It's funny how I say "navies all over the world", and you respond with "no they don't Royal Navy has never used a COGAG arrangement". Isn't that a bit disingenuous there? Besides the USN, the Korean, Japanese and Russian navies use COGAG on their destroyers, and you should not fail to notice that these tend to be the larger destroyers of the world.

With that in mind, it's really not that hard to figure out why the RN hasn't used COGAG on their 'post-war' ships: they haven't needed to. Look at the displacement of their destroyers: the County (6,200 tons), Type 82 (6,400 tons), Type 42 (5,200 tons) and Type 45 (7,500 tons) classes. For the same displacement reasons, the PLAN has not had to use COGAG arrangements in any of their ships so far, though like I said before, if the PLAN decides larger displacement destroyers/cruisers are needed, COGAG will be the most likely contender.



You were so insistent on including only destroyers a few paragraphs up, but now frigates are under discussion too? Well if we are now broadening our horizons let's do talk about the Type 22's and the Invincible CVL's and the Neustrashimy frigates all using COGAG, shall we? It's not just about top speed, but also about how fast you can get there. I'm sure the Iver Huitfeldt with those kinds of specs will accelerate like a freight ship on a lazy afternoon. Then again it's an AAW frigate after all, so burst capabilities don't necessarily have to be part of its repertoire.



You are mixing up your arguments here. The reference to CODAG was specifically regarding whether China's shipbuilding industry can or cannot design and build this type of transmission, not the more general issue of whether propulsion is limiting the size of future Chinese vessels. And if you think I'm being uncivil to you, you need to grow some thicker skin.

Click to expand...

It's Christmas I have better things to do than waste my time nit picking with you, your comments about growing a thicker skin pretty much says everything there is to say about you as a human being!

Don't bother responding I am not going to

Christmas Tidings!

hkbc said:

Don't bother responding I am not going to

Click to expand...

Don't be a sore loser. Merry Christmas.

Is this what it claims to be?

I think so.

We've been expecting it for a while. It has a similar configuration to Kh-31, but clearly it cannot be considered a variant, given size, booster, control surface differences. It definitely looks like it can live up to the 400km range, mach 4 claim.