Then maybe you can explain how a pair of 21.5MW WR-21 GTs connected to a pair of 20MW electric motors can drive a Type 45 destroyer with a maximum displacement of 9,400t to 32+ knots. Note that this ship has only 2 2MW diesel generators in addition, so we can be relatively certain that not all 43MW are going into the props, rather some is being siphoned off to power the rest of the ship in addition to the generators.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Because it can't the type 45 has had well publicised power issues resulting in the need to cut holes in their side and fit more and larger diesel gensets, since it would be too costly to rip out the gas turbines, to stop them breaking down in the open sea.
Your case would be better served if you stopped cherry picking erroneous information.
by78
General
Your article actually proves Iron Man's point, namely that the WR21 gas turbines + their connected generators are sufficient for reaching the ship's designed top speed.
The Type-45 is undergoing modifications due to the unreliability of her gas turbines, not because the current setup is under-powered.
From what I understand WRT the Type 45, the problem with the WR-21's issues are related to its intercooler-recuperator system which can cause the GTs to fail.
However, when the WR-21s are working, they are able to propel the Type 45 to its intended speeds -- via the ship's IEPS arrangement.
Going back to the point of disagreement, the reliability of the WR-21 gas turbines does not seem to be inherently related to the ship's IEPS configuration, but rather to the powerplant itself. So, technically speaking Iron Man is still correct in that the Type 45's IEPS is able to deliver the performance that the ship needs, when the WR-21s are functioning the way they're intended.
Type 45's power and propulsion issues aren't due to issues with IEPS, but due to issues with WR-21.
One more row, wouldn't be that difficult a Hull Stretch.
Just wondered by they wouldn't do it.
Can you point me to the start of the debate about this, thanks? Theres 600 odd pages.
Jura The idiot
General
did you perhaps miss the sentence
"To add greater resilience to the power and propulsion system, the PIP has been established with the objective of changing the original IEP architecture by installing upgraded diesel generators to increase the electrical generation capacity such that the system can deliver cruise speeds (covering the major part of the Type 45 operating profile) on diesels alone."
?
this sentence indicates to me "the current setup is under-powered"
ROFLMAO
No, what they mean is that diesels alone cannot propel the ship at cruise speed because they are not powerful enough to do so by themselves, which means they require one of the WR21s to be active. This does not mean that the entire setup overall is underpowered, only that diesels cannot currently drive the ship at cruise speeds. However, once the diesels are uprated they will apparently be able to drive the ship at cruise speeds; diesels as you know are much more efficient at lower (cruise) speeds, so this is a fuel-saving measure, not a fix-the-underpowered-Daring measure.
by78
General
No, because the article also says, "The two Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators alternators currently installed as part of the IEP system are primarily intended to provide power for harbour services and ‘blackout’ recovery, and not designed to perform as true backup generators in the event of GTA failure", meaning the diesel generators were not being used for propulsion purposes.
According to the article, the British Navy was unsatisfied with the reliability of the gas turbines, so they actively looked for ways to run the turbines less. To do so, they have opted to upgrade the diesel generators to so that they can propelled the ship at cruise speed without also running the turbines.
Basically, use the turbines less = less turbine breakdowns.
Can the IEP enjoy same sort of effectivenss if different kinds of generators are connected to the electricity making system? So, 2 big turbines and one smaller one?
While future 055 may have to have extra power installed over current 055, it does seem that 4 large turbines would be an overkill. Still, just 2 turbines may not be quite enough to have some capacity to spare for future subsystems.
While future 055 may have to have extra power installed over current 055, it does seem that 4 large turbines would be an overkill. Still, just 2 turbines may not be quite enough to have some capacity to spare for future subsystems.
The implication of your statement is that the Arleigh Burke design is grossly overpowered because they have 4 x 20MW turbines solely for propulsion. That would be twice the propulsion power of a Type-45 which is only somewhat smaller in displacement.
The other explanation is the Arleigh Burke actually has a design requirement for a much higher maximum speed than the Type-45. Possibly because it has to keep up with a nuclear powered carrier or to outrun torpedoes.
Both of these reasons will also apply to future Type-55s build by China.
- Status