New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

I am more than a little unclear as to why anyone thinks we need Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) on a surface ship?  Air is free.  And if you want lots of electricity quickly and for (relatively) little weight, gas turbines are the answer.

Interesting point SKT.

 

[AlexanderM]

It has nothing to do with air, absoluteluy no need to get hung up on air.  The Zumwalt destroyers were going to have a type of rail gun, but they couldn't make them work and switched to the 155mm naval gun with the extended range shell.  However, since then, they made the rail gun work using high energy capacitors, and I am thinking that this might be what we will eventually see with lasers systems one day.  So, at this point we wouldn't know the power requirements and I am speculating that one could simply use an AIP system to charge the capacitors.  It would make it an entirely independant system.  It is pure speculation on my part. 

 

[Occam]

AIP is a subset of propulsion technologies, not electrical generation.  A surface vessel wouldn't need to use AIP, since, well...you have air readily available.  If a surface ship wants to generate electricity, they flash up diesel generator sets that suck air - and are certainly not air-independent.

 

[AlexanderM]

AIP is simply a power source, such as a fuel cell, that feeds power to the electric engine of a submarine.  The power source can have other applications. I was thinking air independant power rather than propulsion, which is my mistake.  It is simply a matter of having a power source to charge supercapacitor banks and standard ships systems may or may not be the way to go.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

And, as mentioned above, a bank of relatively compact gas turbines at roughly 40K HP each will suffice-No need to reinvent the wheel. And don't say you are not reinventing. If AIP for propulsion/generating was so 'simple', it would be on EVERY non-nuclear submarine vice a select few.

 

[AlexanderM]

Yes, OK.  Here is an article that talks about the power problems for rail guns on a ship, might not be such a problem for lasers.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/November/Pages/ElectricGuns2452.aspx

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, OK.  Here is an article that talks about the power problems for rail guns on a ship, might not be such a problem for lasers.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2007/November/Pages/ElectricGuns2452.aspx

Lazers?  The stuff we have now is not always reliable. 

 

[AlexanderM]

I am entirely thinking about what will be available in 10-20 years, not today.  In the article above it states that ships systems would have to charge super capacitor banks over time, meaning they would be charged 24/7.  It is my opinion that keeping super capacitors permanently charged is a really bad idea. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

And I'm thinking, the cost of these "Star Wars" systems, IF they come into practical use will be beyond our means money wise.  That sort of R&D is for the big kids in the sandbox who have rich Daddys.  We don't.

 

[AlexanderM]

Hardly.  Battlefield lasers are already on the horizon, and ships will be carrying these at some point.  I'm simply saying, leave room for the tech, and think about power requirements.  Just google "battlefield lasers".

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/military-laser/

 

[AlexanderM]

This is really cool.  Imagine a more powerful version replacing a point defence system on a ship.  Then imagine an even more powerful system being able to take out incoming missles and aircraft at range.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/


From the article.

Some of the first battlefield lasers may appear as hybrid systems that marry laser power with old-fashioned projectile weapons, such as the U.S. Navy's interest in a defensive ship weapon that combines a laser with a machine gun.

 

[AlexanderM]

I expect by the time our ships hit the water these systems will be standard.

 

[Haletown]

I am more than a little unclear as to why anyone thinks we need Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) on a surface ship?  Air is free.  And if you want lots of electricity quickly and for (relatively) little weight, gas turbines are the answer.

Even the Navy must now pay homage to Gaia . . .  if the USAF can afford to pay  $25/gallon for green JP, the Navy can get in the eco greenie game with an expensive and non required AIP system.


sarc off/

 

[Navy_Pete]

AIP is simply a power source, such as a fuel cell, that feeds power to the electric engine of a submarine.  The power source can have other applications. I was thinking air independant power rather than propulsion, which is my mistake.  It is simply a matter of having a power source to charge supercapacitor banks and standard ships systems may or may not be the way to go.

AIP is generally only used for submarines, as an alternative to nuclear.  Fuel cells are an option, put the more common one is some kind of chemical reaction that produces oxygen that feeds into a diesel generator, so the subs don't have to snorkel to recharge their batteries.

Not really a practical technology for generating power on a surface ship, as they are only really needed when you don't have an atmosphere (underwater or in space).

A lot of the new ship designs are some kind of diesel electric propulsion with gas turbines for the power for the weapon systems.  Something like rail gun that need a huge amount of power at short notice GTs would be a practical solution (LM2500 ++ maybe?) and because they don't weigh much (relatively) you can put them higher up then diesels (also reduces noise from that much air volume flowing through trunking).

Still though, probably at least a full generation of ships away from that.  More realistic is something like the guided shells (can't remember the specfici term), which they've already tested out and can retrofit existing ships.

Having said that, a rail gun would be bad a$$... ;D

 

[AlexanderM]

Something like rail gun that need a huge amount of power at short notice GTs would be a practical solution (LM2500 ++ maybe?) and because they don't weigh much (relatively) you can put them higher up then diesels (also reduces noise from that much air volume flowing through trunking).

Having said that, a rail gun would be bad a$$... ;D

The huge amount of power at short notice is the problem and gas turbines are not the answer.  The article linked to above states that using tubines the system would have to be charged slowly, over time, and kept charged at all times.  Then, if one runs out of power mid-battle, there is no quick way to recharge the system.  I was looking for an alternate power supply but agree fuel cells are not the answer.  So, you are right, even though they can make them work, they are still a ways away because of the power problem.

I don't anticipate the same problem with the lasers though, so they likely can be powered by the turbines, which would charge super capacitors, but not as much power required, so it would be practical.  If they can power the mobile laser linked to above, they can certainly power one on a ship.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

It would probably be cheaper to just build new ships when the new technologies come online and are debugged.

 

[AlexanderM]

The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.

This design is mounted on a mobile unit and is working.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which is why I don't see traditional guns and missiles going away anytime soon. However self defense Lasers will be a welcome assest in prolonged and distant engagement, where the supply of missiles will be quickly depleted.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.

This design is mounted on a mobile unit and is working.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/

I'll pass on the thanks for the great laughing fit your ascertation that lazers and rail guns will be available for us to use in the near future gave our P1 WEng guy.  He roared with laughter and nearly shat himself with glee. 

I guess he doesn't share your optimism on the future prospects for us.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The laser technology will be ready, or close to it, by the time our ships hit the water.  Either have it on the ships or have it in the design, as in leave room for the systems, but install at a later date.

That's far too late in the design stage. They would need to be working and relatively debugged by the time the detailed design work is started.

Leaving room for experimental systems to be installed later doesn't work, as the RN found out with CVF.