• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot

Hawkeye10 said:
Did it not meet specs? Were the specs wrong? How big a fix is this(time/money)?
Click to expand...

It met specs. They are operating with fancy finicky turbines in warmer waters and climate than specified and they are having trouble with the turbines basically shutting down because they are overheating. This wouldn't happen with a normal turbine without the intercooling. The intercooler probably is too small for that area operation and without the intercooler the turbine eats a hell of a lot more fuel especially in low power mode. They said they are adding another diesel generator which leads me to believe that I was initially right about the diesel generation power deficiency. They are using a lot of power just to cool the ship and all of the electronics on board, not to mention the electric propulsion. The electric motors are rated at 25mw apiece. There are two. The diesels probably couldn't keep up with the demand with even a small amount of propulsive power used. 4 megawatts to cool and power an electric warship in hot weather, probably aint enough.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It met specs. They are operating with fancy finicky turbines in warmer waters and climate than specified and they are having trouble with the turbines basically shutting down because they are overheating. This wouldn't happen with a normal turbine without the intercooling. The intercooler probably is too small for that area operation and without the intercooler the turbine eats a hell of a lot more fuel especially in low power mode. They said they are adding another diesel generator which leads me to believe that I was initially right about the diesel generation power deficiency. They are using a lot of power just to cool the ship and all of the electronics on board, not to mention the electric propulsion. The electric motors are rated at 25mw apiece. There are two. The diesels probably couldn't keep up with the demand with even a small amount of propulsive power used. 4 megawatts to cool and power an electric warship in hot weather, probably aint enough.
Click to expand...

That just sounds like a recipe for disaster most of it. There was awhile where we built schools where no windows can be opened, it was not supposed to be a problem, they have AC. It was a problem.

Likewise I read that the USN is currently building ships that a lot of the retired guys said are easy to roll, and eventually they will roll, because the gadgets that prevent this fail.

The failures of government have gotten so extensive, I cant believe that it was this bad in past generations, sure a lot of people were stupid but there were some smart guys, and decent systems, so design flaws got found before we got 15 years and a half dozen ships into a program.

Or maybe I am wrong.

It happens.
 
Last edited:
American said:
And ?
Click to expand...

Yhe Kidd class were a subtype of the Spruance class designed for the Iranian Navy.

Because they would spend all their time in the Gulf region they were modified for that duty.

IIRC it was everything from AC to engine mods. They armament was changed as well .
 
Fledermaus said:
Yhe Kidd class were a subtype of the Spruance class designed for the Iranian Navy.

Because they would spend all their time in the Gulf region they were modified for that duty.

IIRC it was everything from AC to engine mods. They armament was changed as well .
Click to expand...

Nothing but the finest for the Iranian Navy. :lol:
 
Fledermaus said:
US Navy ended up with them. Not quite what the navy wanted. They were an evolutionary misstep between Spruance and Burke class.
Click to expand...

Not true.

When the Spruance class (DX program) were designed the original intent was to have two versions using the same hull and machinery - one primarily ASW focused (DD) and one primarily AAW focused (DDG). Weapons and equipment fit were modular, a novel idea at the time. Part of the concept was that due to its modular design, the ASW version could be upgraded to something very close (but not quite) equivalent to the AAW version during refits.

The Spruance class were of course the ASW version.

The AAW version was never built and in fact as the program morphed it was never actually designed. The requirement was filled some years later by the Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers built on a modified Spruance hull.

The Kidd's were built on an order for Iran not to the original AAW concept - which never existed - but to the Spruance AAW refit standard, with considerable modification for sustained use in the Gulf of course. So the Kidd's are what the Sprucan's could have looked like if requirements and funding had allowed for their conversion to an AAW oriented concept.

The Spruance class were heavily (and wrongly) criticized on introduction due to the seemingly few visible weapons on what was a very large and expensive hull. Hull size was driven in large part by modularity and the ability of the ships to accomodate new equipment not yet available but in the pipeline (like passive towed array sonars) and to be upgraded without the hassles and expense of earlier classes like the Forrest Sherman's. Because the Kidd's were technically a "conversion" - just built that way from the start - they did not accommodate all of the equipment that would have been seen on a purpose-built from-the-keel-up DDG. For example, on delivery they had only 2 SAM fire control channels and lacked the SPS-49 volume search radar. The forward missile launcher had a magazine containing 24 weapons while the later Ticonderoga's (built on the same hull) had 44 missiles. The reason being the original conversion plan intended to fit the 8-inch MCLWG in place of the forward 5-inch Mk 45 but the MCLWG program was cancelled (and not required by Iran anyway).

It is BTW no coincidence that all four Kidd's spent much of their operational careers with the USN in the Persian Gulf region.
 
Mark F said:
Not true.

When the Spruance class (DX program) were designed the original intent was to have two versions using the same hull and machinery - one primarily ASW focused (DD) and one primarily AAW focused (DDG). Weapons and equipment fit were modular, a novel idea at the time. Part of the concept was that due to its modular design, the ASW version could be upgraded to something very close (but not quite) equivalent to the AAW version during refits.

The Spruance class were of course the ASW version.

The AAW version was never built and in fact as the program morphed it was never actually designed. The requirement was filled some years later by the Ticonderoga class Aegis cruisers built on a modified Spruance hull.

The Kidd's were built on an order for Iran not to the original AAW concept - which never existed - but to the Spruance AAW refit standard, with considerable modification for sustained use in the Gulf of course. So the Kidd's are what the Sprucan's could have looked like if requirements and funding had allowed for their conversion to an AAW oriented concept.

The Spruance class were heavily (and wrongly) criticized on introduction due to the seemingly few visible weapons on what was a very large and expensive hull. Hull size was driven in large part by modularity and the ability of the ships to accomodate new equipment not yet available but in the pipeline (like passive towed array sonars) and to be upgraded without the hassles and expense of earlier classes like the Forrest Sherman's. Because the Kidd's were technically a "conversion" - just built that way from the start - they did not accommodate all of the equipment that would have been seen on a purpose-built from-the-keel-up DDG. For example, on delivery they had only 2 SAM fire control channels and lacked the SPS-49 volume search radar. The forward missile launcher had a magazine containing 24 weapons while the later Ticonderoga's (built on the same hull) had 44 missiles. The reason being the original conversion plan intended to fit the 8-inch MCLWG in place of the forward 5-inch Mk 45 but the MCLWG program was cancelled (and not required by Iran anyway).

It is BTW no coincidence that all four Kidd's spent much of their operational careers with the USN in the Persian Gulf region.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected...

Thank you.
 
American said:
~ It's treasonous.
Click to expand...

No, what's treasonous is that a Parliamentary committee identified potential problems in 2009 and so the MoD had prior warning there might be serious problems.

The warning signs were there in 2009 when the Commons Defence Committee published its report on the Type 45.

MPs noted "persistent over-optimism and underestimation of the technical challenges, combined with inappropriate commercial arrangements" leading to rising costs.
Click to expand...
 
Infinite Chaos said:
No, what's treasonous is that a Parliamentary committee identified potential problems in 2009 and so the MoD had prior warning there might be serious problems.
Click to expand...

BAE is good at selling over-optimism, and have a track record with issues like this. I am sure BAE had their engineers and planners in lock step while selling bad technical information to the Parliament & Navy officials. I would think it extremely unlikely that the Navy, or any one in Parliament would look the other way while sending crews out to fight with a unsafe ship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom