Zumbwalt class had 78 MW power combined
Type 45 has 56MW power
Even QE AC has just 118MW in power.
I see no reason why 76-80MW (1 40MW GT + 4x9-10MW diesel engines) can't power a 9000t destroyer that uses IEPS
Chinese Marine Propulsion
- Thread starter jobjed
- Start date
Type 45 has 56MW power
Even QE AC has just 118MW in power.
I see no reason why 76-80MW (1 40MW GT + 4x9-10MW diesel engines) can't power a 9000t destroyer that uses IEPS
That's more likely to be you (and the Type 26, which would find it quite hard to reach and sustain speeds of at least 30 knots).
I'm also not as enthusiastic on the 9-10MW diesel engines. The highest proven ones so far are the 8MW DEs on the 054B FFGs - And those DEs certainly do take up a lot of hull spaces when present in larger numbers.
Also, for warships with similar degree of capabilities and importance as proper DDGs (i.e. >8000 tons at full load and not DDG-wannable large-FFGs) - I'd rather have two GTs per hull than just one GT per hull, even if the two GTs are of lower power each (~28-32MW) than the only one GT of higher power (~50-60MW). And this isn't just for greater power generation capabilities to better deal with future power requirements, but also as a redundancy measure against potential damages/malfunctions to one of the GTs during wartime.
The latter would be, for instance - In case of wartime damage, I'd rather be able to flee back my home port at ~27 knots for repairs on one of the two GTs plus the DEs, than only being able to limp back at ~17 knots on only the DEs.
Last edited:
That's because 9-10MW diesel just became available this year.
If a 15000t Zumwalt class can reach whatever speed it needs to get for with 78MW, why would a 9000t ship not able to get to higher speed with 80MW power? Why would think it cannot get above 30 knots? eMotor is far more efficient than mechanical propulsion.
now, another option is 2 large and 2 small GTs if they want to go all GT config. Then, it's a question of space vs fuel efficiency & NVH.
What makes you think 40MW is only able to sustain 17 knots for a 9000t ship?
Type 45 is powered by 2 20MW eMotors. 40MW for electric motor is a lot of power.
#1 - The problem with that is your apparent obsession/fixation with how next-generation DDGs of the PLAN are definitely going to DEs of the highest power that is available to the Chinese ship designers. I don't.
#2 - The problem with that is your apparent obession/fixation with how every next-generation surface combatant of the PLAN are definitely going to use IEPS. I don't.
#3 - How much power is lost if one of the two 21.5MW GTs on the Type 45 DDG is rendered unavailable (out of the total of ~56MW)? And how much power is lost if the same Type 45 DDG with only one 43MW GT (i.e. 2x 21.5MW) is rendered unavailable (out of the total of ~56MW)?
Last edited:
I think it's a problem if future vessels are not going to IEPS given the huge demand for power generation. Using IEPS also brings certain NVH advantages since you can completely isolate the engines from the propulsion. By using power banks, you can also efficiently separate power generation from consumption.
They don't need to go with the largest diesel engines or even IEPS. I'm simply pointing out that you don't need 2 GTs to provide enough power for a 9000t vessel.
I don't see why that matters. 40MW from 2 eMotors can push Type 45 to sustain something close to 30 knots.
So, 40MW on a 9000t destroyer would be able to go something close to that.
If we take back a step here, then consider the vastly improved energy efficiency of electric motors, it's the idea that you don't need as many GTs to get to the same top speed. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. PLAN may choose to not go with IEPS or maybe they will go with IEPS and 2 GTs. But that's not necessary.
Appreciate the advantage of electric propulsion efficiency + power bank over mechanical propulsion and separate electric generator.
Ultimately, what PLAN would pick as propulsion for a 9000t destroyer would depend on the non propulsion power requirement. If it thinks you need 30MW of power for sensors & DEW & such, then maybe it needs something like 2 40MW GTs + 2 6MW GTs or 2 40MW GTs & 4 small diesels.
I'm also not clear why you are arguing about this? It's a good thing that PLAN has more powerful engines now.
That sounds more like a you problem than a PLAN problem.
Frankly speaking - I don't care how much power you can extract from that one gas turbine when the majority of the power supply onboard an effing fleet-wide air defense-capable DDG gets gutted in case/once the gas engine is rendered inoperable, especially in an IEPS setting.
And since you've discarded the question, then I see no reason to continue this discussion.
Last edited:
lol, at the effort you are putting in to change the topic.
Remember, this is what you said
After I showed you how IEPS can achieve that. Now, you are scrambling all over the place.
Lmfao no. I meant what I said.
Let me reiterate again, just in case you are struggling to understand - Two GTs (whether that be 30MW-class or 40MW-class) would be needed for an effing fleet-wide air defense-capable DDG that is ~9000-10000 tons of full-load displacement - In addition to two to four DEs.
Plus, frankly speaking, I just don't see how the PLAN would definitely stick with highest-power DEs and GTs available for every one of their major surface warships (not just surface combatants) or even IEPS.
This has been my stance throughout the discussion.
One GT is not going to cut it, as I have explained above.
Last edited:
except I just showed that for IEPS propulsion, 80 MW is plenty for that, because only 40MW is needed for propulsion based on the Type 45 example. And for the 15th FYP, 80MW can be achieved with 1 GT and multiple DEs.