A modern frigate?

[SUPER=BUG]

Different countries have different roles for frigates. For example, in the Chinese Navy, frigates focus more on cost-effectiveness and quantity. Their existence allows ships like the 052D and 055 to undertake missions that are more aligned with their roles. Therefore, whether it's the 056A, 054A, or 054B, you can always see many cost-saving traces on them.

 

[MadRat]

That was for 4 frigates! Plus a transfer of technology package which adds to the overall cost. Total cost was ~400M per Gowind for Egypt, similar to the Greek cost I mentioned.

The article said the price as outfitted was for one not four. I do not know why you keep insisting prices are so low.

 

[H_K]

The article said the price as outfitted was for one not four. I do not know why you keep insisting prices are so low.

Sorry the burden’s on you to give a source contradicting my prices for Gowind, Sigmas etc.

There are literally dozens of articles from the Egyptian, Greek and Romanian contract negotiations all quoting the same ballpark of €400M per hull. With the Greek prices being the most solid as they were sourced from parliamentary briefings comparing best and final offers from all the major shipbuilders, and quoted by respectable industry sources such as DefenceReview.gr. For example:

https://defencereview.gr/amina/korvetes-gowind-gia-to-polemiko-naytiko-i-sy/

According to exclusive information from DefenceReview.gr, the French proposal includes a variety of options regarding the number of Gowinds proposed. In particular, different cases have been proposed that include the construction of 3 to 5 Gowind corvettes. That is, either 3+1 or 4+1 or directly 5 ships. The maximum cost for the 5 ships (including construction costs, systems and initial technical support package) amounts to 1,780 billion euros. Alternatively, the cost for three ships ranges from 1.2 billion euros and four at 1.6 billion euros. Each ship is estimated at 400 million euros, including technical support for the first few years. It is worth noting that the above prices do not include the cost of munitions. It is estimated that the final cost of the 5 ships (1,780 billion euros) together with all munitions (basic as well as additional loads of anti-aircraft missiles and surface missiles, torpedoes, RAM missiles, gun ammunition, etc.) will amount to approximately 2.1 to 2.2 billion euros.

In this later article (May 2022) it is clarified that the cost of munitions is ~€60M per corvette (MBDA contract for Exocet SSMs + Mica VL SAM for 4 corvettes of €250M). With the cost of 4 Gowinds increasing slightly if 3 of the 4 are built in Greece through a tech transfer agreement:

It is noted that the cost of building and initial technical support package for four Gowind corvettes amounts to 1.65 billion euros (the price does not include munitions). This is because MBDA, as was done with FDI HN, will sign a separate contract for the armament of the corvettes (armament cost 250 million euros).

 

[MadRat]

I went back through my links and found the wording to imply a per ship total and apologize. Other links clearly are more consistent with €400 million delivered in 2014 dollars. Wikipedia estimaes in 2026 values for them to be €550 million. The original contract was €1 billion (before added weapon changes) for four basic hulls in 2014, so even with a generous bump for inflation they do not get anywhere near my original price quote.

 

[insidersource]

I'm not sure on the fixation some people have on a small ship either....they seem to forget the adage...Steel is Cheap and Air is Free...

Fuel is not free. The total fuel consumed over the life of the ship is far greater cost than the purchase price of the ship.

Nuclear power for the win!

Definitely. Any fully cleansheet US Navy design would be nuclear. This debate was covered a few months back with LOTS of data. Nuclear with electric propulsion will be much cheaper and lighter than even a fully gas turbine powered ship.

The conclusion is to fit a tiny small reactor that produces just enough electricity to cover the majority of operational speeds. The majority of the time the ships travel fairly slowly. A gas turbine is then used for sprinting and for redundancy. This propulsion layout provides a 90+% reduction in ships fuel consumption while allowing a nuclear reactor only 10% of the size of a fully nuclear powered ship.

People will wonder how such a small reactor would even be useful. But it is simple physics. A ship cruising at half speed only requires only ~10% of the engine power compared to full speed. The Arleigh-burke USS Truston was fitted with a single 1.9megawatt electric motor on a single prop shaft. It could cruise at 12 knots off only 1.9 megawatt. This is a ship that needs 80megawatt to reach top speed. The reactor required would be very small.

It is the merging of two new technologies that make this layout possible.
1) Integrated electric propulsion. Generators provide electricity and the prop shafts have electric motors on it.
2) Micro nuclear reactors that can be replaced like a battery, have minimal maintenance and storage requirements.

Nothing fancy needs to be invented to join these technologies to provide the ultimate ship propulsion layout.

The Type 45 destroyer destroyer for instance has two big gas turbine generators and two small diesel generators connected to a high voltage system in the ship. The prop shafts then have a big electric motor powered from the high voltage system. The small nuclear generator then connects to the same high voltage system and you could then replace the diesel generators.

NASA is about to put a tiny reactor in space that produces only 20kw of electricity. Things are moving very fast. Obviously most countries don't have nuclear power so their perfect frigate would still use efficient diesels for cruise and gas turbine for sprinting.

I think it will only be a few years until we see the US Navy going with micro reactors. I expect DDG(X) to be fitted for but not with a micro reactor. That is pretty easy. The engine room just needs to be a bit larger and the access to remove the engines needs to be a bit bigger as I expect the microreactor to still be a bit larger than a diesel or gas turbine generator.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We've had this discussion, and the "small modular reactor" of the power level you're talking about for the base hotel loads plus low speed running factor is the size of the old S5W used on US subs from Skipjack-class up through 637s.

Which is NOT a small plant. Nor would Naval Reactors allow it to be operated by non-trained personnel.

 

[insidersource]

We've had this discussion, and the "small modular reactor" of the power level you're talking about for the base hotel loads plus low speed running factor is the size of the old S5W used on US subs from Skipjack-class up through 637s.

Which is NOT a small plant. Nor would Naval Reactors allow it to be operated by non-trained personnel.

S5W is a reactor from 1955. You should not use that for comparison. The old Skipjack sub has a displacement of 3,500 ton. The modern French Rubis-class sub has a displacement of 2,600 ton which is a much better example. The tiny french sub still manages to pack a 48megawatt thermal energy reactor into the 7 metre diameter hull. The propulsion section takes up about 25 metres of the subs length.

Electrical energy output is usually one third of the thermal energy output. The small Rubis class reactor is still 3 times too big to satisfy the 12-15 knot cruising speed of a ~8,000 ton warship.

We can then calculate the approximate size of the nuclear reactor by scaling down the Rubis-class reactor to allow 5 megawatt of electricity. Most micro reactor plans have the reactor and the primary cooling circuit in one sealed module. The secondary cooling circuit and power generation is in a second module. The reactor core module would be approximately 4 metres by 4 metres by 20 metres long. Probably around 100 ton in weight. This is a still huge piece of equipment but for a reactor it's very small.

The reactor module can squeeze on a train carriage or fit inside a C-5 Galaxy to provide power generator at a distant military base. This is similar size and weight to the Wärtsilä 16V38 diesel engine used on the Elizabeth class aircraft carrier that puts out 11 megawatt. The reactor module is small enough that it can be craned on and off the ship and swapped out like a battery. This ease of swapping/refueling then solves a second problem that the ship no longer needs highly enriched nuclear fuel to last 20+ years.

A larger ship that requires 10 megawatt of electricity to cruise at a reasonable speed it would probably be best to just run two 5 megawatt reactors so that the modules can still be transported by train. The benefits of transporting by train would be greater than any cost savings of having a single larger reactor. A future 50,000 ton LHD could even run 3 reactors. Commonality of the reactors would be a big advantage.

 

[MadRat]

If you can get 4-5 MW out of a 13 feet by 13 feet by 69 feet box that is not much bigger than a standardized shipping container. It would be better to be down to shipping container dimension even if output is only 2-3 MW.

 

[insidersource]

If you can get 4-5 MW out of a 13 feet by 13 feet by 69 feet box that is not much bigger than a standardized shipping container. It would be better to be down to shipping container dimension even if output is only 2-3 MW.

I am actually being fairly conservative with the size. The Westinghouse eVinci reactor is 15 MW thermal and produces 5 MW electricity. The reactor module is only 3m wide, 3m high and 12m long and weighs around 100 ton. However it needs four modules this size to make a complete system.
1) Reactor
2) Heat exchanger
3) Electricity turbine
4) Power electronics.

3m wide is fairly close to a standard shipping container. The eVinci also has 8 years of fuel included in the reactor module.



It is pretty funny how the S5W reactor from 1955 was used as a size comparison. We have multiple microreactor designs and they are very small. The eVinci reactor and all of its generators could squeeze into the helicopter hanger on most large destroyers.

5 MW is about the minimum needed for a destroyer. The 1.9 MW electric motor on the Arleigh-burke Truxton pushed the ship up to 12 knots. Two of these electric motors at 3.8MW would bring the ship up to about 16 knots. This leaves 1.2 MW to run all basic systems. When on high alert in the combat zone the gas turbine generator would be running at idle to handle all the powerful radars and if the ship needs to sprint to 30 knots the gas turbine throttles up in a few seconds.

The previous discussion even included the average speed of an Arleigh-burke destroyer through its deployment. It spent about 80% of the time at 16 knots or below. So the ship could run fully nuclear for the vast majority of the deployment with just 5 MW. However a reactor between 8-10 MW of electrical generation would actually be the perfect size as it could be fully nuclear for 90+% of a deployment. I don't think a 10MW reactor module could be transported by truck or train unless it was really long and skinny.