DDG(X) - Arleigh Burke Replacement

The Army selected BAE for both the MDACS cannon and the Hypervelocity Projectile (understand a question of Congress funding). The sub-caliber HVP would be common to both the Army 155m cannon and the Navy 127mm gun. The HVP would be a relatively simple projectile compared with the very expensive Raytheon $100+K Excalibur round and for guidance use a high definition FCR, so the FCR would also have to be fitted to the DDG(X) if used.

Army tapping BAE to build prototype airbase defense hypervelocity projectile cannon | InsideDefense.com

The Army has selected BAE Systems to produce a prototype cannon that flips its offensive punch for a defensive role as part of a wider U.S. military project to shield high-value, small-area assets by defeating cruise missile raids with a paradigm-changing capability: hypervelocity projectile...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Do wonder if X-band radar will have the necessary high definition, a write up of the MDACS radar requirements below, with the previous Army AA 50mm EAPS ARDEC program they used a CW interferometer radar with use of multiple receive antennas to give the necessary angular measurements for centimeter (0.4") tracking accuracy required for guidance of multiple low cost 'simple' projectile.

www.militaryaerospace.com

Army approaches industry for advanced radar able to provide guidance for future hypervelocity weapons

Multifunction Precision Radar (MFPR) would detect hostile threats and help guide the future Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS) projectiles.
www.militaryaerospace.com www.militaryaerospace.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV92Bm63VZY&t=3s
 
As far as weapon systems my personal opinion would be a single 5”, 2 mk110s, 2 phalanx, 1 SEARAM, 72 regular VLS, 18 PVLS, 2 lasers.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
As far as weapon systems my personal opinion would be a single 5”, 2 mk110s, 2 phalanx, 1 SEARAM, 72 regular VLS, 18 PVLS, 2 lasers.
Click to expand...
I expect there won't be any more Phalanx installations, it is already being swapped out on DDG-51s with the RAM or SEARAM and I think the future there is the 300KW HELCAP.

Can't see both Mk 45 and Mk110s being on the same vessel either, seems to be one or the other.
 
I’m going to be the contrarian and say I’d prefer 2 Mk110s over a single Mk45. You’re losing the NGFS mission, but gaining a lot of PD.

I see no reason G-VLS or something similar can’t be ready by 2032. I’d do all G-VLS, as Mk41 is just a restraint at this point.
 
Ozair said:
I expect there won't be any more Phalanx installations, it is already being swapped out on DDG-51s with the RAM or SEARAM and I think the future there is the 300KW HELCAP.

Can't see both Mk 45 and Mk110s being on the same vessel either, seems to be one or the other.
Click to expand...
I say phalanx as a replacement for mk38.
The SEARAM and mk110s would be the AAW close in defense, with the phalanx being a final last hope if those two fail/are overwhelmed.
As it stands the mk38 is pretty much useless on any USN surface combatant that’s larger than a PC.

Idk where you get the ‘it seems to be one or the other’ thing from. The USN hasn’t worked on a design large enough to justify both since the zumwalts, and they were skipped out on there because the position they’d be in was pretty stupid and silly.

The mk110 is a great option for small craft, drones, and subsonic and low supersonic ASMs. 5” has AAW capabilities, but they’re not great, and I only really include it because we should maintain some NGFS capabilities even if a single 5” per ship is extremely mediocre at best for that job.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I say phalanx as a replacement for mk38.
The SEARAM and mk110s would be the AAW close in defense, with the phalanx being a final last hope if those two fail/are overwhelmed.
As it stands the mk38 is pretty much useless on any USN surface combatant that’s larger than a PC.
Click to expand...
Phalanx and Mk38 are very different classes with a Phalanx mount being essentially 5 times the weight. The Mk38 Mod 4 seems to be an effective upgrade that covers the drone and unmanned boat target set very well. Phalanx has been passed by and given the USN is removing it from DDG-51s I don't see a future.
johnpjones1775 said:
Idk where you get the ‘it seems to be one or the other’ thing from. The USN hasn’t worked on a design large enough to justify both since the zumwalts, and they were skipped out on there because the position they’d be in was pretty stupid and silly.
Click to expand...
Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?

There are people here way more knowledgeable than me on USN vessels who may know but I can't think of a single vessel not built during the second world war. Hence I see it as a one or the other option, not both but happy to be proven wrong.

johnpjones1775 said:
The mk110 is a great option for small craft, drones, and subsonic and low supersonic ASMs. 5” has AAW capabilities, but they’re not great, and I only really include it because we should maintain some NGFS capabilities even if a single 5” per ship is extremely mediocre at best for that job.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt the capability of the Mk110 but I also see a lot of investment going forward with the Mk45, especially with the HVP. Keep the MK110 on the Constellations and stay the Mk45 on the DDG(X) is my suggestion.

that_person said:
I’m going to be the contrarian and say I’d prefer 2 Mk110s over a single Mk45. You’re losing the NGFS mission, but gaining a lot of PD.
Click to expand...
Certainly some merit in that but losing what may come with the HVP from the Mk45 seems like an overall loss.
 
Ozair said:
Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?
Click to expand...
I think it was the Belknaps who were the last missile ships to have a pair of twin 3"/50s as built.
 
CV12Hornet said:
I think it was the Belknaps who were the last missile ships to have a pair of twin 3"/50s as built.
Click to expand...
Ha well done! I would agree with you there, the initial configuration had both the 5in and 3in guns before the 3in were removed.
 
Ozair said:
Phalanx and Mk38 are very different classes with a Phalanx mount being essentially 5 times the weight. The Mk38 Mod 4 seems to be an effective upgrade that covers the drone and unmanned boat target set very well. Phalanx has been passed by and given the USN is removing it from DDG-51s I don't see a future.

Let's reverse that. What was the last USN vessel to be equipped with two different guns with different calibers over 40mm?

There are people here way more knowledgeable than me on USN vessels who may know but I can't think of a single vessel not built during the second world war. Hence I see it as a one or the other option, not both but happy to be proven wrong.


I don't doubt the capability of the Mk110 but I also see a lot of investment going forward with the Mk45, especially with the HVP. Keep the MK110 on the Constellations and stay the Mk45 on the DDG(X) is my suggestion.


Certainly some merit in that but losing what may come with the HVP from the Mk45 seems like an overall loss.
Click to expand...
I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.

As for last ship with different major caliber gun systems? A Cold War cruiser off the top of my head I cannot remember exactly but as was posted above the belknap sounds right. However while it’s not USN, the RN are building a ship with 40mm and 57mm guns (seems silly to me with only 17mm difference in size).

Why keep them separate? There’s no reason for that.

Edit
It was the belknap class. As originally built they had a single 5” and a pair of 3”.
 
Josh_TN said:
Gun systems are a tertiary capability.
Click to expand...
Not really, especially not in the modern era.
More like secondary. We really don’t want to be relying missiles that will cost a million dollars or more to stop drones that cost a few thousand-10s of thousands of dollars…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I was a mk38 tech and operator. They’re almost completely useless in modern naval combat.
they’re too low ROF and too inaccurate for work against small UAVs, and can only engage a 1 or 2 small suicide craft realistically.
Phalanx might be heavier, but it’s actually useful. However when we’re talking about a ship that’s going to weigh 12k+ tons we’re talking about amounts of weight that are pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Fair enough although I continue to question the usefulness of Phalanx.
johnpjones1775 said:
As for last ship with different major caliber gun systems? A Cold War cruiser off the top of my head I cannot remember exactly but as was posted above the belknap sounds right. However while it’s not USN, the RN are building a ship with 40mm and 57mm guns (seems silly to me with only 17mm difference in size).
Click to expand...
The UK Type 31 has the 57mm and 40mm weapons but interestingly the Type 26, a significantly larger vessel, has gone with the Mk 45 and also away from the traditional British Mk 8. I know the Italians have traditionally been gun heavy on their cruisers and destroyers and also maintain on their GP version both the 5in and 3in.
 
Josh_TN said:
Gun systems are a tertiary capability.
Click to expand...
Not really, especially not in the modern era.
More like secondary. We really don’t want to be relying missiles that will cost a million dollars or more to stop drones that cost a few thousand-10s of thousands of dollars
TomS said:
The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.
Click to expand...
i was mk38 mod2 the only difference between that and the newest version is a 30mm gun instead of 25mm, but even then it’s basically an identical gun just scale up slightly.

Being an RWS doesn’t mean anything. The RWS doesn’t have any software to determine fusing, and the gun has no actual FCS. It’s just a dude with an immobile pair of joy sticks with a d-pad and some buttons with a camera and laser range finder.

The console can lock on to a target based on pixels, but that just follows the target, and the LRF does set elevation/depression, but not particularly well, and it’s still up to the operator to judge lead, and the lock can be broken by the water splash of a few misses in front of a surface target.

There’s enough space for both if they want there to be.
 
TomS said:
The newer versions of Mk 38 are better -- they are true remote weapon stations and the Mod 4 even upgrades to a 30mm gun with the option for air-bursting munitions (AHEAD-style). But yes, none of them are in the same class as Phalanx. But Phalanx is definitely on the way out, with RAM replacing it. That's why the published concept design for DDG(X) has two RAM launchers and no Phalanx. I'd expect that to hold true until they can maybe replace RAM with lasers (but that seems to be less imminent than it was a few years ago).

Weight for these kinds of secondary weapons probably isn't the critical constraint on a design as big as DDG(X). But arrangeable deck area and centerline length are going to be issues. That's one advantage of peripheral VLS as in DDG-1000, but there is little sign of that making a comeback for DDG(X).

I will still say that I expect to see a powder deck gun on DDG(X). The number of 5-inch rounds used in the current fracas in the Red Sea makes it clear that there is a role for it, especially if HVP is actually happening. (Plus the shotgun round for small boats and swarming drones). I don't see both 5-inch and 57mm, if only because there just isn't the deck area and below-deck volume for both.
Click to expand...

Ozair said:
Fair enough although I continue to question the usefulness of Phalanx.

The UK Type 31 has the 57mm and 40mm weapons but interestingly the Type 26, a significantly larger vessel, has gone with the Mk 45 and also away from the traditional British Mk 8. I know the Italians have traditionally been gun heavy on their cruisers and destroyers and also maintain on their GP version both the 5in and 3in.
Click to expand...
I think the difference in gun armament for the Brits is simply down to role. I think the 31 is an FFG, and as such targeted at lighter weight threats

Thanks for reminding me about the Italians. The horizon class has 2 76s iirc and their FREMMs 2 76s as well for modern examples.

For examples closer in size to ddgx just look at their helicopter cruisers, and I believe the French helo cruiser likewise had multiple gun mounts in 2 or more major calibers.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I think the difference in gun armament for the Brits is simply down to role. I think the 31 is an FFG, and as such targeted at lighter weight threats
Click to expand...

Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."

johnpjones1775 said:
Thanks for reminding me about the Italians. The horizon class has 2 76s iirc and their FREMMs 2 76s as well for modern examples.

For examples closer in size to ddgx just look at their helicopter cruisers, and I believe the French helo cruiser likewise had multiple gun mounts in 2 or more major calibers.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.
 
TomS said:
Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."



Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.
Click to expand...
Idk what you mean by ‘think cutter’ considering the legend class cutter is basically just an under armed frigate…

The type31 will have 32 VLS, and is 5700 tons. It’s solidly in the FFG category
TomS said:
Not even an FFG. Think Coast Guard cutter in US terms and you are closer to the mark, IMO. They have some very limited air self defense missiles but the guns are mainly for "junk bashing."



Depends on whether you consider 76mm to be a major caliber gun. The Italians regard it more as a CIWS.

If you are thinking of the French Jean d'Arc, that's literally a 1959 design. Also, primarily a training ship, which put a crimp on some of the more grandiose (read, expensive) proposals.
Click to expand...
the other dude said larger than 40mm.

a 76mm gun is undoubtedly a major caliber naval gun.
 
Ozair said:
The UK Type 31 has the 57mm and 40mm weapons but interestingly the Type 26, a significantly larger vessel, has gone with the Mk 45 and also away from the traditional British Mk 8. I know the Italians have traditionally been gun heavy on their cruisers and destroyers and also maintain on their GP version both the 5in and 3in.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Brits have changed guns because they can't afford to maintain their own bespoke gun caliber and design anymore.
 
I hope people are done taking cake art too seriously.

I doubt DDGX will lack any major caliber guns.
But ngarno-kharbak, Ukraine, and Red Sea have shown the drone age is officially here.
It’s my firm belief that lasers are decades away as reliable and valid weapons, meaning guns will be the most cost efficient hard kill method for defeating drones for the foreseeable future.

Imho this program needs at least 1 5” and 2 57mm F/A, for counter drone work.

 
This article has a bit more information but not much. Confirms speculation about low altitude but doesn’t specify how low, or how close it was.

 
CV12Hornet said:
IIRC the Brits have changed guns because they can't afford to maintain their own bespoke gun caliber and design anymore.
Click to expand...
BAE bought FMC and Bofors naval gun business, hence the shift. If BAE had bought OTO you'd see Italian guns on every Royal Navy frigate instead of American and Swedish. There was nothing terribly wrong with the British 4.5 inch Mk 8 or the French 100mm, just that the Italians, Americans and Swedes were more competitive in the export market. So BAE bought the competition and the French were caught up in cooperation with Italy with Horizon and FREMM - why not use the 76mm, albeit with fewer mounts than in Italian ships.
 
One part of DDG(X) that’s being critically underreported on is the planned stored energy system.

Two things I want to note, first “stored energy system” does not necessarily mean batteries. Ford has flywheels for EMALS, and DDG-1001 will be testing another unspecified system. That does not exclude the possibility of batteries, but it’s not the only option. The other thing of note is such systems have already been deployed. This isn’t new technology, it just hasn’t been reported on.

DDG-1001 stored energy energy system contract

Early in May, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) put out a Request for Information (RFI) for “Advanced Marine Propulsion and Energy for Revolutionary Efficiency (AMRERE),” with specific mention of stored energy systems. The page has since been taken down as the request period has closed, but is still accessible via the WayBack Machine:

web.archive.org

DIU Submission Opportunity - Advanced Marine Propulsion and Energy for Revolutionary Efficiency (AMPERE)

Submit your commercial solution to this national security challenge
web.archive.org web.archive.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It lists the general dimensions for DDG(X), they are as follows:

LBP: 160m - 180m (520 ft - 591 ft)
Beam OA: 22m - 25m (72 ft - 81 ft)
Full Load Displacement: 13.5k - 15k tonnes

My knee jerk reaction to these dimensions is it’s a fat ship. The minimum beam (22m/72 ft) is ~1.84m/6 ft lager than a Burke, which is already notoriously short-legged.

This does not match with the DDG(X) requirements, which explicitly call for increases in range (>50% increase), time on station (>120% increase), and Efficiency (>25% increase).

Page 4 and 5

The L:B ratio for the stated dimensions is ~7.207 - ~7.222, dramatically worse than Zumwalt’s ~7.5 and Burke’s ~7.898.

This doesn’t add up, until you consider that DDG(X) will be IEP’d and thus dramatically more fuel efficient, and leverages Zumwalt’s hydrodynamic advances.

If the Navy is to stick with Zumwalt's flat bottom hull (and they very well might, it offers significantly more volume), that comes with the added benefit of reducing draft and Total Resistance. However, it increases the hull's Block Coefficient.

It should be noted the DDG(X) presentation shows a flat-bottom hull, but I feel that's reading too much into an explicitly conceptual design. See the attached photo:

1749331308993.png

The point is, my knee jerk reaction was wrong, DDG(X) will likely have a form factor closer to Zumwalt than a Burke, thus reducing Total Resistance, and with it, propulsion power draw.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But let’s go back to the stored energy system. The quote in question reads as follows:

“Up to 40MW of Electrical power generation, in excess of ship service requirements at 16 knots”

The wording here is ambiguous, and I can come up with 4 different interpretations off the top of my head. Personally I’m inclined to read it as:

“At 16 knots, the entire powerplant (including the stored energy system) generates an extra 40MW after propulsion draw.”

Putting this requirement in context, Raytheon’s website states that Zumwalt’s powerplant generates an extra 58MW of total available power at cruising speed. This claim has been repeated by USNI and TWZ, among others.

“While steaming at 20 knots, the system provides 58 MW of reserved power…”
www.rtx.com

Zumwalt class destroyer

The Zumwalt-class destroyers are America’s next generation combat ships.
www.rtx.com www.rtx.com

Zumwalt having more total "reserve power" does not make sense. DDG(X) will have a larger ship service power draw, therefore it needs more reserve power. After consulting others, I've found at least 5 reasons to explain this discrepancy:

1. Different definitions are being used
2. Zumwalt consumes ungodly amounts of energy at higher speeds (I find this unlikely)
3. Zumwalt's 58MWs of reserve power is after the removal of SPY-4 and other power-hungry systems (this still does not explain such a large discrepancy, recall that Burke Flight III has 9MW of ship service power)
4. Zumwalt's powerplant produces more energy than expected, largely due to MT30's infancy at the time of selection (I find this unlikely, as NAVSEA built a fully functional land-based Zumwalt propulsion plant, and wouldn't have selected MT30 without knowing its electrical output in such conditions)
5. Note that Zumwalt was also designed to take on railguns and DEWs, but the power requirements would've been set in the mid-to-late 1990s. It's plausible that when factoring in SLA for such systems, they dramatically overestimated power consumption, thus inflating total power requirements.

Occam's Razor tells me it's Option 1, but I'm curious for other thoughts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@that_person
"Putting this requirement in context, Raytheon’s website states that Zumwalt’s powerplant generates an extra 58MW of total available power at cruising speed. This claim has been repeated by USNI and TWZ, among others.

“While steaming at 20 knots, the system provides 58 MW of reserved power…
”Zumwalt having more total "reserve power" does not make sense. DDG(X) will have a larger ship service power draw, therefore it needs more reserve power."

Wondering as my understanding the rough rule of thumb is that to increase ship speed by 4 knots you have to double the power, so for Zumwalt with max power output of 78 MW and if steaming at 20 knots using 20 MW giving a reserve power of 58 MW, to reach 30 knots would require ~ 70 MW? leaving only 8 MW reserve, a guesstimate as unknown is Zumwalts actual max top speed plus the power required and the power used at 20 knots for services and its sensors.
 
Cordy said:
@that_person
"Putting this requirement in context, Raytheon’s website states that Zumwalt’s powerplant generates an extra 58MW of total available power at cruising speed. This claim has been repeated by USNI and TWZ, among others.

“While steaming at 20 knots, the system provides 58 MW of reserved power…
”Zumwalt having more total "reserve power" does not make sense. DDG(X) will have a larger ship service power draw, therefore it needs more reserve power."

Wondering as my understanding the rough rule of thumb is that to increase ship speed by 4 knots you have to double the power, so for Zumwalt with max power output of 78 MW and if steaming at 20 knots using 20 MW giving a reserve power of 58 MW, to reach 30 knots would require ~ 70 MW? leaving only 8 MW reserve, a guesstimate as unknown is Zumwalts actual max top speed plus the power required and the power used at 20 knots for services and its sensors.
Click to expand...
Zumwalt has significantly different hydrodynamics than other vessels. It’s possible the rule of thumb doesn’t apply, or is wrong.
 
Cordy said:
Wondering as my understanding the rough rule of thumb is that to increase ship speed by 4 knots you have to double the power, so for Zumwalt with max power output of 78 MW and if steaming at 20 knots using 20 MW giving a reserve power of 58 MW, to reach 30 knots would require ~ 70 MW? leaving only 8 MW reserve, a guesstimate as unknown is Zumwalts actual max top speed plus the power required and the power used at 20 knots for services and its sensors.
Click to expand...
Zumwalt's Advanced Induction Motors are rated at 33.6MW each.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Zumwalt's Advanced Induction Motors are rated at 33.6MW each.
Click to expand...
Thanks for info, though are they the only electric motors as it seems a large, 14+%, conversion loss from the GTs, 2 x MT30s and 2 x RR4500s of 78.5 MW mechanical output to the 67.2 electrical output from the 2 x AIMs?
 
Interesting that they're putting in these high-powered diesel generators while still talking an integrated electrical plant. Certainly there's no way they're relying solely on these diesels for the full 75MW desired. Is this some sort of CODAG system feeding into the electrical plant? Are these emergency generators?
 
CV12Hornet said:
Interesting that they're putting in these high-powered diesel generators while still talking an integrated electrical plant. Certainly there's no way they're relying solely on these diesels for the full 75MW desired. Is this some sort of CODAG system feeding into the electrical plant? Are these emergency generators?
Click to expand...
An IPS/IPES can (ideally) plug in whatever powerplants you want in combination. On the -1000s, they have 2 sizes of turbine: The 2 big MT-30s provide the bulk of the power and then a pair of RR4500s. DD-21 was going to have 4 of the big ones, but that's another conversation.

This FMD/MAN diesel could match the output of a RR4500 at max output while having better fuel economy over the entirety operating range. This would give the CO flexibility to, say, run on only one turbine plus a diesel or two when the ship doesn't need all those megawatts. Or run on only on the diesels when puttering about with the SPYs turned off. Downsides being they're bulkier and heavier, and you'd need crews trained on both types of generator.

Keep in mind this land facility is a test and development program, so it's far from assured the oil burner makes it onto the finished ship. And with the current cancellation spree, it's not guaranteed this program lives long enough to produce an actual ship.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Interesting that they're putting in these high-powered diesel generators while still talking an integrated electrical plant. Certainly there's no way they're relying solely on these diesels for the full 75MW desired. Is this some sort of CODAG system feeding into the electrical plant? Are these emergency generators?
Click to expand...
CODAG IEP been a thing for at least 30 years at this point.

The FREMMs have it, including the Connie, the Zumwalt was to have it, the Polar Sentinal class is to have it to name a few USN ones. The QEs carriers are similar set up as well as other designs.


It simple these day to have 4 different GENSETs tied into each other all pitching in to reach there power. And it honestly better to have Diesel Gensets over a Pure Turbine like the Burkes. While heavier the diesels take fractions as much fuel as similar rated turbines. Giving the hull more range and endurance, which been a sticking point for the navy in the Burkes and Ticos for the last 40 years.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Certainly there's no way they're relying solely on these diesels for the full 75MW desired.
Click to expand...
Of course not, no. But gas turbines have miserable fuel efficiency and the powerplant needs to be spread across the hull, the only way to do that is with smaller generators.
They’re not “emergency generators” per se, but are used for lower power draw needs related to ship service power (ie not propulsion).

The Zumwalts use AG9160s, the Fords use four(?) 4MW diesels, the Constellation and LCSs are a hybrid drive, so even for electric ships this is very much the norm.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom