Type 45 destroyers face engine refit already.

[glazbagun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35432341

Article is short on details, but could the RN/govt be to blame for this in any way, or is it BAE/RR/GE's screwup? I have a feeling I know who'll be paying for it in any case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Pr...

[williamp]

Apparently the IMS seal isnt covered by warranty with the Royal Navy. It is with the US Navy, however....

[Megaflow]

glazbagun said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35432341

Article is short on details, but could the RN/govt be to blame for this in any way, or is it BAE/RR/GE's screwup? I have a feeling I know who'll be paying for it in any case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer#Pr...

Not a clue. But, *if* a government is to blame then it will be the previous Labour government, as problems first appeared in 2009.

[GroundEffect]

I don't see HOW the government could be at fault.

If there was not enough money in the pot or the development phase too short then BAE should have held their hand up and said so. You don't let a faulty product out, regardless of pressures.

[ChemicalChaos]

GroundEffect said:

You don't let a faulty product out, regardless of pressures.

Apart from the F35 (multiple times)
The SA80 Mk1
Etc etc....

[hidetheelephants]

What crappy journalism; other than there's a problem across the whole class I've learned nothing from that. If it's the diesels then Wartsila pick up the tab as they built the things, that's one of the main points of COTS procurement. Bloody stupid idea only having 2 diesel gennys, the 23s have 4 so it doesn't matter if one goes diffy.

[Godalmighty83]

To be fair the class is 10 years old and asides from the electrical outages have been doing a pretty good job especially as we only have 6 (very prototype style ships) covering the tasks of 12 ships. The ships will be coming up to a scheduled refit before too long anyway and hopefully they take the opportunity to sort out a couple of prop shaft and bearing issues at the same time.



I'm sure BAE will do the right thing and sort any issues as... hahahahahaha.... Sorry, almost finished that.


It could be far worse though, they could be LCS's.

[PRTVR]

hidetheelephants said:

What crappy journalism; other than there's a problem across the whole class I've learned nothing from that. If it's the diesels then Wartsila pick up the tab as they built the things, that's one of the main points of COTS procurement. Bloody stupid idea only having 2 diesel gennys, the 23s have 4 so it doesn't matter if one goes diffy.

Do these people know nothing, if you want a reliable gen set you buy a honda.

[BuzzBravado]

williamp said:

Apparently the IMS seal isnt covered by warranty with the Royal Navy. It is with the US Navy, however....

But Type45 owners will tell you its not the big issue that we think it is. Best buy a Type45.2 instead of the Gen 1 just in case, or better still save up for the Turbo.

[Scuffers]

PRTVR said:

hidetheelephants said:

What crappy journalism; other than there's a problem across the whole class I've learned nothing from that. If it's the diesels then Wartsila pick up the tab as they built the things, that's one of the main points of COTS procurement. Bloody stupid idea only having 2 diesel gennys, the 23s have 4 so it doesn't matter if one goes diffy.

Do these people know nothing, if you want a reliable gen set you buy a honda.

you seem to be ignoring the two 21.5MW Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators here.

That said, if the solution is another genset, that implies the issue is one of power transformation/distribution rather than simply unreliable power source?

it looks more like the concept of integrated electric propulsion was taken a little bit too far into the rest of the ships electrical supply?

[Hosenbugler]

Apparently, whilst historically, the Diesels, Turbines , Gensets have run independently, of each other , ie: independent control functions . They tried to integrate the whole shooting match, with the apparent end result that if one throws an error , then it takes down the lot, as against a specific module, which would have been the previous case.

So, it appears not to be the hardware itself which is the problem, but the control system around it.

Nope, I'm not a maritime engineer, but the bloke who roughly outlined the above is.

[AlexS]

I'm not sure how much your marine engineer friend knows about the hardware involved on this boat.

[Europa1]

AlexS said:

I'm not sure how much your marine engineer friend knows about the hardware involved on this boat.

Yes, does seem a surprising answer given that according to the news, the fix is to install an additional generator.

[mcdjl]

Europa1 said:

Yes, does seem a surprising answer given that according to the news, the fix is to install an additional generator.

Given thats the solution, it sounds to me like someone has either miscalculated how much the peak power consumption is, or someone has tried adding more electrical systems on to it than it was originally spec'd for.

[Scuffers]

mcdjl said:

Europa1 said:

Yes, does seem a surprising answer given that according to the news, the fix is to install an additional generator.

Given thats the solution, it sounds to me like someone has either miscalculated how much the peak power consumption is, or someone has tried adding more electrical systems on to it than it was originally spec'd for.

not really, makes perfect sense if the solution is to divide up the power system.

adding a 2Mw genset when you have two 21.5Mw gas turbines on hand does not imply a power deficiency issue, it shows a power distribution/management issue.

[FiF]

Maybe I got confused or wasn't listening properly, but iirc the information as relayed to me, thought the Type 45 has two engine rooms, each with a GT and a diesel. Idea being that if one engine room is damaged or offline the ship can continue on the remaining one. Inferred that it could carry on a full capacity on one but I wasn't so sure.

Initially wondered by installing extra generation if it's a case of they found they couldn't run on just one engine room, hence more generation capacity. But the BBC piece inferred total power loss.

Hmmmm.

[Scuffers]

reading the reports, the implication is that they lose 'house' power.

ie. it's not about the lack of power generation so much as the lack of transformation/distribution.

my guess is that the third genset is primarily to backup the house systems, separate from the (IEP) system.

[Hosenbugler]

AlexS said:

I'm not sure how much your marine engineer friend knows about the hardware involved on this boat.

Not a friend, a Proffessor somebody who was on the box. He appeared to know his stuff. As said, he very much suspected the main problem was in integrating demand across the hardware as against the needs for different functions being supplied on a modular basis.

He came across as somebody who very much knew his subject

[hidetheelephants]

Scuffers said:

PRTVR said:

hidetheelephants said:

What crappy journalism; other than there's a problem across the whole class I've learned nothing from that. If it's the diesels then Wartsila pick up the tab as they built the things, that's one of the main points of COTS procurement. Bloody stupid idea only having 2 diesel gennys, the 23s have 4 so it doesn't matter if one goes diffy.

Do these people know nothing, if you want a reliable gen set you buy a honda.

you seem to be ignoring the two 21.5MW Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators here.

That said, if the solution is another genset, that implies the issue is one of power transformation/distribution rather than simply unreliable power source?

it looks more like the concept of integrated electric propulsion was taken a little bit too far into the rest of the ships electrical supply?

The captain doesn't get to switch on the GTs unless it's a special occasion, like sea trials or a war, as they suck fuel like it's going out of style. Using them for long voyages will result in keeping the RFA very busy.

Hosenbugler said:

AlexS said:

I'm not sure how much your marine engineer friend knows about the hardware involved on this boat.

Not a friend, a Proffessor somebody who was on the box. He appeared to know his stuff. As said, he very much suspected the main problem was in integrating demand across the hardware as against the needs for different functions being supplied on a modular basis.

He came across as somebody who very much knew his subject

The story is being very badly reported or the RN are telling fibs in their press release then, as the story is one of replacing the prime movers at refit, something you only do if the engine manufacturers have properly screwed the pooch.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Friday 29th January 17:53

[PRTVR]

Scuffers said:

PRTVR said:

hidetheelephants said:

What crappy journalism; other than there's a problem across the whole class I've learned nothing from that. If it's the diesels then Wartsila pick up the tab as they built the things, that's one of the main points of COTS procurement. Bloody stupid idea only having 2 diesel gennys, the 23s have 4 so it doesn't matter if one goes diffy.

Do these people know nothing, if you want a reliable gen set you buy a honda.

you seem to be ignoring the two 21.5MW Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators here.

That said, if the solution is another genset, that implies the issue is one of power transformation/distribution rather than simply unreliable power source?

it looks more like the concept of integrated electric propulsion was taken a little bit too far into the rest of the ships electrical supply?

It was said in jest, I don't think Honda make generators that big, but integrated electric propulsion is not new,most cruise ships use it, I would have thought that there would have been enough redundancy built into the ships systems to prevent it becoming dead in in the water, maybe the GT's are not black start, so the loss of the two diesel's means its game over.