Currently USN CVN have about 280,000 SHP. The two MT-30 gas turbines in the DDX produce 78 megawatts of power which is @104,600 SHP so four would produce close to 209,000 SHP. Would a 80,000 ton full load CV be a posibility? (Nimitz class is around 100,000 tons full load).
0 Kudo
USN Gas Turbine CV
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 seasick |
USN Gas Turbine CV |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 4569 (11-Apr-2008 06:15:01) |
|
||
 Theodore |
|||
|
Posts: 8450 (11-Apr-2008 07:40:18) Wheat Boss |
You could probably build an acceptable carrier on that displacement (that's about Kitty Hawk size) but that's not nearly enough power.
|
||
|
asavery |
|||
|
Posts: 85 (11-Apr-2008 14:16:11) |
An interesting idea, but I agree with Theodore. Also, with rising oil prices there will be few efforts to move away from nuclear power for carriers. Indeed,
some in congress are (incorrectly in my opinion) pushing for nuclear power for other surface ships as well.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3653 (11-Apr-2008 16:01:07) |
seasick wrote: In the world of industrial gas turbines, 39MW units have been around for quite at least twenty (iirc, GE's Frame 7 gas turbines are about 100MW, and
Kraftwerk Union and Pratt & Whitney have built engines in that size class), and GE, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls-Royce have produced aeroderivative
industrial gas turbines in the 30-40MW class (all use the cores from the large engines used on aircraft such as the 777) for at least a decade.
I suspect that the reason the USN hasn't seemed to consider gas turbines for CTOL carrier (as opposed to helicopter or VTOL carrier) production is that a) current technology catapults are all steam, and a carrier would need sufficient boiler capacity to supply the catapults, b) gas turbines demand much higher airflow than steam plants, meaning that the volume lost to their air needs is proportionately greater than a fossil-fueled steam plant (iirc, gas turbines require about three times the air flow of a steam plant of comparable output) and c) the cost penalties associated with nuclear plants are proportionately less for very large ships, as the manning, volume, and fissile inventory requirements do not increase in direct proportion to horsepower. I tend to think that, with current technology, a CTOL carrier is pretty much forced to have steam machinery*, because of the catapults, and this will probably continue until catapults using linear electric motors are in service.* The French variant of the CVF will, apparently, be a CTOL carrier. There will have to be boilers somewhere to provide steam for the catapults, unless the French have manage to develop an electromagnetic catapult more quickly than the US. This isn't impossible--linear electric motors are used in amusement park rides, so they're not exactly exotic technology -- but I consider it unlikely.
Last Edited By: emc
11-Apr-2008 19:02:10.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Michael Hoddy |
|||
|
Posts: 178 (11-Apr-2008 16:52:20) |
...And the other issues are fuel storage and to a lesser extent with GT's, stack gases. Nuke plants in CV's mean more space can be re-allocated for jet
fuel for the airwing and for stores, and away from the ship's own fuel store, which means longer times between replenishments and more time on station.
The newest LHD's are a GT plant, right? |
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4570 (11-Apr-2008 18:59:12) |
The last unit of the Wasp, USS Makin Island LHD-8, has two LM2500+ as main engines. Makin island was imposed by Congress, the USN paid off Bellau Wood when
she entered service. The USN would rather replace the remaining Tarawa class vessels with LHA(X).
|
||
|
seasick |
|||
|
Posts: 4582 (15-Apr-2008 05:45:06) |
I was checking some sources and all the CVN have auxilary boilers for the steam catipults.
|
||
|
Fermi2 |
Not True | ||
|
Posts: 3258 (15-Apr-2008 06:49:11) |
seasick wrote:
The steam comes off the main steam system.
|
||
|
BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 1753 (15-Apr-2008 17:06:14) |
A ship that size is going to need LM6000s or the even larger MT50 from Rolls Royce. One other slight point, unless there is some kind of difficutly, CVN-77
will be last ship built with steam catapults. The French (and brits) wouldn't have to develop their own, they'd just have to switch their order from
C-13s to EMALS.
Last Edited By: BenRoethig
15-Apr-2008 17:09:39.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
JBren1 |
|||
|
Posts: 187 (15-Apr-2008 17:52:02) |
emc wrote: The French PA2 as now planned will have (US C-13) catapults so right, it needs boiler(s) to provide steam. From what I've read it has a noticeable
though not dramatic impact on the whole design. In theory of course you could get that steam from waste heat recovery steam generators in the gas turbine
exhaust but either way it's additional machinery and piping systems; separate oil fired boilers are probably more practical given the frequency of use.
They were also considering the future US EMALS electro-magnetic catapult, but don't want their whole carrier project to hang on that catapult development
project.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3695 (21-Apr-2008 03:44:18) |
JBren1 wrote: I also think it's quite unlikely for the USN to switch away from CVN, and it's probably even less likely for Congress to force them to do so, as Congress seems intent on forcing more nuclear ships on the USN, even where nuclear power may be both prohibitively expensive and tactically disadvantageous. And were I in the market for a new carrier, waiting for the USN to finish a development project critical to my carrier's completion would be idiotic.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
