EPV for naval service

[DeV]

So what is the budget for Eithne mk 2?.......Perhaps we could look at it from another angle. What if the "fueling costs" of new ships could be reduced ?

The newest submarines (non-nuke) will be powered by batteries "The advantage of lithium-ion batteries is that you won't need to return to port" to refuel, said Masao Kobayashi, a retired admiral who commanded Japan's submarine force until 2009.You can just find a quiet place at sea and recharge your batteries. That means significantly longer operations."
Submarines are huge in comparison to NS vessels (current and proposed) and NS vessels don't submerge. Batteries could be on permanent charge while powering the ship by using wind power to charge them.
Any Electrical engineers out there who could give an estimate of how many "cells" would be needed to power an opv and how practical ongoing re-charge would be?
Deisel power as a "fallback" of course. We could patent the design for OPVs and make some money for hovertanks.

Diesel powered powered subs use their batteries only when submerged (when on the surface and (depending on the type) snorkelling they use their diesels for propulsion (and to charge the batteries)).

The P60 class has a PTI system

[Galloglass]

"Diesel powered subs use their batteries only when submerged (when on the surface and (depending on the type) snorkelling they use their diesels for propulsion (and to charge the batteries). The P60 class has a PTI system"

I know that Dev, but OPVs are always surfaced and thus continuousy "chargeable" whether by diesel or by wind power. (My point being that wind is free). These new ion batteries seem to be far more powerful than before. Japan is using them in it's new subs (Australia seems interested too) If they are good enough for driving subs a couple of "cells" should be able to drive an OPV (on air). Marine Wind Turbines are not uncommon and I was simply wondering if the idea was practical.

Obviously subs can't use wind power when submerged but the design effort involved in developing the batteries could provide "opportunities" above the waves too.

[DeV]

One for IMERC I think but the NS shouldn't be the launch customer.... Too high risk

[Galloglass]

One for IMERC I think but the NS shouldn't be the launch customer.... Too high risk

Fair enough Dev....Any IMERC bods on here? But if Japan is using them on submarines surely they are the "launch customer" How they are charged is moot.

Type 45 Destroyer in UK all need new engines http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti.......Risk/Gain?

[The real Jack]

Galloglass none of your attachments are ever viewable.

[Galloglass]

Perhaps I'm doing something wrong.....They are visible to me (I usually click on Insert Image above and upload from my computer) Is there another way?

[Sparky42]

Fair enough Dev....Any IMERC bods on here? But if Japan is using them on submarines surely they are the "launch customer" How they are charged is moot. [ATTACH]8154[/ATTACH]

Type 45 Destroyer in UK all need new engines http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti.......Risk/Gain?

While moving to Li-Ion batteries are new, subs running on batteries aren't new at all, still don't see how it's relevant to a surface ship. I mean are we going to suggest fitting an AIP system as well since that's going into subs as well. Don't see why the current generation of ship power systems need to be changed.

In terms of the Type 45's seems the suggestion is that is due to running the powerplants at full load all the time, or it could be that the 45's engines are orphans within not only the RN but in the world as far as I remember, which for 6 ships might be considered long term as something more trouble than it's worth.

[pym]

Might I suggest a new blimpfrigate thread.

[danno]

In terms of the Type 45's seems the suggestion is that is due to running the powerplants at full load all the time, or it could be that the 45's engines are orphans within not only the RN but in the world as far as I remember, which for 6 ships might be considered long term as something more trouble than it's worth.[/QUOTE]

And still the UK taxpayer lobs £230M annually to BAE to ensure that "skillsets" are retained to ensure these bangers are home produced in the UK! British Leyland lives on.

[hptmurphy]

Thought that was already in the pipeline Hpt.

Thats a sort of spinnaker type kite set up that was being trialled

[Sparky42]

And still the UK taxpayer lobs £230M annually to BAE to ensure that "skillsets" are retained to ensure these bangers are home produced in the UK! British Leyland lives on.

Well had the original buy order of 12 been made maybe some of the issues would have been found out and maybe their plants would have ended up in other ships? But hey at least the RN gets OPV's it doesn't want to maintain BAE...

[Galloglass]

[QUOTE=Sparky42;437097]While moving to Li-Ion batteries are new, subs running on batteries aren't new at all, still don't see how it's relevant to a surface ship. I mean are we going to suggest fitting an AIP system as well since that's going into subs as well. Don't see why the current generation of ship power systems need to be changed.


The AIPs aren't really necessary on an OPV Sparky.
My point was simply that "ion battery powered" engines can be continuosly charged by air turbines thus fuel woud be relatively cheap.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Sparky42]

[QUOTE=Galloglass;437109]

The AIPs aren't really necessary on an OPV Sparky.
My point was simply that "ion battery powered" engines can be continuosly charged by air turbines thus fuel woud be relatively cheap.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I know that (though the Li-Ion batteries are actually replacing the AIPs on the Japanese hulls. But my point is such tech serves a very unique demand for SSKs, just as AIP plants. How much extra tons would need for these batteries to make it of any operational value, and at what cost? Hell you could go for the more traditional cheaper battery packs if it made sense but I doubt it does.

[pym]

The P60's have two 5440KW engines.



Can we end this now?

Reminds me of the guy who thought putting a spring in engine pistons would lead to super efficiency

[ancientmariner]

[QUOTE=Galloglass;437109]

While moving to Li-Ion batteries are new, subs running on batteries aren't new at all, still don't see how it's relevant to a surface ship. I mean are we going to suggest fitting an AIP system as well since that's going into subs as well. Don't see why the current generation of ship power systems need to be changed.


The AIPs aren't really necessary on an OPV Sparky.
My point was simply that "ion battery powered" engines can be continuosly charged by air turbines thus fuel woud be relatively cheap.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.

This type of techno baiting is demeaning to the Militaryonline forum. Standard ships need their propulsion to be in a compact in hull form including all generation plant. The USS Zumwalt is described as an all Electric ship BUT all services are produced from four Gas Turbine engines and propulsion is provided by high speed electric motors.
The Norwegians have a short route, cross estruary, car ferry running on battery powering 450kw X 2, electric motors, giving 10 knots to an 80 X 20m aluminium car and passenger transporter. Three 10 tonne batteries are involved, with one on the ship , and one on the shore either side of the route. It charges up as required either side but is not a reality for a fighting ship in a go anywhere mode.