Return of the battleship.

[Wooki]

I would agree with GFs input.

But, (with the following disclaimer). I used to do armor and now when asked to do it, I say "no" as you can make more money making tooth brushes.

The concept of armor on naval vessels is most definitely not obsolete, as you have all the advantages that an AFV doesn't. If a Navy wanted to they could create a vessel able to withstand existing Anti Shipping Cruise Missiles, in fact it is quite easy for the USN to do this.

But they don't for these reasons:

Originally Posted by GF

Armour on ships is no longer about metallurgical properties, in fact it's not about metal properties at all now. Armour is a collective of disparate systems such as ewarfare/sig mgt and layered response. It's not about kinetic survivability as it's prohibitive.

As for the issue of Chobham and Dorchester - they were discounted years ago - the serious close in defence work is now on ship based Trophy type systems defending critical parts of the ship like the citadel and the farm.

there's a new generation of immediate self protection emerging.

So yes, US industry is capable of making an armored vessel. Yes I will stand up and say it straight that the technology and know how of today could make a sea skimming missile irrelevant.

The key threat is not actually missiles BTW, its torpedoes and mines and this is routinely pondered upon.

Bottom line is just that, the bottom line. The perception is that it is simply easier and cheaper to develop active protection systems, not to mention the iterative training process to use these systems (knowledge, building upon knowledge).

It aint going to change. On top of that you have industry inertia and turf protection. For example to make a change in the CVN (x) as it was called back then, an armor idea for an itsy bitsy little item I suggested captured the imagination of everyone in the room and died a quick death as it had to be approved by no less then 53 individuals ( I will spell it for you F-i-f-t-y T-h-r-e-e) before it had a chance of becoming reality.

Not going to happen friend. Much easier to launch a nulka as it exists and is deployed today

And last Chobham?? Why would I use a low mass efficiency armor like Chobham? It is far too complicated and way too heavy and simply wouldn't work at sea (IMHO that is)...


cheers


w

[Wooki]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

I
Well, I can tell you some' about this. You think about it a few minutes and then you'd better forget about it. Hydrogen as a power source for large ships isn't suitable at all. What makes you think so?

Hydrogen is suitable for larger ships. The rule of thumb is 3 times the volume required for H2 as opposed to normal HFO.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Apart from the fact that generating and storing hydrogen is awfully expensive

No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

-as you already realised yourself- and comsumes more energy than you will actually get from your fuel cell, fuel cells have a disadvantage that is imminent with their physical conception: They generate heat in the magnitude of power they generate. This isn't that much of a problem in a 100kW car like the Clarity or a 300kW submarine fuel cell where you have a big cold ocean which makes it easy to get rid of the heat. But now you need 60-100 MW or probably even more. See my point?

This is grossly incorrect. Take a look at a solid oxide fuel cell. The optimum temperature is 1000 Degrees celsius for various configurations using a variety of different materials suitable for operation on a large scale. Waste heat is a good thing as then you can turn that into electricity via a thermocouple.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Then there's the problem of storage. Would you use liquified H2, stored under pressure inside the hull and still requiring a lot of volume as you would have to use many small storage tanks as you simply can't build a single huge, sufficient one? Imagine if that blows off.

Another urban myth. H2 storage is safer and (in a lot of ways) more convenient then storing hydrocarbons. It is (however) diffcult to handle in a submersible. You don't get any "explosions" from H2 going off. In fact you would probably get a flare that would blow itself out and then a build up of ice that would self seal the tank, all within seconds.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

And what about underway replenishment? That would probably be huge fun
Or will you deal energy density for volume and use (in any way) chemically bound H2 which also needs a lot of internal volume, makes the fuel cell more complicated to operate and has no advantage over conventional fuel whatsoever -on the contrary- apart from the fact that it's "clean"?

Again another urban myth. Hydrogen peroxide is damn safe if used correctly with the appropriate materials. It is one of the reasons it was first used as a rocket fuel. It is only when people start getting greedy for thrust and adding a tertiary fuel (e.g. Me 263 ) that it becomes dangerous.

My observation is that most of these conclusions you have made above are governed by mass media and pulp fiction. take a little time to look at hydrogen power in Iceland. They have a number of informative sites that educate the public on hydrogen power.

Finally one of the primary reasons that it is tricky t use at sea is becasue it is light. Therefore the larger the better and the more efficient your hull form.

Hope that has cleared up a few items for you

cheers

w

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Wooki

No, it isn't as expensive as you believe. For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

[Wooki]

Originally Posted by swerve

Where does the hydrogen come from in these models?

I can see the point of hydrogen power for vehicles, but for electricity generation? Why not directly use the electricity you use to make the hydrogen, & cut out the conversion losses & extra machinery?

Geo-thermal actually. Can't say more then that. But I have heard of other schemes using wind and solar with about the same price to the consumer.

cheers

w

[kato]

Do they have successful sites for the geothermal stations?

'Cuz we got a company around here constantly trying new sites for lack of proper geological structures - but hey, they've stumbled on oil three times by now (and gas reserves once).

How you transmit energy is always a question of infrastructure, not qualities of the carrier medium. Hydrogen as an energy carrier would be useless for me personally for example, considering i'm sitting within a very dense electricity network fed directly from three nuclear plants, one coal plant and two wind power parks, and get waste heat from a nearby coal plant pumped to my house for heating. Oh, and they're building a gas main extension pumping gas straight from Russia less than 5 miles from here, and are looking for geothermal energy sources.

Hydrogen as a carrier medium - in stationary infrastructure, i.e. pipelines - is only valid for areas where other infrastructure (electricity lines, steam pipes) would be badly influenced by external factors such as weather. Or where the installation and maintenance of such infrastructure would at most come equal with hydrogen mains. Ice isn't exactly beneficial for overland electricity networks for example. Meaning, it's a valid carrier medium for Iceland, but not e.g. for most of continental Europe.

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Wooki

Geo-thermal actually. Can't say more then that. But I have heard of other schemes using wind and solar with about the same price to the consumer.

cheers

w

But, but, but . . . . the argument still stands. Why not generate electricity directly? Why put in the extra, costly, step?

[Wooki]

Originally Posted by kato

Do they have successful sites for the geothermal stations?

'Cuz we got a company around here constantly trying new sites for lack of proper geological structures - but hey, they've stumbled on oil three times by now (and gas reserves once).

How you transmit energy is always a question of infrastructure, not qualities of the carrier medium. Hydrogen as an energy carrier would be useless for me personally for example, considering i'm sitting within a very dense electricity network fed directly from three nuclear plants, one coal plant and two wind power parks, and get waste heat from a nearby coal plant pumped to my house for heating. Oh, and they're building a gas main extension pumping gas straight from Russia less than 5 miles from here, and are looking for geothermal energy sources.

Hydrogen as a carrier medium - in stationary infrastructure, i.e. pipelines - is only valid for areas where other infrastructure (electricity lines, steam pipes) would be badly influenced by external factors such as weather. Or where the installation and maintenance of such infrastructure would at most come equal with hydrogen mains. Ice isn't exactly beneficial for overland electricity networks for example. Meaning, it's a valid carrier medium for Iceland, but not e.g. for most of continental Europe.

Originally Posted by swerve

But, but, but . . . . the argument still stands. Why not generate electricity directly? Why put in the extra, costly, step?

Hydrogen (IMHO) really only makes sense when it is transported via ship. It makes a lot of sense in projects where energy is available in a remote location, putting it in a bottle and then taking bottle of energy to where its needed.

That (funnily enough) means it is good for wind where windy places are not normally heavily populated. i.e energy is there but no infrastructure, whether it be solar, wind or geothermal.

If you transport Hydrogen via ship, then what is to say you can't power the ship with it? Makes it easier to transport. If you are powering the ship with it, why don't you take a larger turbine and just plug the ship into the grid when you get to point 'B'

ahhhhhh, I just saved huge infrastructure costs in building a new powerplant.

The ideal market is not Virginia. In fact Virginia is one of the least favorable, but as the numbers worked out there, then that makes the numbers for a more favorable market look really good.... like Europe.

Hydrogen has its place, because if you regard it as energy in a bottle, it basically uses the same infrastructure and know how as the oil and gas industry, which means you save uber bucks on tech transfers and infrastructure costs, plus people "get it"....no loss of labor skill sets and/or experience. "... I've worked in oil and gas since I was knee high to a duck. Now I am working in Hydrogen and the wife is happy..." sort of thing.

and re the thread topic, yes that means creating a war fighting ship of large proportions, but I have argued that the CVN Nimitz and the CVN 21 are too small anyway. They are just big enough to have big ship maintenance costs but too small to get big ship benefits in capability. Make them 200,000 tons or 300,000 tons and they become way more efficient and you start getting into the fabled "sea base" concept.

Oh and armor? Just make it spaced armor or whack in a hydrogen tank and you are good to go.


cheers


w

[peterAustralia]

I do not think this battleship idea is totally unsound, perhaps has merit if scaled down a bit though.

Some examples, HMS Tiger, 1959-1978, was reconfigured with a large helicopter deck and hangar, capable of carrying 4 Sea King helicopters. The 6 inch guns were capable of 20 rounds a minute each. A large ship at 12000 tonnes, but capable of 31.5 knots.

Could such a vessel serve as the basis of a new build ship? I think so. The large light deck and helicopter capability would certainly be useful in amphibious and humanitarian operations. A large ship could also more easily contain a hospital ward and davits and landing craft to assist in amphibious operations. A large ship with large flight-deck would permit flight operations in higher sea states.

Instead of 6 inch guns, perhaps a modern 8 inch gun could be developed that was highly automatic and carrying base bleed shells to improve range. Additionally with new technology these shells can now be aimed and steered via a small drone with a laser designator. Can the work of Gerard Bull be used to increase the range still further as it has been on land artillery?

As to armour larger ships can have a higher proportion of their structure devoted to armour. In the Falklands several ships were lost that possibly needed not to be. Example one ship was lost to an aircraft firing unguided 57mm rockets. A bigger ship would have the space to divide the superstructure into separate modules so as to better withstand blast effects.

Obviously the designers of these ships were working to the best of their ability but at that time armour was not such a big thing. Where to put armour? the logical places would be around the magazines, the command center, bridge, steering gear, electrical, hydraulic and computer conduits. A rough figure might be a thousand tonnes of armour on a 12 thousand tonne ship.

For larger areas perhaps a lighter armour might be used there, so possibly kevlar armour for engine room and the helicopter hangar. I am no expert on the cost/benefit weight issues and blast and projectile protection of traditional armour vs the modern kevlar equivalent.

If designed to carry a lot of helicopters from the outset, perhaps up to 5 or 6 NH90 class helicopters could be carried in a large hangar aft.

Without going to excess, a degree of armour could greatly assist the survivability of a ship, the ability to withstand a missile attack, withstand a bomb or unguided rocket would all be useful. Obviously a new build ship would be built with modern propulsion, be that gas turbines or diesel or both. Do not know anything about this hydrogen stuff. Automation can reduce the crew needed for a large gun as seen by modern automatic 5 inch guns. A larger ship has a naturally longer fatigue life

On cost, yes it would cost a bit, however most of the cost of modern ships is the electronics and weapon systems. If the ship was armed only with short range anti aircraft and missile protection systems, that would certainly assist
in lowering the price. I think a big battle would be to try and avoid getting items placed in the ship, to avoid the temptation to add an area defence SAM, Anti ship missiles, torpedo tubes, control and command facilities etc.

Such a large vessel would I think be quite complimentary to existing frigates and destroyers. Vittorio Veneto and some large Japanese destroyers show the viability of a large hull with a large helicopter hangar combines with a good gun armament.

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by Wooki

Hydrogen is suitable for larger ships. The rule of thumb is 3 times the volume required for H2 as opposed to normal HFO.

And that's ok for fuel storage on warships or what do you want to say? What storage principle are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Wooki

For example: There are models to supply the State of Virginia with H2 generated electrical power at around 5c/KWH to the end consumer. That rivals coal.

Well fine, we were looking at such models as well, mostly related to providing supply for fuel cell cars. If you're able to make them real, that's fine, give me a call.
Apart from that: What scale of H2 production are we talking about here? And what timeframe?
Because that's essential, you see. My impression was/is that most of these models are based on a lot of assumptions and a lot of "if"s and apart from the fact that I don't quite comprehend the relevance of Virginia being supplied with clean power in this context, it remains to be seen if these models are realistic. In addition to that most people that provide these clean power scenarios have a certain agenda and those who read those icelandic websites should take a little time and question some of the shiny, fancy stuff.
However, if you are to supply H2 for warship use these days it is bloody expensive. You're a little bit ahead of your time, aren't you.

Yes, I know, you're a defence pro and so on, but during my studies I've worked for 2 years on fuel cell car related topics and this time I know well what I'm talking about. Please respect that.
If you're misunderstanding or have the impression that I have no idea what I'm talking about due to my poor english skilld or have questions, you're invited to ask for clarification via posting or PM, I'll be glad to answer and add information. As you don't know my technical background, please do not make statements like the following:

Originally Posted by Wooki

This is grossly incorrect. Take a look at a solid oxide fuel cell. The optimum temperature is 1000 Degrees celsius for various configurations using a variety of different materials suitable for operation on a large scale.

No, it's not. And it really angers me you're talking like that because obviously you're not in the position to call this grossly incorrect.
To start with, how many years do you think will it take until we'll see production ready SOFCs that will generate the amount of power we're talking about here ("on a large scale" )? This really is future technology.
And still, what's your efficiency factor? Around 50%.
Again, we're talking about one or several fuel cells that provide 60-100 MWs or more for a battleship sized vessel with loads of equipment in it.

Originally Posted by Wooki

Waste heat is a good thing as then you can turn that into electricity via a thermocouple.

Aw man, I know some guys at the thermodynamics institute who would slap you right in the face if you said this to them. Waste heat is a good thing. Ok, if you think so.
Or have there been some breakthroughs in heat recuperation that I didn't hear of that allow you to install the required machinery in a ship with limited space? Around fuel cells that need to deliever 60 or probably more MWs? Do you know how much volume these things need? And what are you then going to use the heat for? To reform natural gas or what? Or use it with a steam turbine or drive a stirling engine?
Again, you're probably talking future technology.

Originally Posted by Wooki

Another urban myth. H2 storage is safer and (in a lot of ways) more convenient then storing hydrocarbons.

Again, what storage principle are you talking about? In the paragraph I was talking simple storage under pressure, as e.g. for welding application, which would be the simplest possibility I can think of. Essentially, compressed H2. Nothing else, apart from any cavernous, inert filling material. And if you have a leak you have a problem. Period.

Originally Posted by Wooki

Again another urban myth. Hydrogen peroxide is damn safe if used correctly with the appropriate materials. It is one of the reasons it was first used as a rocket fuel. It is only when people start getting greedy for thrust and adding a tertiary fuel (e.g. Me 263 ) that it becomes dangerous.

I totally lose you here. Hydrogen peroxide? What are you talking about? Well, for the sake of it, let's talk about it. You know what can happen if there are impurities? Or if there is a leak and hydrogen peroxide gets in contact with e.g. copper? Apart from that I'd rather have some litres of diesel over my skin than your H2O2.
And I said chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english. There are ways to store hydrogen safely, yes, but you deal energy density and/or procedural simplicity for that. Period.

Originally Posted by Wooki

My observation is that most of these conclusions you have made above are governed by mass media and pulp fiction.

My observation is that you're an impertinent person. You're putting together some apples and oranges, believes and future stuff and on this basis you're challenging me in quite a harsh way.
Again, if you have any questions or want to discuss this in a more detailed, factual way, you're welcome. After all, this is not a thread about fuel cell powered ships.

Now for conclusion, you are suggesting that a battleship sized vessel could well be powered by SOFCs generating about let's say 100 MWs of power (that don't exist), fed with H2 produced stored in a way that needs about 3 times the volume than conventional fuel and boosted in their efficiency by heat recuperation small and light enough (which doesn't exist)? And the costs of this roughly equalling a coal powered ship. Did I get it right?



This is OT, but the following remark has to be made: Lately it seems to me that is has become a very common thing here that def pros are acting as if other members didn't know anything, yelling idiot at everyone. That's not correct behaviour!

[kato]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

I said, chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english.

Molecular Embedding perhaps?
(i.e. H2 molecules embedded in either a metallic structure or between "sheets" of a carbon-based nanostructure - about the only two ways to store H2 in a chemical structure without binding it straight to another molecule)

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by kato

Molecular Embedding perhaps?
(i.e. H2 molecules embedded in either a metallic structure or between "sheets" of a carbon-based nanostructure - about the only two ways to store H2 in a chemical structure without binding it straight to another molecule)

Yeah, that's more like it. Thanks.

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Wooki

Hydrogen (IMHO) really only makes sense when it is transported via ship. It makes a lot of sense in projects where energy is available in a remote location, putting it in a bottle and then taking bottle of energy to where its needed.

That (funnily enough) means it is good for wind where windy places are not normally heavily populated. i.e energy is there but no infrastructure, whether it be solar, wind or geothermal.

Agreed. Splitting seawater using solar power on a sunny desert coast, or wind power somewhere wet & windy & desolate, then shipping it far away to use it, does make sense. It was the idea of doing it in a populated area that baffled me.

But we digress . . .

[Wooki]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

And that's ok for fuel storage on warships or what do you want to say? What storage principle are you talking about?



Well fine, we were looking at such models as well, mostly related to providing supply for fuel cell cars. If you're able to make them real, that's fine, give me a call.
Apart from that: What scale of H2 production are we talking about here? And what timeframe?
Because that's essential, you see. My impression was/is that most of these models are based on a lot of assumptions and a lot of "if"s and apart from the fact that I don't quite comprehend the relevance of Virginia being supplied with clean power in this context, it remains to be seen if these models are realistic. In addition to that most people that provide these clean power scenarios have a certain agenda and those who read those icelandic websites should take a little time and question some of the shiny, fancy stuff.
However, if you are to supply H2 for warship use these days it is bloody expensive. You're a little bit ahead of your time, aren't you.

Yes, I know, you're a defence pro and so on, but during my studies I've worked for 2 years on fuel cell car related topics and this time I know well what I'm talking about. Please respect that.
If you're misunderstanding or have the impression that I have no idea what I'm talking about due to my poor english skilld or have questions, you're invited to ask for clarification via posting or PM, I'll be glad to answer and add information. As you don't know my technical background, please do not make statements like the following:



No, it's not. And it really angers me you're talking like that because obviously you're not in the position to call this grossly incorrect.
To start with, how many years do you think will it take until we'll see production ready SOFCs that will generate the amount of power we're talking about here ("on a large scale" )? This really is future technology.
And still, what's your efficiency factor? Around 50%.
Again, we're talking about one or several fuel cells that provide 60-100 MWs or more for a battleship sized vessel with loads of equipment in it.



Aw man, I know some guys at the thermodynamics institute who would slap you right in the face if you said this to them. Waste heat is a good thing. Ok, if you think so.
Or have there been some breakthroughs in heat recuperation that I didn't hear of that allow you to install the required machinery in a ship with limited space? Around fuel cells that need to deliever 60 or probably more MWs? Do you know how much volume these things need? And what are you then going to use the heat for? To reform natural gas or what? Or use it with a steam turbine or drive a stirling engine?
Again, you're probably talking future technology.



Again, what storage principle are you talking about? In the paragraph I was talking simple storage under pressure, as e.g. for welding application, which would be the simplest possibility I can think of. Essentially, compressed H2. Nothing else, apart from any cavernous, inert filling material. And if you have a leak you have a problem. Period.



I totally lose you here. Hydrogen peroxide? What are you talking about? Well, for the sake of it, let's talk about it. You know what can happen if there are impurities? Or if there is a leak and hydrogen peroxide gets in contact with e.g. copper? Apart from that I'd rather have some litres of diesel over my skin than your H2O2.
And I said chemically bound storage, which perhaps is the wrong term in english. There are ways to store hydrogen safely, yes, but you deal energy density and/or procedural simplicity for that. Period.



My observation is that you're an impertinent person. You're putting together some apples and oranges, believes and future stuff and on this basis you're challenging me in quite a harsh way.
Again, if you have any questions or want to discuss this in a more detailed, factual way, you're welcome. After all, this is not a thread about fuel cell powered ships.

Now for conclusion, you are suggesting that a battleship sized vessel could well be powered by SOFCs generating about let's say 100 MWs of power (that don't exist), fed with H2 produced stored in a way that needs about 3 times the volume than conventional fuel and boosted in their efficiency by heat recuperation small and light enough (which doesn't exist)? And the costs of this roughly equalling a coal powered ship. Did I get it right?



This is OT, but the following remark has to be made: Lately it seems to me that is has become a very common thing here that def pros are acting as if other members didn't know anything, yelling idiot at everyone. That's not correct behaviour!

Falstaff, you are the one who unloaded both barrels at the thread starter. I felt it appropriate to call you on some gross assumptions you appeared to have made. If my comments regarding technology have shaken your foundations in education (as it appears to have given you a case of future shock) then I can't really apologize, change and innovation are the nature of the beast. You will come across it sooner, or later.

And for the record, no, I don't think you are an "idiot". If anything your English is good enough that I didn't realize you were a non native speaker, and I replied in kind to your post.

cheers


w

[gf0012-aust]

All, Feel free to take the Hydrogen discussion into a new post in the Tech section - but it would be appropriate to stay on topic in here as much as possible.

Again, there's a need to watch how people conduct themselves when discussing things of close importance.

[mig3535]

it would be too expensive to build a battleship considering the fact that carrier with planes can project their power so much further than battleships can with missiles.

Admin: Cross link deleted. You were specifically asked not to do this. It was a request, not a suggestion.

Banned for 1 week for a deliberate violation of a Mods request to not cross link and self promote a web site