Warship Prices

[contedicavour]

Thanks for the infor everybody. One moe question and please forgive my American ignorance, but what is the typical exchange rate between the Euro and the USD?

Euro = 1.3 USD

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Here's a new video of KNM F. Nansen in the harbour of my hometown Trondheim were they talk about and show pics of the LM2500 turbine and the rest of the propulsion system. It's in norwegian, but there are some nice shots. They say that the ship can do 24-25knots using only the LM2500.

link

Great video, it's rare to see the inside of the newest FFG/DDGs

I confirm the LM2500 turbines are enough to push a Horizon destroyer at 27kn (top speed of 29kn is reached in a configuration adding auxiliary engines)

cheers

cheers

 

[European]

What's the main difference or advantages between Full Electric propulsion (IFEP) and codag/cogag propulsion?


The Horizon, Fremm and Cavour have codag propulsion.
BPC Mistral and the future italian 4° lpd and spanish BPE will have electrical propulsion.

 

[contedicavour]

What's the main difference or advantages between Full Electric propulsion (IFEP) and codag/cogag propulsion?


The Horizon, Fremm and Cavour have codag propulsion.
BPC Mistral and the future italian 4° lpd and spanish BPE will have electrical propulsion.

I don't know of any large surface combat ship running on entirely electrical propulsion... in Italy the largest is the Elettra spy ship (< 100 mts long). I doubt our new LHD will really be running on exclusively electrical propulsion, I would still bet on our good old & tried Avio/GE LM2500 being installed

cheers

 

[Ths]

I know Maersk once tried electrical propulsion in some of their ship - left the idea, as it was dangereous.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Isn't the Type 45 electrical propulsion?

 

[Grand Danois]

I know Maersk once tried electrical propulsion in some of their ship - left the idea, as it was dangereous.

Electric propulsion is not necessarily the same as electric pods. The latter carries some risk and advantages/disadvantages re manoeuvering/speed. Think the MN Mistrals.

Isn't the Type 45 electrical propulsion?

Yup. It is somewhere in the prev posts of this thread.

 

[Ths]

Sorry Grand Danois - I was talking out turn.

 

[contedicavour]

Electric propulsion is not necessarily the same as electric pods. The latter carries some risk and advantages/disadvantages re manoeuvering/speed. Think the MN Mistrals.



Yup. It is somewhere in the prev posts of this thread.

Ah yes, electric pods are used in the Italian Navy to boost manoeuvrability in harbour. Cavour has them for example. Though these are only auxiliary engines with limited power.

cheers

 

[santi]

Type-45 is (will be) an all-electric vessel. His WR-21 TG's are conected to turboalternators. They provide electric power for all the systems on board included the 20 MW electric motors, one per shaft. The vessel has also a couple of 2 MW diesel alternators.

As comented by European, the two Mistral LHD are also all-electric ships, in that case diesel alternators provide the power to a couple of 6 MW electric pods. The new Dutch LPD (De Witt) has a similar configuration (pods of 5 MW or so), but even the Rotterdam LPD have an all electric propulsion but with conventional shafts.
Spanish BPE will be all-electric: 1 TA LM-2500 (20 MW) + 2 DA (2x8 MW) with two pods of 11 MW each.
DDG-1000 is other example of future all-electric ship, but other new hardware will bear an hibrid configuration (FREMM, F125), with a TG mechanically conected by a gearbox to the shafts (in the "old way") for high speeds and smaller electric motors for cruise.

Regards.

 

[Galrahn]

More on what Grand Danois was talking about.

From UPI.

PARSSIPANY, N.J., Nov. 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Navy awarded DRS Technologies $6 million to continue development of a magnet generator that will power next-generation warships.

The award announced Monday by the New Jersey company brings the total value of its contract for the development of the High-Speed Permanent Magnet Electric Generator prototype to $12 million.

The Navy is seeking a generator that will run at 7,000 rpm and produce 10.6 megawatts of power, which could be scaled up to 25 megawatts. One of DRS' primary goals will be to reduce the size of such generators as much as three times that of current models.

The device will eventually be used for future surface ships and submarines. DRS is involved in power-system designs for the DDG-1000 destroyer, the Littoral Combat Ship and the CVN-78 aircraft carrier.

"This program will substantially extend the state of the art in permanent magnet generator performance, while identifying other potential technologies to be developed and applied to further enhance the system," said Roger Sexauer, president of NRS' Power Systems unit.

Development work will take place at DRS facilities in Massachusetts. The finished product will be delivered to the Navy in Philadelphia for testing.

I have seen some of these innovative technologies personally. In one instance the engine was developed using magnets the size of a mans palm, but were so dense they weighed over 200 kgs each. Back in 1998 I was part of a group present for a demonstration when the engine encasement broke during operation, throwing the magnets is opposite directions. One magnet was thrown 400 meters and attached itself to the hood of a tractor, while the other flew close to a km latching itself to a sign on the property.

Controlling the magnets without killing anyone was one of the early issues with the technology in general, todays issues are far more scientific than those mechanical issues of old.

Once effective designs are developed that achieve the miniturization necessary, combined with innovations in battery and fuel cell technologies, magnetic power advancements may will go well beyond surface ships, because they offer a new alternative to non nuclear submarines as well.

But I'm not going to fist pump the achievement until it replaces the gas engine in my SUV, because as far as I'm concerned, that is when we will really be getting somewhere with these new technologies.

 

[elmoq]

Corvettes Price

Hi, I'm new commer,
Please info me about price of corvette class like Sigma, Meko A100 and other similar class.
Thank you.

 

[Sea Toby]

A Meko 200 frigate of over 100 meters with a self defence AAW missile system will run in the neighborhood of US $350 million, a large corvette of over 80 metres with a self defence AAW missile system will run in the neighborhood of US $200 million, a smaller corvette of 70-80 meters with CIWS self defence AAW system will run in the neighborhood of $100 million, and a similar sized OPV, commerical hull, without any AAW missile system will run over will run in the neighborhood of $40 million. Price will vary by which nation and shipyard builds the ship, and by the numbers ordered. The more weaponry on a corvette, such as ASuW with SSMs and a combat data target system will cost more than a corvette which don't.

For example Israel's and Germany's new corvettes ran in the neighborhood of US $200 million each, the Italy's new corvettes ran in the neighborhood of US $100 million, New Zealand's new OPVs ran in the neighborhood of US $40 million.

I hope this helps. I know my answer isn't exact, but you should have a general idea. Its not so much the price of steel, but the quantity and quality of the weapons systems.

 

[Tupadre]

Does anybody know the price of a K 130 corvette with RAM and RBS 15 antiship missiles?

And the price of the Meko 200 SAN for south Africa?

 

[Sea Toby]

The latest Combat Fleets of the World says K130 costs US$ 186 million each. Combat Fleet don't say how much the SAN Meko 200s cost, but the Australian and New Zealand Meko 200s costs around US $300 million each, they would most likely cost closer to US $350 million today. New Zealand rejected two options for NZ $470 million, that is where I figured out the US $300 million through exchange rates. Surely, the South African's German built with South African weaponry costs less.

Spain's F-100 Aegis frigates cost US $540 million each, per Combat Fleets. Norways new Nansen class frigates cost US $400 million each. Brunei's new small frigates, per Combat Fleets cost US $323 million each.

Is this a better picture?

 

[Gladius]

About the cost of Spanish Ships:

Strategic Projection Ship:
· BPE Program (1 unit [L-61 Juan Carlos I]): 360 Million €.

Aegis Frigates:
· F-100 Program (4 Batch I [F-101-104] + 1 Batch II [F-105] + The predicted cost of I+D+i to modernize Batch I to Batch II): 2,204 Million € --- > ~ 440.45 Million €/u.
* One more planned but not approved or financed at this moment.

Maritime Action Ships:
· BAM Program (4 Batch I): 340 Million € ---> ~87,5 Million €/u.
* Ten more planed but not approved or financed at this moment.

Submarines:
· S-80 Program (4 SSK AIP & with Tomahawk cappability): 1759,9 Million € ---> ~440 Million €/u.

Minehunters:
· Segura Program (4 Batch I [Minehunters] + 2 Batch II [Minehunters/Minesweppers]): ~645 Million € ---> ~107,3 Million €/u.
*Six more planned but cancelled.

AORs:
· BAL Program (1 unit [A-14 Patiño]): ~110 Million € [Some sources rise the cost up to 140 Million €]
· BAC Program (1 unit [A-15 Cantabria]): 213 Million €.

LPDs:
· LPDs Galicia/Rotterdam Class Program (L-51 Galicia + L-52 Castilla [Modified as NATO HRF(M) Command Ship]): ~177,5 Million €. ---> ~88,52 Million €/u.


Figures obtained from the P.G.E. (Presupuestos Generales del Estado), the Spanish Cabinet Decrees (1993-2006) & the Spanish Government Websites.

 

[gforce]

I found something that can be helpful to this thread... http://newwars.wordpress.com/warship-costs/

Any modern OPV/Corvette that cost equal to or less than $25 million with a complete package?

The Philippine Navy will be leasing its land property through the new Philippine President's initiative for $100 million so they can buy 4 new warships.

 

[Palnatoke]

What's the main difference or advantages between Full Electric propulsion (IFEP) and codag/cogag propulsion?


The Horizon, Fremm and Cavour have codag propulsion.
BPC Mistral and the future italian 4° lpd and spanish BPE will have electrical propulsion.

I quess that you can divide the propulsion in two; Powerplant and drive.

Traditionally the powerplant (the engine) either directly drives the drive system or through some form of cobling(?)/gearing(?). Which more or less means that they are physically one.

With the electric drive systems you can more easely separate powerplant and drive system.

One advantage would be that while the drive system of practical reasons has to be near the propellers or whatever transfers power to the water, you can place the powerplant somewhere else. F.ex. on a carrier you might want to place the powerplant high in the structure to eliminate space consuming venting, chimnies etc from having to penetrate the ship's decks.

The powerplant can be composed by different systems.
Rule of thumbs;
Diesel is most fuel efficient.
Turbines has the smallest footprint (relative to output). A turbine is only fuel efficient at a very narrow power output interval, or RPM, (basically it's an on/off machine, unless you like burning fuel).
A turbine running at optimal RPM is far from as efficient as a Diesel running optimally.

A frigate might want a general good fuel efficiency with the option of high speeds in limited periods of time.
In a CODAG arrangement, you try to balance the good economy of the diesel with the small footprint of the turbine. So you include diesel engines with sufficient power to drive the ship at "normal speeds". Untop of this you place a or more turbine(s) to provide the ship with large amount of power to be used when the ship needs max speed.
This arrangement is, or can be, better than a diesel on diesel configuration because the turbine doesn't take up as much space as the diesel.

In a COGAG you try to miniize the bad fuel economy at different speeds of the turbine while taking advantage of the small footprint of the turbine. F.ex. you might have two turbines. At normal speeds you drive only one turbine at it's optimal RPM, if you need max speed, you fire up the second.turbine.
This can give your ship a decent fuel economy at "march speed" (and a decent economy at Top Speed) while preserving space. Though you will never get the fuel efficiency of a diesel.

While CODAG is the norm of frigates (irrespectively whether they have a traditional or electric drive). The new danish frigates has a diesel on diesel configuration. As a cost saving meassure. They sacrifice space, but get a more simple engine pack (actually a double up of the ABSALON diesel propulsion ). As a result of the last and most important design consideration: MONEY.

 

[harryriedl]

I quess that you can divide the propulsion in two; Powerplant and drive.

Traditionally the powerplant (the engine) either directly drives the drive system or through some form of cobling(?)/gearing(?). Which more or less means that they are physically one.

With the electric drive systems you can more easely separate powerplant and drive system.

One advantage would be that while the drive system of practical reasons has to be near the propellers or whatever transfers power to the water, you can place the powerplant somewhere else. F.ex. on a carrier you might want to place the powerplant high in the structure to eliminate space consuming venting, chimnies etc from having to penetrate the ship's decks.

The powerplant can be composed by different systems.
Rule of thumbs;
Diesel is most fuel efficient.
Turbines has the smallest footprint (relative to output). A turbine is only fuel efficient at a very narrow power output interval, or RPM, (basically it's an on/off machine, unless you like burning fuel).
A turbine running at optimal RPM is far from as efficient as a Diesel running optimally.

A frigate might want a general good fuel efficiency with the option of high speeds in limited periods of time.
In a CODAG arrangement, you try to balance the good economy of the diesel with the small footprint of the turbine. So you include diesel engines with sufficient power to drive the ship at "normal speeds". Untop of this you place a or more turbine(s) to provide the ship with large amount of power to be used when the ship needs max speed.
This arrangement is, or can be, better than a diesel on diesel configuration because the turbine doesn't take up as much space as the diesel.

In a COGAG you try to miniize the bad fuel economy at different speeds of the turbine while taking advantage of the small footprint of the turbine. F.ex. you might have two turbines. At normal speeds you drive only one turbine at it's optimal RPM, if you need max speed, you fire up the second.turbine.
This can give your ship a decent fuel economy at "march speed" (and a decent economy at Top Speed) while preserving space. Though you will never get the fuel efficiency of a diesel.

While CODAG is the norm of frigates (irrespectively whether they have a traditional or electric drive). The new danish frigates has a diesel on diesel configuration. As a cost saving meassure. They sacrifice space, but get a more simple engine pack (actually a double up of the ABSALON diesel propulsion ). As a result of the last and most important design consideration: MONEY.

you forgot to mention an advantage of electrical propulsion is that it generally the most efficient system as the loss though gearing systems plus running Gens for hotel services isn't as efficient as electrical uses the same system the other ship services. It also helps the GT's run as efficiently as possible.

Also you didn't mention Steam turbines which are tend to be fast and quite efficient but very manpower intensive and the speed cannot be changed easily but it simplest for large high speed vessels so still popular with a surprisingly large numbers of ships still Steam turbine powered

 

[Palnatoke]

you forgot to mention an advantage of electrical propulsion is that it generally the most efficient system as the loss though gearing systems plus running Gens for hotel services isn't as efficient as electrical uses the same system the other ship services. It also helps the GT's run as efficiently as possible.

Also you didn't mention Steam turbines which are tend to be fast and quite efficient but very manpower intensive and the speed cannot be changed easily but it simplest for large high speed vessels so still popular with a surprisingly large numbers of ships still Steam turbine powered

Do you have sources for the efficiency claim?
Because to me, that doesn't sound right. In an electric engine-system you have an extra conversion of energy (mechanical->electrical->mechanical energy) that should end up with a less efficient machine.