Shipbucket

Fair enough. I'd forgotten about those.

I would observe, I suppose, that you might have trouble working all that (mostly hot) ducting around a large mission bay/hangar/whatever.

I've been out of the loop for a little bit but you have a high-end tracking/directing system and lots of apparent deck space, but only ESSM and VLS-ASROC? Why not a full 32-cell tac or even strike-length VLS?

for this ship. no, it would be to much in on basket!

The only thing I can do is to use an Norwegian invention to cool down the gas from the engine.

I didn't know spraying cold water on a hot thing was a Norwegian invention.

even worse, it doesn't work. YOU CANNOT HAVE GAS TURBINE EXHAUSTS UNDER WATER. or anywhere near it. back pressure will stop the turbine from running.
whatever the cooling system, the best way to put an gas turbine into an ship is letting the exhaust duct run straight up through all decks. some bending is allowed, but requires larger intake tubes, otherwise you again get back pressure.
if you make an long tube trough the stern...... your tube gets immense. because you also have an hangar there...... I would advise strongly against it.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

It was an Norwegian engineer that come on that solution, his solution is to use an gas instead for water. it cool hot exhaust much better down. Visby class and Skjold class have that type of exhaust. And he offered that technology to the frigate program... But they didn't want it, they didn't believed it worked and today the Norwegian frigate struggle from time to time in the epic cold north to prevent heat signature, every time they turn on those turbine's. While "Umo Mandal" that build Skjold class used them, since they was an total different project with a different project team. and they have no problem, and they have four gas turbines that use a two funnel's!

Ace... you have misunderstood the system. There are no exhaust under water. and I have no hanger close to the turbines. I Have thinking about that. and there is also no shaft from the turbines to the propellers. I have two engine rooms: one for the electric motors, one for generators, diesel, and turbines.

and also that Norwegian solution that DOES NOT USE WATER BUT AN TYPE OF GAS!!, is more effective when it come to cool down the exhaust. for example you can stand behind Skjold class without getting burned!

The two best place for exhaust from an gas turbine to go out is either up or out the rear. I don't have space for up. Diesel generators have their exhaust going trough the side.


after a little search, I found out that the latest system he have developed, that improved that seawater solution he designed before, now he said by using and "Direct Ammonia Injection system" he can not only get cooled it down more effective, he can reduce NOx by up to 90%

This one is for Diesel engine, and we already know Visby and skjold class have an upgraded version of the same system:



It's wierd that nobody have heard of this system sins it have been around 20-25 years. And also O and ace... had the exact discussion last time I drawet a ship with this solution. Little funny that..

oh if I remember correct the FREMM frigate using it to, but I think they us it on the diesel engines.

on diesel this is a lot easier then on gas turbines.
still, where are your gas turbine exhausts then? you have 2 LM2500 somewhere in the rear hull and an hangar in the rear hull, right?

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

yeah hangar in rear, while the lift to the hangar is next to the superstructure. just look at the top view.

I could have mounted the gas turbine in similar way to the new British aircraft carrier. but that is to much for this hull.

Um k.

I have updated the Polar class ASW carrier at page 2. I have also added the Batch 2 version of that ship.

I have added some line to the text for both Batch 1 and 2, that talk about problems Batch 1 have and Batch 2 solves to some degree. note that Batch 2 have an different funnel solution for the LM2500 than on Batch 1. This can be done because there are more than enough space in the superstructure for that.

(I starting to thinking on an Batch 3. on of the thing I am considering for Batch 3 is to move VLS to the main deck or replace it with MK-57 VLS and have it at helicopter deck, so I can enlarge the superstructure a bit more.)