The Constellation frigate program is building a land based
engineering test facility in Philadephia which will duplicate the ship’s power
plant. What a great idea! The Navy deserves credit for this after the
Freedom variant powertrain combining gear debacle, right?. However, we can’t give the Navy any credit
because they didn’t want the test facility.
It was mandated by Congress in the 2021 defense budget.[1, 3]
Well, regardless of who the credit goes to, it’s still a
great idea. The program can put the
ship’s power plant through its paces and work out any problems before the ship
is built. Only … in true Navy fashion,
the test facility will not be ready before the first ship is delivered and
subsequent ships have been started.
Uh … isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the test facility be up and running long before the ship construction begins?
Again, shouldn’t that testing to determine a final propulsion system be completed before the ship construction begins, not after the ship is delivered – at which point it is too late to matter?
Well, what’s the big deal?
The Constellation is, basically, the existing FREMM frigate so the
propulsion system is already well proven.
Honestly, the land facility is a Congressionally mandated formality that
isn’t really needed for an existing, proven propulsion system, right?
Unfortunately, the Navy did a bit of fraud bait and
switch. The Constellation is based only
loosely and to a minor extent on the existing FREMM.
This is not what Congress intended.
Cognizant of the LCS debacle, Congress intended for the land site to be up and running before the ship was built, not after. Congress wanted to eliminate the problems before the ship was built.
____________________________________
The site should be ready around the time the first frigate is delivered and will continue to operate until the ship is ready for deployment.[1]
Uh … isn’t this backwards? Shouldn’t the test facility be up and running long before the ship construction begins?
… the LBTS [land based test site] focuses on hardware, as a laboratory of different configurations to settle on a final propulsion system.[2]
Again, shouldn’t that testing to determine a final propulsion system be completed before the ship construction begins, not after the ship is delivered – at which point it is too late to matter?
The propulsion system for the Constellation is a new configuration for the U.S. Navy, with a combined diesel-electric and gas turbine system. The CODLAG propulsion system takes a General Electric LM-2500+G4 and combines it with two MTU diesel engines to power the ship via an electric drive system.[2]
This is not what Congress intended.
In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the Navy must finish the LBES site for the frigate before the lead ship in the class delivers in 2026. The site must include shipboard equipment for systems ranging from the main reduction gear and the main propulsion system, to the power control modules.[2]
Cognizant of the LCS debacle, Congress intended for the land site to be up and running before the ship was built, not after. Congress wanted to eliminate the problems before the ship was built.
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/navy-says-constellation-hull-change-wont-affect-internal-design/
https://news.usni.org/2023/06/20/frigate-land-based-engineering-site-taking-shape-in-the-philadelphia-navy-yard
Program: Background and Issues for Congress”, 27-Mar-2023, p.8 :
January 1, 2021) requires the Navy to commence, prior to the delivery of the first FFG-62, a landbased test program for the FFG-62 engineering plant (i.e., its propulsion system and related machinery). The provision specifies how the test program is to be conducted and requires the Navy to complete the test program not later than the date on which the first FFG-62 is scheduled to be available for tasking by operational military commanders.
China also built land based test facilities for new ships. Like what you said, before ship designs finalize:
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2015/01/26/chinese-carrier-land-facility-adds-destroyer
There is also a shore based EMALS test site.
ReplyDeleteA Prgram Officer Decatur said,
"Damm the Testing, Full Deployment NOW!"
I've been unable to find much information on the land test facility for EMALS but my understanding is that it is a single unit as opposed to a duplicate of the actual installation which has four cats all linked in one electrical supply system. This causes test failings and deficiencies.
DeleteIt is also unknown whether the land site uses the same electrical supply system that the carrier does (flywheels and so forth). If not, they can't duplicate electrical problems.
The main challenge with EMALS (well, one of them) is that the motors require very precise alignment. At a land site, this is relatively easily achieved. On a carrier that is constantly flexing, this is problematic. Thus, a land test site CANNOT duplicate a major source of problems.
The single EMALS cannot duplicate the repair challenges that the carrier installation faces which is the requirement to take down all four cats to repair one.
"The main challenge with EMALS (well, one of them) is that the motors require very precise alignment. At a land site, this is relatively easily achieved. On a carrier that is constantly flexing, this is problematic."
DeleteMaybe they should have tried installing EMALS in Kitty Hawk. Didn't it retire and go into category B reserves right around the time they started work on Ford?
"The main challenge with EMALS (well, one of them) is that the motors require very precise alignment. "
DeleteWhat's the implication for EMALS of the fact that it's a WARSHIP which, in addition to normal flexing, will be in combat, including near misses and even hits?
Will it stop working at the first near miss because of additional flexing?
I know there was SOME shock testing. Do we know how EMALS performed? Do we know if it actually simulated the effects of near misses and hits on other parts of the ship?
It would be nice if the land based engineering plant could also have been used for training crews in maintenance and running the plant. So now the Navy is also gambling that this plant will work the first time when on a ship
ReplyDeleteTraining is mentioned as one of the intended functions of land based test sites although I don't know if they're actually doing that.
DeleteWhat is missing here are the electric motors which no one has publicly identified yet. I'll bet they aren't the ones from Fremm.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand Leonardo DRS won the contract from Fincantieri for the motors and power distribution system for its hybrid electric diesel system. No way would Congress have authorised Constellation if Fincantieri has used the original FREMM European HED system, NDAA mandates US sourced components.
ReplyDeletePS Find it odd that the Constellation Land Based Engineering Test Facility is funded from the individual Constellation ship build SCN budgets and not R&D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0clyQXLbAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCseiMrQ_CY
I'd like to remind that the original FREMM is really slow sailing only on the diesels. It seems that to go faster than 15-16 kts the turbine has to be used, which is absolutely innefficient when compared with other designs.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole propulsive system will be different, probably giving a higher speed on diesels.
The German frigates use the same gensets and have motors to make 20 knots. Not sure what Type 26uses for motors but they again use the same gensets, but the ship is larger. I think we are missing the real sauce by not ending Connies early and moving to a U.S. version of Fincantieri's PPA. 25 knots on diesels and well over 30 combined with the turbine. Speed to play with. Plus the hybrid motors can also be used as gensets. They really are Fremm's in capability but a generation newer.
DeleteFincantieri said Constellation can cruise at 16-17 knots on its HED, Leonardo DRS say navy ships spend 90% of time at these speeds or lower which think true as there was a history of speed kept of a Burke, whether same in war unknown, most commercial ships cruise at 15 knots or lower as the most economical.
Delete@AndyM, the Type 26 fitted with two GE 3.4 MW motors, one per shaft, haven't seen a figure for Leonardo DRS motors for Constellation but expect similar power.
Deletehttps://www.gepowerconversion.com/news/ge-world-leader-naval-electric-drive-power-and-propulsion
The German F-125 have 4.7MW motors to reach 20 knots. 3.4 would be a good number as they could just double up the 1.7MW motors from the Korean frigates.
DeleteThe Navy seems to be unserious people at this point.
ReplyDeleteThey've been on top for so long they appear to have lost the ability to prepare for actual war.
The only fixes I see to this are to either have great leadership rise to high-level command (which the peace-time bureaucracy is designed to prevent), or we get an embarrassing butt-kicking by someone and have to get serious fast.
Lutefisk
When Congress is making better decisions than you are, it's time for an intervention.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy's motive is to give as much money to the ship contractors, as fast as possible. This has been obvious for years. The only question is why they have this motive.
ReplyDeleteThe likeliest motive is "that's what the congress-beings who pay attention to the Navy budget want." Since that is approximately how US politics works in practice, the problem is not with the Navy, but with the politics.
"The Navy's motive is to give as much money to the ship contractors, as fast as possible."
DeleteCome on, now. That's a simplistic, unrealistic explanation. Even if that were true, it wouldn't necessitate doing so stupidly. We could still get good designs and good products while shoveling money at industry.
This theory makes for a good rant but not for good logic. There's some other factor(s) at work, here, that I have yet to identify beyond sheer professional incompetence and stupid group-think.
"There's some other factor(s) at work..."
DeleteI'd like to throw an idea out there for consideration;
In the 1991/2 Gulf War, we had an overwhelming technological advantage.
We seem to be obsessed with maintaining that type of advantage over any adversaries, including peer enemies.
In my estimation, that is not possible.
We need to work on being better (training, leadership, planning, execution, maintenance) instead of just trying to be more technologically advanced.
Lutefisk
"In the 1991/2 Gulf War, we had an overwhelming technological advantage."
DeleteWe did, however, we also had an overwhelming training and motivation advantage which were more important than the technological advantage.
We've had this discussion on this blog in previous years. If we had magically swapped, one-for-one and like-for-like, our equipment with the Iraqis, we'd have still won in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree.
Technology is NOT what wins wars. Consider our overwhelming technological advantage in Vietnam and Afghanistan and yet we lost. To repeat, technology does not win wars.
I know you're not suggesting that technology wins wars but this point needs to be hammered home repeatedly because far too many people believe technology is all that's required to automatically win a war. The entire military leadership, for example, firmly believes this because they don't know military history and they're too lazy to do the hard work of training.
If I were building my own military, technology would be somewhere around fifth or so on my list of desirable attributes ... maybe lower.
@CNO....
DeletePreach!!!!!!
Lutefisk
I'd argue that there's no single motive. In fact, a big part of the problem is probably that there are too many motives, and too many of them are contradictory with each other.
DeleteBuild this ship ASAP!
Test this ship design thoroughly!
Do it all according to these million pages of regulations!
Now, filter those incompatible requirements across several heavily siloed and often conflicting authorities.
ell to fair there was no particular way to win the war in Afghanistan. The simple fact the overwhelming majority of the locals did want what the US trying to sell some kind of modern non overly corrupt democracy.
DeleteIt was especially difficult to win in Afghanistan without the National Command Authority articulating what the end state was going to be. Everyone who deployed worked hard at their job (patrolling, supplying, building, flying, training ANA, etc) but at no time did they get guidance that "we will know we have won when X occurs. Most obvious analogy "Unconditional Surrender" from World War Two. Note: Not saying that Afghanistan could ever have that same end state, but give the American People and her Armed Forces some sort of guidance!
DeleteI just don't think there was ever feasible guidepost. The best I can think of is go in a lot faster a nd hard a shoot a lot Taliban and AQ and leave and never get bogged down in trying to magic up a western democracy in a place that just did not want it. And promise to repeat if the issue occurs again. I mean maybe if we had dug up Dulles' grave for cold war playbook and dropped a competent strong in place and let him have at it as in he's an SOB, corrupt (within reason) but loyal to uss and we don't need to know what secret police do and the locals know he's not leaving.
DeleteOops, 1990/91.
ReplyDeleteLutefisk