War­ships’ sys­tems ‘com­pletely dif­fer­ent’

National Post (National Edition) - - LETTERS -

Re: Ques­tions over $60B war­ship’s sys­tems, Dec. 5 This ar­ti­cle seems to be based on a gov­ern­ment doc­u­ment that in­cor­rectly equates the Bri­tish Type 26 propul­sion sys­tem with that of the fail­ure-plagued Type 45 RN de­stroyer. The Type 45 propul­sion sys­tem is an In­te­grated Elec­tric Propul­sion Sys­tem based on two WR-21 gas tur­bine al­ter­na­tors and two Wart­sila diesel gen­er­a­tors. Es­sen­tially, the Type 45 has an all-elec­tric prime mover sys­tem. The Type 26, on the other hand, is fit­ted with a Com­bined Diesel-Elec­tric or Gas propul­sion sys­tem build around the MT-30 gas tur­bine prime mover to bal­ance both high-speed tran­sits and acous­tic qui­et­ing for anti-sub­ma­rine op­er­a­tions. One won­ders how gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials could con­fuse two com­pletely dif­fer­ent propul­sion sys­tems?

As for claims by some that the Type 26 should not have been con­sid­ered for the Cana­dian Sur­face Com­bat­ant (CSC) pro­ject, the gov­ern­ment qual­i­fy­ing re­quire­ment stip­u­lated “at a min­i­mum, a pre­lim­i­nary de­sign for a Sur­face Com­bat­ant of at least 90 me­tres over­all length,” a re­quire­ment that the Type 26 ob­vi­ously met as it was qual­i­fied and ac­cepted by the gov­ern­ment.

The CSC pro­ject is too im­por­tant to Canada and her navy to be the sub­ject of in­ac­cu­rate in­for­ma­tion.

Ian Parker, Di­rec­tor Naval Af­fairs, Naval As­so­ci­a­tion of Canada


An artist’s ren­der­ing of the Type 26 Global Com­bat Ship, Lock­heed Martin’s pro­posed de­sign for Canada’s $60-bil­lion fleet of new war­ships, which will be fit­ted with the Type 26 propul­sion sys­tem.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.