Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Halifax Tar]

Maybe I missed it, but it was recently expressed to me that the RCDs wont be using the GE LM2500s for GTs they will be moving a Rolls Royce MT30 GTs.

I think this is a mistake. From where I sit for sustainment and support the LM2500 is the better option.

General Electric LM2500 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rolls-Royce MT30 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rainbow1910]

Maybe I missed it, but it was recently expressed to me that the RCDs wont be using the GE LM2500s for GTs they will be moving a Rolls Royce MT30 GTs.

I think this is a mistake. From where I sit for sustainment and support the LM2500 is the better option.

General Electric LM2500 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rolls-Royce MT30 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The River class has been using the MT30 from the very beginning, as that is the turbine that the baseline Type 26 frigate utilizes. It doesn't make much sense to swap out a more powerful and seemingly simpler engine for a worse counterpart. MT30 is becoming more and more commonplace on modern warships throughout the world.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Maybe I missed it, but it was recently expressed to me that the RCDs wont be using the GE LM2500s for GTs they will be moving a Rolls Royce MT30 GTs.

I think this is a mistake. From where I sit for sustainment and support the LM2500 is the better option.

General Electric LM2500 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rolls-Royce MT30 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I believe Rolls Royce near Peterborough, Ontario is building these engines (at least for Canada). I was wrong about that … CCC, Rolls-Royce Canada win $110 million contract with U.S. Navy

I always thought the 2500 in a drop in, insulated and noise protected box was a very smart idea. Hope the MT-30 shines just as well. The MT-30 has fairly wide military adoption, no?

 

[Rainbow1910]

I believe Rolls Royce near Peterborough, Ontario is building these engines (at least for Canada).
I always thought the 2500 in a drop in, insulated and noise protected box was a very smart idea. Hope the MT-30 shines just as well. The MT-30 has fairly wide military adoption, no?

MT30, as with the entire propulsion system aboard the Type 26 design, is mounted within an acoustic enclosure to limit noise signature while under operation. MT30 is being used aboard the QE class carriers, the Italian LHD Trieste, Zumwalt, LCS, Mogami class and the Daegu class.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The River class has been using the MT30 from the very beginning, as that is the turbine that the baseline Type 26 frigate utilizes. It doesn't make much sense to swap out a more powerful and seemingly simpler engine for a worse counterpart. MT30 is becoming more and more commonplace on modern warships throughout the world.

I can go nearly anywhere in the world and find support for the LM2500. I don't see that for the MT30, yet if ever. The USN has issues with their MT30s. Last I have heard the QEs are having engine problems too. Maybe the bugs will be worked out for the RCDs.

To me the LM2500 has proven tracked record with a world wide support net available, and we have existing training and knowledge for it already. It should be the GT. But I don't get a say in the matter.

 

[Halifax Tar]

MT30, as with the entire propulsion system aboard the Type 26 design, is mounted within an acoustic enclosure to limit noise signature while under operation. MT30 is being used aboard the QE class carriers, the Italian LHD Trieste, Zumwalt, LCS, Mogami class and the Daegu class.

Here is a list of who uses the LM2500

General Electric LM2500 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rainbow1910]

I can go nearly anywhere in the world and find support for the LM2500. I don't see that for the MT30, yet if ever. The USN has issues with their MT30s. Last I have heard the QEs are having engine problems too. Maybe the bugs will be worked out for the RCDs.

To me the LM2500 has proven tracked record with a world wide support net available, and we have existing training and knowledge for it already. It should be the GT. But I don't get a say in the matter.

It would be a really baffling decision to swap MT30 out for LM2500, given that the former is already integrated into the design while the ladder would need to be swapped in and require however many design changes to get done. If this is such a no brainer, why wasn't it done?

I have not heard any issues regarding the MT30's aboard the QE class, you might be confusing that with the unrelated issues they've been having with shafts and shaft couplings. Those are unrelated to the actual turbines themselves from what I can gather. The only issue I can find regarding the Zumwalt class is one of the turbines needing to be replaced following sea trials showing damaged fan blades, which isn't great but isn't exactly uncommon. They have had other propulsion issues but as with the QE class, they are unrelated to the MT30.

I am fairly sure RR has domestic facilities to provide support to these engines, if not across the border in the US.

 

[Stoker]

I can go nearly anywhere in the world and find support for the LM2500. I don't see that for the MT30, yet if ever. The USN has issues with their MT30s. Last I have heard the QEs are having engine problems too. Maybe the bugs will be worked out for the RCDs.

To me the LM2500 has proven tracked record with a world wide support net available, and we have existing training and knowledge for it already. It should be the GT. But I don't get a say in the matter.

The USN has had issues with two MT30 on the Zumwalt-class vessel USS Zumwalt in 2018. when there was damage found on their turbine blades after acceptance trials. The Rolls-Royce MT30 (Marine Turbine) is a marine gas turbine engine based on the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aero engine. When installed on the CSC they will be in use for 9 classes of naval ships. It also appears the MT30 will replace the LM 2500 in India's new aircraft carrier. More and more countries are choosing the MT30 for naval propulsion. There should be no issues sourcing parts or service.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It would be a really baffling decision to swap MT30 out for LM2500, given that the former is already integrated into the design while the ladder would need to be swapped in and require however many design changes to get done. If this is such a no brainer, why wasn't it done?

Who knows, maybe like you said it was part of the package. Maybe we're just changing directions on our GTs. Maybe its shitty gov procurement practices. I have no idea, I wasn't involved. But I am surprised that the tried tested and true LM2500 isn't there.

I have not heard any issues regarding the MT30's aboard the QE class, you might be confusing that with the unrelated issues they've been having with shafts and shaft couplings. Those are unrelated to the actual turbines themselves from what I can gather. The only issue I can find regarding the Zumwalt class is one of the turbines needing to be replaced following sea trials showing damaged fan blades, which isn't great but isn't exactly uncommon. They have had other propulsion issues but as with the QE class, they are unrelated to the MT30.

I am fairly sure RR has domestic facilities to provide support to these engines, if not across the border in the US.

For 20 years I have been on HMC Ships and I have sailed them all over the world. And numerous times up to and including in the last 8 months I have been able to easily source material required for our GTs, from allied ships, because everyone uses them.

Maybe the MT30s will be the same.

The USN has had issues with two MT30 on the Zumwalt-class vessel USS Zumwalt in 2018. when there was damage found on their turbine blades after acceptance trials. The Rolls-Royce MT30 (Marine Turbine) is a marine gas turbine engine based on the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aero engine. When installed on the CSC they will be in use for 9 classes of naval ships. It also appears the MT30 will replace the LM 2500 in India's new aircraft carrier. More and more countries are choosing the MT30 for naval propulsion. There should be no issues sourcing parts or service.View attachment 92392

The LM2500 has been around for ever, maybe this is just the end of its life.

According to google the LM2500 is used by 39 Navies and is installed in over 600 ships.

 

[Underway]

IiRC it's only one MT30 per ship. To get the same power for the type 26 you would need two LM2500's.

 

[NavyShooter]

LM2500's are also, while reliable, 30+ year old technology.

I'd argue that going with something new that our allies are operating makes some sense.

 

[Halifax Tar]

LM2500's are also, while reliable, 30+ year old technology.

I'd argue that going with something new that our allies are operating makes some sense.

You're not wrong, as I said above perhaps this is just the end of the line for the LM2500s.

I cant help but be worried about the loss of that global support though. I hope RR proves my worries unfounded.