No, really:

[NAVSEA] is pursuing modifications to the destroyers’ power plants, with the eventual goal of turning an Arleigh Burke into a “hybrid,” like a Toyota Prius.

One step on the road to a full gas-electric hybrid warship is an upgrade floated by defense contractors General Atomics and DRS Technologies that would add electric motors, wired into the ship’s power, to a destroyer’s main reduction gears. The ship’s service generators could provide the power to drive the propellers at low speeds, instead of the main gas turbines.

“These ships spend most of their time at certain speed ranges. If they’re tooling around on certain missions and not going above 30 knots, this makes a whole lot of sense,” said Glen Sturtevant, NavSea’s director of science and technology for surface ships. “You want to align the engineering plant in a more efficient manner so you’re not burning gas.”

The ship’s service turbine generators run more efficiently at the high setting used to drive the screws, said Tony Kopacz, the program manager for General Atomics; this saves burning fuel in a ship’s thirsty main gas turbines. General Atomics’ engineers estimate the hybrid power plant would save about 12,000 barrels of fuel per year, per ship.

The system is in the initial phases of development, and Big Navy hasn’t yet formally said it has a need for the upgrade. If it did, Navy, General Atomics and DRS engineers expect the new setup could sail on a Burke by 2014. If it works, it could be added to cruisers and other ships in the fleet.

Sturtevant said the hybrid plant could drive a destroyer at up to 14 knots, although he cautioned that it hasn’t begun full tests. And NavSea already has its eye on the next component for a complete “Prius” destroyer — batteries, or some other technology, to store energy produced by the main engines and save even more fuel.

Engineers are considering other technical upgrades, from more hydrodynamic hull coatings to sky sails, to get the most good out of every drop of fuel, Sturtevant said — even wind turbines and solar panels.

“We’re asking ourselves, ‘Why wouldn’t we accommodate those on ships?‘“ he said. “We’re thinking, ‘What would we use if fuel goes from $62 [a barrel] to $147?’”

I guess you’ve got to find some way to keep the shipyards (and their unions) employed.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 1st, 2009 and is filed under Acquisition Policy, Navy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.