Can a Navy Ship be powered by a full array of solar panels all over the deck, the hull, and bridge?

SN Timothy Ehrenhaft - Its not a matter of shooting down ideas... nor is it being part of the solution or part of the problem, it's part of reality. Your notion of using solar paint (grossly inefficient) and rotary sails to drive a ship which then uses underwater turbines is unrealistic at best. Any power developed by the turbines will rob the ship of power created by the sails and the solar power due to drag. Turbines are only efficient in STATIC installations such as dams where the water pressure is created by gravity. You will need to expend more than verbal quips about being part of the solution to overcome physics. Petty Officer Spencer has apparently already made the effort with an education, it's your turn now step up and deliver.

SN Timothy Ehrenhaft - Being the proud owner of a 38 ft sailboat I can assure you that dragging an underwater turbine strapped to her very streamlined hull form will definitely create appreciable drag - possibly as much as 50% of hull speed. Considering many sailboats these days utilize folding props to reduce drag when not providing thrust I can't imagine a turbine would be unnoticeable. I would be very interested to see your references on these turbines and what they do or do not do to the drag coefficient of a sailboat along with actual figures on power produced.

PO3 Aaron Hassay - False equivalency. A warship doesn't compare to a sailboat as a Tesla does to, say, a Lexus. There's a reason you don't see solar- powered M1 Abrams or MRAPs- that'd be a much closer comparison.

Hey, I'm just offering ideas to consider.. good or bad, right or wring, it's is more than the naysayers are doing. It's a simple reality that if viable tech already existed, it would probably be utilized today. So why bother beating a dead horse?
To the question of education, I have a bachelors in international business from Oklahoma State University. If i had the answers, I'd be profiting from them. I leave all the science stuff to the scientists. And any mechanic on here will tell you engineers are really clueless sometimes, when comparing design theory to practical application.
As to sailboats, my 40' Ketch with full keel and kedged rudder had no problem maintaining 6.8kts (hull speed 7.4) in south Florida with a generator turbine on the hull - in sustained 16kt winds (not storm winds).. In a race boat, that would matter.. In an blue water liveaboard, it really doesn't. Do I know the make/model/brand or turbine? N. It was on there when I bought the boat, and worked fine, so I didn't have to learn numbers to find replacement parts. Sold the boat last year, and all the records went with it, so I can't look it up, or I would. If you lost 50% of hull speed, you had the wrong equipment, or your hull wasn't as streamlined as you were led to believe. Can't fight math.
In order to find a solution, we need to first remove all the variables from the problem so we can focus on solving the static or fixed issues. Then we can reconsider new variables that will improve upon the concept until its level of utility is viable, and discard all else as noise or junk. Otherwise, the discussion is no different from "why won't the fire light? - well, you're wood's wet.. i been chopping wood for decades, so believe me when i tell you it's not that.." Stop arguing about why something doesn't or can't work - it's counter productive after non-viability has been established - and get unconventional. Sometimes, red herrings and absurdity are necessary to get back on track.

But I'm done and out of this one. I'm on to more productive ventures.

SSG (Join to see) - Right now they are subsidized heavily by the government. The tanker though it did make the transit took inordinately long which would imply speed was a factor. If the Navy were to look at this I would prefer it be done when some of the other technologies have matured a bit.Sometimes the developers become like kids in a candy store and run for the biggest chocolate only to find they are allergic or it is stale. There has be work on going in fuel cell technology and some variants of nuclear propulsion as well. I am just not sure that a large field could take the extreme operating conditions which could impose stress and damage thus reducing power and maneuverability which are vital.

The premise is simple.

I imagine if a small car, can get powered, to the same speed in time frame of a gas powered car, like the TESLA, then why not a Navy SHIP?

So in Sea Trials, I imagine solar panels could power some things, efficiently replacing normal large fuel tanks voids for smaller solar battery cubes? Ships are just sitting there day in day out getting a sun bath collecting huge amounts of energy daily possibly enough to share with other ships, in a new type of UNREP? as a auxiliary/redundant backup power supply, if not primary??

Positives:
(1) Less requirements for UNREP fuel.
(2) Less possible Mishaps due fuel.
(3)The downtime would be minimal compared other primary and auxiliary power gas turbine power supplies.
(4) The ship would operate with less sound signature

It seems using ship space more efficiently is an old problem, that still haunts, that is still waiting for solution.




This is quote from: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/

""Gas turbines generating more than 100,000 horsepower and their associated fuel tanks must leave the LCS little space for armor, weapons, sensors or crew accommodations. Though the Navy has not said so, it is likely that these gas turbines have been the source of many of the LCS’ mechanical problems"""

SSG (Join to see) - As a retired snipe on said vessels I can clarify the answer is definitely NO. Oil tankers operate at a steady sustained speed, do not maneuver to avoid weapons and don't have to go very fast. Naval vessels constantly maneuver, constantly change speed and bearing and have to be fast enough to serve their missions and they have to have sufficient capabilities in terms of weaponry to protect themselves. A military troop ship for example has to meet a minimum speed to get to it's objective; it cannot dawdle across the pond like a tanker, the longer it is at sea the more chow the crew eats, the more water must be distilled and the more time it spends in harms way, to overcome this they either have to go faster or take fewer humans so they have room for the extra chow.

That appears to assume that the ship would rely only on solar power, what if the solar power is used to augment a more traditional propulsion system and extend the amount of time a ship can remain at sea?

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/2/5264990/fords-c-max-solar-energi-concept-car-is-a-sun-powered-hybrid

Simply solved, make solar panels that do not give off reflection signature...DARPA are you listening??!!!??? and better yet, like heat seeking flares, you can have this warship that is on purpose "accidently" highly reflective, at convenient times, so amazingly reflective, it overwhelms all adversaries detection weapons systems, even blinds adversaries aircraft pilots who attempt a fly over, and then the rest of the U.S. Pacific Fleet sneaks up from behind and below and above. See it all about cat and mouse. You need a trojan horse always.

Did I miss something since retirement? I thought drugs were still illegal... How about a death star beam powered by a Mr. Fusion coffee converter?

make a larger class of ship with more surface area, equals more solar energy, then cut into the weight of the ship with new light weight technologies self healing technology, minimally manned ships crew like military sealift command ships, or completely remote control drone ship technologies!! just floating weapon systems that do not need to have port of calls!

My premise is simple.

I imagine if a small car, can get powered, to the same speed in time frame of a gas powered car, like the TESLA, then why not a Navy SHIP?

So in Sea Trials, I imagine solar panels could power some things, efficiently replacing normal large fuel tanks voids for smaller solar battery cubes? Ships are just sitting there day in day out getting a sun bath collecting huge amounts of energy daily possibly enough to share with other ships, in a new type of UNREP? as a auxiliary/redundant backup power supply, if not primary??

Positives:
(1) Less requirements for UNREP fuel.
(2) Less possible Mishaps due fuel.
(3)The downtime would be minimal compared other primary and auxiliary power gas turbine power supplies.
(4) The ship would operate with less sound signature

It seems using ship space more efficiently is an old problem, that still haunts, that is still waiting for solution.




This is quote from: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/

""Gas turbines generating more than 100,000 horsepower and their associated fuel tanks must leave the LCS little space for armor, weapons, sensors or crew accommodations. Though the Navy has not said so, it is likely that these gas turbines have been the source of many of the LCS’ mechanical problems"""

You write "They don't produce enough power to power the ship.", but then write "Today's solar panels are efficient enough to produce enough power to make up for the weight of the structure." It seems to me those statements contradict themselves. Tell me where I'm wrong.

I missed a word in the second sentence. They are not efficient enough. I did work for a power company and was shown the effective power is only produced is only on cloudy days.

Anon Ymous - You clearly don't know that the solar panels don't produce the power a generator creates. The power output is greatly different. The generators on ships are not 300lbs., they are weighted in tons. They produce enough power for a small city. Those solar panels can't produce even a 1/10th of that amount. You really don't have a valid argument.

Anon Ymous - Okay, you hard headed troll. You are not an engineer nor are you familiar with power generation. First, no matter how many panels you put on the ship, they will not produce significant power to even move the ship. These panels are not efficient. The amount of torque needed to even get the ship moving is massive. Solar panels don't produce enough power for propulsion. They don't have anywhere near 35% efficiency, more like 12 to 15. I worked in power generation and distribution in the civilian world as well as in the military. I'm tired of your BS. Either reveal yourself or go away dimwit.

SCPO,

My premise is simple.

I imagine if a small car, can get powered, to the same speed in time frame of a gas powered car, like the TESLA, then why not a Navy SHIP?

So in Sea Trials, I imagine solar panels could power some things, efficiently replacing normal large fuel tanks voids for smaller solar battery cubes? Ships are just sitting there day in day out getting a sun bath collecting huge amounts of energy daily possibly enough to share with other ships, in a new type of UNREP? as a auxiliary/redundant backup power supply, if not primary??

Positives:
(1) Less requirements for UNREP fuel.
(2) Less possible Mishaps due fuel.
(3)The downtime would be minimal compared other primary and auxiliary power gas turbine power supplies.
(4) The ship would operate with less sound signature

It seems using ship space more efficiently is an old problem, that still haunts, that is still waiting for solution.




This is quote from: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/

""Gas turbines generating more than 100,000 horsepower and their associated fuel tanks must leave the LCS little space for armor, weapons, sensors or crew accommodations. Though the Navy has not said so, it is likely that these gas turbines have been the source of many of the LCS’ mechanical problems"""

Im a nuclear power sailor best fuel we have least problems most reliable

Solar power is nice, but most of it is fragile. There would need to be "conventional" backup, either nuclear or fuel oil.

PO2 Thomas Bodine -

My premise is simple.

I imagine if a small car, can get powered, to the same speed in time frame of a gas powered car, like the TESLA, then why not a Navy SHIP?

So in Sea Trials, I imagine solar panels could power some things, efficiently replacing normal large fuel tanks voids for smaller solar battery cubes? Ships are just sitting there day in day out getting a sun bath collecting huge amounts of energy daily possibly enough to share with other ships, in a new type of UNREP? as a auxiliary/redundant backup power supply, if not primary??

Positives:
(1) Less requirements for UNREP fuel.
(2) Less possible Mishaps due fuel.
(3)The downtime would be minimal compared other primary and auxiliary power gas turbine power supplies.
(4) The ship would operate with less sound signature

It seems using ship space more efficiently is an old problem, that still haunts, that is still waiting for solution.




This is quote from: http://nation.time.com/2012/10/05/the-navys-new-class-of-warships-big-bucks-little-bang/

""Gas turbines generating more than 100,000 horsepower and their associated fuel tanks must leave the LCS little space for armor, weapons, sensors or crew accommodations. Though the Navy has not said so, it is likely that these gas turbines have been the source of many of the LCS’ mechanical problems"""