# Uninformed question about Iroquois Class Destroyer



## Weiner (20 Oct 2005)

I was looking out my window this morning and I saw a destroyer and I was wondering what all the steam coming from the ship is from.  It looks kind of random to me, so I thought I'd post a pic and see who knows what causes this or if it's just regular exhaust.  

Special note: I've probably just opened a can of ridicule on myself because of my lack of knowledge of the Navy, but whatever, I'm just curious.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2005)

I doubt that's "steam."  Either the breakfast beans were especially ripe or the engineers were making "adjustments" to the engines.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2005)

Weiner said:
			
		

> I was looking out my window this morning and I saw a destroyer and I was wondering what all the steam coming from the ship is from.  It looks kind of random to me, so I thought I'd post a pic and see who knows what causes this or if it's just regular exhaust.
> 
> Special note: I've probably just opened a can of ridicule on myself because of my lack of knowledge of the Navy, but whatever, I'm just curious.


The destroyers run on gas turbines, so they were probably trialing some engine equipment or flashing up something.  That is an unusual amount of exhaust, though.

P.S. You identified it as a destroyer - that's more than many could do.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Oct 2005)

You mean its not a battleship-aircraft cruiser-antiaircraft corvette-amphibious submarine?


----------



## Slim (21 Oct 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> You mean its not a battleship-aircraft cruiser-antiaircraft corvette-amphibious submarine?



Its a JTF2 secret operations platform dusguised as a mine sweeping-oil tanker!

Please don't be afraid of asking questions...As a new person you would have no way of knowing would you.  Just be prepared to do your own research once we've steered you in the right direction.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Weiner (21 Oct 2005)

Thanks, I was going to accept Whiskey601's Bean answer, but since Slim has more posts, I'll accept that it is the JTF2 idea and I won't mention it again because it is probably classified.  

 I did the search through the Navy site to find that it was a destroyer (I initially thought it was the Harbour Hopper), I tried to be really good and figure out which one it was, but I missed the identification number (or whatever the name of the number is called) and it wasn't big enough in the pic.


----------



## BOSNwife (21 Oct 2005)

It's HMCS Iroquois (280). I live in Shearwater. It has been in & out all week. You are correct about the thick blue smoke comming from the IRO. My hubby has recently been posted off that ship so I called my girlfriend to tell her her hubby was probably coming home early as I seen the thick blue smoke too. I don't think the refit worked very well. We'll see if she will go on her trip next week.


----------



## Monsoon (21 Oct 2005)

BOSNwife said:
			
		

> It's HMCS Iroquois (280). I live in Shearwater. It has been in & out all week. You are correct about the thick blue smoke comming from the IRO. My hubby has recently been posted off that ship so I called my girlfriend to tell her her hubby was probably coming home early as I seen the thick blue smoke too. I don't think the refit worked very well. We'll see if she will go on her trip next week.


Ah, that makes sense.  She must be getting ready for full power trials, so they're running up the turbines with the clutch disengaged - normally the exhaust would be dissipated by the wind.


----------



## mover1 (21 Oct 2005)

Didn't the Protecteur belch out blue smoke in Jan/ Feb when it was in refit. seems the Irving Shipyards are not doing too good a job as of late.


----------



## Inch (21 Oct 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Didn't the Protecteur belch out blue smoke in Jan/ Feb when it was in refit. seems the Irving Shipyards are not doing too good a job as of late.



Actually, the CPF's make quite the bellow of smoke when the gas turbines are lit as well.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2005)

I understand that the combiner box on the COGAGs power set on the Tribals is a pretty complicated piece, but I didn't think one would flash up the LM2500's and "run them" with the c-box disengaged...wouldn't you overspeed the power turbine section without any physical load applied to the mains?

Just wonderin'

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Navalsnpr (22 Oct 2005)

All ships with gas engines will expel a plume of smoke when they start up their engines, just like starting a car up, normally you will see some smoke come from the exhaust. Obviously the engine on a war ship is a heck of a lot larger thus the larger "plume" of smoke.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Oct 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Actually, the CPF's make quite the bellow of smoke when the gas turbines are lit as well.



Inch, is that because they're running on fuel oil vice JP4?


----------



## Inch (22 Oct 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Inch, is that because they're running on fuel oil vice JP4?



Not sure, we use JP-5 in the helo while embarked but they use something else. 

I don't know enough about the GT's to give you an accurate answer, but whenever we're turning and burning on the flight deck, they advise us when starting a GT since you get a fair amount of smoke and fumes from it starting and they don't want us thinking it's the helo that's got a problem.


----------



## Monsoon (22 Oct 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> I understand that the combiner box on the COGAGs power set on the Tribals is a pretty complicated piece, but I didn't think one would flash up the LM2500's and "run them" with the c-box disengaged...wouldn't you overspeed the power turbine section without any physical load applied to the mains?


I don't know much about it, to be honest.  I would assume that there would be a way to run the turbine without making the ship go anywhere, but I could be wrong.  But you're right that the LM2500s are insanely complex - my company makes the control systems for them.


----------



## Neill McKay (22 Oct 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I don't know much about it, to be honest.   I would assume that there would be a way to run the turbine without making the ship go anywhere, but I could be wrong.



Perhaps they're able to set the propellor pitch to produce no thrust (at a point just between ahead and astern)?


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Oct 2005)

Not 100% sure on 280's, but they do run on Gas Turbines, and they do make a pretty good cloud of smoke, similar to what's in your picture when they flash up the engines.  Additionally, they have a Gas Turbine Generator (the SOLAR) on the port side, but I don't think this is to do with that.

Looks normal to me, the weather condition can change the amount of visible smoke too, if there's low wind, it won't dissipate so much, and will tend to cloud around a bit.

NS


----------



## daniel h. (23 Oct 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I don't know much about it, to be honest.   I would assume that there would be a way to run the turbine without making the ship go anywhere, but I could be wrong.   But you're right that the LM2500s are insanely complex - my company makes the control systems for them.




Question: were the Canadian Navy LM2500's made in the U.S., a Canadian branch plant or Europe? I ask this because IIIRC General Electric is now allowing them to be made in Italy I think.

2: Isn't Rolls Royce coming out with something even better than the LM2500?


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Oct 2005)

I would think it extremely unlikely that the CF would even consider switching from the LM2500...despite potentially better engines being available.

Reasons:

1.  Cost.  Where to we get money to replace engines that already work??

2.  Training.  We would need to re-train an entire trade of people (Stokers) on how to fix a new engine.

3.  Parts.  We already have an inventory of parts and replacements onhand, what do we do with them?

4.  Contracts.  Ongoing maintenance and repair contracts would have to be cancelled (a la EH-101) or re-negotiated.

5.  Tooling.  The two FMF's are capable of doing some repairs with the tooling they have now....do we want to buy them all new tools?  (GT Tools are EXPENSIVE.)

With the above 4 items going against replacement, I'd say that the only way we'll see new engines for the CPF's would be when we get a new class of ship.

Also, you CAN run up the GT's without them being connected to the gearbox, in the same way as you can run your car in Neutral.  (Or at least similar...note, I'm an NET, not a Stoker.)

NS


----------



## daniel h. (23 Oct 2005)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I would think it extremely unlikely that the CF would even consider switching from the LM2500...despite potentially better engines being available.
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> ...




If this was a response to my post, please don't misunderstand what I meant...I realize that having a "better" engine might not make much of a difference one way or the other for the CPFs mission.


----------



## solardave (26 Oct 2005)

"Smoke from Tribal class destroyers"
This is a normal occurence during harbour movement.  What you are seeing is unburned fuel from the Mains turbines.  The two Pratt and Whitney FT4's as well as the two cruise turbines, Pratt and Whitney FT12's since replaced by Allison K570/571 turbines are all running. I believe that all engines must be running during harbour moves for safety reasons.  The FT4's do not have good combustion characteristics at very low power settings.  There are no General Electric LM2500's onboard Tribal class ships.  There are however, three Solar Turbines Inc. 750KW turbine generators and one Allison/ Detroit Diesel 1500KW diesel generator onboard.  Former Solar Turbines Canada Ltd. FSR.
Per Ardua ad Astra


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2005)

Good stuff. Thanks Dave.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Oct 2005)

Oops, my bad on mentioning LM2500's in the same breath as Tribals...should have remembered the FT12's.  Mind you, I didn't know that the FT12's had been replaced by 501/570/571's...funny sometimes to think that an engine (K501) in a ship was derived from an engine (T56) that's still strapped to our 40-year old Hercs...  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Imprezzed (4 Nov 2005)

solardave said:
			
		

> "Smoke from Tribal class destroyers"
> This is a normal occurence during harbour movement.   What you are seeing is unburned fuel from the Mains turbines.   The two Pratt and Whitney FT4's as well as the two cruise turbines, Pratt and Whitney FT12's since replaced by Allison K570/571 turbines are all running. I believe that all engines must be running during harbour moves for safety reasons.   The FT4's do not have good combustion characteristics at very low power settings.   There are no General Electric LM2500's onboard Tribal class ships.   There are however, three Solar Turbines Inc. 750KW turbine generators and one Allison/ Detroit Diesel 1500KW diesel generator onboard.   Former Solar Turbines Canada Ltd. FSR.
> Per Ardua ad Astra



You are right on all points. All engines must be up and running in case of failure. As for the smoke, it's a common occurance in the class. Athabaskan sometimes smokes like a chimney.


----------



## TAS278 (17 Nov 2005)

I would like to point out as well that all ships have a gearbox. It would be terribly inefficient to shut down an engine to switch to another. Smoke is a very normal thing and it doesn't mean it is come from the GT's. Could be from the generators. They could be doing some engine maintenance. There are many, many scenarios. All said; this thread turned into quite the discussion about IRO. Well Done! HEh


----------

