Maintenance is not a big issue for ships "compared to" fighters. TN ships undergo routine maintenance activities every year. 30000 hours for overhauls is adequate. As I said in normal conditions those ships rarely turn on gas turbines. They will use diesel engines and a travel speed of 15-16 knots. How many hours will those turbines run a year? Let's assume for every 10 days at sea turbines work for 1 day. Let's assume ships gets a 6-month deployment per year(which is a lot). Turbines will be working for 18 days. Let's round it up to 20 which will translate into 480 hours per year. And after six months at sea, it will go under maintenance at the dock.
In the end, GE is the best but Zorya is not so far away from GE that it is useless. It is a viable option
1st, it is really better if you stop talking on stuff you don't really know about. For God's sake.
2nd, there is no warship going through major overhaul every 6 months, yet alone a year. It is once in 2 years for major, sometimes 3 and 1 year for minor that extends to inspection,sometimes carried out without docking. In most times the ships are maintained-repaired en-route during voyage and GE offers good maintenance plans that can be done in tight spaces, Zorya does not.
3rd, if you carefully read the sources you have scanned in an hour before making your "expert statements", you would see interval of maintenance and reliability is highly important for a warship, i am not elaborating this for once
4th, Gas turbines are deployed up to 20% in wartime, 15% in peacetime so your numbers are entirely wrong (you underestimate stuff to prove your point), moreover if the ship has single gas turbine the percentage increases to 30 and 20. Finally, you can not overrule a commander and restrict him by that,if he desires and finds it necessary he runs on gas turbine all the time.
5th, a fighter jet in most flies for 1 day, that is
at most, moreover a gas turbine if deployed on a warship runs for days interrupted. Even your 1 day in 10 day does not happen like "
Sir, we have filled our quote for gas turbine for this period of 10 days we are going to turn it off for 9 days" or "
Sir our quota to use gas turbine is full", there are times it runs for a week non-stop, if not in full power it idles.
6th that is the reason why "marinization term" is made for adaptation of the engines, if you look at the GE's website you will see a note: "this engine is based on this core (aero-derivative) and optimized for naval deployment that requires longer endurance and reliability"
7th Check out MTU's website or any other marine engine producer "maintenance and reliability" is their first attribute to offer. This even proves how important is this.
Yes it is much easier to replace gas turbines on a warship design compared to the fighter jets, even after it is built and installed, but this does not mean maintenance interval and reliability is not important. Don't confuse these two matters.
Check out the graph below and conclude how much utilization is required in speeds beyond 20 knots in sum, for war and peacetime operations (this graph also discloses speed regime selection of the commander). I will not disclose the numbers for Milgem's requirement here, or will not further elaborate the informations.
Beyond 20 knots gas turbine utilization: wartime requirement beyond 50%
Beyond 20 knots gas turbine utilization: peacetime requirement beyond 40%
Beyond 20 knots gas turbine utilization: actual usage for an unknown role nearing 20%.