Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

News of secret Russian submarine leaked on the internet.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Municipal authorities in Sarov, Nizhny Novgorod Region, accidentally revealed the design for the latest Russian submarine when it posted an account of a meeting with its commander on its website. The high level of secrecy surrounding the submarine suggests that it is a unique experiment on the part of scientists and the military.


www.kommersant.com...

Here is where it gets interesting;


The theory was advanced on an Internet forum yesterday that experimental Project 20120 is to test unique technology – the installation of an atomic reactor on a diesel submarine as a backup energy source. Similar experiments were conducted in the USSR. In 1985, a B-68 diesel submarine was equipped with a supplemental VAU-6 atomic reactor with a capacity of 600 kW, which gave it the ability to spend longer periods under water.


A small, quite sub with an atomic reactor, that’s what they want.

They want to compete with the new generation of German subs.

I wonder if people will still insist that Russians are so broke that they can’t pay for the fuel to run what ever rusted piles of crap they have left over from the Cold War.


Mod Edit: Trimmed copy/paste source material.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Is it me or is Russia like the little kid in a playground who smells funny and eats bugs, but then he gets a new toy and tries to show it off to everyone. Unfortunately, no-one wants to know because their toys are better and they don't smell like feet.

There just showing off with all their new stuff, hoping people will pay attention.

I'm not wrong am I?

[edit on 12-9-2007 by Zanzibar]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
I wonder if people will still insist that Russians are so broke that they can’t pay for the fuel to run what ever rusted piles of crap they have left over from the Cold War.


And I wonder if some people will take internet forum theories with a much bigger grain of salt before giving it credibility.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Is it me or is Russia like the little kid in a playground


It’s you.


I'm not wrong am I?


You’re wrong.

A good old saying: “Diplomacy with out weapons is like an orchestra with out instruments.”

International politics are governed by the ability to project military power, and economy strong enough to sustain it.

What Russians is showing is that they are capable of projecting such power, and that their economy is able to support it.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

And I wonder if some people will take internet forum theories with a much bigger grain of salt before giving it credibility.


Read the articles first, reply later.

The leak was not from some forum, but from an official manufacturer web site.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Is it me or is Russia like the little kid in a playground who smells funny and eats bugs,


Not sure about the bugs, but I would not past Russia to have leaked the news itself.

Russian naval engineers do weird stuff all the time. The Kirov if I recall had a reactor AND a full steam powered propulsion set.

Im not sure what the big deal is. The NR-1 is small and has a reactor. So putting on in a diesel sized sub is no big deal. Not sure why you would want both in the sub. US subs at slow speeds use natural convection and are pretty quiet. D/E subs on batteries may be a bit more quiet but is it enough of an advantage to go through all this trouble?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Deisel technology is pretty crude by todays standards. Most modern non nuclear submarine builders are use AIP with fuel cells, well western ones anyway.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Read the articles first, reply later.


I'm not referring to the online Russian leak, I was commenting on the validity of the online forum guesses as to what kind of technology is being developed. Guesses which as far as I can tell are unsupported, however you seem all too ready to accept them.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The concept sounds a bit retarded first off. Diesel submarines are small and cheap but due to their propulsion are short-ranged thus limiting them to more defensive roles closer to home. Nuclear subs are larger and more expensive, both to build and maintain, but can operate for extended periods of time at sea and independent of any external support thus making ideal for the long range strategic role.

Trying to combine the two by putting a nuclear reactor on what otherwise would be a diesel submarine may seems like a logical move to develop a versatile all-purpose warship relatively cheaply(Russia still spends only a fraction of the money on defense that the USSR did during he cold war). Similar attempts in the aerospace realm have yielded famous aircraft like the F-16 and Panvia Tornado while also yielding infamous types such as.....I'm going to avoid naming names as to avoid a Europe vs Russia or China vs India flame fight.

But of course great ideas on the design table don't always translate well into the realm of reality.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The whole reason deisel subs are quieter is because they can use batteries to run silent. Actually running their engines makes a gawd awful noise, much more than a nuclear sub.
So maybe they are developing a nuclear sub which can be switched on and off in very short order, allowing batteries to be used to really run silent.
Now that really would be something.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

I'm not referring to the online Russian leak, I was commenting on the validity of the online forum guesses as to what kind of technology is being developed.

I see. Since you still refuse to read the article in question, what is “anaerobic engine”, why is it a very good idea, and which online forum you keep referring to?

Guesses which as far as I can tell are unsupported, however you seem all too ready to accept them.

What exactly can you tell? What guesses? Project 212A? Further development of VAU-6 maybe? I’m not following you here.
I’m sorry WestPoint23, it’s obvious that we are not on the same page here.
If you care to take the time to read the article in full, then I’m sure will be talking about the same thing here, because as of now, we’re obviously talking about different things.


The concept sounds a bit retarded first off. Diesel submarines are small and cheap but due to their propulsion are short-ranged thus limiting them to more defensive roles closer to home.

Hi danwild6, I also recommend that you read the article. It clearly explains the advantages of anaerobic engine configurations. It’s all in the article.


Nuclear subs are larger and more expensive, both to build and maintain, but can operate for extended periods of time at sea and independent of any external support thus making ideal for the long range strategic role.

All true, but again, as stated in the article, not all subs are built for long range strategic roles, and it’s not the type of the new sub that we are discussing here.
It is possible that the new sub is a test bed for a new, mini-reactor.

Right here;


A second theory is that the submarine would test a new nuclear reactor. That possibility was first mentioned in February of this year in an issue of Nizhegorodoskaya delovaya gazeta (Nizhny Novgorod Business Newspaper) dedicated to the anniversary of the Afrikantov Experimental Heavy Equipment Design Bureau, the leading developer of nuclear reactors for submarines. It says in an article that the bureau last year “developed a project for the new atomic submarine Kalitka, on which a principally new steam generating system, the Phoenix KTP-7I, is being installed.” It is possible that the mysterious Project 20120 is connected with the equally mysterious Kalitka project.


It’s all clearly PRINTED, so please READ FIRST, speculate LATER.


Trying to combine the two by putting a nuclear reactor on what otherwise would be a diesel submarine may seems like a logical move to develop a versatile all-purpose warship relatively cheaply


That’s what I was thinking, I do agree with you there. More and more countries are actively persuing smaller, more versatile subs. German exports have proved that.


(Russia still spends only a fraction of the money on defense that the USSR did during he cold war).


How do you know that? Russian defense budget has always been classified, as clearly shown in CIA fact book.
The only data available is Russian arms export and annual increases in MIC output.

On that note, please let’s leave all kinds of speculation out of this, and talk about the topic at hand.

Does this new sub project display a fundamental change in Russian naval doctrine, or is it an effort to create an affordable export sub for the aspiring regional powers?

Russians obviously did away with massive Typhoon class and producing much smaller, stealthier and faster subs, could this sub be one of them?



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I would file this disclosure under "counter-measure" or "mines bigger than yours".

First, the US government lets it be known that nuclear weapons are being moved about.

Second, Russia let's the world know that they have a kind of submarine the world doesn't know about.

If it were a mating ritual it might make some sense.
But as it is a kind of a step up/down/sidewise in sabre-rattling/war-justification, it is a most unwelcome event.

[edit on 13/9/07 by Pellevoisin]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Some information on the base:

The Nizhny Novgorod submarine factory was active allready at '99-'00 when i was in town, alltough it was officially only decomissioning/doing repairs to a sinlge boat. They still kept heating on in all their manufacturing areas. Allso the base area was pretty much "open" to view from the Volga river during roughly '92 to early '99, after that the base went back to it's Cold War era lockdown status. (You could still se one unfinished hull moored closed to the actual river)

Ps. The heating data is from the local heating grid/powerplant we were renovating.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   

The Nizhny Novgorod submarine factory was active allready at '99-'00 when i was in town


No kiddin’, I spent half a year in Russia recently. Never made it to NN even though I was supposed to, but it was interesting in Penza.

A huge plant to process haz-chem/bio agents is being built there.

I also visited a decommissioned nuclear PRO (ABM) site in Eshim, took a few pictures. Interestingly enough, a huge number of such decommissioned sites are being reactivated throughout the country, under state funded substance abuse rehab program.

Near one village saw an old train based launch site. It’s heavily reinforced with high quality concrete, and is still in perfect shape, blast slabs and everything.

Then there is Zarechni, (Penza-19), and to my surprise it’s still a closed city. They were real itchy about it.

Not only entrance is allowed to cleared personnel only, but any unauthorized contact with such personal is a big no-no.

Cabbies were complaining that for some time now roads are packed with bus caravans shuttling people to Start/ NIKIRET/etc. Apparently such busses get the right away.

Things are happening there big time.

The entire region is bursting with activity. Students are all over the place, and even though most of them always seem to have a bottle of beer in hand, the ones that I talked to know their stuff.

edit:splng


[edit on 13-9-2007 by iskander]



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mad scientist
 



AIP boats still use batteries- as they offer more endurance than an AIP system (and more speed) - AIP would be used for `silent running` but at slow speeds (typically 14 days at 5 knots) as an entire AIP system will generate much less power than conventional battiers - typically 400kw vs 3mw for batteries (and 20+ for a nuke boat) - but batteries still need charging - even the latest german and swedish AIP boats snorkel - adding a tiny reactor would eleminate the need for this.

i could see this being fitted to AMUR class of russians SSK`s (which is comparable to the Scorpène class or Type 212) and as allready been shown battery boats are deadly (recent SA boat vs nato anyone)



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

i could see this being fitted to AMUR class of russians SSK`s (which is comparable to the Scorpène class or Type 212) and as allready been shown battery boats are deadly (recent SA boat vs nato anyone)


I second that.


Highly capable diesel-powered submarines have emerged as the U.S.'s "premier potential adversary" since the end of the Cold War. In recent years, China, North Korea and other countries have acquired diesel-electric submarines that are so quiet in the water that it is difficult for U.S. forces to detect and track them. "We have to be able to deal with that," said Adm. Walter Doran, Pacific Fleet commander, this week. Last month Australia newspapers reported that the HMAS Waller, a diesel submarine, was invisible to an American nuclear sub during undersea war games.


That’s back from 2003.

www.diodon349.com...


(AP) A Chinese submarine came close to the USS Kitty Hawk carrier group in the Pacific Ocean last month, a top U.S. naval commander confirmed Tuesday, adding the encounter could have triggered an "unforeseen" incident.


That’s from 2006.

www.cbsnews.com...

Man, Kitty Hawk just keeps getting raped. First the Russians keep flying their SU-24s and SU-27 right over the deck taking pictures, and then Chinese sneak right up the rear in a sub.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
"that experimental Project 20120 is to test unique technology "

Creepy, I see 2012 being bandied about a lot on this site and I was wondering if anybody else noticed this.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Yeah you could have a dual diesel/nuke boat but the question is why the hell would u?? What does it achieve?? What is the point??

(shakes his head in dismay and walks out of the room)



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Yeah you could have a dual diesel/nuke boat but the question is why the hell would u?? What does it achieve?? What is the point??


Cheap, small, fast, quiet, stealthy = very dangerous+great deterrent, aka force multiplier.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Yeah you could have a dual diesel/nuke boat but the question is why the hell would u?? What does it achieve?? What is the point??


Cheap, small, fast, quiet, stealthy = very dangerous+great deterrent, aka force multiplier.



Cheap:Anything that involves a nuclear reactor isnt cheap regardless of its size or thermal output, if you want a cheaper means of increasing underwater endurance you do what everyone else is doing and utilize AIP.
Generally speaking half the price of an SSN is its nuclear power plant.

Small: The reason nuclear subs are larger is a weight issue, any reactor regardless of its size requires substantial shielding with lead and that makes them bloody heavy, therefore nuke boats have larger hull forms to increase there displacement. The only boat that does not meet this criteria is the NR-1, if she had been fully shielded she would have sunk at the pier so the entire aft of the boat was sealed off and flooded (12 foot of water has the same density as 1 foot of lead), even then the entire aft of the boat inside and out was a no go area when the reactor was running, on a small boat with a highly specialized and trained crew you can get away with this, not a good idea on a fleet boat.

Fast: With a miniture nuclear reactor providing minimal thermal output and batteries? A full size nuke would run rings around it. An AIP would manage the same speeds if not faster.

Quiet,Stealthy: Full size nukes can run just as quiet, by winding back the reactor output you can shut down all the pumps in the primary coolant loop and utilize natural convection thereby making the reactor plant completely silent. It is doubtful if you could do that with a mini plant because winding that back wouldnt provide enough power to move the boat. Yes running on batteries is quieter but you can do that on a full size nuke too by designing a nuke boat with larger battery capacity. The whole point is if you have a reactor on board giving you an unlimited supply of power you dont need a diesel to augment it.

Very Dangerous: Any boat of any design can be dangerous, that comes down to the crew manning it.

Great Deterrent: Ok, if you say so.

Force Multiplier: Not even going to dignify this with a response.


My question stands, Why the hell would you? What does it achieve? What is the point?

(shakes head in dismay and exits the room again)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join